Answers from AESO regarding Alberta power generation

[grassfarmer]

Grassfarmer your logic truly escapes me and your belief that you are correct is undoubtably wrong. As I pointed out before if you do 2 minutes of googling you will find that Sundance #3 and #5 have been mothballed until 2021. If you look today on a decidedly windy day in Alberta the wind farms are producing over 1300 MW and only 7 of the 26 simple cycle gas plants are producing power. As you recall I quoted from the website of one of the simple cycle gas generation plants websites that said it was designed to produce power on demand during times of high demand. Your refusal to admit that there are times when windmills do not produce electricity due to the weather shows that your ideology overrules your ability to analyze the numbers put in front of you. Using your logic the AESO is buying wind power today but two weeks ago it was not. What has changed to make wind power more desirable to buy today than natural gas? I would say the fact that it exists today, two weeks ago there was no wind generated power to buy. You inability to comprehend this is beyond my comprehension!!

Nonsense! I have never contested the fact that windfarms sometime don't produce - that's obvious. What I've consistently contested is the assertion that the figures shown on that website show simple production. You've never been able to explain why hydro, gas and coal plants don't produce (according to that site) other than the limited ones you've been able to explain by googling eg Sundance (and misinformation about Sheerness). You did seem to cotton on a few weeks ago about what I was talking about when you came up with the gas plant's mission statement and I congratulated you on that revelation at the time. Fact remains that my suspicion was correct - a year later AB5 and you are finally up to speed about what the figures shown on the AESO website really mean.

[sumdumguy]

What can one say? There is no point arguing with some one who ......

[Hamloc]

Nonsense! I have never contested the fact that windfarms sometime don't produce - that's obvious. What I've consistently contested is the assertion that the figures shown on that website show simple production. You've never been able to explain why hydro, gas and coal plants don't produce (according to that site) other than the limited ones you've been able to explain by googling eg Sundance (and misinformation about Sheerness). You did seem to cotton on a few weeks ago about what I was talking about when you came up with the gas plant's mission statement and I congratulated you on that revelation at the time. Fact remains that my suspicion was correct - a year later AB5 and you are finally up to speed about what the figures shown on the AESO website really mean.

Actually Grassfarmer I would say this is the first time you have been willing to admit that there are periods of time when wind farms do not produce. But I would say that there are times when the AESO chooses whether or not purchase power from a certain production facility and when it is forced to purchase power from a certain facility. An example is when there is no windpower being produced it then turns to the simple cycle gas plants. Your point is that because a production facility is selling no power to the grid doesn't mean it isn't capable of producing power. One question that you seem to refuse to address is which is better for the environment a stand alone natural gas plant producing 1000 MW or a wind farm producing 1000 MW backed up by a solar farm producing 1000 MW backed up by a 1000 MW natural gas facility?!

[grassfarmer]

.....Your point is that because a production facility is selling no power to the grid doesn't mean it isn't capable of producing power

Bingo! now you understand what I've been saying for the last year!
Re your question, which I don't think you've directed towards me before. Quite simple - can you see beyond the end of your nose? Climate change aside fossil fuels are a finite energy supply so we have to be adding other more sustainable energy sources for the future. By ignoring the future beyond 10 years - yes the gas facility may, or may not, be better for the environment but that isn't an option for decades and generations into the future as we don't have the fossil fuel reserves to power a growing population indefinitely.

[Hamloc]

Bingo! now you understand what I've been saying for the last year!
Re your question, which I don't think you've directed towards me before. Quite simple - can you see beyond the end of your nose? Climate change aside fossil fuels are a finite energy supply so we have to be adding other more sustainable energy sources for the future. By ignoring the future beyond 10 years - yes the gas facility may, or may not, be better for the environment but that isn't an option for decades and generations into the future as we don't have the fossil fuel reserves to power a growing population indefinitely.

According to CAPP we have enough natural gas reserves to last 300 years including present exports, so while I agree that fossil fuels are a non renewable resource at present it does not appear we will run out any time soon. If we are worried about how finite our resources are shouldn't we use sources of energy that disturb the least amount of land? How does the production of usable energy per acre compare between solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, hydro an interesting question no one addresses.

[jazz]

According to CAPP we have enough natural gas reserves to last 300 years including present exports, so while I agree that fossil fuels are a non renewable resource at present it does not appear we will run out any time soon. If we are worried about how finite our resources are shouldn't we use sources of energy that disturb the least amount of land? How does the production of usable energy per acre compare between solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, hydro an interesting question no one addresses.

We will run out of cobalt, manganese and other rare elements long before we ever run out of hydrocarbons.

Renewables are the temporary step. They will only be around for a few decades until we master hydrogen or fusion then we will have a big toxic clean up from solar panels and idle windmills to deal with.

[fjlip]

The total GHG used for rebar, aggregate, concrete, diesel fuel involved in the construction of the base would be good to have totalled up. This farce keeps getting crazier.


This picture shows a base for a 100m windmill, notice all the required rebar!!

