Test Has Solar and Wind generation reduced electricity costs in Alberta? Test

Rural Issues

Tools

Has Solar and Wind generation reduced electricity costs in Alberta?

Test
Dec 24, 2022 | 09:34 1 Chuck2 is always promoting how Wind and Solar are the least expensive way to add capacity to increase electrical generation capacity. So I looked at the price of electricity over the last year in Alberta and how much if any wind and solar generation had been added to the grid.
December 2021 Alberta had 2269 megawatts of wind generation capacity, December 2022 Alberta has 3618 megawatts of wind generation capacity, so an increase of 59% over the last year.
December 2021 Alberta had 336 megawatts of solar generation capacity, December 2022 Alberta has 1138 megawatts of solar generation capacity, so an increase of 338% over the last year.
From an article by Adam Toy, Global News, December 23, 2022 titled”Albertan’s to get some protection from rising electricity rates.”
December prices for the Regulated Rate Option from Enmax, Epcor and Direct Energy ranged from 22 to 24.5 cents a kwh. This price is expected to rise another 5 cents a kwh in January. In January of 2022 those prices hovered around 16 cents a kwh.
The Regulated Rate option is a fluctuating rate which more accurately reflects up to date market conditions. Personally I am on a fixed rate 5 year contract through Enmax at a much lower rate. At present government mandated de carbonization has not moderated electricity prices. Increasing carbon taxes, the legislated shut down of coal generating facilities and the large increase in solar and wind generation has done nothing to make electricity cheaper, in fact just the opposite. Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2022 | 09:49 2 And it appears that the price of Alberta natural gas is almost exactly the same level today as it was one year ago. And that is still the dominant source of electricity generation in alberta. So this is an excellent comparison with all things being equal except for the percentage of solar and wind generation. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Dec 24, 2022 | 09:55 3 Good question.

    To answer it you need the AESO to look at the very complex deregulated system and all the increasing costs in the system. Because generation is only a portion of the system costs.

    So what was the additional costs of the shutdown of coal plants and transition to gas?

    We already know you are going to blame all the additional costs on solar and wind facilities even without any credible and independent analysis and evidence.

    But you can't change the fact that solar and wind are some of the lowest cost new sources of electricity generation in many parts of the world. So says Bloomberg and the IEA. Reply With Quote
    Dec 24, 2022 | 10:12 4
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Good question.

    To answer it you need the AESO to look at the very complex deregulated system and all the increasing costs in the system. Because generation is only a portion of the system costs.

    So what was the additional costs of the shutdown of coal plants and transition to gas?

    We already know you are going to blame all the additional costs on solar and wind facilities even without any credible and independent analysis and evidence.

    But you can't change the fact that solar and wind are some of the lowest cost new sources of electricity generation in many parts of the world. So says Bloomberg and the IEA.
    Chuck, do you remember a few days ago when you finally acknowledged that there's a difference between actual generation and capacity?
    Well, you have regressed to once again confusing the two. This reminds me a lot of the struggle I had trying to convince you that science isn't something that requires belief. It went on for years as you kept regressing back to using that irrational statement over and over and over again. Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • Dec 24, 2022 | 10:24 5 But you don't know what are all the causes of rising electricity costs in Alberta? LOL

    The costs of solar and wind calculated by Bloomberg and the IEA are based not on capacity but actual generation.

    So the fact that solar actually only produces about 15% of its installed capacity in Alberta is taken into account.

    In other sunnier drier locations around the world the actual generation will be higher.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Dec 24, 2022 at 10:28.
    Reply With Quote
    Dec 26, 2022 | 09:39 6
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Good question.

    To answer it you need the AESO to look at the very complex deregulated system and all the increasing costs in the system. Because generation is only a portion of the system costs.

    So what was the additional costs of the shutdown of coal plants and transition to gas?

    We already know you are going to blame all the additional costs on solar and wind facilities even without any credible and independent analysis and evidence.

    But you can't change the fact that solar and wind are some of the lowest cost new sources of electricity generation in many parts of the world. So says Bloomberg and the IEA.
    Chuck2 some of the increased costs are related to forced de-carbonization or in Alberta’s case a forced shutdown or conversion of coal fired plants. As you point out electrical generators had to be compensated for shutting down coal plants long before they were intended. The newest ones were originally forecast to be used until 2060. I believe there is a charge added to our monthly bill(well hidden) that goes to reimburse the companies for this cost.

    The carbon tax certainly plays a role with 70-80% of our electricity coming from natural gas there is no doubt a carbon tax applied to the natural gas. This will increase over time, to some extent locking in more expensive electrical generation costs.

