____ Power Projects Pause

[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.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

My brother in law is decommissioning that plant, and many others for the same company.
The decision was made when gas prices were low.
Part way through the process, when prices were improved, management asked how much it would cost to put some of the plants back into production.
Didn't happen. But it would have been great job security.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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

That seems like a harsh judgement to force on an innocent river.
It wasn't the rivers fault that it was dammed, perhaps they should have damned the engineers who designed the dam, instead of the poor river itself.

[chuckChuck]

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.

So what happened to your commitment to stop name calling on Agrisilly?

Like on a lot of things you are all hat and no cattle!

Wind generation in Alberta is 20% and solar is 6% and more and more is coming on line. Coal is only 6%. Are you still going to keep saying that wind and solar don't work even as generation keeps growing by leaps and bounds?

Distribution of electricity generation in the Canadian province of Alberta as of July 2023, by source

[url]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1402468/electricity-generation-alberta-canada/[/url]

[shtferbrains]

Wind generation in Alberta is 20% and solar is 6% and more and more is coming on line. Coal is only 6%.

What do you think would be the ideal amounts of wind and solar?

It the company from Greece gets enough subsidies the could maybe take it to 150% of daily usage like Germany?

Would that replace the 6% Coal baseload?

[chuckChuck]

"There's no maximum percentage renewables per se, it's more a question of what portfolio gives you both cheap energy and sufficiency capacity when you need it."

From one of the Alberta energy economists who studies Alberta's system.

[shtferbrains]

Did he say if you added enough wind and solar to provide 150% of peak power demand you could replace that 7% coal .
Without all your industry looking for a new home because it's no longer a competitive environment?

[chuckChuck]

[url]https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/[/url]

Solar PV utility scale $24 - $96 per MWh
Solar plus storage utility scale $46-$102 per MWh
Wind Onshore $24 - $75 per MWh
Gas Peaking $115 - $221 per MWh
Nuclear $141 - $221 per MWh

Now you can see why that there is so much wind and solar being installed in Alberta. And why Transalta is so bullish on renewables.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

[url]https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/[/url]

Solar PV utility scale $24 - $96 per MWh
Solar plus storage utility scale $46-$102 per MWh
Wind Onshore $24 - $75 per MWh
Gas Peaking $115 - $221 per MWh
Nuclear $141 - $221 per MWh

Now you can see why that there is so much wind and solar being installed in Alberta. And why Transalta is so bullish on renewables.

Do you think those numbers are incorrect? Or is every single real world example where they have been installed incorrect?

Can you provide an example of where solar plus utility scale storage has been installed, and prices to consumers are in the $46 to $102 range?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Wind turbines do affect weather.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-02089-2 Wind plants can impact long-term local atmospheric conditions