So Tell me again Why WE INVEST HEAVILY IN A BUGGY WHIP PLANT ??

[oneoff]

Bits and pieces that enter into the mix....including figures about Sask wind producing power 40% of time and solar power a measly 15% of potential uptime contribution. Just as I suspected. Anybody else shocked about putting many eggs in wind and solar basket. Here are directquotes from above article:

"In Saskatchewan, coal accounts for 44 per cent of our fuel and produces 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Wind and solar can only provide power part of the time because wind conditions have to be just right and the sun only shines part of the day. In Saskatchewan, wind turbines can produce power to meet our needs 40 per cent of the time, and our climate and geography make solar power, which could meet our needs up to 15 per cent of the time, an expensive option."

Also there is a quote about 50% of current electrical generating capacity in Sask coming from the three coal fired generating stations...some of which seem to have been commissioned a relatively short while ago at great cost and were expected to have decades more useful lifespans.

[oneoff]

There's more to the full economic equation than a LCOE. To be completely fair one would look at LACE calculations as well to get a slightly more accurate comparison amonst alternatives

" Levelized Avoided Cost of Electricity (LACE) as an additional indicator
Since projected utilization rates, the existing resource mix, and capacity values can all vary dramatically
across regions where new generation capacity may be needed, the direct comparison of LCOE across
technologies is often problematic and can be misleading as a method to assess the economic
competitiveness of various generation alternatives. Conceptually, a better assessment of economic
competitiveness can be gained through consideration of avoided cost, a measure of what it would cost
the grid to generate the electricity that is otherwise displaced by a new generation project, as well as its
levelized cost. Avoided cost, which provides a proxy measure for the annual economic value of a
candidate project, may be summed over its financial life and converted to a level annualized value that
is divided by average annual output of the project to develop its “levelized” avoided cost of electricity
(LACE).
5 The LACE value may then be compared with the LCOE value for the candidate project to provide
an indication of whether or not the project’s value exceeds its cost. If multiple technologies are available
to meet load, comparisons of each project’s LACE to its LCOE may be used to determine which project
provides the best net economic value. Estimating avoided costs is more complex than estimating
levelized costs because it requires information about how the system would have operated without the
option under evaluation. In this discussion, the calculation of avoided costs is based on the marginal
value of energy and capacity that would result from adding a unit of a given technology to the system as
it exists or is projected to exist at a specified future date and represents the potential value available to
the project owner from the project’s contribution to satisfying both energy and capacity requirements.
While the economic decisions for capacity additions in EIA’s long-term projections use neither LACE nor
LCOE concepts, the LACE and net value estimates presented in this report are generally more
representative of the factors contributing to the projections than looking at LCOE alone. However, both
the LACE and LCOE estimates are simplifications of modeled decisions, and may not fully capture all
decision factors or match modeled results.
Policy-related factors, such as environmental regulations and investment or production tax credits for
specified generation sources, can also impact investment decisions. The LCOE and LACE values
presented here are derived from the AEO 2016 Reference case, which includes the impacts of the Clean
5 Further discussion of the levelized avoided cost concept and its use in assessing economic competitiveness can be found in
this article: http://www.eia.gov/renewable/workshop/gencosts/.
U.S. Energy Information Administration | AEO2016 Levelized Costs 3
Power Plan (CPP), state-level renewable electricity requirements as of December 2015, and an extension
and phase-out of federal tax credits for renewable generation.
Finally, although levelized cost calculations are generally made using an assumed set of capital and
operating costs, the inherent uncertainty about future fuel prices and future policies may cause plant
owners or investors who finance plants to place a value on portfolio diversification. While EIA considers
many of the factors discussed in the previous paragraphs above in its analysis of technology choice in
the electricity sector in NEMS, not all of these concepts are included in LCOE or LACE calculations."

[Hamloc]

Muustardman you and Chuck2 quite frequently put up your costs for different sources of power. What you don't tell us is this and maybe it is included you don't specify. As stated in the Sask power article wind produces 40% of the time and solar 15% of the time, requiring the equivalent amount of natural gas or some other form of electrical generation back up for wind or solar or basically building twice the generation capacity for each kilowatt supplied by wind or solar. So Mustardman, while you and your socialist buddy Chuck2 constantly give us figures on electrical cost, please address this reality!!

[oneoff]

Attn "Ham"

Very, very, very well put sir. If we could get a reply to your concise and compelling question...then the overall costs for a reliable electrical generating network would be conceded to be

WIND or SOLAR (LCOE or LACE) plus the baseload demand duplication of facilities we currently trust and depend upon.

