• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lessons from an Alberta power market on the brink

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Lessons from an Alberta power market on the brink

    Lessons from an Alberta power market on the brink

    Blake Shaffer
    Contributed to The Globe and Mail
    Published Yesterday

    Blake Shaffer is a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Calgary

    Faced with the prospect of rolling blackouts on a freezing Saturday night earlier this month, the Alberta Electric System Operator, in co-ordination with the provincial government, took the unprecedented action of issuing an emergency alert asking residents to conserve electricity.

    The jarring sound heard on cell phones across the province on Jan. 13 was no doubt met with a mix of bewilderment and fear, but the response was immediate. Albertans turned off lights, dryers and whatever else they could for a total of 150 megawatts – a large drop in minutes and just enough to cover the predicted shortfall and stave off rolling blackouts.

    The electric power system bent, but it did not break. In the aftermath, many are keen to dissect the event and assign blame.

    The truth is that the system performed pretty much as expected. The sun didn’t shine at night (shocker, I know), so solar power was not an option; the high-pressure system that accompanies these frigid temperatures also meant very little wind; and a couple of gas plants struggled but overall the thermal fleet did exceptionally well given the extreme conditions.

    To make matters more challenging, the Pacific Northwest was having its own power issues. A large reduction in capability at a major Montana coal plant and an outage at a gas storage facility in Washington state curtailing gas deliveries to power plants in the region meant Alberta had to compete with the Americans to get imports. This was made even harder because of Alberta’s $1,000 per megawatt-hour price cap, compared with prices that reached more than US$2,000 in the U.S.

    In the end, some help from neighbouring provinces and a last-minute conservation effort by Albertans meant the lights stayed on. And now that the threats of blackouts are behind us for now, what lessons can be learned from this month’s events?

    First, the role of renewables needs to be clarified. Critics may take the opportunity to denigrate wind and solar, pointing out their lack of production during the emergency alert and that they can’t be relied on during extreme peaks.

    But wind and solar are not peaking, or “dispatchable,” resources. They are “as available” energy producing when nature provides. Those that claim otherwise – whether to pretend they’re more than that, or that they ought to be – are misguided. At a low enough cost, you accept them for what they are: cheap raw energy. When they run, they displace fuel from other sources and deliver low emissions electricity in the process.


    Given their low cost, renewables are here to stay. And in Alberta they’ll be an increasing share of annual energy. The real challenge is maintaining and developing the portfolio of flexible resources to complement them. Here I’m talking about storage, expanded interties, demand response and, yes, gas peaking plants. This month’s emergency demonstrates just how important these on-demand resources are.

    The second lesson is the need for more flexibility in proposed Clean Electricity Regulations. The near miss of a blackout will no doubt be weaponized as evidence the regulations aren’t workable in Alberta. And there’s some truth to that; as written, the CER are far too prescriptive.

    As argued in a previous commentary ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-danielle-smith-may-be-grandstanding-but-canadas-clean-electricity/[/url]), the CER need far more flexibility to accommodate a range of potential outcomes and ensure reliability can be maintained across the country’s diverse electricity systems. For Alberta, that means more ability to run gas, albeit infrequently, while other clean “dispatchable” technologies develop. Rather than the firm hand of the CER, let the carbon price do the bulk of the work to encourage clean generation.

    And the third lesson is that the emergency alert highlighted an often-overlooked tool: demand response, which refers to customers shifting their electric consumption to better match supply. The swift action by Albertans showcased the potential to use demand response as a resource to lessen strain on the grid.

    But it doesn’t need to – and shouldn’t – occur simply because citizens are frightened into it. Instead, it’s time to deploy the full functionality of smart metres and reward consumers with savings if they are willing to be flexible. Not “black-me-out” flexibility, but certain appliances in the home. This is where the future of electricity ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/electricity/[/url]) is going, and it’s cheaper than more supply solutions.

    In the days and weeks ahead, Alberta’s electricity system remains in a tight spot. But by the end of 2024, there will be over 2,000 megawatts of additional gas capacity and several hundred megawatts of storage projects in the province: Alberta will be in surplus for several years to come.

    Nevertheless, the coming reprieve shouldn’t put an end to the important conversations on the future of the province’s rapidly evolving power grid and the policies needed to get us there.
    ?

    #2
    more university looney propaganda

    Comment


      #3
      But by the end of 2024, there will be over 2,000 megawatts of additional gas capacity ?....

      Yay AB, its a GAS man, a GAS!

