Electricity again

[helmsdale]

[QUOTE=Hamloc;403843]

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?

Baseload capacity is life and death in a cold climate like Alberta in the winter time. And to that end, baseload in an Albertan winter is approaching 10GW!

With new land-based wind turbines running in that 5MW range, even if the turbines were to spin at nameplate output 100% of the time, you'd be looking at 2000 windmills. If they Produce at nameplate 50% of the time, you would need 4000, 33% would need 6000, 25% would need 8000. And even if we plug 8000 of them in, there is a very good chance that there will be numerous days where they fall far below baseload capacity, or even produce near zero power. In that case, you would need hydro-carbon generated power.

Now try to entice investors to build fossil fueled power plants necessary to cover baseload ONLY when it's not provided by renewables. You're going to need to get a pile of near FREE power from renewables to account for the serious raping you will get when fossil fueled power plants come online on those days where the wind doesnt blow and the sun doesnt shine.

[helmsdale]

Now rerun the generation numbers necessary if we were to convert transit to battery power, charged via the grid over-night, again when the sun doesnt shine, and the wind often doesnt blow. Then if you're a real zealot and advocating the absolute end of fossil fuels, imagine the generation necessary to power resistive heaters in everyone's home and workplace. And all the necessary upgrades to the grid to handle the sheer amount of power necessary to power resistive heaters. Dad's house in town has electric baseboard heat, and his house has a 300amp main. If every house has to be rewired, and every transformer increased in capacity, and every mainline increased... Just soak the rich i guess.

[grassfarmer]

[QUOTE=Hamloc;403843]

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...

Semantics Hamloc, here is what you posted initially.

Chuck2 here is a very simple question. It is 12:28 pm here in Alberta. It is a sunny but cold day. I just looked at the AESO supply and demand report. There is a 15 MW solar farm at Brooks Alberta. Right now it is producing 0 MW. Why is that? You brag up solar, you talk about all these brilliant engineers and how a simple farmer like myself can't be right. Wouldn't today be a perfect day for winter production of solar energy? Where is our electricity going to come from on a day like today in the future when wind and solar are not producing?

Clearly implying that solar does not produce despite it being a sunny day. You're just backtracking to cover the fact you can't explain why some of the coal or gas plants aren't producing anything either according to the data source you highlighted. Simple mistake, you may as well just come clean on it.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

While we keep arguing about the advantages and disadvantages and economics of renewables, perhaps the better question should be why do we need alternatives at all? 15 or 20 years ago when much of this really got started, we were realistically looking at peak oil and gas, and much of it was coming from very undesirable areas of the world, and we genuinely needed alternatives to finite fossil fuels. Jump ahead to 2019, and there is so much natural gas especially in north America now that it is being flared as worthless. New technology has pushed peak oil and gas ahead by decades, if not centuries, while making it more affordable too.

So, unless you really believe that the net environmental footprint of fossil fuels is that much worse than renewables(debatable), there is no argument to be made in support of renewables now. Or, if you are a member of the minority anti-science group who still believes that increasing plant food will be apocalypitcal.

[checking]

Mallee.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but...

Recognizing that you have laws that shut harvesting down when the day time temperature gets too hot, over burning up the country concerns, I suspect you do use aeration to overnight cool, hot, dry grain to condition it for longer storage.

Every bit of our grain gets that process whether hot and dry, or less hot and tough. I'd fear that a lot more of it would have trouble without harvest aeration. Sometimes our harvest conditions do mimic your own. Maybe it is thank god for early, timely movement, or you have an efficient bin rotation system that we lack, but our night time temperature is the only reason crops grow in Canada, and the most important reason for many Canadian farmers that allows harvested grain to be conditioned without going the dryer route. In short order, my net metering solar credits would be gone with overnight aeration.

If I really was sold on the green religion, I'd feel like a pariah if I had to net consume over net produce to a base load grid system. I don't because this minor gas explanation is just that.

[burnt]

While we keep arguing about the advantages and disadvantages and economics of renewables, perhaps the better question should be why do we need alternatives at all? 15 or 20 years ago when much of this really got started, we were realistically looking at peak oil and gas, and much of it was coming from very undesirable areas of the world, and we genuinely needed alternatives to finite fossil fuels. Jump ahead to 2019, and there is so much natural gas especially in north America now that it is being flared as worthless. New technology has pushed peak oil and gas ahead by decades, if not centuries, while making it more affordable too.

So, unless you really believe that the net environmental footprint of fossil fuels is that much worse than renewables(debatable), there is no argument to be made in support of renewables now. Or, if you are a member of the minority anti-science group who still believes that increasing plant food will be apocalypitcal.

There never was any serious, reasonable justification for widespread wind and solar energy outside of a get rich quick scheme for the insiders who drove that agenda.

As all the practical evidence above has shown, wind and solar are unsustainable in our part of the world, and maybe most of the world, all things considered. (What a sick joke - that which was touted as the model of sustainability was anything but - and they knew it!)

If those who were shouting about the killer gas CO2 would have been serious about "saving the earth", they would have pursued setting up thorium nuke plants, a very safe, highly sustainable and efficient source of energy.

Best of all, those plants could actually use some of the spent fuel/by-products from uranium-powered nuke plants.

It is a travesty that the arms interests drove nuclear energy plants to use uranium, rather than thorium. It drives the question - how stupid and destructive can humans be to go that route because they wanted to harvest its lethal, destructive by-product?

The answer is shown in the very ones who pushed wind and solar as a mainstream energy source - they took that avenue because stupidity and utterly disgusting human greed know no limits. They, too, were in it for the money, not the good of humanity.

[malleefarmer]

Dont forget we had 3 days of 40 plus c in 3 states evryone comes home from school/work at 5 to 6 pm and turn on aircon and start cooking and watch tv etc drains the system

[Hamloc]

[QUOTE=grassfarmer;403849]

Semantics Hamloc, here is what you posted initially.



Clearly implying that solar does not produce despite it being a sunny day. You're just backtracking to cover the fact you can't explain why some of the coal or gas plants aren't producing anything either according to the data source you highlighted. Simple mistake, you may as well just come clean on it.

Grassfarmer you do realize AESO stands for Alberta Electric System Operator? This is a non profit entity responsible for the planning and operation of the Alberta Interconnected Electric system. The supply and demand report that I post from is put out by the organization running Alberta's electric system! Why would they falsely report the numbers? What do you want me to come clean on? Read the report yourself, as I have said it is updated every minute. Enjoy your day.

[furrowtickler]

A little gem from an ex green
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-03/greenpeace-co-founder-rips-pompous-little-twit-ocasio-cortez-garden-variety

[grassfarmer]

[QUOTE=Hamloc;403873]

What do you want me to come clean on? Read the report yourself, as I have said it is updated every minute. Enjoy your day.

The fact that you (or I) don't understand what the reports show - why there are coal and gas powered generation plants showing zero output the same as the solar plant at Brooks yet you choose to take that as proof that solar generation is not a reliable source of power. By your logic that would prove that neither coal not solar are viable sources of power.