Unless you're willing to buy 50% of Sask current power at spot prices over which no one has any control and the sky high price truly is the limit in peak demand periods.

[ado089]

I hope you're not counting on wind power to stay warm tonight.

[ajl]

When I am premier I will immediately move to can both CCS and all wind and solar subsidies. All are a waste of time and money. The biggest mistake that politicians like Stephen Harper and Brad Wall have made was to partially go along with the AGW scam thinking that would broaden their support base. I didn't because those loons have the NDP, the Liberals. and the Greens to chose from already.

[chuckChuck]

Germany is a world leader in renewable energy. 38% of their electricity comes from renewables. 6.4% is from PV and 32.5% is from wind. There is lots of good information in the following link. Including that since 2006 PV power plants have fallen in cost 13% per year for a total of 75%!

Solar PV will really take off once there are good storage systems. At this point in time Germany and Canada we will still need to rely on fossil fuels to provide base loads. Which we already knew. Wind is probably the best investment at this time and that is why there are alot of wind turbines in North Dakota and many being planned for Saskatchewan. Purchasing surplus hydro from Manitoba may be another very good investment but will require our grids to be hooked together.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien-en/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

[chuckChuck]

Since none of us have the training, knowledge or time to adequately study the issue of the current system and the transition to renewables I think we should assume that since Brad Wall and Sask Power have committed to produce 50% of Saskatchewan's power from renewables by 2030 that they have looked at the numbers and have decided that it can be done and is a good investment.

If you don't believe Sask Power or Brad Wall then it is up to you to challenge their plans directly with them. They are the ones who are responsible for the decisions that will be made.

[SASKFARMER3]

Jobs!

Oh and a 100 year supply. so lets shut it down and leave it in the ground.

Yet china is going to expand coal.

Yea heres your sign.

[Hamloc]

Chuch2, I would agree that those people who live in the real world realize we provide base load from natural gas or hydro or nuclear. But that isn't how governments promote so called green energy. Show me one statement from Our Prime Minister or Premier Notley where they acknowledge that for every KW of wind or solar generation almost the same amount of natural gas or hydro generation will be required! Duplication of power line infrastructure, power coming from 2 locations to supply one source. How is that efficient or enviromentally friendly?

[oneoff]

How disingenuous can you get when comparing apples to oranges?

Germany is a lot more densely populated; not thousands of miles from ocean winds; has navigable river systems and not landlocked like most prairie provinces; doesn't have the same persistent harsh winters and so on.. Some appear to be able to ignore all that which doesn't confirm what they already know.

So to bring this discussion back to Canada (and particularly Western Canada ) that federal politicians could give a rats ass about..... there's the problem of requiring something in addition to wind and solar. In fact, as is quite clear; wind is only useful 40% of the time and solar maybe 15%. in Sask And the duplication is equivalent to wasting money and using scarce resources and rolling dice.

And batteries for storage aren't needed when those panels are tied into an electrcal grid. (More on that in a new thread) Batteries which don't exist; will have their own set of pollution, hazards and astronomical costs and finite lifetimes.

Reminds me of it being acceptable to go real hungry or starve to death a few dozen times in a lifetime. I'm not buying that you shut down all coal fired power plants (that provide 50% of Sask power capacity. And I'm not buying its sound business to not be energy independent; and that costs won't skyrocket when you rely on spot markets and water power generated from dams that take longer to build and commission than any pipeline.

Just as I don't buy the organic premise that all other food is nutrient deficient; completely poisoned;
unhealthy and unsafe on every count and when those factors are taken into account we should all be eating food that couldn't possibly be made available (immediately) quickly enough to cause widespread hunger and starvation
We ain't seen nothing yet. Trump isn't the ultimate fanatic.

In fact he's starting to appear pretty mild.

[checking]

Glad to see that cc. has come around to finally acknowledging that those who decide policy own it.

"They are the ones who are responsible for the decisions that will be made.", quotes cc.

You are going to be taxed starting 2018, isn't good enough.

Solar panels and wind, coal and oil, neither require our bandwagons.

What is required is an explanation as to why the public needs to be taxed on every piece of carbon we burn. Tell us/me what we're/I'm allotted tax carbon free at base date 2005, and at least I can make it work, or pay the overage.

It's government's baby. Let it be tarred with the consequences, or celebrated.