Estevan considered for solar power

[oneoff]

Not in the least


Sask Power hasn't responded; and a second message was sent just to be sure the confirmation request got through


And powerhousesolar.ca "Live Tracker" isn't working yet either.


Evidence that neither the utility nor the equipment is reliable and "ready yet" You'd be frustrated and stressed to death at 40+ below (and howling winds) when any problem occurred.

[chuckChuck]

I haven't received a reply from Saskpower yet.

[oneoff]

THIS IS MOST PROBABLY SO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH IT UNBELIEVABLE


Quite probably they are doing some recalculations

I well remember my dad commenting about the "rural electrification" program in the early 1950's. He said that those wanting the brand new offered service had to design a route so that there would be a customer connection every half mile to make the project viable. It was up to "common" farmers to do the leg work. Can you imagine the ridicule you'd get from a utility if customers actually had any real input into designing the best that many brains could come up with.

One missing CSA tag; one intransigent stickler; one belligerent engineer; one "Trump" that tries to run the place on his terms...thats where the decision making ultimately lies. And fighting city hall will cost you more than any little victory that might be temporarily gained but quickly thwarted or punished in some other manner.

[tweety]

As long as there is lots of free energy to just release there will never be renewable energy other than for conversational sized installations just big enough to list all the reasons why it shouldn't be done.

Sorry future generations, but the oneoffs of today have far too many "reasons" why we should do nothing in the mean time watching the tank run dry.

God forbid i use the battery analogy again.

[oneoff]

DRAGGED ALL WAY DOWN TO LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR




Your claim about "free energy" is just as absurd as the the claim about "last gasps" in plants amounting to anything.

There may not be as big a next generation for specific country economies made uncompetitive because they are insignificant in the world context. They are called "third world economies"

Maybe some consideration should be given to shrinking the "tweety" family name lineage in the future; just as world population (everywhere) can't go on and on increasing as it has. That's probably the really big challenge...don't you agree?

[blackpowder]

Heiner Fassbeck

The End of the Energiewende?

Stable high-pressure winter weather has resulted in a confrontation. An Energiewende that relies mainly on wind and solar energy will not work in the long run. One cannot forgo nuclear power, eliminate fossil fuels, and tell people that electricity supplies will remain secure all the same.

We have attempted unsuccessfully to find Energiewende advocates willing to explain that inconsistency. Their silence is not easy to fathom. But maybe the events themselves have made the outcome inevitable.

With nuclear power no longer available, a capacity of at least 50 gigawatts is required by other means, despite an enormously expanded network of wind turbines and solar systems

This winter could go down in history as the event that proved the German energy transition to be unsubstantiated and incapable of becoming a success story. Electricity from wind and solar generation has been catastrophically low for several weeks. December brought new declines. A persistent winter high-pressure system with dense fog throughout Central Europe has been sufficient to unmask the fairy tale of a successful energy transition, even for me as a lay person.

This is a setback, because many people had placed high hopes in the Energiewende. I likewise never expected to see large-scale solar arrays and wind turbines, including those offshore, motionless for days on end. The data compiled by Agora Energiewende on the individual types of electricity generation have recorded the appalling results for sun and wind at the beginning of December and from the 12th to 14th:

Of power demand totaling 69.0 gigawatts (GW) at 3 pm on the 12th, for instance, just 0.7 GW was provided by solar energy, 1.0 by onshore wind power and 0.4 offshore. At noontime on the 14th of December, 70 GW were consumed, with 4 GW solar, 1 GW onshore and somewhat over 0.3 offshore wind. The Agora graphs make apparent that such wide-ranging doldrums may persist for several days.

You do not need to be a technician, an energy expert, or a scientist to perceive the underlying futility of this basic situation. You simply need common sense, shelving expectations and prognoses for a moment, while extrapolating the current result to future developments. Let us suppose that today’s wind and solar potential could be tripled by 2030, allowing almost all of the required energy to be obtained from these two sources under normal weather conditions. This is an extremely optimistic scenario and certainly not to be expected, because current policy is slowing down the expansion of renewable energy sources rather than accelerating it.

