David discusses offshore Wind, its global status, USA status and opportunities. Eric and Robert discuss with David how large is the North America wind fleet; global wind capacity ranking – annual vs cumulative; vs total installed capacity; what drives the growth in USA’S OSW market – and its recent crash; provide some context to appreciate the size of offshore wind turbines; considerations for a Canadian OSW market; and what are some technology opportunities in OSW. Offshore wind is a relatively new development in North America, with significant growth beginning around 2010. While Canada has 15 gigawatts of onshore wind, the US has 144 gigawatts, but only 240 megawatts of that is offshore (as of 2022). The first US offshore wind project only began producing power in late 2016. The capacity factor, the ratio of actual energy produced to potential energy production, is higher for offshore wind due to more consistent wind speeds. The onshore wind capacity factor is typically below 30%, while offshore can reach around 50%, approaching the capacity factor of hydroelectric power (50-60%). Fixed-bottom turbines are used in shallower waters (around 60 meters or less), while floating turbines are necessary for deeper waters. The US East Coast projects primarily use fixed-bottom turbines, while West Coast projects are exploring floating technology. Three large offshore wind projects in New York (totaling 4 gigawatts) were recently canceled due to General Electric's decision not to build the larger 18–19-megawatt turbines initially planned for the projects. A major obstacle to US offshore wind development is the lack of domestic marine infrastructure for turbine installation.

Currently, most of the specialized vessels and expertise come from Europe. Renting the large crane ships needed for offshore wind turbine installation can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per day. The increasing size of turbines requires larger ships, further increasing costs. The speaker emphasizes the need to standardize turbine design to control costs. Retired nuclear and coal power plant sites are being considered for wind turbine development, particularly along the East Coast, to utilize existing grid connections and minimize transmission costs. The US and other countries are benefiting significantly from Europe's experience in developing offshore wind technology, including installation techniques and floating turbine technology. Onshore wind is significantly cheaper than offshore wind (by a factor of three or more). Offshore wind costs have been increasing due to factors like inflation and rising interest rates, which can have a disproportionate impact on project costs. Repowering, replacing older turbines with newer, more efficient models, is a common practice in the US wind industry, driven by economic and tax incentives. This is contrasted with the problem of orphan oil and gas wells, where decommissioning is often neglected. A major obstacle to further offshore wind development in the US is the need for significant upgrades to the transmission and distribution grid, particularly along the East Coast. Without these upgrades, many planned projects will not be viable. While wind energy currently accounts for about 10% of US electricity generation capacity, its actual contribution in terms of energy produced is lower. The future growth of wind energy depends heavily on grid upgrades. The speaker speculates that in the next five years, the US will add 5-6 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, but further growth will be limited by grid constraints.

Currently, most of the specialized vessels and expertise come from Europe. Renting the large crane ships needed for offshore wind turbine installation can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per day. The increasing size of turbines requires larger ships, further increasing costs. The speaker emphasizes the need to standardize turbine design to control costs. Retired nuclear and coal power plant sites are being considered for wind turbine development, particularly along the East Coast, to utilize existing grid connections and minimize transmission costs. The US and other countries are benefiting significantly from Europe's experience in developing offshore wind technology, including installation techniques and floating turbine technology. Onshore wind is significantly cheaper than offshore wind (by a factor of three or more). Offshore wind costs have been increasing due to factors like inflation and rising interest rates, which can have a disproportionate impact on project costs. Repowering, replacing older turbines with newer, more efficient models, is a common practice in the US wind industry, driven by economic and tax incentives. This is contrasted with the problem of orphan oil and gas wells, where decommissioning is often neglected. A major obstacle to further offshore wind development in the US is the need for significant upgrades to the transmission and distribution grid, particularly along the East Coast. Without these upgrades, many planned projects will not be viable. While wind energy currently accounts for about 10% of US electricity generation capacity, its actual contribution in terms of energy produced is lower. The future growth of wind energy depends heavily on grid upgrades. The speaker speculates that in the next five years, the US will add 5-6 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, but further growth will be limited by grid constraints.

