Level 2 power alert in AB last night.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Another bitter cold day in AB. Wind power spent much of the day in the single digits, as low as 3 MW out of 1781 nameplate at one point while I happened to check, it may have gone lower. That is 0.17% of what they are rated at. And makes their contribution to the total grid load a whopping 0.027% at that point.

Warnings on the news again today to limit electricity consumption to avoid overloading the system.

On a positive note, the sun must have shone, since the Brooks solar farm did register for a while.

[TASFarms]

I can’t figure out how those wind mills pay. I watched the last few days and zeros and single digits don’t even come close to profit. Now that natural gas generator in Calgary makes some dollars 830 mega watts

[Crestliner]

I can’t figure out how those wind mills pay. I watched the last few days and zeros and single digits don’t even come close to profit. Now that natural gas generator in Calgary makes some dollars 830 mega watts

Yes and they need oil products to operate...grease in the bearings and shaft and petroleum products to be built in the first place (carbon fibre blades).

Windmills are a great source of energy for the north where there are no gas line or limited powerline....but given the long dark nights and calm no wind days.....they better have lots of diesel for the generators and would split and piled if they run out.

[dmlfarmer]

Why do you argue that it is an either/or scenario; either fossil fuels or green energy? Why not have both and use the source that provides the most benefit both economically and environmentally?

Compare this to your harvest system. Given the last few falls, what is the best scenario, making no change in your harvest system, investing in a bigger combine to get the crop off faster, or keeping existing sized combine and adding a dryer?

Arguing that windmills are no good because some days there are no wind is equivalent to arguing grain dryers are no good because some years I will not need to dry grain.

And even if you do invest in a drying system, you still need a combine, just as there will always be a need conventionally generated power,

[Hamloc]

Why do you argue that it is an either/or scenario; either fossil fuels or green energy? Why not have both and use the source that provides the most benefit both economically and environmentally?

Compare this to your harvest system. Given the last few falls, what is the best scenario, making no change in your harvest system, investing in a bigger combine to get the crop off faster, or keeping existing sized combine and adding a dryer?

Arguing that windmills are no good because some days there are no wind is equivalent to arguing grain dryers are no good because some years I will not need to dry grain.

And even if you do invest in a drying system, you still need a combine, just as there will always be a need conventionally generated power,

Dml I certainly agree but it is our politicians that need to be asked this question not fellow farmers. The Green Party of Canada, the federal NDP, Greenpeace on and on. They all say the use of fossil fuels must be phased out period! Ab5 always brings up the point that renewable energy increases the cost of electricity. This week is a perfect example, many articles from various sources talking about Alberta paying $999 a megawatt(the maximum allowed by law in Alberta apparently) for electricity as our generation capacity reached its maximum output. The average cost for the last year was about $50 a megawatt. According to an expert on Danielle Smiths program yesterday one of the reasons we ran out of generation capacity was the mothballing of coal plants and therefore our greater dependency on wind power which was producing almost nothing all week. So yes Dml I agree with your common sense unfortunately there is very little common sense in the environmental movement of late. Also interesting to note Chuck has gone silent this week, go figure. Enjoy your day.

[dmlfarmer]

Dml I certainly agree but it is our politicians that need to be asked this question not fellow farmers. The Green Party of Canada, the federal NDP, Greenpeace on and on. They all say the use of fossil fuels must be phased out period! Ab5 always brings up the point that renewable energy increases the cost of electricity. This week is a perfect example, many articles from various sources talking about Alberta paying $999 a megawatt(the maximum allowed by law in Alberta apparently) for electricity as our generation capacity reached its maximum output. The average cost for the last year was about $50 a megawatt. According to an expert on Danielle Smiths program yesterday one of the reasons we ran out of generation capacity was the mothballing of coal plants and therefore our greater dependency on wind power which was producing almost nothing all week. So yes Dml I agree with your common sense unfortunately there is very little common sense in the environmental movement of late. Also interesting to note Chuck has gone silent this week, go figure. Enjoy your day.

Hamlock, with all due respect, it is not just the left that is committed to reducing fossil fuels. In fact, in June 2015 at the G7 summit in Germany, Harper committed Canada to ending the use of all fossil fuels for energy by 2100 period. Is this possible, I doubt it. But in the 1920's most farmers felt tractors would never replace horses. Technology changes, costs change, needs change so not I am prepared to say ending all fossil fuel is impossible; just I doubt it and I question if such a goal is doable, wise, or practical.

