A climate success story: How Alberta got off coal power

[Hamloc]

There was a second opinion piece on cc.'s link. This one dealing with BC's emission effort titled "BC behind on climate goals, sets new 2025 emissions target to stay on track". This from BC, " The biggest factor in the gap was a change in data and methodology at the federal level that lowered BC's 2007 baseline estimates.

One would almost think that the rejuggling of data of BC's 2007 baseline estimates by the feds was just recently done. Did it really take the feds 13 years to catch their mistake, or is throwing out existing 2007 baseline data just common practice for the feds? You know, a lot like changing years of weather data to prove temperature has risen in the north so a chart can reflect the prediction. Or in this case, BC, you have got to do better because my changed data beats your data.

Checking good article. I have posted before on how B.C’s much celebrated carbon tax has not lowered emissions. It is odd that B.C is using 2007 as a baseline when everyone else is using 2005. Since all GHG emission reporting data is 2 years behind I predict in 2022 all governments will pat themselves on the back for doing such a good job in 2020!

[chuckChuck]

Alberta's carbon tax on coal fired generation and other large emitters and the resultant change over to natural gas generation is a dramatic example of how fast a carbon tax can work in reducing carbon emissions.

"The story stretches back to 2007, when Alberta instituted North America’s first carbon tax on industry. It was, however, only a small levy, whose extra costs on coal power didn’t make much difference.

The turning point came in 2015. A newly elected New Democratic Party government announced an ambitious climate strategy. Getting off coal by 2030 was a central pillar.

Emissions from power generation were down to 44 megatonnes in 2017. The following year, the NDP’s tougher rules kicked in, and emissions immediately fell. The rules set a pollution target for all power plants to hit, and the dirtier an operation, the more it would pay. Burning coal suddenly became a lot more costly and power companies responded, mostly by turning to natural gas. In 2018, the use of coal plummeted – and emissions fell by a quarter in a single year, to 33 megatonnes.

The transition has not been free or painless. The end of coal reverberates in communities that were built on the industry, and government programs have invested money in hard-hit places like Parkland County.

Alberta is also paying $1.4-billion in compensation to three power companies, money coming out of the province’s carbon tax revenue. Power rates, meanwhile, have remained reasonable.

Despite challenges, the plan is working. The final dominos are starting to fall. In November, TransAlta said it would stop burning coal at the end of 2021. In December, Capital Power said it will be off coal by 2023, as it spends $1-billion to convert two plants to gas."

[blackpowder]

I'm so glad your happy.
Power companies always on the dole.
This was just one more.
Older plants were held together with twine anyway. I can handle a visible distribution charge going up every year.
Heritage costs up every year.
But a tax that costs nothing to hand over to the generators for closing down junk?
By the way we had some newer plants.
At least they're sitting on a back up.

Public service announcement. I wouldn't advise wearing an anti coal hat into several towns in AB.

[chuckChuck]

So does Kenney and his cabinet qualify as anti coal since they kept the NDP carbon tax?

[Sodbuster]

Solar and wind generation will never cut it in the prairie provinces, we need generation 24 hours a day and at this time of year solar only works for a few hours a day and wind is unrealistic for 24 hour electricity. Saskatchewan needs to step up and get working on a nuclear power plant and maybe another power dam. If we keep going down the path of carbon tax this is the only solution for power generation.

[Hamloc]

Alberta's carbon tax on coal fired generation and other large emitters and the resultant change over to natural gas generation is a dramatic example of how fast a carbon tax can work in reducing carbon emissions.

"The story stretches back to 2007, when Alberta instituted North America’s first carbon tax on industry. It was, however, only a small levy, whose extra costs on coal power didn’t make much difference.

The turning point came in 2015. A newly elected New Democratic Party government announced an ambitious climate strategy. Getting off coal by 2030 was a central pillar.

Emissions from power generation were down to 44 megatonnes in 2017. The following year, the NDP’s tougher rules kicked in, and emissions immediately fell. The rules set a pollution target for all power plants to hit, and the dirtier an operation, the more it would pay. Burning coal suddenly became a lot more costly and power companies responded, mostly by turning to natural gas. In 2018, the use of coal plummeted – and emissions fell by a quarter in a single year, to 33 megatonnes.

The transition has not been free or painless. The end of coal reverberates in communities that were built on the industry, and government programs have invested money in hard-hit places like Parkland County.

Alberta is also paying $1.4-billion in compensation to three power companies, money coming out of the province’s carbon tax revenue. Power rates, meanwhile, have remained reasonable.

Despite challenges, the plan is working. The final dominos are starting to fall. In November, TransAlta said it would stop burning coal at the end of 2021. In December, Capital Power said it will be off coal by 2023, as it spends $1-billion to convert two plants to gas."

