is the free ride over for grid tied solar?

[Guest]

Here is a couple thoughts Tweety, my average cost of electricity over the year works out to just over 19 cents a kwh. Of that 19 cents 6.8 cents a kwh is generation, the rest is transmission, distribution and administration, so even if the electrical generation is free my cost is 12.2 cents a kwh. A gigajoule of natural gas is the equivalent energy of 277 kwh of electricity which if it was generated for free would still cost me $33.79. A gigajoule of natural gas delivered to my house today all in is $8.55, which is still B.S. because the actual cost of the natural gas is $2.40. I am still getting bent over on natural gas but not as bad as if I had to rely only on electricity. So tweety “get off your butt” and explain how I am wrong!

hamloc , i think your in alberta ?
or someone else, if youre not , how much is carbon tax there?
our house is $101 total , $55 transmission, $29 gas cost, $17 liberal tax(60 % of gas cost) until april , then more

[oneoff]

Using flared gas for electricity and cogeneration is an excellent use of otherwise wasted flare gas. I am just not sure why the province doesn't require all flared gas from the oil patch be put to good use instead of being burned off in flares that are a source of pollution?

But how is burning natural gas carbon neutral? Where does the emitted carbon dioxide go?

I appreciate the tone/tenor of your response and also the questions that deserve answers. You know that any liar should be suffered badly (at best).

My response to how waste flare gas can be considered carbon neutral has been concern to me, as early as the the time it was noticed by myself almost exactly one year ago. The Sask Government (in conjunction with a coordinated plan enacted by the Crown Corporations of SaskPower/SaskEnergy/Ministry of "Economy" (whatever the Regulator of oil production and Sask Minerals is best known) came up with a "made in Sask" response to pressure from the Federal Gov't and I suspect the mood of the more local electorate as far as Environmental/CO2/Global Warming/Other issues.

Maybe they even originally coined the term "CARBON NEUTRAL" in reference to waste flare gas associated with the production of oil reserves in Sask. But your keen eye (chuck) is the first I've ever heard anyone noticing and publically challenging what may very well be argued to be a misnomer. Count me in as asking that same question about 11 months ago.

No one enlightened me what would make presumption to be true...and I have never heard of anyone trying to have that "Carbon Neutral designation" stricken down.

If it were to be debated; I would say that to find a productive use for what has most always been seen as worthless product that cost at least the value of a match to incinerate into the atmosphere...and doesn't produce an iota more CO2 if put through an internal combustion engine to produce electricity and preferably additionally capture the waste heat through cogeneration.....that that objective is objectional in any way.


A whole lot like using fossil fuel energy in the effort to make and transport aluminum turbine blades or solar arrays to attempt to augment and incorporate into our demands to keep warm, manufacture needed products and make life somewhat sustainable and dare I say it; even enjoyable and worthwhile at least part of the time.


Now...as for where the CO2 goes; it obviously goes into the CO2 cycle. Some of that cycle is essential for making and transporting the vaccine that will be a game changer if the deniers and liars and totally unqualified believers have their personal beliefs become a fact of life or death. And until that flare gas all gets gathered up (except for the raw methane/light hydrocarbons that have already been largely 100% wasted from day one of the oil industry's history).... as has been said; lets use this carbon neutral resource to very necessary ends at closest to extracting 100% of the 1500 some BTU energy content per standard cubic foot as we can squeeze out.

I could point readers to the document released by the provincial government (about a year ago) that most clearly gives a "mission" statement and was designed to keep the provincial government in control of primary resource production and royalties/taxes etc (oil and minerals) that was won from the federal government probably back in the 1930's.

All you need to remember to prove that statement true is that the provincial government (at least in Western Canada) are the ones that licence oil wells etc. and formulate the regulations (and collect any carbon tax on primary production: if any and how much). And the price (as I understood it a year ago) is the tax will increase along with and in line with the Federal $50 per ton schedule until that $50 is reached. I know that the provincial government exempted "small emitters" of less than 90,000 tons CO2 equivalent per year; and provided offsetting royalty schedules etc. for projects that were carbon neutral/CO2 friendly AND there was a line in the provincial government plan that wisely will cover the proposed Federal $170 per tonne CO2 tax that would have automatically become the new additional money grab for taxes that might be due to the Sask Government in regards to our MADE IN SASK CARBON NEUTRAL/Provincial government response to the Carbon management issues.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I randomly select Dec 21 of every year to evaluate solar energy production. Take this number and multiply it by 365 to get your annual production.

Correct. Without the luxury of taking advantage of all other unwilling market participants by using the grid as supposed storage for free, Dec 21 is going to be the shortest stave in the barrel of energy to your farm. Coinciding with almost the highest energy needs on most farms.

If you can engineer a stand alone solar system that can power all of your farms needs on Dec 21, it will by default be sufficient on every other day of the year.

