Farm Solar Scam

[tweety]

It would be nice to have an option to opt out of subsidizing inefficient and unreliable forms of power generation. Unfortunately we don’t have a choice so all the vanity projects including solar or wind will increase everyone’s SaskPower rates.

Then change the payment structure of electricity as well. Also remove the billions in subsidies for oil and gas. Also remove the subsidies for agriculture.

What you use is what you pay for on a per kw basis. NO subsidies would then be required or wanted as the local generation is actually much cheaper. In fact the advantage would be solar by a large margin. The only reason there is the subsidy to to make the unfair practice not look so bad.

It all comes down to one thing, disparity in how you pay for electricity set by careful lobbying and can be looked at as a subsidy of normal residential customers to pay for industrial distribution. ATCO and transalta have long been doing this deeply connected to government. Change that, you change renewables forever with no subsidies whatsoever.

You always jump to the same conclusion, subsidies for renewable as the problem - yet the real problem is a completely unfair, monopolistic, protectionistic pricing model for traditional grid that forces renewable local generation completely not competitive.

[furrowtickler]

Then change the payment structure of electricity as well. Also remove the billions in subsidies for oil and gas. Also remove the subsidies for agriculture.

What you use is what you pay for on a per kw basis. NO subsidies would then be required or wanted as the local generation is actually much cheaper. In fact the advantage would be solar by a large margin. The only reason there is the subsidy to to make the unfair practice not look so bad.

It all comes down to one thing, disparity in how you pay for electricity set by careful lobbying and can be looked at as a subsidy of normal residential customers to pay for industrial distribution. ATCO and transalta have long been doing this deeply connected to government. Change that, you change renewables forever with no subsidies whatsoever.

You always jump to the same conclusion, subsidies for renewable as the problem - yet the real problem is a completely unfair, monopolistic, protectionistic pricing model for traditional grid that forces renewable local generation completely not competitive.

But keep your hands out for CERB cheque’s right ?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Then change the payment structure of electricity as well. Also remove the billions in subsidies for oil and gas. Also remove the subsidies for agriculture.

What you use is what you pay for on a per kw basis. NO subsidies would then be required or wanted as the local generation is actually much cheaper. In fact the advantage would be solar by a large margin. The only reason there is the subsidy to to make the unfair practice not look so bad.

It all comes down to one thing, disparity in how you pay for electricity set by careful lobbying and can be looked at as a subsidy of normal residential customers to pay for industrial distribution. ATCO and transalta have long been doing this deeply connected to government. Change that, you change renewables forever with no subsidies whatsoever.

You always jump to the same conclusion, subsidies for renewable as the problem - yet the real problem is a completely unfair, monopolistic, protectionistic pricing model for traditional grid that forces renewable local generation completely not competitive.

Can you explain what legislative change would accomplish this? Local generation such as Chuck's is entirely reliant on using an interconnected grid as "storage" at no cost to the freeloaders such as Chuck. Remove the ability to do that, and the economics of solar or wind become impossible.

Unless you have been listening to Chuck for so long that you think that we can legislate away the laws of physics, or that the only thing stopping the renewable energy panacea is a conspiracy theory by big oil and big electricity? There are a lot of otherwise smart people who read uninformed media stories about renewable power, who come away thinking that the storage technology already exists, and can be installed and maintained at a cost remotely close to existing generation sources.

As soon as economic storage technology exists, no legislative changes will be required, the economics will dictate that local generation wins over centralized. But as of today, there is no such technology even on the drawing board. Remember in our climate, 3 months of storage is what is being installed for stand alone solar when blackouts are not permissible. And that the cost of storage technology needs to drop by a full order of magnitude to make solar competitive with fossil fuels. I expect we will eventually get there, but it won't be by decree from above.

[LEP]

Can you explain what legislative change would accomplish this? Local generation such as Chuck's is entirely reliant on using an interconnected grid as "storage" at no cost to the freeloaders such as Chuck. Remove the ability to do that, and the economics of solar or wind become impossible.

Unless you have been listening to Chuck for so long that you think that we can legislate away the laws of physics, or that the only thing stopping the renewable energy panacea is a conspiracy theory by big oil and big electricity? There are a lot of otherwise smart people who read uninformed media stories about renewable power, who come away thinking that the storage technology already exists, and can be installed and maintained at a cost remotely close to existing generation sources.

As soon as economic storage technology exists, no legislative changes will be required, the economics will dictate that local generation wins over centralized. But as of today, there is no such technology even on the drawing board. Remember in our climate, 3 months of storage is what is being installed for stand alone solar when blackouts are not permissible. And that the cost of storage technology needs to drop by a full order of magnitude to make solar competitive with fossil fuels. I expect we will eventually get there, but it won't be by decree from above.