Already responded to this in post #23.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I still cannot understand why Chuck is cheering this on. Still burning a finite fossil fuel. With the current price of natural gas, and forecasts going forward. Solar and Wind have even less chance of competing against natural gas fired generation than they did against coal. This is a major set back for the economics of renewables. And if CO2 tax is being used to try to tip the scales in favour of the unreliables, then switching to natural gas which releases 50 to 60% less CO2, then this move is making fossil fuels even more affordable than they were.
I think AB has done an end run around Chuck's unreliables, and laughing all the way to the bank, using taxpayer dollars, and he is busy cheering them on, oblivious as usual.
And the best part, the coal is still there, the plants and infrastructure will remain, so when the economics and politics dictate, we can switch back and continue to enjoy (relatively) cheap reliable power compared to those jurisdictions destroying their fossil fuel generation. And take advantage of the export opportunities when reality strikes in those places trying to rely on unreliables.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And even more good news. After producing no electricity at all yesterday (capacity factor of 0%), Brooks solar farm is now all the way up to a capacity factor of 1.3% in the past 7 days.
Meanwhile, wind went from 1 MW yesterday AM up to around 800 by evening. A mere 80,000% increase in under 12 hours. That sounds like a recipe for a stable, reliable grid, and lower costs to the consumer.

[chuckChuck]

And even more good news. After producing no electricity at all yesterday (capacity factor of 0%), Brooks solar farm is now all the way up to a capacity factor of 1.3% in the past 7 days.
Meanwhile, wind went from 1 MW yesterday AM up to around 800 by evening. A mere 80,000% increase in under 12 hours. That sounds like a recipe for a stable, reliable grid, and lower costs to the consumer.

Did your power go out when the wind started generating 800mw? Exactly how do you know how stable the system is or is not when your sitting in your house?

Did you not see the dashboard from King Island just off the coast of Tasmania? Lots of wind and a bio-diesel generator with a couple of features designed to stabilize the grid. 65% of their electricity comes from renewable sources. Not a model to be copied for Alberta but a small example how big a role wind and solar can play in a stable grid system.

But then you have already decided renewables can never work!

the UK hit a record 47% of its electricity from renewables in the first quarter of 2020.

North Dakota gets 27% of its electricity from wind.

I guess the UK and North Dakota must be more examples of renewables that don't work. LOL

[Guest]

And the cow jumped over the moon

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Did your power go out when the wind started generating 800mw? Exactly how do you know how stable the system is or is not when your sitting in your house?

Even at 800 MW, it is still only ~7% of AB's power needs. Manageable with hot spinning reserve of fossil fuel plants. The dreamers who are advocating 100% zero emissions power sources in the near future would somehow remove those fossil fuel plants, and scale the wind and or solar up to 100%. So without fossil fuel back up, there would have needed to be 11,000 times more installed wind energy yesterday night just to keep the lights on, compared to what we have now. Within 12 hours when the wind started blowing, and that increased by 80,000%, it would produce more electricity than the entire north american electrical grid put together. That is not the model of stability, or reliability or cost effectiveness.

What we have now is manageable, if unneccesarily expensive. Try scaling it up and do the math. As California, Australia, Germany, Denmark etc. are learning.

[Guest]

the really stupid thing is ; wind doesn't usually blow at night , sun seldom shines in the middle of the night , the two really compliment each other ??
if only there was something like nuclear ? oh wait.........

[shtferbrains]

On the whole western interconnect solar runs at 13% of nameplate capacity this time of year.
That includes Arizona, Nevada, and most important California where they have huge investment in solar.

As AF5 points out you can't balance that.

Wind is some better but bigger dollars,big money only projects.

So when Chuck says solar is cheap, he is using capital costs ÷ nameplate capacity with no 13% productivity factored in ???

[Guest]

poor chucky , way too many details
he is probably hunting feverishly for comebacks
but they're aren't any

[chuckChuck]

Never said we can function with out a hydro or fossil fuel system backup.

Intermittent renewables can however reduce carbon emissions and are now in many cases the cheapest generation sources even if they require backup.

https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019 https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019

Newly installed renewable power capacity increasingly costs less than the cheapest power generation options based on fossil fuels. The cost data presented in this comprehensive study from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) confirms how decisively the tables have turned.

More than half of the renewable capacity added in 2019 achieved lower electricity costs than new coal. New solar and wind projects are undercutting the cheapest of existing coal-fired plants, the report finds. Auction results show these favourable cost trends for renewables accelerating.

How did the UK hit a record 47% of its electricity from renewables in the first quarter of 2020 if wind and solar don't work? They have obviously found a way to make them work at a high level.

Renewables are being deployed at increasing rates in many countries which speaks for itself.