      Comment


        #4
        Hahahha university propaganda? Sorry.. i thought that was a pretty well written article that doesnt bash oil and gas and highlights the issues/ challenges of renewables.

        Solar is absolutely a 0 brainer and im currently in talks with installer companies to put ip a large array ( and for some reason i should be able to get back 30 ish%... not sure why....)

        The issue with alberta isnt that renewables dont work... ( alberta is a fantastic place FOR renewables because of the solar capacity and wind capacity that we have here in the province) but rather a USEFUL and cost efficient energy storage system. Current battery life on a fully closed solar system for our home/ farm isnt feasible YET. But.. itll get there. And soon we should get batteries that rely less on precious rare metals ( we hope).

        I honestly dont understand how someone can bash renewable energies... they certainly are a better way than burning coal or other sources...
        I will certainly bash the idea that they truly are " renewable" however, and how we are being force fed the idea and implementation of them though...


        If something is so great and so cost effective.. then why would you need to pay me to do it?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by goalieguy847 View Post
          Hahahha university propaganda? Sorry.. i thought that was a pretty well written article that doesnt bash oil and gas and highlights the issues/ challenges of renewables.

          Solar is absolutely a 0 brainer and im currently in talks with installer companies to put ip a large array ( and for some reason i should be able to get back 30 ish%... not sure why....)

          The issue with alberta isnt that renewables dont work... ( alberta is a fantastic place FOR renewables because of the solar capacity and wind capacity that we have here in the province) but rather a USEFUL and cost efficient energy storage system. Current battery life on a fully closed solar system for our home/ farm isnt feasible YET. But.. itll get there. And soon we should get batteries that rely less on precious rare metals ( we hope).

          I honestly dont understand how someone can bash renewable energies... they certainly are a better way than burning coal or other sources...
          I will certainly bash the idea that they truly are " renewable" however, and how we are being force fed the idea and implementation of them though...


          If something is so great and so cost effective.. then why would you need to pay me to do it?
          When you stand back and take the 10,000 foot view, renewable energy is a miracle of human ingenuity.
          Tell our ancestors that we would use the heat of the sun to cool our houses during the hottest part of the day using solar power.
          Or that during a cold blustery day we can harness the wind energy to heat our homes.
          Or that the very same sun and wind that parch arid soils can be used to pump water to irrigate those soils.

          Unfortunately, we built our modern industrial societies around cheap reliable plentiful energy, and are highly unlikely to completely reorient every aspect of society and industry around intermittent, expensive and unreliable energy.

          Imagine if solar panels and grid scale wind turbines had been developed first, instead of fossil fuels and hydro, nuclear etc. Would there be any debate about replacing all that infrastructure to switch to finite fossil fuels?

          Comment


            #6
            Society would STAMPEDE to Nat Gas hydro nuclear....Garbage the intermittent

            Comment


              #7
              I think some have finally turned a corner here in accepting that low cost renewables have an important role. Especially since they are one of the lowest cost ways to reduce emissions.
              Once you get over the idea that intermittent sources have to provide all our electricity which they can't, then you can start to see their value. We are in the very early days of a transition that will take decades.

              Finite fossil energy was always going to be a limited resource anyway.

              Comment


                #8
                Nothing finite, earth is cooking them up constantly, enough with the FOSSIL BS.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by goalieguy847 View Post
                  Hahahha university propaganda? Sorry.. i thought that was a pretty well written article that doesnt bash oil and gas and highlights the issues/ challenges of renewables.

                  Solar is absolutely a 0 brainer and im currently in talks with installer companies to put ip a large array ( and for some reason i should be able to get back 30 ish%... not sure why....)

                  The issue with alberta isnt that renewables dont work... ( alberta is a fantastic place FOR renewables because of the solar capacity and wind capacity that we have here in the province) but rather a USEFUL and cost efficient energy storage system. Current battery life on a fully closed solar system for our home/ farm isnt feasible YET. But.. itll get there. And soon we should get batteries that rely less on precious rare metals ( we hope).

                  I honestly dont understand how someone can bash renewable energies... they certainly are a better way than burning coal or other sources...
                  I will certainly bash the idea that they truly are " renewable" however, and how we are being force fed the idea and implementation of them though...


