Has Solar and Wind generation reduced electricity costs in Alberta?

[chuckChuck]

Here is my solar production on January 1 around noon in watts. The total output is 18124 watts from a 25000 watt system which is 72% of the capacity. Not bad production in the middle of winter when the sun is very low. The days are short, but if the sun is shining you can capture a significant amount of energy.

[chuckChuck]

Here is the total 2022 production which is 34249 kwh which is slightly below average.

[Hamloc]

Chuck2 Alberta has 29 industrial solar farms. I looked on Dispatcho to see how they performed over the last 24 hrs. Of the 29 facilities 5 has a capacity factor of 0. On the rest the capacity factor ranched from .8% at Michichi(just north of Drumheller) to the best performing one at Monarch with a capacity factor of 14.1%. So Chuck2 say what you will, not really reliable or bankable, just like the weather, you can only take what you are given.

[Guest]

Imaginary solar panels have a much better track record

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Imaginary solar panels have a much better track record

As usual, Chucks imaginary panels have a drastically better track record than the commercial grid scale installations in sunny alberta.

I just checked the solar farm closest to me at innisfail. Hasn't even hit 50% in well over a month. I remember checking this in the past, and none of the Alberta solar farms got anywhere close to the output that Chuck's did. But chucks make 72% on a random midwinter afternoon.
As the saying goes, the first liar doesn't stand a chance.

[Guest]

And todays the first day we have had any sun in sask
Maybe it shines more in Meota?

[chuckChuck]

When you call my solar panels and actual output from my inverters imaginary you have obviously given up and have nothing else intelligent to say.

I guess since most of you have no direct experience with solar PV how would you really know what they are capable of?

And how do you know whether it is sunny or cloudy across the whole province at any particular time?

And how do you know if all the the large scale solar PV systems in Alberta are free of snow or receiving full sun? Mine are regularly cleaned off.

But I don't expect the flat earthers to ever change their minds, so not to worry.

[Hamloc]

When you call my solar panels and actual output from my inverters imaginary you have obviously given up and have nothing else intelligent to say.

I guess since most of you have no direct experience with solar PV how would you really know what they are capable of?

And how do you know whether it is sunny or cloudy across the whole province at any particular time?

And how do you know if all the the large scale solar PV systems in Alberta are free of snow or receiving full sun? Mine are regularly cleaned off.

But I don't expect the flat earthers to ever change their minds, so not to worry.

You raise an interesting point Chuck2. You have pointed out how harvesting energy from Mother Nature can be affected by Mother Nature. How difficult would it be to clean off a 160 acre solar farm? How much snow would it take to make it impassable and impossible to remove the snow? There is a RV park about 3 miles from my home, used to be run by the provincial government, it is now owned and run by the Métis. After they took over they installed a ground mount solar system.(with our tax money no doubt).The last couple of times I drove by there the solar panels were covered with snow, not as energetic as you I guess Chuck2.

Just had a quick look Chuck2, 6 of 29 solar farms had a capacity factor of zero over the last 24 hours. As far as I know there hasn’t been any snow in Alberta for 4-5 days. As I have said many many times, solar power is fine just don’t attempt to tell me it is the answer. It will not work 24 hrs. a day, 365 days a year. People like David Suzuki who promote wind and solar as the answer to our electricity generation needs are in my opinion wrong. Yes Solar can generate electricity, yes while the sun shines it can displace fossil fuel generation but it cannot be depended on for base load generation, that simple.

[chuckChuck]

Agreed and i have never said that solar will replace base load.

And everybody is well aware that solar is intermittent and production in winter is much lower.

That's why you need to look at the whole years production which displaces other sources and reduces emissions. In the summer sping and fall my panels often produce more than I can use. But someone is using the surplus.

The future will involve storage of renewables which will make them even more valuable.

[Guest]

When you call my solar panels and actual output from my inverters imaginary you have obviously given up and have nothing else intelligent to say.

I guess since most of you have no direct experience with solar PV how would you really know what they are capable of?

And how do you know whether it is sunny or cloudy across the whole province at any particular time?

And how do you know if all the the large scale solar PV systems in Alberta are free of snow or receiving full sun? Mine are regularly cleaned off.

But I don't expect the flat earthers to ever change their minds, so not to worry.

Well then quit preaching to us

[fjlip]

Nobody wants HEAT and electricity...."sometimes". It's ALL the time.

[Hamloc]

Agreed and i have never said that solar will replace base load.

And everybody is well aware that solar is intermittent and production in winter is much lower.

