A climate success story: How Alberta got off coal power

[oneoff]

QUUOTING CHUCK I wouldn't rely on Duncan or Saskpower to be honest about what the net metering programs like solar and flare gas are costing Sask power. They are probably not willing to admit that cross subsidization is a reality in the whole system.UNQUOTING CHUCK

This response is to set the record straight; whilst fully realizing it will have no impact on facts that have impacted minds that are closed.

The statement attributed (above) to chuck clearly pertains to SaskPower and Minister Duncan and flare gas Net Metering systems. Seeing as how there are only two fully approved; operational; "base load"; near 100% record of uptime since commissioning .........I object to a claim of them being a part of "cross subsidization is a reality in the whole system".........particularly for flaregas net metering.

I know that for a fact because am aware of those two flare gas net metering projects. Every bill and cost was borne by their owners. Not one cent of subsidy, grant, incentive; nor direct support has been received to date. It is grossly unfair to try to lead others to the contrary; when even the research and development (which has been openly shared with agriville readers) might as well have been and actually should have remained as proprietary data.

In fact; if there is any entitled subsidy that does arrive; it may well be donated to fund revealing a deep scam; that of making sure pigs fly and projects that aren't feasible and can't produce become the base energy upon which we come to depend.




Judging by the challenge put forth in a previous thread; it should be concluded that flare gas generation (in at least one particular set of circumstances) has an efficency; dependability of 24 hr production; environmental benefits and cogeneration applications that have been proven over more than 6 months of operation; to have a rightful place in a utility grid.

Spreading such falsehoods will not be easily swallowed. And I hope chuck comes to realize the truth in what he has seen firsthand

Hint AF5

[oneoff]

As documented in the "Challenge" thread of a few weeks ago; consider this a report on the first six months flaregas gridtie net metering generation of the first 5540 some watt project.

More than 24000 Kwh "received" and 4 kwh delivered by the provincial utility for farm use. It was a new meter with zero readings installed prior to net metering started the first week of July 2020. Assuming everything continues as the last 6 months ( with its 24,000,000 Watts contributed to the grid) there will be about 48,000Kwh for a one year period in the piggy bank. If deliberately disconnected tomorrow one could speculate if the next 30 months would create an electrical usage bill for the next 1 1/2 years or so.

This despite just going through the shortest daylight hours (not that there would be any effect); nor whether it ever rains again; or the sun ever shines or the exact opposite. The cost of fuel is royalty free; as it would be for anyone else who needs to reduce Methane and volatile hydrocarbons by 40% to 45% less than 2015 emissions. Don't try to tell me that both Federal expectations and Provincial Regulations have not been met. Remember the benefits of putting an always vented gaseous energy source to a useful purpose through cogeneration.

This project has not created additional environmental damage; unless you consider that your internal combustion engines should never run again; or that your electric vehicle shouldn't be recharged except when the sun shines in another month or so; or the natives begin to complain about the wind becoming an irritating nuisance.



Tell me again that you have a system that can equal or out perform; and doesn't need a "base load" generation to make the pet solar and wind alternatives even deserve passing comment; let alone honourable mention

[oneoff]

To be totally accurate; the Sask Power meter reading was 24937 Kwh a few minutes ago. In the last minute; with the sun above the horizon; the Saskatoon Solar Demonstration site is reporting 1224 W of current power output.

The Saskatoon web page documents 30 plus Kw of solar array; a 27Kw array and 3 kw of sun following cells.

Please do the math

[oneoff]

QUOTE Another important point is that the average annual capacity factors for the conventional hydroelectric fleet between 2009 and 2019 ranged from 35% to 43%. The average annual capacity factors for the U.S. wind fleet were 28% to 35%. Capacity factors are the ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for a specified period of time to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation during the same period.UNQUOTE

All discussion to date should have started with agreeing on what "Capacity factor" means. Above quote is from an EIA release; which should also be agreed facts. Solar capacity factor; according to Wikipedia ranges from approx 12% at a 49 degree latitude to maybe 29% elsewhere in world for solar generation. Nuclear is well over 90%,

Connect the dots and interpolate the Laws of Nature; and man's advancements to determine what the current state of affairs mean to civilizations.

[chuckChuck]

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.

[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.