Also, part of the current electricity shortage/sky high electrical prices is due to major breakdowns of 2 generators in Alberta. Highligts the importance of the grid to share power from areas where electricity can be generated to areas which are short. While no wind here, does not mean no wind anywhere. Just as fossil fuel generated power can be sent to places where generators have broke down. Which begs the question of price gouging by a private electrical generation system, not just in production but in the building of transmission lines.

[jazz]

A solar panel or windmill with a 20 yr life or payback will not offset the carbon it took to build it, period, so its sensless to adopt such a technoligy until that hurdle is met. I mean its about CO2 right? Or is it about virtue signalling? because it sure as hell isnt about efficient and reliabe energy production.

[ajl]

Temperature has risen but a nasty windchill out there now. From the aeso website, Halkirk wind (east of Stettler AB) is producing 102 MW out of a 150 capacity. First time I have seen a wind farm do much of anything this cold snap. Other times it has been 6/150. None of the others seem to produce much of anything but Halkirk seems to be on the board as producing something most of the time.

[dmlfarmer]

A solar panel or windmill with a 20 yr life or payback will not offset the carbon it took to build it, period, so its sensless to adopt such a technoligy until that hurdle is met. I mean its about CO2 right? Or is it about virtue signalling? because it sure as hell isnt about efficient and reliabe energy production.

Why do you think it is a valid argument to call for zero carbon windmills/solar panels and if we do not get those the technology we should not be adopted; yet you ignore the carbon cost of building, operating, and maintaining fossil fuel generation?

Do you have the calculations of the carbon costs for building, maintaining, and operating a fossil fuel power plant over a similar 20 year period? Why don't you post that to make it a real comparison of carbon output?

Your post is nothing more than a typical strawman argument to deflect from the point I was making.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why do you think it is a valid argument to call for zero carbon windmills/solar panels and if we do not get those the technology we should not be adopted; yet you ignore the carbon cost of building, operating, and maintaining fossil fuel generation?

Do you have the calculations of the carbon costs for building, maintaining, and operating a fossil fuel power plant over a similar 20 year period? Why don't you post that to make it a real comparison of carbon output?

The experiment has been done in real life. The fact that fossil fuel power plants have been powering a modern energy intensive industrial society with the energy left over following their extraction, processing, transportation, burning, and dealing with any unintended consequences, indicates that they are net positive energy contributors in a significant way. Whether we measure that as CO2 balance, or Joules, or Dollars, the result is undeniable. If they were not, we would be spinning our wheels consuming as much energy( or more) than we get out.

[jazz]

Why do you think it is a valid argument to call for zero carbon windmills/solar panels and if we do not get those the technology we should not be adopted; yet you ignore the carbon cost of building, operating, and maintaining fossil fuel generation?

Do you have the calculations of the carbon costs for building, maintaining, and operating a fossil fuel power plant over a similar 20 year period? Why don't you post that to make it a real comparison of carbon output?

Your post is nothing more than a typical strawman argument to deflect from the point I was making.

It doesnt matter what the carbon foot print of fossil fuel generation station is. That was never its purpose to offset carbon so its meaningless in the economics. It paid back its initial construction usually within 3 to 5 years. Solar and wind are 20yrs. If we are going to put up with that thin of economics for an unreliable energy source that has to be backed up anyway, then there has to be another variable we are chasing. We are told that's CO2, yet those technologies cant offset that either.

We would be much better throwing money into carbon sequestration. Yes even a tree is a better idea than wind or solar.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

It doesnt matter what the carbon foot print of fossil fuel generation station is. That was never its purpose to offset carbon so its meaningless in the economics. It paid back its initial construction usually within 3 to 5 years. Solar and wind are 20yrs. If we are going to put up with that thin of economics for an unreliable energy source that has to be backed up anyway, then there has to be another variable we are chasing. We are told that's CO2, yet those technologies cant offset that either.

We would be much better throwing money into carbon sequestration. Yes even a tree is a better idea than wind or solar.

If you know how I can power my house and charge my car with a tree I'd be interested in hearing more about it.