One cannot simultaneously rely on massive amounts of wind and sunshine, dispense with nuclear power plants (for very good reasons), significantly lower the supply of fossil energy, and nevertheless tell people that electricity will definitely be available in the future

If a comparable lull occurred in 2030 (stable winter high systems that recur every few years), then three times the number of solar panels and wind turbines (assuming current technologies) could logically produce only three times the amount of electricity. The deficiency of prevailing winds and sunshine will affect all of these installations, no matter how many there are. Even threefold wind and solar generation would then fulfill just 20% of requirements – again very optimistically – assuming that demand had not increased by 2030.

Redistribution effects

However, precisely the opposite can be expected, namely a massive increase in consumption due to the substitution of fossil fuels by electrically powered automobiles that require increased generation. The possibility of saving so much energy in this short time, enabling overall consumption to be decreased despite abandoning fossil fuels, can be confidently ignored. For that to happen, the price of fossil energy would have to rise dramatically, which is not to be expected, and one would have to compensate for the resulting redistribution effects that are politically even less likely.

Accordingly, Germany would end up with a catastrophic result 30 years after the start of the Energiewende. With nuclear power no longer available, a capacity of at least 50 gigawatts is required by other means, despite an enormously expanded network of wind turbines and solar systems under comparable weather conditions. Those other means according to current knowledge will be provided by coal, oil and gas.

In other words, one cannot simultaneously rely on massive amounts of wind and sunshine, dispense with nuclear power plants (for very good reasons), significantly lower the supply of fossil energy, and nevertheless tell people that electricity will definitely be available in the future. Exactly that, however, is what politics largely does almost every day. It is quite irresponsible to persuade citizens that from 2030 onwards only electrically-powered new cars may be allowed, as has recently been propagated in the highest political circles.

[blackpowder]

THE END OF GERMANY’S ENERGIEWENDE?Date: 11/01/17Energy PostThe prominent German economist Heiner Flassbeck has challenged fundamental assumptions of the Energiewende at his blog site*makroskop.eu. According to Flassbeck, the former Director of Macroeconomics and Development at the*UNCTAD in Geneva and a former State Secretary of Finance, a recent period of extremely low solar and wind power generation shows that Germany will never be able to rely on renewable energy, regardless of how much new capacity will be built.

[blackpowder]

[chuckChuck]

So Germany is getting 15-40 Gw of solar some days? That's impressive considering how bad the weather is in Germany at times.

As far as the conclusion reached by the economist, that may have some merit if they adopt alot of electric cars. But some engineers have suggested the battery systems in cars may have a dual role as a complimentary backup power supply for renewables since cars will be plugged in overnight. But I am sure if you drain the battery overnight you won't be going anaywhere!

There is no doubt we are going to have to rely on fosssil energy or maybe nuclear as well as renewables well into the future.

It would be interesting to hear from those in Germany who think renewables can be more of the solution.

[tweety]

Yes oneoff, the energy we burn, considering the cost to replace that with manual labour is almost free in comparison.

A grain auger loading a b train takes about 4liters or 4 bucks of gas. How much would it cost to do that manually?

We have become absolutely oblivious to the amount of work even a little bit of energy provides. In fact we whine its too expensive. Renewables have no chance competing whatsoever with that kind of power to cost ratio.

[greybeard]

This is has the charts to compare different sources of power at different times of the year;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
Nothing is perfect, but solar is far from it.
Expect less than 20% capacity much of the time.
Fits very well in areas that need a lot of air conditioning peak periods.
Lots of good links at the bottom that take you to more good links.

[oneoff]

tweety...tweety... tweety

What you say contradicts chucks evidence so badly that I don't know which side you are on (or both)...or neither

No energy is free of costs. No energy is even nearly free of costs. While Solar can and does work a fraction of the time the nature of the beast is that it doesn't work at all in darkness as an example.

During "half the day" its literally in the way of getting the job done; its not running the show; its causing infrastructure that could be running almost continuously and smoothly to be idled ....then ramped up to nearly maximum output then slowed to a crawl all depending on that weather front; that blizzard; that eclipse; that brownout; that nightfall; that shock that strains equipment and strains boilers that don't respond instantaneously like sunlight and environmental conditions can turn on a dime.

We just don't have the hydro resources to meet our needs in Sask. No one, not even tweety would support flooding every river system valley (and in any event it wouldn't work for a host of reasons in Sask); next to no one would want nuclear power plants and thats a current fact. Whilst wind has a better expected uptime than solar; you know the wind isn't always going to turn those blades. We don't even know when the wind will blow; just as we have no clue when the sun will shine at any minimum intensity.

