A climate success story: How Alberta got off coal power

[oneoff]

Oneoff, I am not disputing the benefits of flare gas generation. Its a much better use of flare gas than just burning it inefficiently and releasing all the emissions to the atmosphere.

We know that solar is intermittent, but that doesn't mean that it can't provide significant amounts of electricity from a free clean fuel source to reduce carbon emissions from fossil sources of electricity. That has to be worth something considering Sask Power spent 1.2 billion dollars of taxpayers money on CCS at Boundary to reduce emissions from coal. That is a significantly larger subsidy compared to the $54 million that Duncan claims is attributable to the net metering solar programs.

As a flare gas net metering customer of Sask power you are still hooked to the grid in case your system goes down. I am assuming you are receiving credit of 7.5 cents per kwh for any surplus electricity you produce?

And even though you produce all your own electricity needs, except when your system is shuts down, you are still hooked up to the grid with benefits to both Sask Power and yourself. But you will not be paying Sask Power for the benefit of backup except for the basic service charge? Correct?

Other than your system did not receive a rebate on capital costs and you're still taking revenue away from Sask Power even though they still provide the lines and infrastructure to be grid tied? Correct?

You obviously made a big investment of time and money. What is your estimated long term cost per kwh to produce electricity with your system?

Are you in agreement that without the actual cost of generating and distributing electricity to all different classes of Sask Power customers that it is impossible to know which classes of customers are receiving electricity below the cost of delivering it? (cross subsidization)

IMO, cross subsidization is happening in the Saskpower system in a significant way that make the costs of the net metering programs which you and I participate in relatively insignificant.

The answer to the above enquiry is quite simple. Reread what has been posted. Maybe even take note of what was missed in the haste to defend that which doesn't confirm firmly held beliefs..

I've repeated dates and information that really isn't anyone else's business and either it is not believed or else it isn't what some want to hear. The only reason this information was provided was to make it publically known that there are at least some cases of ongoing waste byproducts that could be put to very productive uses; using a bit of creative thinking. Maybe it took more effort than anyone else in the world was willing to invest; maybe the unique circumstances won't ever be duplicated; but cogeneration in this case would supply ALL the electrical needs (and space heating) of any farmsite I've eevr seen.


In conclusion: What I'm talking about is "base load" electrical production. The additional 200% greater heat energy in the waste heat is just a bonus for space heating; grain drying; greenhouse heating etc. Of course it needs to be captured to be useful for any purpose.

Now if it is accepted that 30Kwh per day should be enough electricity for anyone's residential use; then a 6000 watt grid tie inverter (capable of years of continuous "base load generation) could supply more than 140 Kwh of electricity per day or more than enough for 4 homes.

But 6000 watts (or 4 KW) is not what a 100 KW generator is capable of. The generator doesn't even notice a 4 Kw load. It starts up (eg after an oil change) 40 Kw loads comprised of a 10 hp motor; the oil well pump jack; multiple aeration fans that may be connected; all lights that are never shut off (a lot of them 400w mercury vapor lighting) and appliances of all sorts without any thought of load shedding; and currently FOUR (4) grid tie inverters (soon to be Six (6) inverters and three more that would just need to go through the same red tape and inspection progress)

Now with heads swimming; each of the four current inverters is able to power 4 houses (especially when the utility grid is productively used as the "battery solution" and done with arguable benefits to all parties. Thus 4 inverters times 4 residences each is 16 houses supplied with their electrical needs.

One step furter..... working the 100Kw genset at about 50% load (used "capacity factor" if you will) those nine inverters (at 6 Kw each) could supply 36 residences.

But it does need the utility grid; which doesn't require upgrades in above scenario. And no more power is ordinarily necessary to be on standby.

Who catches on that this isn't about supplying one's own needs. I have no desire to operate 36 residences.

I have proven potentially serving electrical needs of 36 residences after all. And for those who missed it; there would be potentially no need for any backup power from someone else's alternate supply. Another $5000 to $10000 100KW genset could be the backup. Maybe already is.

However it is foolish to believe that all sorts of things have not ibeen overlooked and can go wrong. Like natural gas carbon taxes rules being changed or some do gooder banning production of replacement water pumps. What's the sense of worrying about everyone nose being cut off to spite every face.

Only a handful of people are interested anyway????????????????? Dead quiet makes a person wonder.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It is really funny that Chuck won't acknowledge any of the issues in the CBC article.
His go to response to any inconvenient question on this topic is always to tell us to go ask the electric company/regulator. ( And it should be noted that when we do, such as last winter when I called AESO to clarify, he and Grassfarmer still concluded that us dumb farmers were just too stupid to understand).
So, the CBC went and asked them, and got the answers that we have been providing all along.
And Chuck is all about insisting everything come from a reputable source, and in his case, more often than not, his cut and pastes come from the CBC.
So this article should be exactly what Chuck is looking for. It comes from his very favourite reputable source, and his own reputable source asked the utility/regulator the questions he keeps telling us to ask.

The end result? He calls the people being interviewed liars, and refuses to acknowledge the factual claims being made.

Can anyone say goal post moved?

I suppose that means CBC is no longer a reputable source. His list of approved sources is getting shorter by the day.