Currently, most of the specialized vessels and expertise come from Europe. Renting the large crane ships needed for offshore wind turbine installation can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per day. The increasing size of turbines requires larger ships, further increasing costs. The speaker emphasizes the need to standardize turbine design to control costs. Retired nuclear and coal power plant sites are being considered for wind turbine development, particularly along the East Coast, to utilize existing grid connections and minimize transmission costs. The US and other countries are benefiting significantly from Europe's experience in developing offshore wind technology, including installation techniques and floating turbine technology. Onshore wind is significantly cheaper than offshore wind (by a factor of three or more). Offshore wind costs have been increasing due to factors like inflation and rising interest rates, which can have a disproportionate impact on project costs. Repowering, replacing older turbines with newer, more efficient models, is a common practice in the US wind industry, driven by economic and tax incentives. This is contrasted with the problem of orphan oil and gas wells, where decommissioning is often neglected. A major obstacle to further offshore wind development in the US is the need for significant upgrades to the transmission and distribution grid, particularly along the East Coast. Without these upgrades, many planned projects will not be viable. While wind energy currently accounts for about 10% of US electricity generation capacity, its actual contribution in terms of energy produced is lower. The future growth of wind energy depends heavily on grid upgrades. The speaker speculates that in the next five years, the US will add 5-6 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, but further growth will be limited by grid constraints.

Robert goes over a news story about a coal-fired electricity plant running in Saskatchewan. The article reviews the Coal Boundary Plant project that started in the fall of 2014.The average capture rate of the CO₂ is 57%. The project’s real goal is to prolong the use of coal for making power. Costs are rising, and the project has spent 16 billion dollars already, having benefited from direct government subsidies, carbon revenues, and tax credits. One can think that such efforts would be better placed into renewable energy generation, as such an approach will be more expensive in the long run when compared to wind-solar with storage. They discuss the ineffectiveness and cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, particularly focusing on the Boundary Dam project in Saskatchewan and tar sands, and contrast it with the potential of renewable energy. It also touches upon lawsuits against fossil fuel projects and the misleading nature of carbon credits. For example, the Boundary Dam CCS project has consistently failed to meet its initial goal of capturing 90% of carbon emissions. The actual average capture rate is around 57%. This raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness of CCS technology. The project has cost nearly $16 billion, which analysts argue could be better spent on renewable energy projects. They contend that CCS prolongs the use of fossil fuels and is not a sustainable solution. The speakers clarify that the project primarily focuses on capturing carbon dioxide during fuel processing, not sequestering it permanently. Much of the captured CO₂ is used for enhanced oil recovery, which ultimately releases some of the carbon back into the atmosphere. The hosts compare the cost of CCS with the projected cost of solar and wind energy combined with battery storage. They argue that renewables are significantly cheaper and becoming even more so, making CCS an economically unsound investment. They estimate the cost of storing one kilowatt hour of electricity in a battery to be around one cent by 2050, while the energy required for CCS adds significantly to its overall cost. The discussion touches on the issue of "phantom credits," where companies receive credits for more carbon than they sequester. They also criticize the subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry, arguing that this money could be better used to support renewable energy development. They state that the subsidies for the Boundary Dam project alone could have funded a substantial increase in Canada's solar capacity. The speakers advocate for shifting the focus from carbon credits and sequestration to increasing the renewable energy ratio at the individual, community, and national levels. They believe this is a more effective and sustainable approach to addressing climate change.

David Campfield reiterates that a transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy will not be delivered by business people and politicians that mainly support the fossil fuel industry. Moreover, electing green leaders will not necessarily help to overcome capitalists and bureaucrats that continually place roadblocks to the energy transition. David argues that mass social movements do have the potential to force governments to support the energy transition and that even a ravaged planet is worth fighting for. At the end, David believes that the solution to climate change which is a consequence of capitalism is a transition to ecosocialism.