Wind turbine manufacturer Vestas claims that initial energy "payback" is within about 7–9 months of operation for a 1.65-2.0MW wind turbine under low wind conditions,[27][28] whereas Siemens Wind Power calculates 5–10 months depending on circumstances.[29]

Hmmm, Vestas calculations...lets see the details, need proof not the manufacturers OPINION!

[tweety]

And so no one can accuse me of cherry picking. Since the end of the cold spell and the near record high demand, I've still been checking the generation sources a couple times a day, and I am pleased to report that until yesterday when it dropped back down to the low 300's MW (<17% of nameplate), wind had been quite consistently in the 1200 MW range, (~66% of capacity). Can't argue with the utility of a generation source that can do that, just don't try to make it 100%, and don't pretend that the cost per MW on these days is equivalent to the cost per MW when output approaches 0.

So maybe its not a bad thing to be able to turn the flame down a bit when the wind blows or the sun shines even though it may cost a bit more?

[Zephyr]

We will run out of cobalt, manganese and other rare elements long before we ever run out of hydrocarbons.

Renewables are the temporary step. They will only be around for a few decades until we master hydrogen or fusion then we will have a big toxic clean up from solar panels and idle windmills to deal with.

No we won't.


Hydrocarbons are only found on earth.


The other elements are in asteroids comets etc.

[farming101]

Hydrocarbons are only found on earth.

Hey Zephyr google Titan

[Zephyr]

Hey Zephyr google Titan

Fair enough.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Grassfarmer, I had a lot of time to consider your post, and try to come up with an appropriate response.

And the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that it was brilliant, and that I have a lot to learn from you, with that approach, you will never lose an argument again. And done with such confidence and certainty that it really deflates the opponent, and leaves them unable to even know where to start.

The next time I am having an argument with my wife, and she presents an argument very much like yours, can I call you up and get you on my side to help counter her logic? Until now, I never realized that this was a permissible tactic to use as a husband. But in the era of equal rights, perhaps this is now acceptable, and I am just old fashioned.

[TOM4CWB]

Hey Zephyr google Titan

NH3 will most likely be the mobile fuel source going forward. Air and water are needed to create nh3... with the energy to break these two unlimited recyclables down... nh3 fuel cells will also create energy in the carbonless or low carbon world. Ocean ships are already well on their way to using this new fuel source.

Comparative fuel properties
"MAN’s technical paper presents key data on maritime fuel properties. The argument for ammonia as an alternative fuel is clear when considering both energy density and CO2 emission reduction. The first impacts profitable cargo capacity, whereas the second impacts compliance, beyond today’s SOx and NOx regulations, with the IMO’s forthcoming GHG regulations."

"In November 2019, MAN ES published a technical paper describing the design and performance of its two-stroke green-ammonia engine. The paper also quietly announces the intentions of MAN ES to exploit ammonia energy technologies in a new business case, Power-to-X (PtX, “the carbon-neutral energy storage and sector coupling technology of the future”). In other words, MAN is moving into green ammonia fuel production.
In the two months since this paper was published, MAN’s ammonia engine has been central to a series of industrial collaborations that have been announced by shipbuilders and classification societies. As I reported last month, announcements made at the Marintec conference in China included plans for a 180,000 ton bulk carrier, a 2,700 TEU capacity Chittagongmax container carrier, and a 23,000 TEU Ultra-Large Container Ship, all fueled by ammonia.
Since those projects were announced, another collaboration with MAN ES has been announced by Lloyd’s Register, including MISC Berhad, and Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI), working together to develop “an ammonia tanker.”

"Regarding energy density, if a conventional fuel tank (HFO) has a volume of 1,000 m2, an ammonia fuel tank would require 2,755 m2 to deliver the same power. This might make ammonia look infeasible if it weren’t for the apples-to-apples comparison against other carbon-free options: liquid hydrogen (at -253 °C) needing 4,117 m2, a Tesla model 3 battery requiring 14,000 m2, or the Corvus battery pack (the marine battery market leader) requiring 106,060 m2. Even carbon-based methanol offers no great advantage, requiring 2,333 m2.
Direct electrification (batteries) will always present the most energy efficient technology for providing power from renewables, and for short, quick journeys, battery-powered vessels will be ideal. For the long-haul, ocean-going freight, however, ammonia fuel offers an order of magnitude improvement on energy density, minimizing lost cargo space."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So maybe its not a bad thing to be able to turn the flame down a bit when the wind blows or the sun shines even though it may cost a bit more?

I'm with you on the need to conserve a finite resource, that is so vitally important to everything about modern society, and I agree that we owe it to future generations not to attempt to burn it all in a couple of short generations.

But that is not the way that this debate is being framed. It is centered entirely on the premise of CAGW. And the renewable energy sources are constantly being touted as being more cost effective than the conventional sources. Just look at how often Chuck tries to make that claim(then can't back it up with fact), or how often you seen some misguided article, by an author with no technical background( or ability to do math). You obviously get that the reality is different. The trouble is, you could never sell this to the public by telling them that they need to pay a lot more for a lot less, in the name of ensuring that their great grandkids can have a quality of life at least as good as we have it. We need to instant gratification or instant doomsday fear tactics, with promises of no personal costs to motivate people.