Electricity again

[oneoff]

The "bean counters" employed by electrical utilities probably have several people who know the logical outcome of various scenarios.

But cost over runs and outright disasters are beyond their comprehension (as they would be for anyone else on a consistent basis). Think; smart meter fires and multi million dollar losses to our electrical utility; even steel transmission towers failing at much less than their engineered designs, or unforseen carbon capture problems at a Sask coal plants; and financial penalties for being unable to supply CO2 from same; and any other FUBAR or SNAFU that is known in cattle industry as "shit happens". That is inevitable on occasion.. maybe even to be factored into any change... and I grant even an acceptable risk if there are few other identifiable problems.

But to become aware that certain promoters are in complete denial brings their opinions on most other matters to be demanded to have additional scrutiny to avoid being completely sucked into their next crusade.

[chuckChuck]

As usual, you make some good, well informed points.

To comprehend the folly of this, take it to the extreme. Lets assume that everyone does as Chuck has done, and installs enough solar panels to meet their gross needs throughout the year. With the intention of selling excess back to the grid during peak generation hours, and buying it back the rest of the day. Now what is the price of the marginal kW going to be during peak generation periods? Generation will have to vastly exceed consumption during those periods, if we all expect to install solar and use the grid in place of storage. The value of that solar generated power will be negative, as the grid has to offload it somehow, at significant cost. It works for a small handful of those who get in first, as the rest of us get to pay for the grid costs and additional generation costs. But it will reach saturation and there will be no one else to pass those costs on to, then the free ride of using grid as de facto storage will be over. The only way around that is installing on site storage and disconnecting from the grid completely. Now run the economics on that, if panels themselves are questionably economic when you can rely on the grid for storage, what are the economics when storage is included? As per my neighbors who have done this, they have been brutally honest about the deplorable economics.

And this is why I keep questioning the sanity of policy where Mallee is, How does adding more of what caused the price spikes and blackouts solve the price spikes and blackouts. Sure, on an individual level it looks viable, but when you consider the effects on the grid( and associated costs), it has the opposite effect, and it gets worse with every additional installation.

Saskpower has a cap on grid tied solar pv generation so that we are unlikely to get to a situation where solar depresses the price because of over production any time soon.

Australia's experience with privatization and deregulation have led to many of their problems. The naysayers want to put all the blame on renewables for high prices but that is just a plain falsehood according to a report I read a few months ago. I will see if I can find it.

Fortunately at least in Saskatchewan we have a regulatory system that oversees the crown utilities and a rate increase review process. Our rates are decent with major reductions for industry including smaller reductions for farms. Farms are paying less than the residential rate, even though the cost of delivering electricity to a small widely dispersed population of farms is higher. A subsidy to farms in other words.

As Oneoff pointed out there is a rebate of approximately 20% for solar pv in Saskatchewan. But Saskpower gets to claim the carbon reduction credits so in effect is passing on some of or all of the carbon credits to solar pv owners. Just like farmers want to be paid for carbon credits for direct seeding. The total rebates paid out by Saskpower for solar pv will likely be much less than the subsidy paid to all farmers with reduced prices on a kwh. I don't have the numbers so just making an assumption based on the fact there are relativley very few solar pv systems and a lot of farmers.

As I have said before every loaction, region, country has a different sitaution. What works in southern Saskatchewan may not work in northern Alberta. But making generalized statements that renewables are folly or a bad idea is just plain wrong in the face of the Saskatchewan and Alberta governments and their utilities both investing in significant wind and some solar.

Further, we have seen quotes including storage for solar pv that are very low cost in some parts of the world. This is a rapidly changing sector with technology and costs changing rapidly.

So since you want some actual numbers I have one month to share. From January 28th - February 28 my 25kw system produced slightly more than twice as much electricity as we used.

Production : 2373kwh
Usage : 1174kwh

Keep in mind this in the dead of winter, there was lots of snowy, cloudy days and the sun is low and we put 1200 surplus kwh back into grid. Febraury is also one of the lower producing months in the calendar. 7 months out of the year production should be well over 3000 kwh each month.