    In our last cold snap the limitations of wind and solar were clearly demonstrated. A quote from Capital power CEO Brian Vaasjo:”Looking at the mix of what’s generating electricity in the province this week, one can clearly see the critical role of gas. There’s very little wind and solar is limited during the day and obviously none at night. It demonstrates renewables create significant levels of energy when nature is working with you, but it isn’t dispatchable — it is not reliable.” Pretty well sums it up. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • cropgrower's Avatar Dec 26, 2022 | 10:10 7 yes just a fair weather friend , abandons you when you need them most ! Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Dec 26, 2022 | 12:11 8
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
    Chuck2 some of the increased costs are related to forced de-carbonization or in Alberta’s case a forced shutdown or conversion of coal fired plants. As you point out electrical generators had to be compensated for shutting down coal plants long before they were intended. The newest ones were originally forecast to be used until 2060. I believe there is a charge added to our monthly bill(well hidden) that goes to reimburse the companies for this cost.

    The carbon tax certainly plays a role with 70-80% of our electricity coming from natural gas there is no doubt a carbon tax applied to the natural gas. This will increase over time, to some extent locking in more expensive electrical generation costs.

    In our last cold snap the limitations of wind and solar were clearly demonstrated. A quote from Capital power CEO Brian Vaasjo:”Looking at the mix of what’s generating electricity in the province this week, one can clearly see the critical role of gas. There’s very little wind and solar is limited during the day and obviously none at night. It demonstrates renewables create significant levels of energy when nature is working with you, but it isn’t dispatchable — it is not reliable.” Pretty well sums it up.
    He will call you “hammy” soon and hit you with an lol Reply With Quote

  • Dec 26, 2022 | 13:54 9 I find it interesting that because 40% of the cost of our farms electricity is transmission line charges… and service charges, going ‘ off grid ‘ with solar and wind charging , as batteries cost and efficiency increases… means it will be cost effective to power our farm residence and offices off grid.

    In fact with a Natural Gas Electric Generation , it may well be least cost to transition to completely off grid… if administration and transmission costs are not brought into reasonable values.

    I do not plan to sell any electricity back to the grid.

    It is a brave new world… for those with initiative and imagination!!!

    The cost of money increasing exponentially , as has happened in the past 6 months, as with war in Ukraine; is certainly counterproductive to going to off grid electrical generation. The CO2 issue is a red herring. Nothing to do with ‘Climate Change’ … which is impossible to prove… and a scientifically unacceptable theory.

    Blessings and Salutations Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Dec 28, 2022 | 12:25 10 Remember that time Chuck was half joking about being a Russian operative?
    Well I'm sure he hasn't got a clue who's agenda he is furthering with his support of the supposed green nonsense.
    But all of the facts indicate that Russia has been the largest contributor to the anti pipeline and anti fracing movements.
    While the self righteous useful idiots keep parroting their anti Russian propaganda.

    Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...n-new-england/ Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • fjlip's Avatar Dec 28, 2022 | 13:31 11 "The CO2 issue is a red herring. Nothing to do with ‘Climate Change’ … which is impossible to prove… and a scientifically unacceptable theory."

    Ditto, a must like, most everything is IMPOSSIBLE to prove, it's "all believe"

    Name:  C02.JPG
Views: 345
Size:  48.2 KB Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Dec 29, 2022 | 15:59 12 If you all can ,or want to remember our elec system was operating fine until Ralph and co decided to deregulate(reregulate) it turned out to be and it has been in a constant state of money grubing ever since. Reply With Quote
    Dec 30, 2022 | 07:16 13 If you live in "socialist" Saskatchewan the Sask Party comrades prefer lower regulated rates and more control over what the state owned utility Sask Power does.

    I doubt that the private sector in Alberta or Saskatchewan would build a small nuclear reactor because they are unproven and the most expensive way to generate electricity.

    But meanwhile back at the Sask Party's "socialist" headquarters, they are working hard to lay the groundwork to subsidize the hell out of one, by making taxpayers and rate payers for it and will politically interfere in the "business" decisions of Sask Power. Reply With Quote
    Dec 30, 2022 | 18:32 14 the solar dream , well chucky , it has just died, as has wind . sorry but the unwoke have awoken
    germany has made it glaringly obvious
    if you are still not sure ; google new coal fired generators worldwide, and get a new news feed Reply With Quote

  • Dec 30, 2022 | 22:47 15 As all farmers know the weather gods can be fickle.
    The Germans made many sacrifices and worshiped with enthusiasm but the gods have disappointed them.
    Now is back to the devil the know.
    The new climate religion being questioned? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 2, 2023 | 08:43 16 Here is my solar production on January 1 around noon in watts. The total output is 18124 watts from a 25000 watt system which is 72% of the capacity. Not bad production in the middle of winter when the sun is very low. The days are short, but if the sun is shining you can capture a significant amount of energy.

