____ Power Projects Pause

[Guest]

[url]https://www.iflscience.com/portugal-just-ran-on-entirely-renewable-energy-for-a-record-breaking-6-consecutive-days-71643[/url]

[Happytrails]

My understanding is that like most industrial sites they use soil sterilant to avoid cost of vegetation control and lower fire hazard.

My point was that soil shaded from the sun is effectively sterilized. I guess the solar harvest isn't 100% but it certainly doesn't allow anything beyond nuisance vegetation.

[chuckChuck]

"My point was that soil shaded from the sun is effectively sterilized. I guess the solar harvest isn't 100% but it certainly doesn't allow anything beyond nuisance vegetation."

Happytales you are full of bullshit!

Spinach and sheep are showing us that solar farms aren't solely for green energy

University of Alberta team grows plants under solar panels in laboratory test

New work from the University of Alberta is looking to maximize the green energy that comes from the province's solar farms.

The practice is known as agrivoltaics — placing crops under solar panels, effectively doubling down on the efficiency of a booming solar energy sector. In this case, the crop is spinach.

We talk to a researcher at the U of A about a project aiming to meet our energy and food needs at the same time.

"In several ways it's a win-win," said soil scientist Guillermo Hernandez Ramirez, a professor in the U of A's faculty of agricultural, life and environmental sciences.

Solar farms require a significant amount of land, a challenge that has drawn criticism from the agricultural community and from some opponents of renewable energy initiatives.

EPCOR's kīsikāw pīsim solar farm covers 21 hectares in southwest Edmonton. On the other end of the scale is the Travers Solar Project in Lomond, Alta. It spreads across 1,350 hectares and is currently the largest in Canada.

The Travers Solar Project is the largest solar farm in Canada so far at 3,330 acres. (Carolyn Dunn/CBC)


The U of A pilot project, run by Hernandez Ramirez and research intern Camila Quiroz, was a 25-day laboratory test to see if solar farms can do double duty.

Research was conducted in a growth chamber that compared the growth of spinach in three conditions: under a thin solar panel, under a thick solar panel, and uncovered.

Spinach plants under solar panels consumed up to 17 per cent less water — and though their growth was slower, the plant's overall health wasn't affected.

And while they grew, the plants kept the area underneath the panels cool, which improved the solar panels' efficiency.

• Greek company to spearhead $1.7B solar energy project in Alberta ([url]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mytilineos-solar-energy-project-alberta-1.6862891[/url])

• Simulations in agri-voltaics suggest Canadian farms could one day double as giant solar batteries ([url]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/solar-panel-crops-agri-voltaics-canada-1.6832870[/url])

"There is a synergy here," said Hernandez Ramirez.

It's about "trying to use the space in a more efficient way," he said. "We are able to combine the two efforts, the challenge of energy transition and the challenge of food security." 'Growing food, fibres and fertilizer'


Spinach isn't the only thing that can thrive on a solar farm.

In 2012, Janna Greir and her husband Ryan started Whispering Cedars Ranch near Strathmore, Alta. Last year they moved 450 sheep to a graze at Strathmore Solar, a 130-hectare project run by Edmonton-based Capital Power.

The flock returned to the solar farm in May. The sheep will be there until October, offering affordable and effective lawn maintenance. In turn, the solar panels will give the animals shade while they graze.

"We're growing food, fibres and fertilizer underneath green energy. You don't get any better than that," Janna Greir said.

The American Solar Grazing Association was founded in 2018 to promote sheep grazing on solar installations in the United States. Sheep are used on many solar farms in Ontario, but the idea is relatively new to Alberta.

[Hamloc]

Was at an Alberta Grains meeting yesterday. There was a discussion about the AUC doing a survey on Power Plant construction related to the pause. It appears to me looking at the questions in the survey that at present there are no regulations as far as putting up a bond or insurance related to remediation of the sight at end of life. I am curious if anyone has an opinion on how this should be handled? Personally I think oil companies should have had to do this when they drilled a well so that if they go out of business the well sight is cleaned up. I can’t imagine the cost of cleaning up a quarter section of solar panels and related infrastructure if the company walked away.

As well I don’t understand why solar fields are not limited to brownfield locations that have no use due to previous industrial uses. Why cover good cultivated agricultural land? There is a gas plant sight 5 kms. from me that is in the final stages of cleanup. Perfectly flat, no vegetation, would work perfectly.

[Happytrails]

As well I don’t understand why solar fields are not limited to brownfield locations that have no use due to previous industrial uses. Why cover good cultivated agricultural land? There is a gas plant sight 5 kms. from me that is in the final stages of cleanup. Perfectly flat, no vegetation, would work perfectly.

I’ve never heard the justification for covering agricultural land with solar panels. It seems illogical to displace plants that absorb CO2, produce oxygen, and provide food.

[chuckChuck]

But covering agricultural land with oil wells and infrastructure is okay?

Oil and gas are covering lots of good agricultural land and you got nothing to say?