We rely on the backup; and thats our own very limited hydo supplies; some wind at times; some solar if its worth the trouble and problems; some emergency Manitoba Hydro supplies as a last resort (if its available in the long term and if we're smart)....but our own base load supply needs absolutely has to be in place if we are to have control of our electrical power destiny.

We can't abuse the work horses....they don't deserve to be labelled dirty and polluting....we should respect and appreciate what they were and what they still are called on to do. Sure improve their efficiency; do the best to fix their shortcomings and consider them assets during their life span.

There are costs in decommissioning. Big costs. Some will remember the Estevan Generating Station. It took years to clean that site up. It should be respected ...like any old fire engine that did its duty to the utmost of its ability; during the time it carried the load. Not just remembering it as a dirty old coal burner. It does a disservice to our ancestors that did the best they could with what was at hand and the cards they were dealt. It takes years of clean up efforts; even more stringent standards as time progresses.

The Estevan Generating Station replacements weren't made to the same standards; and todays replacements will be to yet higher standards on all counts. Shand has 99% fly ash control, sulphur scrubbing and 50% cleaner burnt nitrogen emissions. Sask Power is trying carbon capture and utilizing the product CO2 with very limited success. Thats unfortunate; but were're investing in amine labs etc to try to overcome particular problems not yet resolved.

But for example; If they'd allow filling everyone's MIG welder CO2 cylinder with some of the extra product they give away then maybe it would be a lot easily to swallow the cost over runs and engineering oversights and goofups that are bound to happen in most ambitious cutting edge attempts.

We can't switch over to perfect overnight. We can and will work towards it..

We'll find that efforts to switch before its proven and ready and integrated into what we still need .....will cause multiple times more grief than if we had maintained the status guo.

And tweety I am not advocating continuing on with only every old obsolete old way of operation forever. Develop some respect for that which will be around for some time yet; instead of demanding it all be thrown out...right now.... whilst the hopeful replacement is in its infancy.

[oneoff]

AND THEN SOME NONSENSE ABOUT FUSES AND POOH POOHING FIRE CHIEFS CONCERNS ETC


Here are some distracting thoughts for solar panel owners of all stripes.

How do you turn off a solar panel; or actually a couple hundred connected in parallel and series.

Fires occur in houses and they aren't all electrical and caused by solar panels (but solar panel fires are theoretically possible) Heck even remember Smart meters and thats a relatively uncomplicated comparison.

Well anyways a house catches fire from whatever source and the fire department arrives.

How do they handle a situation where the solar panels may very well be still live and some responder could very well get electrocuted. So sit and wait while the structure burns; till a plan develops and reinforcements arrive For starters who are the reinforcements.?

Got to have everyone prepared for knowing how to disable those panels on the roof. And the fire chief and home owners and "myself " and even "tweety" just may not even yet have run across that scenario. Heck there may not even be an all inclusive answer.

[tweety]

Now its just completely ridiculous. An inline fuse ffs.

Thank goodness our generation will be long dead before energy really becomes an issue.

[burnt]

Now its just completely ridiculous. An inline fuse ffs.

Thank goodness our generation will be long dead before energy really becomes an issue.

Wow. Talk about something going right over someone's head? LOL!

The reality is that solar panels cannot be shut off - they generate some level of electricity as long as there is some light. And while that level of electricity may so low as to be unviable for running anything, it sure as heck will still electrocute a person!

In simplest terms - for you tweety - there is no fuse or off button on the generation side of things.

Our local fire departments have stated that this is indeed a problem and are working on developing special fire-fighting capabilities for when these rooftop-equipped structures burn - and they have.

When a nearby, large shed with rooftop panels burned recently, the fire department said they had no trouble finding the place since the thick, black smoke from the panels was visible from10 miles away. So at one point after that, the fire dep't wouldn't turn the hoses on if a PV system was in play, for obvious reasons. (So what does your insurance company say to that, LOL!?)

[URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/rooftop-solar-panels-pose-dangers-ontario-firefighters-say-1.1700070"]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/rooftop-solar-panels-pose-dangers-ontario-firefighters-say-1.1700070[/URL]

So yes tweety, in this context your "generation" comment provides a shocking element of hilarity...