That's why you need to look at the whole years production which displaces other sources and reduces emissions. In the summer sping and fall my panels often produce more than I can use. But someone is using the surplus.

The future will involve storage of renewables which will make them even more valuable.

Here is why renewables don’t and won’t make electricity more affordable. It used to be we had coal fired generation which could supply electricity 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year(except when shut down for maintenance or repairs). Now to supply that same kilowatt you have solar backed up by wind backed up by storage backed up by natural gas. Now as you say solar is the cheapest way of adding capacity but to create that kilowatt from solar 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year you will require other forms of energy generation plus the power lines to distribute it. A natural gas generator will have to be payed something for the existence of this capacity whether it is used every day or not. So in reality, is solar and wind cheap capacity, maybe but it won’t be the cheapest production when everything is factored in. Instead of 1 large centralized facility it might take 4 plus additional power lines. In the end electricity will be far more expensive!!!!

[chuckChuck]

Of course there will be increasing costs for electricity. Prices have long been going up before any significant amount of renewables were in the system simply because of inflation.

When i looked at Saskpower rates they increased about 3% per year over the 10 years before I purchased a solar system.

As we switch from fossil fuels to lower carbon generation sources like gas there are additional costs with new builds.

If nuclear is added as a generation source, this will also increase costs as it is the highest cost generation option that will require a lot of government subsidies.

In reality reducing carbon emissions and building more generation capacity to electrify more of our energy needs will cost a significant amount.

The question is what are the lowest cost options to reduce emissions that will help keep system costs lower.

Its pretty clear that the costs of renewables are some of the lowest cost new generation sources available and will play a significant role in most electrical systems around the world to greater or lesser degrees depending on local circumstances.

But to suggest that renewables should not be used to reduce emissions because they don't work or add too much cost to the system is not accurate if you look at what is happening in many parts of the world including Alberta.

Both Sask Power and the private sector under the AESO are using renewables in their systems which indicates they are good investments.

[rumrocks]

Of course there will be increasing costs for electricity. Prices have long been going up before any significant amount of renewables were in the system simply because of inflation.

When i looked at Saskpower rates they increased about 3% per year over the 10 years before I purchased a solar system.

As we switch from fossil fuels to lower carbon generation sources like gas there are additional costs with new builds.

If nuclear is added as a generation source, this will also increase costs as it is the highest cost generation option that will require a lot of government subsidies.

In reality reducing carbon emissions and building more generation capacity to electrify more of our energy needs will cost a significant amount.

The question is what are the lowest cost options to reduce emissions that will help keep system costs lower.

Its pretty clear that the costs of renewables are some of the lowest cost new generation sources available and will play a significant role in most electrical systems around the world to greater or lesser degrees depending on local circumstances.

But to suggest that renewables should not be used to reduce emissions because they don't work or add too much cost to the system is not accurate if you look at what is happening in many parts of the world including Alberta.

Both Sask Power and the private sector under the AESO are using renewables in their systems which indicates they are good investments.

No flatearthers or LOL, a breath of fresh air, thank you.

[Hamloc]

Of course there will be increasing costs for electricity. Prices have long been going up before any significant amount of renewables were in the system simply because of inflation.

When i looked at Saskpower rates they increased about 3% per year over the 10 years before I purchased a solar system.

As we switch from fossil fuels to lower carbon generation sources like gas there are additional costs with new builds.

If nuclear is added as a generation source, this will also increase costs as it is the highest cost generation option that will require a lot of government subsidies.

In reality reducing carbon emissions and building more generation capacity to electrify more of our energy needs will cost a significant amount.

The question is what are the lowest cost options to reduce emissions that will help keep system costs lower.

Its pretty clear that the costs of renewables are some of the lowest cost new generation sources available and will play a significant role in most electrical systems around the world to greater or lesser degrees depending on local circumstances.

But to suggest that renewables should not be used to reduce emissions because they don't work or add too much cost to the system is not accurate if you look at what is happening in many parts of the world including Alberta.

Both Sask Power and the private sector under the AESO are using renewables in their systems which indicates they are good investments.

Chuck2 a somewhat reasonable response, although you didn’t address the main point of my post which was that adding 1 kwh of electrical capacity with solar isn’t as cheap as proponents make out because to produce that 1 kwh of electricity 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year you will require 2 or 3 additional generation sources depending on how you want to build the grid. From that standpoint is generating that additional kwh really more expensive with nuclear or with solar backed up by wind backed up by storage backed up by natural gas?!