Answers from AESO regarding Alberta power generation

[chuckChuck]

Lets spread the myth that what goes into a windmill in terms of energy for construction and materials is less than the the lifetime output. This has been shown to be an absolute lie.

No one on Agriville has the actual numbers that any utility has in their business plan for integrating renewables into their grid and the impact on electricity prices because it is unique to their grid.

So any claims about increased costs are unknown. And generation source makes up only a portion of grid electricity costs.

Its clear that cleaner renewables are being integrated to lower carbon emissions and electricity prices may increase, but we don't know by how much.

There is also a cost to rebuilding coal with CCS and building new hydro, nuclear, and gas plants with CCS along with the rest of the grid infrastructure.

There is not much point discussing unknown costs with the flat earth society who deny the science of human caused climate change and are not the least bit interested in doing anything about it and will use any flimsy argument to justify their position.

[grassfarmer]

Hamloc and AB5, just to draw a line under the discussion about what the AESO website figures show I will reiterate what I said along along - that information can not in itself be used as evidence of which facilities are actually producing at any point in time. AESO's #3 answer to AB5 clearly indicates that it shows only the output that is currently being used by the utility based on them winning the most recent bid process.
That explains what none of the posters were able to although I asked several times over the last year ie why at specific times were gas facilities, coal plants and hydro projects showing no output either?

You can spin it any way you like but I was correct in my assessment and you were wrong.

[Hamloc]

Hamloc and AB5, just to draw a line under the discussion about what the AESO website figures show I will reiterate what I said along along - that information can not in itself be used as evidence of which facilities are actually producing at any point in time. AESO's #3 answer to AB5 clearly indicates that it shows only the output that is currently being used by the utility based on them winning the most recent bid process.
That explains what none of the posters were able to although I asked several times over the last year ie why at specific times were gas facilities, coal plants and hydro projects showing no output either?

You can spin it any way you like but I was correct in my assessment and you were wrong.

Grassfarmer your logic truly escapes me and your belief that you are correct is undoubtably wrong. As I pointed out before if you do 2 minutes of googling you will find that Sundance #3 and #5 have been mothballed until 2021. If you look today on a decidedly windy day in Alberta the wind farms are producing over 1300 MW and only 7 of the 26 simple cycle gas plants are producing power. As you recall I quoted from the website of one of the simple cycle gas generation plants websites that said it was designed to produce power on demand during times of high demand. Your refusal to admit that there are times when windmills do not produce electricity due to the weather shows that your ideology overrules your ability to analyze the numbers put in front of you. Using your logic the AESO is buying wind power today but two weeks ago it was not. What has changed to make wind power more desirable to buy today than natural gas? I would say the fact that it exists today, two weeks ago there was no wind generated power to buy. You inability to comprehend this is beyond my comprehension!!

[Oliver88]

AlbertaFarmer5, other great question to ask AESO is:
1) how many tonnes of concrete is used to build a base for these enormous bird choppers.
2) will the GHG/carbon footprint for the concrete ever be recaptured in the lifetime of the windmill?
3) same question for steel and carbon fibre in the other windmill parts

**I have read in Ontario for a 512’ windmill they require 800 tonnes of concrete per base. The GHG to build the base alone will not be made up throughout the lifetime of the windmill.**

Once you start asking questions it might get scary.....

The total GHG used for rebar, aggregate, concrete, diesel fuel involved in the construction of the base would be good to have totalled up. This farce keeps getting crazier.


This picture shows a base for a 100m windmill, notice all the required rebar!!

[chuckChuck]

https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/full/10.1504/IJSM.2014.062496 https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/full/10.1504/IJSM.2014.062496

Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines
Karl R. Haapala
School of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Oregon State University, 204 Rogers Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA
, Preedanood Prempreeda Related information
Abstract

Wind turbines produce energy with virtually no emissions, however, there are environmental impacts associated with their manufacture, installation, and end of life. The work presented examines life cycle environmental impacts of two 2.0 MW wind turbines. Manufacturing, transport, installation, maintenance, and end of life have been considered for both models and are compared using the ReCiPe 2008 impact assessment method. In addition, energy payback analysis was conducted based on the cumulative energy demand and the energy produced by the wind turbines over 20 years. Life cycle assessment revealed that environmental impacts are concentrated in the manufacturing stage, which accounts for 78% of impacts. The energy payback period for the two turbine models are found to be 5.2 and 6.4 months, respectively. Based on the assumptions made, the results of this study can be used to conduct an environmental analysis of a representative wind park to be located in the US Pacific Northwest.