    Name:  IMG_5029.jpg
Views: 224
Size:  66.3 KBName:  IMG_5030.jpg
Views: 225
Size:  73.0 KB Reply With Quote
    Jan 2, 2023 | 08:45 17 Here is the total 2022 production which is 34249 kwh which is slightly below average.

    Name:  IMG_5024.jpg
Views: 223
Size:  73.7 KBName:  IMG_5022.jpg
Views: 217
Size:  68.4 KB Reply With Quote

  • Jan 2, 2023 | 09:35 18 Chuck2 Alberta has 29 industrial solar farms. I looked on Dispatcho to see how they performed over the last 24 hrs. Of the 29 facilities 5 has a capacity factor of 0. On the rest the capacity factor ranched from .8% at Michichi(just north of Drumheller) to the best performing one at Monarch with a capacity factor of 14.1%. So Chuck2 say what you will, not really reliable or bankable, just like the weather, you can only take what you are given. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jan 2, 2023 | 12:29 19 Imaginary solar panels have a much better track record Reply With Quote

  • Jan 2, 2023 | 14:30 20
    Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
    Imaginary solar panels have a much better track record
    As usual, Chucks imaginary panels have a drastically better track record than the commercial grid scale installations in sunny alberta.

    I just checked the solar farm closest to me at innisfail. Hasn't even hit 50% in well over a month. I remember checking this in the past, and none of the Alberta solar farms got anywhere close to the output that Chuck's did. But chucks make 72% on a random midwinter afternoon.
    As the saying goes, the first liar doesn't stand a chance.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jan 2, 2023 at 15:31.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 2, 2023 | 17:31 21 And todays the first day we have had any sun in sask
    Maybe it shines more in Meota? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 3, 2023 | 08:41 22 When you call my solar panels and actual output from my inverters imaginary you have obviously given up and have nothing else intelligent to say.

    I guess since most of you have no direct experience with solar PV how would you really know what they are capable of?

    And how do you know whether it is sunny or cloudy across the whole province at any particular time?

    And how do you know if all the the large scale solar PV systems in Alberta are free of snow or receiving full sun? Mine are regularly cleaned off.

    But I don't expect the flat earthers to ever change their minds, so not to worry. Reply With Quote
    Jan 3, 2023 | 09:09 23
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    When you call my solar panels and actual output from my inverters imaginary you have obviously given up and have nothing else intelligent to say.

    I guess since most of you have no direct experience with solar PV how would you really know what they are capable of?

    And how do you know whether it is sunny or cloudy across the whole province at any particular time?

    And how do you know if all the the large scale solar PV systems in Alberta are free of snow or receiving full sun? Mine are regularly cleaned off.

    But I don't expect the flat earthers to ever change their minds, so not to worry.
    You raise an interesting point Chuck2. You have pointed out how harvesting energy from Mother Nature can be affected by Mother Nature. How difficult would it be to clean off a 160 acre solar farm? How much snow would it take to make it impassable and impossible to remove the snow? There is a RV park about 3 miles from my home, used to be run by the provincial government, it is now owned and run by the Métis. After they took over they installed a ground mount solar system.(with our tax money no doubt).The last couple of times I drove by there the solar panels were covered with snow, not as energetic as you I guess Chuck2.

    Just had a quick look Chuck2, 6 of 29 solar farms had a capacity factor of zero over the last 24 hours. As far as I know there hasn’t been any snow in Alberta for 4-5 days. As I have said many many times, solar power is fine just don’t attempt to tell me it is the answer. It will not work 24 hrs. a day, 365 days a year. People like David Suzuki who promote wind and solar as the answer to our electricity generation needs are in my opinion wrong. Yes Solar can generate electricity, yes while the sun shines it can displace fossil fuel generation but it cannot be depended on for base load generation, that simple. Reply With Quote
    Jan 3, 2023 | 09:17 24 Agreed and i have never said that solar will replace base load.

    And everybody is well aware that solar is intermittent and production in winter is much lower.

    That's why you need to look at the whole years production which displaces other sources and reduces emissions. In the summer sping and fall my panels often produce more than I can use. But someone is using the surplus.

    The future will involve storage of renewables which will make them even more valuable. Reply With Quote
    Jan 3, 2023 | 09:41 25
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    When you call my solar panels and actual output from my inverters imaginary you have obviously given up and have nothing else intelligent to say.

    I guess since most of you have no direct experience with solar PV how would you really know what they are capable of?

    And how do you know whether it is sunny or cloudy across the whole province at any particular time?

    And how do you know if all the the large scale solar PV systems in Alberta are free of snow or receiving full sun? Mine are regularly cleaned off.

    But I don't expect the flat earthers to ever change their minds, so not to worry.
    Well then quit preaching to us Reply With Quote
    fjlip's Avatar Jan 3, 2023 | 09:47 26 Nobody wants HEAT and electricity...."sometimes". It's ALL the time. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 3, 2023 | 10:06 27
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Agreed and i have never said that solar will replace base load.