We are not going to get rich off this, but on average our system should produce most of our annual electricy at a cost estimate over the lifetime of this system at a price much lower than the 12.65 cents per kwh we currently pay Saskpower. How much lower depends on equipment replacement costs and Saskpower price increases.

[chuckChuck]

The "bean counters" employed by electrical utilities probably have several people who know the logical outcome of various scenarios.

But cost over runs and outright disasters are beyond their comprehension (as they would be for anyone else on a consistent basis). Think; smart meter fires and multi million dollar losses to our electrical utility; even steel transmission towers failing at much less than their engineered designs, or unforseen carbon capture problems at a Sask coal plants; and financial penalties for being unable to supply CO2 from same; and any other FUBAR or SNAFU that is known in cattle industry as "shit happens". That is inevitable on occasion.. maybe even to be factored into any change... and I grant even an acceptable risk if there are few other identifiable problems.

But to become aware that certain promoters are in complete denial brings their opinions on most other matters to be demanded to have additional scrutiny to avoid being completely sucked into their next crusade.

Humans make mistakes personally and in our organizations. The only people or organizations that don't make mistakes are those who don't do anything.

But I don't know how we could have progressed from the stone age and hunter gathers without doing anything and sitting around being so negative about new knowledge and technology?

If we were all so negative, critical and cynical, we would probably be still sitting in a damp cave!

[grassfarmer]

[QUOTE=Hamloc;403815]

Yes if this is what you are basing your info on.

http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet?contentType=html http://http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet?contentType=html

As you say it indicates zero output from the solar at Brooks but also zero from the coal generation at Sheerness#2, Sundance #3+#5 as well as several of the gas powered generators. If this is where your info on Brooks is coming from clearly more of an explanation of the reporting is needed.[/QUOTE.

If it says Current Supply and Demand report in the top left corner you are there. I looked this morning and there was 3 coal plants producing 0, 6 of 20 wind turbine sights producing 0 and roughly 11 gas powered were producing 0. I think what is important is to look at the top and calculate what method of generation produces what percentage of total output.

No, what is important is to further investigate the data you are presenting and get an understanding of why these generation sources are quoting zero output. I don't pretend to know the answer but I know you can't legitimately carry on with this argument using the data neither of us understands to prove that solar doesn't work on sunny days in March. I could equally argue that gas and coal don't work on sunny days in March because the same data indicates they are not producing anything either!

[checking]

Mallee.

You have been somewhat mislead in your question on the availability of three phase power to farms in Sask. In this area, oil development geared up around the year 2000, and along with it three phase lines on nearly every road to service the wells. The oil industry is the reason why farms have three phase power to efficiently drive aeration fans.

If you were always green, and didn't ever appreciate the oil industry, but it's in your area, you might be quick to say, I am on single phase service to my farm. It really wasn't because you had to be. It was a choice you made.

The truth might more be that the reason your farmyard is not on three phase service is due to your diverting oil development away from your farmyard road over oil traffic concerns, to roads a mile away that now backdoor service wells on your land. Doing that moved the three phase line which would have gone past your homestead lane and are now cost prohibitive to you because of the distance to access.

You really do deserve to be solar powered.

[chuckChuck]

Mallee. 3 phase power is within 350 metres of my farm and I chose to stick with single phase as it costs a significant amount more to bring it into a yard. It definitely is a better option if you have a lot of continuous sustained heavy load with very large fan motors which I do not. The motors and the wiring are cheaper. Only a very small percentage of farms in Saskatchewan have 3 phase.

Don't be distracted by red herrings in your quest to see if solar is a good option on your farm. Single phase works fine as I suspect you don't use aeration fans in your dry harvest climate?

[oneoff]

Humans make mistakes personally and in our organizations. The only people or organizations that don't make mistakes are those who don't do anything.

But I don't know how we could have progressed from the stone age and hunter gathers without doing anything and sitting around being so negative about new knowledge and technology?

If we were all so negative, critical and cynical, we would probably be still sitting in a damp cave!

It's a mistake to equate "negative, critical and cynical" with critical analysis; looking for improved positive advances and identifying limitations in someone else's arguments and the popular movement in the news thatwill be identified as a National Emergency.