As was pointed out above. Solar energy at noon on June 21 is worth approximately nothing when market forces are permitted to prevail. Solar energy after dark is worth infinite times more without grid storage.
The Australia "trial" is using the very conservative multiplier of 8 to influence people to structure their lives around energy production. In reality, the number is infinitely larger.

[oneoff]

[QUOTE=chuckChuck;479374] I am just not sure why the province doesn't require all flared gas from the oil patch be put to good use instead of being burned off in flares that are a source of pollution?
The obvious undeniable reason is that it is a waste of resources of all kinds; to spend more money than can be justified without also looking at the causes that make a project not viable.
For instance; should a one inch polyethylene pipe (to be buried/trenched in) with a meter of cover be required to meet CSA standards concerning the trenching. And now we are one the verge of licensing all lines for taxation etc purposes. Meaning just like your $10000 or 20000 or $100000 quote for even getting a Sask Energy service is quoted at that because you can't rent a "three" foot trencher; buy the hose at 88 cents a foot and even volunteer to pay for the 4000 foot roll be spooled into that trench under proper utility supervision that might take a couple of hours. Is there no leeway to make some projects less onerous and still be well within all safety requirements?

Is practicality and reality and common sense lost until the system does collapse and we probably start back over close to the stone ages?

And both chuck and I should know; all associated gas is not equal. Most need a gas plant treatment and isn't compatible for raw use either by man or machine. And while all new wells are produced with some sort of gathering system... all wells were not drilled yesterday; and not all wells are anywhere near and prooductive or viable if all current red tape must be adhered to and any and all costs paid. I ask just when the can stops being kicked down the road for suspended wells; abandoned and decommissioned well bores? The day is near for RM's to notice that the "owners" can't or won't be paying even their municipal taxes as well as the associated well site lease payments.

[Hamloc]

Here's another thought and maybe this is what AB5 was getting at. People like Tweety or Chuck would consider putting grid tied solar panels up to be innovative. Well if solar power is so cheap then what a person is payed for excess power generated by solar would be payed at a reduced rate during the day and then you would buy more expensive power back at night, now that is innovation!!!

[chuckChuck]

Correct. Without the luxury of taking advantage of all other unwilling market participants by using the grid as supposed storage for free, Dec 21 is going to be the shortest stave in the barrel of energy to your farm. Coinciding with almost the highest energy needs on most farms.

If you can engineer a stand alone solar system that can power all of your farms needs on Dec 21, it will by default be sufficient on every other day of the year.

As was pointed out above. Solar energy at noon on June 21 is worth approximately nothing when market forces are permitted to prevail. Solar energy after dark is worth infinite times more without grid storage.
The Australia "trial" is using the very conservative multiplier of 8 to influence people to structure their lives around energy production. In reality, the number is infinitely larger.

On this farm the peak electricity demand occurs during aeration fan season in August and September October farm when solar is producing substantially more than Dec 21.

Irrigation farms are also using solar systems to cover off some of their large demand during the growing season.

Both examples fit reasonably well with the solar resource.

In warmer climates, air conditioning and industrial use generate large demand during the day when solar can cover a lot of usage.

Solar cannot replace the grid without large amounts of storage. Perhaps solid state batteries will make this more affordable for residential customers . Other forms of storage may be developed as well.

A solar kwh produced and used on this farm or by any other person or business,is a kwh that is not produced by other generation sources. This is especially important when considering reducing carbon emissions which is what almost every government in the world is trying to do.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Here's another thought and maybe this is what AB5 was getting at. People like Tweety or Chuck would consider putting grid tied solar panels up to be innovative. Well if solar power is so cheap then what a person is payed for excess power generated by solar would be payed at a reduced rate during the day and then you would buy more expensive power back at night, now that is innovation!!!

And that is why I started the thread. That is the only conceivable outcome of building more solar. It reaches a saturation point where it is less than worthless while the sun shines. And infinitely valuable when it doesn't. The question remains, do all users get to pay for this exercise in futility, or only those who contribute to it? And that saturation point is preposterously low in our climate.

At what point do the utilities or their regulators pronounce that any additional solar will tip the balance into making it worthless, and when they do, do they grandfather in the early adopters, who get to continue with the free ride, or will equal opportunity be denied to anyone trying to join the gravy train too late? Can't be the latter in Chuck's world of equality, because that would be racist or sexist or agist some other "ist", can't be the former since that would make Chuck's infrastructure worthless. He will have a conundrum.

[tweety]

So in your mind it would be innovative if I install battery storage on my farm so I could purchase more electricity during the day at a lower price to be used at night so that I don’t have to pay a higher price for electricity during peak demand periods. So really you want me to take my capital and spend it to compensate for bad decisions made by government in relation to electrical generation policy, fml!

No, it would be innovative to require much less power to achieve the task. Why don't you discuss that?

[Guest]

hows the new job ?

[shtferbrains]

When you talk battery storage think about your battery back up for your computer.
It will supply power for about enough time to get prepared to have no power. Shut everything down that is not essential.
Again not well suited to our conditions.
Mostly pipe dream bullshit.