Level 2 power alert in AB last night.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A few days ago when I commented about there not being a rule that wind power cannot go to zero, I really didn't expect it to happen. Yet this afternoon, it did just that:



Can someone smarter than me do the math on how many wind turbines will be required to meet 50%, or 100% or for that matter, any % of our electricity needs next time an event such as this occurs? My calculator isn't handling the zero very well, must be broken.

[grassfarmer]

So I take it you never heard back from AESO AF5? I've been saying on here for more than a year now that these figures shown are not saying what you think they are. We are applying layman interpretation on something we don't have enough information on. Case in point was Hamloc's assertion a few days ago that one of the Sheerness plants at Hanna wasn't producing because it was under conversion to gas. It's shown as producing right now. You're just guessing at what these tables are indicating to fit an anti-wind/solar agenda.

If you want to work out what's really going on you could start with this page. It doesn't appear to indicate that these wind farms are producing nothing.

http://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/ http://https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/

[GDR]

So I take it you never heard back from AESO AF5? I've been saying on here for more than a year now that these figures shown are not saying what you think they are. We are applying layman interpretation on something we don't have enough information on. Case in point was Hamloc's assertion a few days ago that one of the Sheerness plants at Hanna wasn't producing because it was under conversion to gas. It's shown as producing right now. You're just guessing at what these tables are indicating to fit an anti-wind/solar agenda.

If you want to work out what's really going on you could start with this page. It doesn't appear to indicate that these wind farms are producing nothing.

http://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/ http://https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/

There's likely some truth to that Grassfarmer, both sides of every issue think they are right and interpret things to fit their cause. However there has been a lot on talk radio this week about the lack of wind and solar output, with guys in the know being interviewed so I suspect there is quite a bit of validity here.

[Hamloc]

So I take it you never heard back from AESO AF5? I've been saying on here for more than a year now that these figures shown are not saying what you think they are. We are applying layman interpretation on something we don't have enough information on. Case in point was Hamloc's assertion a few days ago that one of the Sheerness plants at Hanna wasn't producing because it was under conversion to gas. It's shown as producing right now. You're just guessing at what these tables are indicating to fit an anti-wind/solar agenda.

If you want to work out what's really going on you could start with this page. It doesn't appear to indicate that these wind farms are producing nothing.

http://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/ http://https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/

So I am curious Grassfarmer are you saying that the production and consumption tables posted on this sight are being manipulated by the government or someone else? That the consumption alerts issued by the AESO this week were political propaganda to push a certain agenda? So explain to me how they arrive at the total consumption numbers. As for Sheerness it certainly appears that what my nephew who does contract work for Sheerness told me is incorrect as the second plant is indeed producing power but is it possible that I am interpreting it wrong Grassfarmer. If the wind mills show 0 production but according to you are producing maybe Sheerness plant is showing electricity production but isn't producing. Sometimes denial of the truth blinded by ideology can be quite dangerous, you Grassfarmer are a perfect example, I prefer real numbers to those being forecasted!!!!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So I take it you never heard back from AESO AF5? I've been saying on here for more than a year now that these figures shown are not saying what you think they are. We are applying layman interpretation on something we don't have enough information on. Case in point was Hamloc's assertion a few days ago that one of the Sheerness plants at Hanna wasn't producing because it was under conversion to gas. It's shown as producing right now. You're just guessing at what these tables are indicating to fit an anti-wind/solar agenda.

If you want to work out what's really going on you could start with this page. It doesn't appear to indicate that these wind farms are producing nothing.

http://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/ http://https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/

No response from AESO yet, I suppose Monday would be three business days.

I doubt they are actually zero. They all display whole numbers of MW, so anything under 0.5 MW per wind farm doesn't register, so potentially all 23 wind farms could be producing almost half an MW and it would still show zero. Just like the Brooks solar farm, it jumps between 0 and occasionally 1 during the sunny part of the day, so likely is either side of .5 MW in reality.

With a Chinook blowing in overnight, the AESO forecast is predicting over 900 MW by 10 AM tomorrow. Will check back and see. As of now, actual output is already exceeding the forecast. I have been checking that page this week as well, and until now, it was over estimating. But I'm not sure how a future forecast proves a real time posted result wrong? That sounds like one of Chucks famous arguments.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't have an anti renewable energy agenda. I just have an anti- non technical politicians making business decisions on my behalf that have disasterous economic and potentially life threatening outcomes agenda. Based on projections and forecasts, while ignoring real life data right in front of them.

As is, with wind and solar at ~11% of capacity(not output), it is still relatively harmless, but these uninformed political types want to increase that to 100% in a very short period of time. When simple math shows that idea to be impossible.

[malleefarmer]

Just reading about nuclear power and it’s possible future in Australia.

Won’t bore you with cut and paste and if it factual or not.

But one paragraph suggests 1kg of uranium produces as much power as 2000 t of coal wow if true.

Basically article says renewables to power “up to” 60% nuclear for base load 40% .
Up to means many things

[TSIPP]

Just thought I’d post some fun facts about uranium.

At current world use uranium should last another 200 years.

The USA has 104 reactors and use 55 million pounds a year.

U308 is currently around 25 dollars a pound.

[grassfarmer]

What I was saying is that the figures shown on those tables are not as simple as being portrayed. Why for example at this moment are 19 out of the 23 wind facilities producing but only 6 out of the 26 simple cycle gas facilities are? Maybe they have to shut the gas plants down when it gets windy so gas isn't a reliable source either? Maybe what it's showing is that because the wind facilities are producing the gas ones aren't needed for now? From what I understand the electrical supply is a dynamic process where the regulator forecasts demand ahead of time and matches supply to demand by auction on an hourly basis ahead of time. Not all power generation sources are producing flat out from the day they begin operation because there is no way to store the electricity - hence why on occasion BC's hydro generated electricity is bid into the AB supply at zero cost.

[bobofthenorth]

So I am curious Grassfarmer are you saying that the production and consumption tables posted on this sight are being manipulated by the government or someone else?

What he's really saying is that us peasants aren't smart enough to understand all the intricate details so we should just shut up and take it. That's the only consistent argument the intelligentsia can put up for Glowbull Warming. "Just ignore common sense. Ignore reality. Listen to your intellectual superiors. And keep paying."

[Hamloc]

What I was saying is that the figures shown on those tables are not as simple as being portrayed. Why for example at this moment are 19 out of the 23 wind facilities producing but only 6 out of the 26 simple cycle gas facilities are? Maybe they have to shut the gas plants down when it gets windy so gas isn't a reliable source either? Maybe what it's showing is that because the wind facilities are producing the gas ones aren't needed for now? From what I understand the electrical supply is a dynamic process where the regulator forecasts demand ahead of time and matches supply to demand by auction on an hourly basis ahead of time. Not all power generation sources are producing flat out from the day they begin operation because there is no way to store the electricity - hence why on occasion BC's hydro generated electricity is bid into the AB supply at zero cost.

For my own interest I picked one of the simple cycle plants to google and see what their mandate was. I picked Crossfield energy center. "Crossfield operates an estimated 15 to 45 percent of the time during high consumption periods-typically in the daytime and seasonally when temperatures are high or low." So yes I would say when wind is producing(like today due to a Chinook blowing in) these facilities are shut off. Out of the last 7 days today is the first day wind has produced significant electricity.