Chuck and tweety like to sell their excess solar power "picked up at the panel" and want someone else to pay the freight.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

Chuck and tweety like to sell their excess solar power "picked up at the panel" and want someone else to pay the freight.

Uhhh that’s not how it works. In Alberta you sell a kWh for $0.10. If you buy a kWh it’s $0.20. The utility is making 10 cents each way.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Wow. A5 actually said something positive about solar! There is hope after all. hahah

Now this right here is a prime reason why I don't put Chuck on ignore. It is so amusing to watch him reveal his myopic view on the world. It is completely beyond his comprehension that not all people are blind ideologues, whose fanatical and unchangeable opinions are based only on emotion, like he is. He therefore cannot accept that anyone else might come to a flexible conclusion based on facts and evidence.

Most cars sit doing nothing all day at work or at home and can easily soak up some excess solar electricity for charging. It's the elusive Solar storage you were waiting for A5.

As I said, this is a great fit for a farmer, or anyone who works from home. but has absolutely no benefit for anyone who still travels to work for a day shift, which is the vast majority. Panels mounted on your rooftop at home aren't going to help charge your car miles away.

Electricity prices keep rising. Solar system prices keep falling. The cost of my 25 kw system is about the same as a nice new pickup and it will pay for itself in about 10 years and we should have another 15 or 20 years of cheap electricity. My estimate of lifetime cost per kwh is about 8 cents. Sask Power charges 14 cents and is rising about 3% per year. A lot will depend on how many panels or inverters fail.

I haven't bought a new car or a pickup that has paid for itself in 10 years and then almost cost nothing to run for the next 15 - 20 years. Most overpriced luxury pickups are ego driven vanity projects, unlike solar which actually captures a free unlimited infinite resource from the sun and turns it into very useful electricity!

I can't help but picture Chuck's accountant attempting to explain Chuck's year end financial results to him, but knowing his aversion to math and numbers(and jealousy of his successful neighbors), uses his best mister Rogers voice, and kids gloves, to explain everything relative to the cost of a new pickup truck. Chuck, your new solar system cost as much as a nice new pickup truck, your CWB pension is only one average pickup truck, and your Agriville troll job pays no pickup trucks, because unlike CWB, it is results based...
And if you think his accountant has a tough job, imagine being his solar installer. Must get panicked phone calls in the middle of the night claiming that his panels are broken and not producing, and every snowstorm etc.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

My point being that it is a matter of if not when net metering, and net billing for grid tied solar become unsustainable, and are replaced by smart meters which will value the electricity generated and consumed according to the laws of supply and demand. At which point, the solar ( or wind) system will need to be economic on its own. If you can find a flexible demand that matches the output, it might be economical. Charging electric cars, irrigation pump, A/C, or some industrial process which can be ramped up and down, perhaps making your own N fertilizer on site for example. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with big bills for buying power back from the grid, and quite possible big bills for selling power at negative prices into a saturated grid when the sun shines. Not yet a factor when solar is in the very(very) low single digits, but inevitable if we reach the lofty unreliables penetrations that are being forecast.

The smartest thing Chuck could do right now, is avoid publicly endorsing solar, and quietly behind the scenes, lobby for capping the total grid tied solar so that his system continues to be viable. By promoting the technology, all he is doing is expediting his own economic demise.

[tweety]

Can you explain what legislative change would accomplish this? Local generation such as Chuck's is entirely reliant on using an interconnected grid as "storage" at no cost to the freeloaders such as Chuck. Remove the ability to do that, and the economics of solar or wind become impossible.

Unless you have been listening to Chuck for so long that you think that we can legislate away the laws of physics, or that the only thing stopping the renewable energy panacea is a conspiracy theory by big oil and big electricity? There are a lot of otherwise smart people who read uninformed media stories about renewable power, who come away thinking that the storage technology already exists, and can be installed and maintained at a cost remotely close to existing generation sources.

As soon as economic storage technology exists, no legislative changes will be required, the economics will dictate that local generation wins over centralized. But as of today, there is no such technology even on the drawing board. Remember in our climate, 3 months of storage is what is being installed for stand alone solar when blackouts are not permissible. And that the cost of storage technology needs to drop by a full order of magnitude to make solar competitive with fossil fuels. I expect we will eventually get there, but it won't be by decree from above.