    And everybody is well aware that solar is intermittent and production in winter is much lower.

    That's why you need to look at the whole years production which displaces other sources and reduces emissions. In the summer sping and fall my panels often produce more than I can use. But someone is using the surplus.

    The future will involve storage of renewables which will make them even more valuable.
    Here is why renewables don’t and won’t make electricity more affordable. It used to be we had coal fired generation which could supply electricity 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year(except when shut down for maintenance or repairs). Now to supply that same kilowatt you have solar backed up by wind backed up by storage backed up by natural gas. Now as you say solar is the cheapest way of adding capacity but to create that kilowatt from solar 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year you will require other forms of energy generation plus the power lines to distribute it. A natural gas generator will have to be payed something for the existence of this capacity whether it is used every day or not. So in reality, is solar and wind cheap capacity, maybe but it won’t be the cheapest production when everything is factored in. Instead of 1 large centralized facility it might take 4 plus additional power lines. In the end electricity will be far more expensive!!!! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 4, 2023 | 08:41 28 Of course there will be increasing costs for electricity. Prices have long been going up before any significant amount of renewables were in the system simply because of inflation.

    When i looked at Saskpower rates they increased about 3% per year over the 10 years before I purchased a solar system.

    As we switch from fossil fuels to lower carbon generation sources like gas there are additional costs with new builds.

    If nuclear is added as a generation source, this will also increase costs as it is the highest cost generation option that will require a lot of government subsidies.

    In reality reducing carbon emissions and building more generation capacity to electrify more of our energy needs will cost a significant amount.

    The question is what are the lowest cost options to reduce emissions that will help keep system costs lower.

    Its pretty clear that the costs of renewables are some of the lowest cost new generation sources available and will play a significant role in most electrical systems around the world to greater or lesser degrees depending on local circumstances.

    But to suggest that renewables should not be used to reduce emissions because they don't work or add too much cost to the system is not accurate if you look at what is happening in many parts of the world including Alberta.

    Both Sask Power and the private sector under the AESO are using renewables in their systems which indicates they are good investments. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 4, 2023 | 09:01 29
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Of course there will be increasing costs for electricity. Prices have long been going up before any significant amount of renewables were in the system simply because of inflation.

    When i looked at Saskpower rates they increased about 3% per year over the 10 years before I purchased a solar system.

    As we switch from fossil fuels to lower carbon generation sources like gas there are additional costs with new builds.

    If nuclear is added as a generation source, this will also increase costs as it is the highest cost generation option that will require a lot of government subsidies.

    In reality reducing carbon emissions and building more generation capacity to electrify more of our energy needs will cost a significant amount.

    The question is what are the lowest cost options to reduce emissions that will help keep system costs lower.

    Its pretty clear that the costs of renewables are some of the lowest cost new generation sources available and will play a significant role in most electrical systems around the world to greater or lesser degrees depending on local circumstances.

    But to suggest that renewables should not be used to reduce emissions because they don't work or add too much cost to the system is not accurate if you look at what is happening in many parts of the world including Alberta.

    Both Sask Power and the private sector under the AESO are using renewables in their systems which indicates they are good investments.
    No flatearthers or LOL, a breath of fresh air, thank you. Reply With Quote
    Jan 4, 2023 | 09:20 30
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Of course there will be increasing costs for electricity. Prices have long been going up before any significant amount of renewables were in the system simply because of inflation.

    When i looked at Saskpower rates they increased about 3% per year over the 10 years before I purchased a solar system.

    As we switch from fossil fuels to lower carbon generation sources like gas there are additional costs with new builds.

    If nuclear is added as a generation source, this will also increase costs as it is the highest cost generation option that will require a lot of government subsidies.

    In reality reducing carbon emissions and building more generation capacity to electrify more of our energy needs will cost a significant amount.

    The question is what are the lowest cost options to reduce emissions that will help keep system costs lower.

    Its pretty clear that the costs of renewables are some of the lowest cost new generation sources available and will play a significant role in most electrical systems around the world to greater or lesser degrees depending on local circumstances.

    But to suggest that renewables should not be used to reduce emissions because they don't work or add too much cost to the system is not accurate if you look at what is happening in many parts of the world including Alberta.

    Both Sask Power and the private sector under the AESO are using renewables in their systems which indicates they are good investments.

    Chuck2 a somewhat reasonable response, although you didn’t address the main point of my post which was that adding 1 kwh of electrical capacity with solar isn’t as cheap as proponents make out because to produce that 1 kwh of electricity 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year you will require 2 or 3 additional generation sources depending on how you want to build the grid. From that standpoint is generating that additional kwh really more expensive with nuclear or with solar backed up by wind backed up by storage backed up by natural gas?! Reply With Quote