[chuckChuck]

[url]https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/EE-TRENDS-SOLAR-OCT.pdf[/url]

New study from the University of Calgary shows what the land use for solar look likes in Alberta.

Key questions for policy makers centre on how much of the various types of land
available in the province would be used for renewables. How much farmland could
solar generation claim? Given that, presently, 1.3GW of solar generation capacity is
installed in the province, and an Alberta Electrical System Operator model suggests this
would need to increase to 5.2GW through 2041 to achieve ‘net zero’ by 2035 under a
renewable intensive scenario, how much farmland are we talking about potentially
putting into the shadow of solar arrays?
Using data from the footprint of existing solar installations in the province, we calculate
that 0.08% of total agricultural land would be required. We compare this potential solar
footprint, at just over 38,000 acres, to the amount of agricultural land and non-
agricultural land in the province in Figure 1.
Less than 1 tenth of 1 per cent of all agricultural land would be required
to host a ‘net zero’ solar future.
These calculations are conservative. They assume no solar farms will be
built on brownfield industrial land, buildings, or non-agricultural land.
They do not take into account continued improvements in solar panel
efficiency which would mean fewer panels with less footprint could
produce the same amount of electricity. They disregard emerging
techniques in agrivoltaics that enable the simultaneous use of land for
both agriculture and solar production. And finally, despite evidence to
the contrary, they offer policy makers an extreme case where solar is
installed exclusively on high value agricultural land.
Responsible development rules and consultation with municipalities is
clearly warranted to ensure renewable energy development does not
repeat the mistakes of other forms of energy development in the
province. As policy makers develop those rules, knowing how much
potential solar farming land we’re talking about is an important piece of
the puzzle

[shtferbrains]

Chuck what do you think attracted the Greek company to come from southern EU to Alberta.

Will they lower the cost of power in Alberta?

[shtferbrains]

Here is some actual data from Germany. Their capacity factor has proven to be 9% to 11% in a wide scale investment. Alberta may achieve that but currently are not.

"It now becomes obvious why the installed capacity needs to be much larger for wind and solar than for dispatchable power such as nuclear, coal, gas, or hydro. This significant relative increase in energy generation capacity to produce the same available, but unpredictable, energy output is coupled with a significantly higher raw material input and energy input factor for variable "renewable" energy which must be offset from any fuel savings.

#Germany is a good example: Total installed power capacity more than doubled in the past 20 years, essentially all consisting of wind and solar (see figure below)

• Wind and solar installed capacity is now above 125GW, more than 150% higher than peak power demand in Germany of around 80GW
• Germany' conventional installed power capacity consisting of coal, gas, and nuclear still barely matches peak power demand
• With all this capacity addition in Germany, wind and solar made up less than 30% of total electricity generation in 2021 and about 5% of total energy consumption."

How do intermittent Renewable power suppliers make investments with nameplate capacity to provide 150% of peak power demand but actually only bill for 5% of total energy consumption?

Is that a reasonable plan to make taxpayers energy bills go down?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Here is some actual data from Germany. Their capacity factor has proven to be 9% to 11% in a wide scale investment. Alberta may achieve that but currently are not.

"It now becomes obvious why the installed capacity needs to be much larger for wind and solar than for dispatchable power such as nuclear, coal, gas, or hydro. This significant relative increase in energy generation capacity to produce the same available, but unpredictable, energy output is coupled with a significantly higher raw material input and energy input factor for variable "renewable" energy which must be offset from any fuel savings.

#Germany is a good example: Total installed power capacity more than doubled in the past 20 years, essentially all consisting of wind and solar (see figure below)

• Wind and solar installed capacity is now above 125GW, more than 150% higher than peak power demand in Germany of around 80GW
• Germany' conventional installed power capacity consisting of coal, gas, and nuclear still barely matches peak power demand
• With all this capacity addition in Germany, wind and solar made up less than 30% of total electricity generation in 2021 and about 5% of total energy consumption."

How do intermittent Renewable power suppliers make investments with nameplate capacity to provide 150% of peak power demand but actually only bill for 5% of total energy consumption?

Is that a reasonable plan to make taxpayers energy bills go down?

But it sure sounds good on paper.
So useful idiots such as our very own Chuck, can endlessly repeat the mantra:
"cheapest generation"
While willfully ignoring the 9 to 11 % real world capacity factor.

[Happytrails]

Even if turbines divert wind the wind is still blowing. It’s not going to disappear, it’s always renewing so to speak. As long as there’s sun there will be wind.

I’d say the confusion is the idea that renewable means something is Net Zero. Even renewables require inputs, it’s just a matter of how much. They’re not carbon free.

Given that we are harvesting energy from the wind my guess is that the wind speed is reduced somewhat by the turbines.

[Blaithin]

Given that we are harvesting energy from the wind my guess is that the wind speed is reduced somewhat by the turbines.

So is the flow of a river that’s been damned for hydro.