Really simple, have said it about 5 times already. Make the price of power you pay based completely on energy used. It's not 5 cents a kwh, its 30 to 40 cents. You aren't "storing" power with a conventional grid, you are using power from a conventional grid as a hybrid system when it is dark in the case of solar. Like a Prius, use the gas engine when needed, the batteries the rest of the time, charge the batteries when braking and going downhill.

If a government was truly interested in pushing forward renewable energy development, this is exactly how you do it - but they are not. Never was and never will be about renewable, its about large utility companies already in monopolistic control remaining that way. Double the price of power if its a problem, then watch renewable take off even faster AND storage systems.

The way it is right now, why bother doing anything renewable since it such an unfair pricing scheme.

Lep, use your noodle just a tiny bit, no one is trying to hurt your precious utility company that you can't seem to look past for any sort of alternative. Not asking for free access, subsidies, nothing. Just asking for payment based on energy used.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Really simple, have said it about 5 times already. Make the price of power you pay based completely on energy used. It's not 5 cents a kwh, its 30 to 40 cents. You aren't "storing" power with a conventional grid, you are using power from a conventional grid as a hybrid system when it is dark in the case of solar. Like a Prius, use the gas engine when needed, the batteries the rest of the time, charge the batteries when braking and going downhill.

If a government was truly interested in pushing forward renewable energy development, this is exactly how you do it - but they are not. Never was and never will be about renewable, its about large utility companies already in monopolistic control remaining that way. Double the price of power if its a problem, then watch renewable take off even faster AND storage systems.

The way it is right now, why bother doing anything renewable since it such an unfair pricing scheme.

Lep, use your noodle just a tiny bit, no one is trying to hurt your precious utility company that you can't seem to look past for any sort of alternative. Not asking for free access, subsidies, nothing. Just asking for payment based on energy used.

I agree that an all in price per kWh would level the playing field. I'm all for that. But it doesn't solve the lack of a viable storage mechanism for on site power generation.

[TOM4CWB]

I agree that an all in price per kWh would level the playing field. I'm all for that. But it doesn't solve the lack of a viable storage mechanism for on site power generation.

My electric power bill is this... 6 cents/kwh.
Plus,
10 cents/kwh grid line charges.

If I generated a [1] KWH and got 6 cents... and it Costs 10 cents to be hooked up to the grid... I lost 4 cents/kwh on every kwh I generated while hooked up to the grid.

This has a capacity charge... as well... built into the line charges...

Therefore it is imposable... to pay for solar panels by generating power at a net loss [4cents] on every kwh generated before depreciation or ownership cost.... even If I could earn 6 cents / kwh I generated.

Unless there is a Gov. subsidy on every kwh generated by my solar panels....if I had them.... solar is neither sustainable nor a carbon sink.

therefore,

Unless I can operate 365days a year... off grid... or sell my power/energy off grid... e.g. produce nh3... which can be stored and then sold totally off/outside of the Electrical grid... there can not be a net carbon sink with any environmental benefit, in any event...IMHO.

looks to me like 'the new green economy' is actually brown and stinks.

[TOM4CWB]

My electric power bill is this... 6 cents/kwh.
Plus,
10 cents/kwh grid line charges.

If I generated a [1] KWH and got 6 cents... and it Costs 10 cents to be hooked up to the grid... I lost 4 cents/kwh on every kwh I generated while hooked up to the grid.

This has a capacity charge... as well... built into the line charges...

Therefore it is imposable... to pay for solar panels by generating power at a net loss [4cents] on every kwh generated before depreciation or ownership cost.... even If I could earn 6 cents / kwh I generated.

Unless there is a Gov. subsidy on every kwh generated by my solar panels....if I had them.... solar is neither sustainable nor a carbon sink.

therefore,

Unless I can operate 365days a year... off grid... or sell my power/energy off grid... e.g. produce nh3... which can be stored and then sold totally off/outside of the Electrical grid... there can not be a net carbon sink with any environmental benefit, in any event...IMHO.

looks to me like 'the new green economy' is actually brown and stinks.

Zero emission aircraft: ammonia for aviation
By Trevor Brown on August 20, 2020,

This week, Reaction Engines announced a “ground-breaking study” on ammonia as a fuel for zero-emission aircraft. This will soon be followed by a demonstration project, “integrating the technology into a ground-based test engine.”

The study combines Reaction Engines’ heat exchanger technology with the ammonia cracking technology being developed by the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). By partially cracking green ammonia to hydrogen, the resulting ammonia fuel mix “mimics jet fuel,” making it possible to adapt existing engines and aircraft to use zero-emission fuels. “This means a fast transition to a sustainable aviation future is possible at low cost.”