The production of food, crops, and livestock, such as chicken eggs and beef, has seen a significant increase in productivity since the Second World War. Use of fossil fuels has also increased significantly in agriculture using diesel for tractors, and natural gas for dryers and the manufacturing of pesticides and other fertilizers by way of examples. The transportation of these goods and commodities is also fueled by fossil fuels. Of importance is that nitrogen ammonia base fertilizers in soil are transformed by native microbes, releasing nitrous oxide in the air, a potent greenhouse gas that can significantly contribute to climate change. Dr. Tenuta research focuses on improving the retention of soil and not emitting nitrogen oxide. By reducing nitrogen losses farmers can become more efficient in using nitrogen to produce crops. By improving the retention of soil and reducing nitrogen emissions in agriculture, farmers can thus reduce their greenhouse gas footprint and contribute to a more sustainable future as they feed the world. Food production involves significant energy use and GHG emissions. Microbes in the soil transform nitrogen fertilizer, releasing N2O, a potent greenhouse gas (300 times more potent than CO2). While the amount of N2O emitted from fields is relatively small, its potency makes it a significant environmental concern. N2O loss is also an indicator of other nitrogen losses from the soil, which can be substantial (10-30% of applied nitrogen). The "Four R's" (Right Rate, Right Source, Right Time, Right Place) are a framework for optimizing fertilizer use and minimizing nitrogen losses. This involves considering: (1) Rate: Applying the correct amount of nitrogen based on crop needs and soil conditions; (2) Source: Choosing the appropriate type of nitrogen fertilizer; (3) Time: Applying fertilizer at the optimal time (e.g., spring rather than fall, split applications); and (4) Place: Placing fertilizer in the soil rather than on the surface to reduce atmospheric losses. Even organic fertilizers like manure, compost, and fish bycatch can contribute to N2O emissions. The composting process itself also releases N2O. However, growing nitrogen-fixing crops like soybeans, peas, and lentils does not produce N2O. The discussion touches on the possibility of producing "green ammonia" using renewable electricity (e.g., solar and hydropower), air, and water. This could reduce the carbon footprint of fertilizer production and provide farmers with more stable pricing. The possibility of using autonomous robots for precise, micro-dosed nitrogen application and weed control is discussed. While challenges remain (e.g., navigating closed crop canopies), such technology is considered within reach. The speakers discuss the reluctance of governments to impose GHG taxes or regulations on farmers, highlighting the economic challenges farmers already face. They note that the fertilizer industry is actively involved in efforts to reduce nitrogen losses. The interview emphasize the complexity of reducing agricultural GHG emissions, noting that there are no easy solutions.

Another area of David’s expertise relates to onshore and offshore wind power generation. David discusses offshore Wind, its global status, USA status and opportunities. Eric and Robert discuss with David how large is the North America wind fleet; global wind capacity ranking – annual vs cumulative; vs total installed capacity; what drives the growth in USA’S OSW market – and its recent crash; provide some context to appreciate the size of offshore wind turbines; considerations for a Canadian OSW market; and what are some technology opportunities in OSW. Offshore wind is a relatively new development in North America, with significant growth beginning around 2010. While Canada has 15 gigawatts of onshore wind, the US has 144 gigawatts, but only 240 megawatts of that is offshore (as of 2022). The first US offshore wind project only began producing power in late 2016. The capacity factor, the ratio of actual energy produced to potential energy production, is higher for offshore wind due to more consistent wind speeds. The onshore wind capacity factor is typically below 30%, while offshore can reach around 50%, approaching the capacity factor of hydroelectric power (50-60%). Fixed-bottom turbines are used in shallower waters (around 60 meters or less), while floating turbines are necessary for deeper waters. The US East Coast projects primarily use fixed-bottom turbines, while West Coast projects are exploring floating technology. Three large offshore wind projects in New York (totaling 4 gigawatts) were recently canceled due to General Electric's decision not to build the larger 18–19-megawatt turbines initially planned for the projects. A major obstacle to US offshore wind development is the lack of domestic marine infrastructure for turbine installation. Currently, most of the specialized vessels and expertise come from Europe. Renting the large crane ships needed for offshore wind turbine installation can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per day. The increasing size of turbines requires larger ships, further increasing costs. The speaker emphasizes the need to standardize turbine design to control costs. Retired nuclear and coal power plant sites are being considered for wind turbine development, particularly along the East Coast, to utilize existing grid connections and minimize transmission costs. The US and other countries are benefiting significantly from Europe's experience in developing offshore wind technology, including installation techniques and floating turbine technology. Onshore wind is significantly cheaper than offshore wind (by a factor of three or more). Offshore wind costs have been increasing due to factors like inflation and rising interest rates, which can have a disproportionate impact on project costs. Repowering, replacing older turbines with newer, more efficient models, is a common practice in the US wind industry, driven by economic and tax incentives. This is contrasted with the problem of orphan oil and gas wells, where decommissioning is often neglected. A major obstacle to further offshore wind development in the US is the need for significant upgrades to the transmission and distribution grid, particularly along the East Coast. Without these upgrades, many planned projects will not be viable. While wind energy currently accounts for about 10% of US electricity generation capacity, its actual contribution in terms of energy produced is lower. The future growth of wind energy depends heavily on grid upgrades. The speaker speculates that in the next five years, the US will add 5-6 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, but further growth will be limited by grid constraints.

