Level 2 power alert in AB last night.

[Hamloc]

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.

After observing electricity production during this latest cold spell a favourite movie quote of mine from A Knight's Tale comes to mind: "You have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been found wanting." This describes wind power to a tee. I am not saying that wind generation doesn't work at all, I am simply saying again there is a reason it is called intermittent. My hope is that common sense will prevail and that those in government will look at actual measured results not just make decisions based on ideology when the make up of our future electrical grid is considered.

[burnt]

Rex has spoken. I was wrong, it appears, and the CO2 tax was highly efficient.

The climate crisis has been solved.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/rex-murphy-were-freezing-isnt-it-great-the-carbon-tax-must-be-working/ar-BBZ49ek?ocid=spartanntp https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/rex-murphy-were-freezing-isnt-it-great-the-carbon-tax-must-be-working/ar-BBZ49ek?ocid=spartanntp

[westernvicki]

Hope springs eternal in regards to this discussion. Base energy is essential, as at 40 below no one needs a brown out, therefore the sources need to be bullet proof, and so far, that is not in Canada, wind and solar.

This is not one size fits, all! It is the equation that works for a particular zone. Hydro for some, coal, oil and gas for others, thermal energy, nuclear, and indeed in some locations wind and solar and renewable even waste materials are more ideal and can be viewed as reliable base energy. Base energy must power the grid 100% of the time, and available in the various climate patterns of the region.


Let us hope this debate matures to something that respects the differences in a climate, & geography, and considers conservation. In Canada go from -4o and lower to plus 30 and higher, we have vast transmission network to cover, and the failure of base energy is life and death in a cold spell.

Imagine now if we were plugging in electric cars how much more Mega watts the grid would need!

In the meantime, I expect we paid a lot of #carbontax last week.

Ka-ching.

[jazz]

Climate change is the most insidious scam to ever infiltrate this society but its brilliant.

Whats the first thing people talk about in casual circles? The weather. Hot enough for ya, cold enough for ya. What a perfect place to stick a scam.

We just went through a week of -40 temps and its still the hottest January on record and soon to be no snow and ski hills are closing. The media just doubles down for the simple minded and boy do we have a lot of them now.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A few days ago when I commented about there not being a rule that wind power cannot go to zero, I really didn't expect it to happen. Yet this afternoon, it did just that:



Can someone smarter than me do the math on how many wind turbines will be required to meet 50%, or 100% or for that matter, any % of our electricity needs next time an event such as this occurs? My calculator isn't handling the zero very well, must be broken.

[grassfarmer]

So I take it you never heard back from AESO AF5? I've been saying on here for more than a year now that these figures shown are not saying what you think they are. We are applying layman interpretation on something we don't have enough information on. Case in point was Hamloc's assertion a few days ago that one of the Sheerness plants at Hanna wasn't producing because it was under conversion to gas. It's shown as producing right now. You're just guessing at what these tables are indicating to fit an anti-wind/solar agenda.

If you want to work out what's really going on you could start with this page. It doesn't appear to indicate that these wind farms are producing nothing.

http://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/ http://https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/

[GDR]

So I take it you never heard back from AESO AF5? I've been saying on here for more than a year now that these figures shown are not saying what you think they are. We are applying layman interpretation on something we don't have enough information on. Case in point was Hamloc's assertion a few days ago that one of the Sheerness plants at Hanna wasn't producing because it was under conversion to gas. It's shown as producing right now. You're just guessing at what these tables are indicating to fit an anti-wind/solar agenda.

If you want to work out what's really going on you could start with this page. It doesn't appear to indicate that these wind farms are producing nothing.

http://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/ http://https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/

There's likely some truth to that Grassfarmer, both sides of every issue think they are right and interpret things to fit their cause. However there has been a lot on talk radio this week about the lack of wind and solar output, with guys in the know being interviewed so I suspect there is quite a bit of validity here.

