Here we go again

[chuckChuck]

You must be under the mistaken idea that somebody said intermittent wind and solar would quickly replace all fossil fuel sources in the near future. The AESO is certainly not saying that nor am I.

What wind and solar can do is reduce the amount of fossil fuels used and reduce carbon emissions.

Why are you opposed to using unlimited free sources of low cost energy like wind and solar to supplement fossil sources, hydro, gas, bio-mass, cogeneration, nuclear in some places? Coal is on its way out because gas makes more sense with 50% less carbon emissions.

Keystone XL was planning to use renewable energy to run its pipeline.

As I said to A5 look at what the AESO is saying about their current integration of renewables and their plan to integrate more.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You must be under the mistaken idea that somebody said intermittent wind and solar would quickly replace all fossil fuel sources in the near future. The AESO is certainly not saying that nor am I.

What wind and solar can do is reduce the amount of fossil fuels used and reduce carbon emissions.

Why are you opposed to using unlimited free sources of low cost energy like wind and solar to supplement fossil sources, hydro, gas, bio-mass, cogeneration, nuclear in some places? Coal is on its way out because gas makes more sense with 50% less carbon emissions.

Keystone XL was planning to use renewable energy to run its pipeline.

As I said to A5 look at what the AESO is saying about their current integration of renewables and their plan to integrate more.

Your homework for the day is to look back at what the regulators and utilities in California, Ontario, Germany, Australia, Britain etc. were saying about their plans to integrate large percentage of unreliables into their network back before they exceeded the saturation point, then compare that to the results they are grappling with at this time. Then tell us how much credit we should give future pie in the sky renewable schemes proposed by any other area.
Really, please do this so you can either stop with the worthless comeback of " why don't you ask...?" And have a meaningful informed conversation.
Please.

[Hamloc]

After a quick bit of research I see that the Tesla built mega battery in Horndale, Australia can release 185 megawatt hours of electricity, or expressed a different way it can produce 185 megawatts for 1 hour. It cost $232 million Australian dollars to build. I looked this morning it takes $1.02 Australian dollars to buy a Canadian one. Alberta current power use at 7:37 this morning was 10800 megawatts. So for battery storage to supply electricity to Alberta for one hour would require 58.38 of these batteries at a construction cost of $13 278 587 000 Canadian dollars. Seems reasonable doesn’t it? At 7:37 this morning Alberta’s 23 wind farms were producing an impressive 10 megawatts of electricity, that will charge a lot of batteries!!!

[chuckChuck]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...UquG--_UlRg%3D https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...UquG--_UlRg%3D

A systematic review of the costs and impacts of integrating variable renewables into power grids Philip J. Heptonstalland Robert J. K. Gross

The impact of variable renewable energy (VRE) sources on an electricity system depends on technological characteristics, demand, regulatory practices and renewable resources. The costs of integrating wind or solar power into electricity networks have been debated for decades yet remain controversial and often misunderstood. Here we undertake a systematic review of the international evidence on the cost and impact of integrating wind and solar to provide policymakers with evidence to inform strategic choices about which technologies to support. We find a wide range of costs across the literature that depend largely on the price and availability of flexible system operation. Costs are small at low penetrations of VRE and can even be negative. Data are scarce at high penetrations, but show that the range widens. Nonetheless, VRE sources can be a key part of a least-cost route to decarbonization.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/AESO-Dispatchable-Renewables-Storage-Report-May2018.pdf https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/AESO-Dispatchable-Renewables-Storage-Report-May2018.pdf

1.4 Assessing renewables integration requirements The AESO performed a comprehensive reliability and flexibility analysis to determine the impact of integrating 30 per cent intermittent renewable into the power system by 2030. This included conducting power system and market studies based on the AESO 2017 Long-term Transmission Plan (LTP) and the AESO 2017 Long-term Outlook (LTO), respectively. Two market simulation scenarios were studied to assess the future variability on the system as more intermittent renewables are integrated: a Moderate Coal-to-gas Conversion (2018−MCTG) scenario with 2,400 MW of existing coal converted to gas, and a High Coal-to-gas Conversion (2018−HCTG) scenario with 5,300 MW of existing coal converted to gas. The scenarios were modified from the LTO to incorporate higher wind generation, replacing some hydro and solar. Various power system studies were performed to assess overall transmission reliability, including system adequacy, voltage and system stability, and system inertia. The results confirmed that there were no material challenges forecast. Current transmission development plans identified in the LTP will enable integration of the forecast level of renewables.As expected, variability increases as additional intermittent wind generation is added to the grid. However, the increase in variability occurs at a slower rate than wind additions due to the forecast regional diversity of wind connecting across the province. The size and frequency of 2018 system ramps increase, with 10-minute ramp sizes doubling to the 300–400 MW range, and the 60-minute ramp sizes doubling to the 1,400–1,600 MW range in 2030.Supply surplus situations are forecast to become slightly more frequent in the 2025 time period, but remain marginal at less than one per cent of total renewable generation through to 2030.The current approach of procuring flexibility and ramping capability through the procurement of electricity in the energy market, and regulating reserves in the ancillary services market, is forecast to provide sufficient flexibility to meet the forecast increase in variability and ramping to 2030. Reliability performance metrics remain within threshold levels through to 2030. As such, the AESO does not see a requirement to procure any additional flexibility or ramping capability via dispatchable renewables at this time.

