Prairie Clean Energy

[chuckChuck]

I'll ask again. You keep telling us that Alberta and Sask can import cheap reliable hydro to back up their expensive unreliable solar and wind going forward.
Except, you seem proud to announce that Manitoba is also going to build wind instead of hydro to meet rising demand.
So then where will Ab and Sk get their back up energy from? Or will you enact a law that the wind can't stop blowing in all 3 prairie provinces at once?

So Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are increasing available supply with lots of renewables and other sources, whats to stop them from sharing supplies by importing and exporting?

Wind is much cheaper and faster to increase the supply, so they say. So Saskatchewan already imports some hydro from Manitoba and they also might import wind and solar too.

When its windy and sunny in Manitoba, is it always windy and sunny in all of Saskatchewan and Alberta too? Or do you think the weather might vary across the 3 prairie provinces?

Your lights can't tell the difference can they?

Gas, hydro and interconnections can back it all up. And maybe a little bit of nuclear until they figure out that it is the most expensive option that takes years longer to build.

[cropgrower]

I asked what happened after 8 am since the screenshot said until 8. It was also mentioning solar and wind, not just solar.

Fast forwarding to 10 am the next day and cherry picking a low Solar isn’t what I was looking for. But I went and found the website so that’s alright, I can periodically pop in and see for myself.

Did not fast forward to next day , 8 am and 11,57 am both on thursday

[shtferbrains]

[QUOTE=chuckChuck;n783672
Your lights can't tell the difference can they?
[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing the lights will be running on the same source as they are now?

For sure won't be solar.

[chuckChuck]

In Alberta they are running on mostly gas instead of coal, wind and solar and that looks to be what they will be running on for the foreseeable future. And if Transalta's plans are an indication, its going to be a bigger percentage of wind and solar.

[shtferbrains]

California is the ideal place in the world for solar. They have enough nameplate installed capacity when you include wind to match normal daily load.
But they also have to import about 30% of their use and it's not unusual for them to give away solar produced power to Arizona when the grid can't handle what is being fed in.
They install new solar every year but it has to displace existing older solar because it all come on at times they don't need any more.
With all that production capacity solar and wind amount to about 25% of use.
Baseload capable sources make up the rest including hyro and geothermal.

So what do you see that Alberta can do better than California Chuck?

[Guest]

Chucky, oh chucky??

[TSIPP]

We all know chuckroach is wrong, I guess it’s just fun watching everyone prove him wrong.

[chuckChuck]

So Transalta is wrong too? And Lazard's LCOE too?

Now Danny Smith is so worked up over electricity in Alberta she is thinking of a state owned grid? Huh?

In free market Alberta she wants to push the corporations out of the way and politicize the electrical grid?

She wants to pick the winners and losers instead of letting the market decide which generation source is the cheapest?

She's turning into the "government knows best socialist" to run the grid?

In the heartland of freedom loving capitalists, the government is about to take over the grid?

More government instead of less?

What a political contortionist! LOL

[Guest]

Well she has pretty small boots to fill
kenney was useless and Nutley was just that
I see she is Danny this morning, head banging again ?

[shtferbrains]

So Transalta is wrong too? And Lazard's LCOE too?

I have given you 2 examples using Germany and California. Probably the 2 most advanced green power economies in the world.
Both are about 1.5x Canada's GDP.
Both set of actual data say the same thing.
You can build more solar by nameplate capacity than average demand load for the country but it will only supply less than 20% of the power that is billed to the taxpayer.
You still need 100% baseload even if you sometimes have to give excess solar production away.
How can that reduce cost?

Why keep referring to Lazards when you can clearly see data?