“The combination of Reaction Engines’ transformative heat exchanger technology and the STFC’s innovative catalysts will enable development of a game-changing class of green ammonia-based aviation propulsion systems. Our study showed that an ammonia-fuelled jet engine could be adapted from currently available engines, and ammonia as a fuel doesn’t require a complete re-think of the design of civil aircraft as we know them today.”

James Barth, quoted in Reaction Engines announcement, Reaction Engines, STFC engaged in ground-breaking study on ammonia fuel for a sustainable aviation propulsion system, August 18, 2020
Reaction Engines develops “transformative technology solutions” for space exploration, including its SABRE (Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engine) project. Its ammonia fueled aviation project adapts the advanced heat exchangers developed for SABRE, recently ground-tested at Mach-5, for use in commercial aircrafts.

Ammonia fueled flight
We have reported on many ammonia fuel projects here, with perhaps most focus on the maritime and power generation sectors. As the announcement states, “up until now however, it has not been proven to be viable as a fuel for aviation propulsion systems.”

The propulsion system was devised by Reaction Engines and investigated by a team at STFC’s Rutherford Appleton Laboratory … It would have the potential to efficiently crack the ammonia fuel using heat harvested from the jet engine through Reaction Engines’ ground-breaking heat exchangers to provide a zero-carbon fuel blend of ammonia and hydrogen that burns stably just like jet fuel. The density of liquid ammonia allows for conventional aircraft configurations to be used and it may be possible to retrofit into an existing engine, resulting in a zero-carbon jet that could start serving the short haul market well before the 2050 target currently set by the industry.

Reaction Engines announcement, Reaction Engines, STFC engaged in ground-breaking study on ammonia fuel for a sustainable aviation propulsion system, August 18, 2020

Reaction Engines, heat exchanger web page, accessed August 2020"

NOW

NH3.... COULD DRIVE A NET ZERO ENERGY DRIVEN ECONOMY, WITH FISION AND FUSION ELECTRICAL ENERGY BASE, Eventually.

[TOM4CWB]

"Ammonia-Hydrogen fuel mix
This partial cracking strategy has been a regular theme for ammonia combustion engineers across the years. For example, the University of Minnesota’s tractor uses on-board cracking to produce a 70:30 ratio of ammonia and hydrogen, to replace diesel. And the electric power industry is swiftly growing to appreciate that ammonia’s cold, slow flame and hydrogen’s hot, fast flame can be combined in a gas turbine with combustion properties very similar to methane.

Now, this announcement makes it clear also that a well-controlled ammonia-hydrogen mixture could deliver combustions properties similar to jet fuel."

Or Diesel Fuel.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

My electric power bill is this... 6 cents/kwh.
Plus,
10 cents/kwh grid line charges.

If I generated a [1] KWH and got 6 cents... and it Costs 10 cents to be hooked up to the grid... I lost 4 cents/kwh on every kwh I generated while hooked up to the grid.

This has a capacity charge... as well... built into the line charges...

Therefore it is imposable... to pay for solar panels by generating power at a net loss [4cents] on every kwh generated before depreciation or ownership cost.... even If I could earn 6 cents / kwh I generated.

Unless there is a Gov. subsidy on every kwh generated by my solar panels....if I had them.... solar is neither sustainable nor a carbon sink.

therefore,

Unless I can operate 365days a year... off grid... or sell my power/energy off grid... e.g. produce nh3... which can be stored and then sold totally off/outside of the Electrical grid... there can not be a net carbon sink with any environmental benefit, in any event...IMHO.

looks to me like 'the new green economy' is actually brown and stinks.

No, no, and no. If you generate and sell 1 kWh for 6 cents it is NOT -4 cents. Let me explain this again. You get 6 cents, your neighbour uses that kWh and pays 6 cents + 10 cents.

[TOM4CWB]

No, no, and no. If you generate and sell 1 kWh for 6 cents it is NOT -4 cents. Let me explain this again. You get 6 cents, your neighbour uses that kWh and pays 6 cents + 10 cents.

This transaction you speak of above... was dreamt up at Davos by Soros and Gates... and requires the new 'balanced green math'... where the new world order counts deficits as an asset?

[Hamloc]

Uhhh that’s not how it works. In Alberta you sell a kWh for $0.10. If you buy a kWh it’s $0.20. The utility is making 10 cents each way.

My understanding is in Alberta you are payed the maximum generation charge for the solar you would generate which in Alberta was capped by the Notley government at 6.8 cents a kWh until 2021. How do you get payed 10 cents a kWh in Alberta?