In this engaging conversation, Dr. Renewable delves into the mechanics and benefits of heat pumps, starting with a personal touch on why the topic is close to Eric's heart. Heat pumps are likened to refrigerators or air conditioners, fundamentally working on the principle of moving heat from one place to another using two heat exchangers and a fluid that changes state between liquid and gas. Eric explains that while refrigerators extract heat from inside to outside, heat pumps can reverse this process, providing both heating and cooling. This is achieved through a compressor which manipulates the fluid's pressure and state to transfer heat against the natural flow from hot to cold, essentially not violating thermodynamics but using work (electricity) to move heat.

The discussion touches on the efficiency of heat pumps, noting they can provide several units of heat for each unit of electricity used, making them particularly beneficial in renewable energy contexts. However, in extremely cold temperatures, their efficiency decreases, often requiring supplementary electric heating, though ongoing research aims to improve this. They also discuss district energy systems where large heat pumps serve multiple buildings or homes, enhancing economies of scale and reducing individual maintenance costs. These systems can be powered by renewable sources, significantly cutting down on fossil fuel use and aiding in climate change mitigation.

The conversation highlights a disconnect between policy and technological potential in Canada, criticizing the lack of support for renewable energy solutions like district heating in favor of less efficient or environmentally friendly options like hydrogen or carbon sequestration. Throughout, Eric and Robert emphasize the importance of heat pumps in transitioning to 100% renewable energy, advocating for their adoption due to their efficiency, environmental benefits, and the ongoing advancements that will make them even more viable in colder climates. The dialogue concludes with a call to embrace heat pump technology as part of a broader move towards sustainability, with Robert humorously summarizing the conversation with "Just buy it," underscoring the technology's practical benefits for everyday use.

This continuation of the interview with Bruce Owen of Manitoba Hydro focuses on climate change awareness, the company's role in addressing it, energy efficiency, and future energy plans. Mr. Owen's awareness of climate change developed during his time as a newspaper reporter. Manitoba Hydro is in a relatively good position compared to other North American utilities due to its reliance on renewable hydropower. It has only one standby thermal natural gas plant. The concept of the triple bottom line—environmental, social, and economic sustainability—is discussed. Manitoba Hydro's contributions include indigenous employment and sourcing, public safety initiatives, and efforts to minimize environmental impact. Their ESG—Environmental, Social, and Governance—report available online provides more information. Mr. Owen emphasizes the importance of energy efficiency at the individual level, recommending actions like replacing windows and doors, improving insulation, and using appliances efficiently. He refers to Efficiency Manitoba as a resource for programs and incentives. The discussion touches on the historical context of hydroelectric development in Manitoba, with examples like the Pinawa and Point Du Bois generating stations. Owen stresses the importance of long-term planning and public input in Manitoba Hydro's decision-making processes, including the Integrated Resource Plan. Mr. Owen invites the students to tour the Manitoba Hydro building at 360 Portage Avenue, highlighting its unique design that utilizes solar heating and natural ventilation. He emphasizes the building's environmentally friendly features. Mr. Owen encourages students interested in renewable energy to explore student employment opportunities at Manitoba Hydro.