[shtferbrains]

How can you say data is scarce?
The western interconnection that includes Nevada,Arizona, and California has shown a best of 27% utilization in the summer with only 17% in winter for solar.

Hasn't realy improved much with all the expansion.

It's not the corporations that decided to go solar in California, it's a local committee of people like Chuck.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

How can you say data is scarce?
The western interconnection that includes Nevada,Arizona, and California has shown a best of 27% utilization in the summer with only 17% in winter for solar.

Hasn't realy improved much with all the expansion.

It's not the corporations that decided to go solar in California, it's a local committee of people like Chuck.

When you have an agenda, you can say data is scarce. Is it much preferable to acknowledging that the years of data from all over the world all point to the inescapable conclusion that at high penetrations, unreliables are a catastrophe.

Apparently Chuck hasn't yet found any old articles where the jurisdictions I listed correctly predicted that their policies would result in massive cost increases, rationing, black outs brown outs, etc. If these organizations are so good at predicting the future, they should have been able to predict the current catastrophe. If not, then I wouldn't trust their current prognostications.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

After a quick bit of research I see that the Tesla built mega battery in Horndale, Australia can release 185 megawatt hours of electricity, or expressed a different way it can produce 185 megawatts for 1 hour. It cost $232 million Australian dollars to build. I looked this morning it takes $1.02 Australian dollars to buy a Canadian one. Alberta current power use at 7:37 this morning was 10800 megawatts. So for battery storage to supply electricity to Alberta for one hour would require 58.38 of these batteries at a construction cost of $13 278 587 000 Canadian dollars. Seems reasonable doesn’t it? At 7:37 this morning Alberta’s 23 wind farms were producing an impressive 10 megawatts of electricity, that will charge a lot of batteries!!!

You spoke too soon. As of 9:33, output from AB wind was 0 MW. But I'm sure Grassfarmer will be reincarnated to tell me that I just don't know how to read the AESO website.

[chuckChuck]

How can you say data is scarce?
The western interconnection that includes Nevada,Arizona, and California has shown a best of 27% utilization in the summer with only 17% in winter for solar.

Hasn't realy improved much with all the expansion.

It's not the corporations that decided to go solar in California, it's a local committee of people like Chuck.

The authors of the paper written a few years ago said the data on larger integration of renewables was scarce. I am not sure whether they looked at the western US in their review. Nor is it clear what category that the US at that time, was in.

But their conclusion was the costs of integrating renewables was quite variable, with much depending on the amount of renewables and the specific situation of each grid system.

In the AESO report on Alberta, it clearly said that by 2030 with 30% renewable penetration "Various power system studies were performed to assess overall transmission reliability, including system adequacy, voltage and system stability, and system inertia. The results confirmed that there were no material challenges forecast. "

I see A5 is trying quickly to change the subject because the AESO report clearly proves that his prophecies of doom are incorrect. Also that A5s generalizations that the cost of renewables always results in much higher prices are also wrong.

You better do your own homework!

[shtferbrains]

The report clearly proves "someone" did studies.

The data says 17% winter 27% summer incuding the largest,most favourable locations in North America.

That's not a studu

[chuckChuck]

The report clearly proves "someone" did studies.

The data says 17% winter 27% summer incuding the largest,most favourable locations in North America.

That's not a studu

I am just not sure how the AESO or any corporation would function if it didn't due studies and analysis of their plans for adoption of any generation source?

Your focus is on solar in a huge area of the western interconnection that includes states with and without a lot of solar.

What about wind which is clearly a bigger player in Alberta's plans? Is the AESO wrong about 30% renewables by 2030 causing no material challenges? If so who is saying that?

Surely they don't rely on farmers on social media to decide whether it will work or not! LOL

Apparently A5 already knows it wont work! But just like some his other delusions, he presents no actual facts, evidence or studies to backup his opinions. That's why I said ask the AESO to explain it.

[Hamloc]

I am just not sure how the AESO or any corporation would function if it didn't due studies and analysis of their plans for adoption of any generation source?

