Electricity in Alberta today

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Glad someone brought up Denmark. They certainly do prove that wind energy is possible. If you have agreeable neighbors willing to take the excess if you pay them enough to TAKE it, and provide back up at extortionate rates.

Resulting in this:

Denmark has the most expensive electricity rates for households in Europe, if not the world. The consumer electricity rate in Denmark is about 50% higher than the European average.

[fjlip]

Glad someone brought up Denmark. They certainly do prove that wind energy is possible. If you have agreeable neighbors willing to take the excess if you pay them enough to TAKE it, and provide back up at extortionate rates.

Resulting in this:


[ATTACH]5476[/ATTACH]

all around DUMB idea, thanks CC for quadruple the cost plus intermittent and unreliable!
Just try and sell that idea.
Another VOLCANO in Philippines, a few more and soon NO summer, will be TOO cold and where can we get more C02!

[Hamloc]

Yep. We know solar is intermittent and its not going to replace fossil fuels in Canada. But what it does do is reduce the use of fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions. Wind is also in this category.

According to Bloomberg and the IEA, solar and wind are going to play a bigger role in electricity production world wide.

Solar is better adapted to dry southern climates but the southern prairies also have a good solar resource.

A 25 kw solar install will produce about 35000 kwh in the southern prairies.

Peak loads in summer because of AC are getting close to peak loads in winter. So solar is well matched to service the hottest parts of the summer day.

At this point it's not renewables vs fossil fuels which some like to frame the argument. The question is how do we integrate cleaner renewable sources in a cost effective and strategic way to reduce emissions? Canada's hydro resources are an important advantage.

Both Saskatchewan and Alberta have carbon taxes on large emitters and a plan to reduce emissions.

If I remember Chuck I brought this topic up in February last year when it was much colder than average for the whole month. And this morning it is -27 with a windchill of -33. You feel it is unfair that I choose this time of year to look at electrical generation, well when it is -27 heat is the difference between life and death. Your assertion that we need to integrate renewables in a cost effective and strategic way to reduce emissions is not how people in the Green Party or the NDP look at it. They believe fossil fuels must be phased out and replaced with wind and solar. My belief is that wind and solar would probably work 9 months of the year but what do you do for the other 3? As I ate breakfast this morning I looked at Alberta's power generation. We were importing 702 MW, 116 from Sask., 151 from Montana and 435 from B.C. Hydro was providing 159 MW out of a potential 894, 17.8% efficiency. Wind was supplying 15 MW of 1781 or less than 1% efficiency. I did look late yesterday afternoon as this arctic front was blowing in from the north and the wind farms were generating 477 MW, almost 27% efficiency. Chuck you have suggested that wind and solar with battery back up is now cost effective so I am going to watch how many days we are in this calm cold air mass with virtually no wind power generation to see how many days of battery back up Alberta would need. Enjoy your day.

[GDR]

For what it's worth I'm glad wind power isnt generating much power this week! Its cold enough as it is.

[chuckChuck]

And Stephen Harper also signed a G7 agreement that Canada would stop using fossil fuels as an energy source by the year 2100.

We can still use them for other reasons.

Nobody is suggesting we stop using fossil fuels before we have reliable options.

So get over the idea you are going to freeze in the dark.

Denmark's example shows that large amounts of intermittent renewable can be integrated succesfully.

Yeah fossil fuels have seemed a lot cheaper on the surface. They are subsidized. The external costs of environmental damage, pollution, health costs and climate change are hidden or being paid for by taxpayers. So they are not that cheap.

Plus the cheaper they are the more consumers waste them. There is lots of room for improving efficiency and using less.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Denmark's example shows that large amounts of intermittent renewable can be integrated succesfully.

In one sentence, this statement has defined the fundamental reason why most of us disagree with the radical left.

They apparently define achieving the most expensive electricity prices in the world, and more than 4 times higher than our own, as being a success.
The only rational explanation of how one could consider that to be a success, is if the intended outcome is the destruction of industry, and impoverishing the citizenry to drive their standard of living down.

Edit, makes one wonder what they would define as a failure?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If I remember Chuck I brought this topic up in February last year when it was much colder than average for the whole month.

March 7, 2019 in fact:

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? Reply With Quote

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As of 11:30 on a clear winter day( at least here), Brooks solar is at 0% ( likely rounded down to the nearest even MW) , and wind across the province is up to 3% of capacity. This on a cold day where we are critically close to peak power consumption.



17 of the 23 wind farms indicate zero production.

[chuckChuck]

"In one sentence, this statement has defined the fundamental reason why most of us disagree with the radical left."

Then you also must disagree with Sask Power in a province that is run by a Conservative government that is planning on building a lot of wind capacity?

Explain that as left wing radicalism.

That would also mean that you disagree with the mostly Republican State of North Dakota that gets 25% of its electricity from wind power?

Are these left wing radicals in ND and Saskatchewan? LOL

You probably think Peter Lougheed was a left wing radical! LOL

Wind and solar are not going to totally replace fossil fuels but that doesn't mean they can't be used in many places to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions.

Since you don't believe in climate science or human caused climate change then there is no problem, so why do anything?

"North Dakota is a leading U.S. state in wind power generation. Data from 2017 indicates that the state generates 26.8% of its electricity from wind, enough to power over one million homes[1].

As of the end of 2017, 2996 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity had been installed for wind power in North Dakota.[1] Additional capacity had been limited by transmission line constraints until the completion of a transmission line from Fargo to central Minnesota in 2015.[2] Additional wind farms are once again planned for the state.[3]

Very favorable wind conditions in the state enable wind farms to achieve capacity factors in excess of 40 percent. The Thunder Spirit wind farm, completed in 2015, is expected to have a capacity factor greater than 45 percent.[4][5]"

[Hamloc]

"In one sentence, this statement has defined the fundamental reason why most of us disagree with the radical left."

Then you also must disagree with Sask Power in a province that is run by a Conservative government that is planning on building a lot of wind capacity? Explain that as left wing radicalism.

That would also mean that you disagree with the mostly Republican State of North Dakota that gets 25% of its electricity from wind power?

Are these left wing radicals in ND and Saskatchewan? LOL

Wind and solar are not going to replace fossil fuels but that doesn't mean they can't be used in many places to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions.

Since you don't believe in climate science or human caused climate change then there is no problem, so why do anything?

"North Dakota is a leading U.S. state in wind power generation. Data from 2017 indicates that the state generates 26.8% of its electricity from wind, enough to power over one million homes[1].

As of the end of 2017, 2996 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity had been installed for wind power in North Dakota.[1] Additional capacity had been limited by transmission line constraints until the completion of a transmission line from Fargo to central Minnesota in 2015.[2] Additional wind farms are once again planned for the state.[3]

Very favorable wind conditions in the state enable wind farms to achieve capacity factors in excess of 40 percent. The Thunder Spirit wind farm, completed in 2015, is expected to have a capacity factor greater than 45 percent.[4][5]"

Yes I have relatives in North Dakota who talk about the relentless wind. All this doesn't change the fact that when we have a cold Arctic high in Alberta that the wind does not blow when we need the electricity most. Same thing with Denmark electricity generated there won't help us here. You are willfully blind Chuck.