[Hamloc]

So I take it you never heard back from AESO AF5? I've been saying on here for more than a year now that these figures shown are not saying what you think they are. We are applying layman interpretation on something we don't have enough information on. Case in point was Hamloc's assertion a few days ago that one of the Sheerness plants at Hanna wasn't producing because it was under conversion to gas. It's shown as producing right now. You're just guessing at what these tables are indicating to fit an anti-wind/solar agenda.

If you want to work out what's really going on you could start with this page. It doesn't appear to indicate that these wind farms are producing nothing.

http://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/ http://https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/

So I am curious Grassfarmer are you saying that the production and consumption tables posted on this sight are being manipulated by the government or someone else? That the consumption alerts issued by the AESO this week were political propaganda to push a certain agenda? So explain to me how they arrive at the total consumption numbers. As for Sheerness it certainly appears that what my nephew who does contract work for Sheerness told me is incorrect as the second plant is indeed producing power but is it possible that I am interpreting it wrong Grassfarmer. If the wind mills show 0 production but according to you are producing maybe Sheerness plant is showing electricity production but isn't producing. Sometimes denial of the truth blinded by ideology can be quite dangerous, you Grassfarmer are a perfect example, I prefer real numbers to those being forecasted!!!!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So I take it you never heard back from AESO AF5? I've been saying on here for more than a year now that these figures shown are not saying what you think they are. We are applying layman interpretation on something we don't have enough information on. Case in point was Hamloc's assertion a few days ago that one of the Sheerness plants at Hanna wasn't producing because it was under conversion to gas. It's shown as producing right now. You're just guessing at what these tables are indicating to fit an anti-wind/solar agenda.

If you want to work out what's really going on you could start with this page. It doesn't appear to indicate that these wind farms are producing nothing.

http://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/ http://https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting/wind-power-forecasting/

No response from AESO yet, I suppose Monday would be three business days.

I doubt they are actually zero. They all display whole numbers of MW, so anything under 0.5 MW per wind farm doesn't register, so potentially all 23 wind farms could be producing almost half an MW and it would still show zero. Just like the Brooks solar farm, it jumps between 0 and occasionally 1 during the sunny part of the day, so likely is either side of .5 MW in reality.

With a Chinook blowing in overnight, the AESO forecast is predicting over 900 MW by 10 AM tomorrow. Will check back and see. As of now, actual output is already exceeding the forecast. I have been checking that page this week as well, and until now, it was over estimating. But I'm not sure how a future forecast proves a real time posted result wrong? That sounds like one of Chucks famous arguments.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't have an anti renewable energy agenda. I just have an anti- non technical politicians making business decisions on my behalf that have disasterous economic and potentially life threatening outcomes agenda. Based on projections and forecasts, while ignoring real life data right in front of them.

As is, with wind and solar at ~11% of capacity(not output), it is still relatively harmless, but these uninformed political types want to increase that to 100% in a very short period of time. When simple math shows that idea to be impossible.

[malleefarmer]

Just reading about nuclear power and it’s possible future in Australia.

Won’t bore you with cut and paste and if it factual or not.

But one paragraph suggests 1kg of uranium produces as much power as 2000 t of coal wow if true.

Basically article says renewables to power “up to” 60% nuclear for base load 40% .
Up to means many things

[TSIPP]

Just thought I’d post some fun facts about uranium.

At current world use uranium should last another 200 years.

The USA has 104 reactors and use 55 million pounds a year.

U308 is currently around 25 dollars a pound.

[grassfarmer]

What I was saying is that the figures shown on those tables are not as simple as being portrayed. Why for example at this moment are 19 out of the 23 wind facilities producing but only 6 out of the 26 simple cycle gas facilities are? Maybe they have to shut the gas plants down when it gets windy so gas isn't a reliable source either? Maybe what it's showing is that because the wind facilities are producing the gas ones aren't needed for now? From what I understand the electrical supply is a dynamic process where the regulator forecasts demand ahead of time and matches supply to demand by auction on an hourly basis ahead of time. Not all power generation sources are producing flat out from the day they begin operation because there is no way to store the electricity - hence why on occasion BC's hydro generated electricity is bid into the AB supply at zero cost.