Your focus is on solar in a huge area of the western interconnection that includes states with and without a lot of solar.

What about wind which is clearly a bigger player in Alberta's plans? Is the AESO wrong about 30% renewables by 2030 causing no material challenges? If so who is saying that?

Surely they don't rely on farmers on social media to decide whether it will work or not! LOL

Apparently A5 already knows it wont work! But just like some his other delusions, he presents no actual facts, evidence or studies to backup his opinions. That's why I said ask the AESO to explain it.

Again another non answer, you did not address the fact and not a mythical computer model that there are extended periods of next to zero electrical generation from wind. You also did not address the cost or scope of battery storage and how short of a period it could release power for before requiring recharging.

I on the other hand have no problem addressing some of your thoughts directly. In regards to 30% renewables very simple. At present Alberta has 16403 megawatts of generation capacity, 30% of that is 4921 megawatts. 16403 - 4921 = 11482 megawatts of dependable not intermittent generation. Alberta’s electrical demand peaks at just over 11000 megawatts meaning that in most situations Alberta can satisfy its electrical needs without depending on renewables(unreliable imo) for a single watt of generation at 30% penetration. But what is funny is that even at 30% penetration in generation capacity there would be days when over 90% of Alberta’s power would still have to come from fossil fuels. If Alberta installed nuclear power generation this wouldn’t be the case! So Chuck2 I would say that factual numbers show that it is you that is deluded not AB5!!!

[Hamloc]

You spoke too soon. As of 9:33, output from AB wind was 0 MW. But I'm sure Grassfarmer will be reincarnated to tell me that I just don't know how to read the AESO website.

12:55 pm AB5 wind still at 0 and Brooks solar farm pumping out a whopping 2 megawatts out of a potential 15, 13.3% efficiency. A beautiful sunny day where I am maybe not in Brooks!

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc, everybody know wind and solar are intermittment. They don't need to run all the time to reduce carbon emissions. Look at the annual output instead of cherry picking low producing days. Both wind and solar are supplemental and part of Alberta's effort to shut down coal and reduce emissions.

When wind and solar are putting out, gas and other generation sources can be ramped down. As you can see Alberta has more than enough electricity without wind and solar. We knew this already. So does the AESO.

Whether you agree with it or not, several energy companies are investing in more wind and solar as a cost effective way to reduce Alberta's dependence on fossil fuels.

If nuclear is currently an economic option why would Alberta not be building nuclear capacity instead of converting coal to gas and installing renewables?

Obviously nuclear is one of the more expensive options. It may still be used to completely phase out fossil fuels. The federal government has nuclear on its list of options to address climate change. Are you willing to pay higher prices for a nuclear only solution and get rid of fossil fuel generation?

[Hamloc]

Hamloc, everybody know wind and solar are intermittment. They don't need to run all the time to reduce carbon emissions. Look at the annual output instead of cherry picking low producing days. Both wind and solar are supplemental and part of Alberta's effort to shut down coal and reduce emissions.

When wind and solar are putting out, gas and other generation sources can be ramped down. As you can see Alberta has more than enough electricity without wind and solar. We knew this already. So does the AESO.

Whether you agree with it or not, several energy companies are investing in more wind and solar as a cost effective way to reduce Alberta's dependence on fossil fuels.

If nuclear is currently an economic option why would Alberta not be building nuclear capacity instead of converting coal to gas and installing renewables?


Obviously nuclear is one of the more expensive options. It may still be used to completely phase out fossil fuels. The federal government has nuclear on its list of options to address climate change. Are you willing to pay higher prices for a nuclear only solution and get rid of fossil fuel generation?

As I look at 8:16 this morning wind is producing 3 megawatts out of a potential 1781. On a positive note for all of the wind power lovers a chinook is forecast for this weekend so the idle wind turbines should spin again.

As for higher prices, Justin Trudeau’s infatuation with carbon taxes will assure that the price of fossil fuel generated power will rise and it won’t be very many years before the nuclear option will become quite affordable. As for why renewables are being installed instead of nuclear, democracy’s work on a very short cycle, getting re-elected is far more important than sound public policy. Besides in my opinion the majority of the population has no idea how intermittent renewable energy is all they listen to are 30 second sound bites about how wonderful green energy will be. Look at yourself Chuck2, your ideology overrides actual factual production numbers and you still think that Chinese manufactured solar panels are the answer.

When gas prices went up I bought a smaller fuel efficient suv to do parts runs but I kept my higher fuel consuming Avalanche because their were times I still needed it. So yes for every kilometre I drive my Equinox I burn less fuel but was it better for the environment overall that I have 2 vehicles to do the job of one. No different than putting in a solar installation, a wind installation and a natural gas installation all to in the end supply the same megawatt of electricity!!!