Wind turbine manufacturer Vestas claims that initial energy "payback" is within about 7–9 months of operation for a 1.65-2.0MW wind turbine under low wind conditions,[27][28] whereas Siemens Wind Power calculates 5–10 months depending on circumstances.[29]

[grassfarmer]

Grassfarmer your logic truly escapes me and your belief that you are correct is undoubtably wrong. As I pointed out before if you do 2 minutes of googling you will find that Sundance #3 and #5 have been mothballed until 2021. If you look today on a decidedly windy day in Alberta the wind farms are producing over 1300 MW and only 7 of the 26 simple cycle gas plants are producing power. As you recall I quoted from the website of one of the simple cycle gas generation plants websites that said it was designed to produce power on demand during times of high demand. Your refusal to admit that there are times when windmills do not produce electricity due to the weather shows that your ideology overrules your ability to analyze the numbers put in front of you. Using your logic the AESO is buying wind power today but two weeks ago it was not. What has changed to make wind power more desirable to buy today than natural gas? I would say the fact that it exists today, two weeks ago there was no wind generated power to buy. You inability to comprehend this is beyond my comprehension!!

Nonsense! I have never contested the fact that windfarms sometime don't produce - that's obvious. What I've consistently contested is the assertion that the figures shown on that website show simple production. You've never been able to explain why hydro, gas and coal plants don't produce (according to that site) other than the limited ones you've been able to explain by googling eg Sundance (and misinformation about Sheerness). You did seem to cotton on a few weeks ago about what I was talking about when you came up with the gas plant's mission statement and I congratulated you on that revelation at the time. Fact remains that my suspicion was correct - a year later AB5 and you are finally up to speed about what the figures shown on the AESO website really mean.

[sumdumguy]

What can one say? There is no point arguing with some one who ......

[Hamloc]

Nonsense! I have never contested the fact that windfarms sometime don't produce - that's obvious. What I've consistently contested is the assertion that the figures shown on that website show simple production. You've never been able to explain why hydro, gas and coal plants don't produce (according to that site) other than the limited ones you've been able to explain by googling eg Sundance (and misinformation about Sheerness). You did seem to cotton on a few weeks ago about what I was talking about when you came up with the gas plant's mission statement and I congratulated you on that revelation at the time. Fact remains that my suspicion was correct - a year later AB5 and you are finally up to speed about what the figures shown on the AESO website really mean.

Actually Grassfarmer I would say this is the first time you have been willing to admit that there are periods of time when wind farms do not produce. But I would say that there are times when the AESO chooses whether or not purchase power from a certain production facility and when it is forced to purchase power from a certain facility. An example is when there is no windpower being produced it then turns to the simple cycle gas plants. Your point is that because a production facility is selling no power to the grid doesn't mean it isn't capable of producing power. One question that you seem to refuse to address is which is better for the environment a stand alone natural gas plant producing 1000 MW or a wind farm producing 1000 MW backed up by a solar farm producing 1000 MW backed up by a 1000 MW natural gas facility?!

[grassfarmer]

.....Your point is that because a production facility is selling no power to the grid doesn't mean it isn't capable of producing power

Bingo! now you understand what I've been saying for the last year!
Re your question, which I don't think you've directed towards me before. Quite simple - can you see beyond the end of your nose? Climate change aside fossil fuels are a finite energy supply so we have to be adding other more sustainable energy sources for the future. By ignoring the future beyond 10 years - yes the gas facility may, or may not, be better for the environment but that isn't an option for decades and generations into the future as we don't have the fossil fuel reserves to power a growing population indefinitely.

[Hamloc]

Bingo! now you understand what I've been saying for the last year!
Re your question, which I don't think you've directed towards me before. Quite simple - can you see beyond the end of your nose? Climate change aside fossil fuels are a finite energy supply so we have to be adding other more sustainable energy sources for the future. By ignoring the future beyond 10 years - yes the gas facility may, or may not, be better for the environment but that isn't an option for decades and generations into the future as we don't have the fossil fuel reserves to power a growing population indefinitely.

According to CAPP we have enough natural gas reserves to last 300 years including present exports, so while I agree that fossil fuels are a non renewable resource at present it does not appear we will run out any time soon. If we are worried about how finite our resources are shouldn't we use sources of energy that disturb the least amount of land? How does the production of usable energy per acre compare between solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, hydro an interesting question no one addresses.