Just as we should not directly pay any serious attention to the "Earth Ranger" movement restricted to youngsters who will one day take over. Yes: Contemplate what the outcome will be; and understand the influence of their their parents, teachers and the info available from the children's sources. But if children have the answers to the world problems; then the world has been run wrong from the beginning.

Or is it really appropriate to ignore the fact that the overabundance of oxygen sucking; CO2 producing critters on the face of the earth will probably totally overwhelm the earth's capability to sustain even the current occupants....let alone the inevitable doubling that will inevitably happen until some "natural or unnatural" events bring a readjustment. Same with the taboo subject of nuclear power.

That is not necessarily being negative, critical or cynical. It could be close to the truth.


Back to electrical energy : From my recent interview with a couple Sask power "decision makers" my firmly held belief of the importance of utilizing substantial resources now labelled as near worthless waste has indeed been considered as a part of our electrical needs. This topic was brought into the conversation.

Indeed flare gas is recognized as what should be considered an important resource. There is a recognition of the energy source value of these hydrocarbon compounds; what this waste resource could produce as electrical energy and waste heat; and their admitted strong points. However; flare gas attributes are diminished by the fact that the costs of harnessing what is there today; are subject to the continually declining supply which is a fact of life in our oil fields. Otherwise known as flush production in initial months; to be followed by being lucky to get that much more over the rest of the lifetime of the oil field.

Otherwise known as a good idea that is a "non-starter" based on economics. And that I am told.. is now understood; and through policy decisions; we have to look for other solutions like making a deal for hydro power from another province or country. Or intermittent wind and solar production; or as I suggest maybe even North Dakota which does have gas plant expansions in mind.

Its will literally cost billions.....and we had better get it right the first time. Remember Venezuala once showed a lot of promise, and won't recover from their past as quickly as they declined.

[helmsdale]

Good christ you guys...

Brooks has been producing ZERO power since sometime around christmas time. Nobody can be bothered to knock the damned snow and ice off the panels! THEY ARE COVERED IN SNOW! Its been that way for months! Someone forgot to hire a janitor to sweep the snow off. Go figure... it snows here!

Some have suggested Panels that dip or tip in order to knock the snow off. Might work for snow, but wouldn't work for ice buildup. Only other option would be to install resistive heaters in them to ensure they are cleaned off every morning like the defroster in your rear SUV/truck window. Resistive heaters are absolute pigs for power usage, so unless the wind is blowing, those panel heaters would have to be supplied with fossil fuel power every morning in the winter to ensure that they are kept clean and tip top. Or... they need to hire a few people with brooms and ice sc****rs.

Wind has been horrendously underutilized here for most of february. The wind just didn't blow. There were multiple days where wind was producing less than 100MW, and alot of times it was putting out less than 10MW. 10MW out of 1445MC is pitiful. Even with one hell of a grid to transport the power from places where the wind is blowing to places where it isnt, the over-build of wind necessary to provide reliable power supply would be pricey. That said, for the not as rare as i thought days, where the wind just doesnt blow in this province, often coupled in the winter with either fog, or low cloud making solar useless you would need installed hydro-carbon power capable of powering the entire province.

[Hamloc]

[QUOTE=grassfarmer;403832]

No, what is important is to further investigate the data you are presenting and get an understanding of why these generation sources are quoting zero output. I don't pretend to know the answer but I know you can't legitimately carry on with this argument using the data neither of us understands to prove that solar doesn't work on sunny days in March. I could equally argue that gas and coal don't work on sunny days in March because the same data indicates they are not producing anything either!

I just reread my posts Grassfarmer, no where did I state that solar doesn't work on a sunny day in March. What I did state was that according to the AESO S&D report there wasn't any electricity being generated. The issue I have is that environmental organizations promote renewables as a replacement for thermal generation from coal and natural gas. Can they be used to supplement the grid yes but we will still need a large enough thermal capacity to supply all our needs at certain times of year. This doubles or triples the infrastructure to generate the same electricity, how is this really efficient?

[helmsdale]

I'm not necessarily against the idea of wind/solar, but for anyone to suggest that they are the holy grail of decarbonization is utterly fooling themselves. If we want to decarbonize the electrical grid, we need to think considerably harder erecting windmills and solar panels!