                  If something is so great and so cost effective.. then why would you need to pay me to do it?
                  Goalieguy, you talk of getting 30% back. Is this from government subsidy? Federal? My neighbour installed a large array finished last summer. His installer told him there should be a 25% federal subsidy. When completed there was no subsidy, apparently the federal government had changed its priorities to funding heat pumps in Atlantic Canada. My only advice is don’t count on a subsidy if it is federal.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                    I think some have finally turned a corner here in accepting that low cost renewables have an important role. Especially since they are one of the lowest cost ways to reduce emissions.
                    Once you get over the idea that intermittent sources have to provide all our electricity which they can't, then you can start to see their value. We are in the very early days of a transition that will take decades.

                    Finite fossil energy was always going to be a limited resource anyway.
                    Hmmm, have you told Trudeau or Guilbeault or the CBC? They all still believe that the future is powered by wind and solar! Yes they are intermittent and as such you have to build the whole grid around this reality. I don’t believe this makes the resulting electrical generation cheaper. And no I don’t see any value in covering good cultivatable land with solar panels. If you want to cover reclaimed industrial lands that can’t be farmed have at it. Or if you want to cover roofs in the city, sure. But leave good agricultural land alone.
                    Last edited by Hamloc; Jan 23, 2024, 08:45.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Hamloc View Post

                      Hmmm, have you told Trudeau or Guilbeault or the CBC? They all still believe that the future is powered by wind and solar! Yes they are intermittent and as such you have to build the whole grid around this reality. I don’t believe this makes the resulting electrical generation cheaper. And no I don’t see any value in covering good cultivatable land with solar panels. If you want to cover reclaimed industrial lands that can’t be farmed have at it. Or if you want to cover roofs in the city, sure. But leave good agricultural land alone.
                      Absolutely agree , I think individual sola set up are just fantastic me for those that can afford the upfront cost . Plus it makes some of them feel good and virtuous. Each to their own
                      but as far as big solar projects , ya keep them on industrial land and in cities where these big grand ideas originate, and where the majority of extra green power is wanted , and let them pay for it in city tax’s .

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Looks like the lesson learned was that gas power is the answer if not going nuclear . Wind and solar are simply intermittent power sources.
                        like a lot of us have said for a decade

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Well the feds priorities can change on a whim so maybe the subsidies for solar got cut back... it was actually one of the first things the UCP did when they came into power here in alberta ( scrap the solar subsidy in the growing forward program) .. so now our only option is federal.. but as its now 2024 it couldve changed. Gotta pay for these jamaican vacas somehow ( i say that in jest chuck, slow your roll)

                          heres the issue with chucks response re my initial comments...

                          " low cost renewables"

                          Are they low cost when every project needs subsidizing? Or... " gets" subsidizing?

                          For instance... Ontarios power consumption is expected to double in the next 20 yrs. So they are doing feasability studies to increase Nuclear power production with some small modular nuclear plants and increasing capacity at the existing bruce power plant...

                          so, call me a rocket scientist here, but that sounds like a profitable business for those involved. Doubling electricity requirements + already owning the powerplants= money for shareholders.

                          WHY are the feds going to gove 15% subsidies via tax credits ( a subsidy by any other name) to those that are building any nuclear power creation? This is one of those subsidies that i dont agree with.
                          My tax dollars ( if i ever had a large enough crop to pay taxes) going to a company in ontario thats already incredibly profitable.... just to build more profit?

                          And yes chuck chuck we know youre going to not comment on anything here ( despite reading this probably 7- 9 minutes later) and instead throw out some comment on oil and gas subsidies ( of which i also dont agree with).
                          The only recent subsidies that make sense in O+G was the FEDERAL subsidy to start closing in some of the abandoned wells in alberta ( i believe it was 1 billion to the province during covid... it created alot of jobs and kept our economy buzzing along during times of low oil prices). That money, unfortunately, was tax payer money put towards covering up the ridiculous PC policies toward Oil and Gas weve had in alberta since the 1950s. ( take a peek at north dakotas policies on well cleanup and requirements pre drilling vs albertas.... then compare the amount of abandoned wells in each jurisidiction)

                          Again point being.. if something is profitable and not about politics....then why does it need to be subsidized ( such as heat pumps in eastern provinces)..?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I think I wasn't very effective at communicating my point above when I suggested that we wouldn't rebuild our infrastructure to switch to fossil fuels if we had developed solar and wind first instead.
                            What I mean is that we have been conditioned to think that reliable non intermittent energy is normal, and built our societies and industries and expectations around that.
                            Doing otherwise would be a giant leap backwards.

                            But if we had started out with intermittent energy, and considered that to be normal, and had all the infrastructure and work arounds already in place, then discovered fossil fuels, and the related pollution and environmental negatives. I doubt we would be willing to forego the sunk investment in the current infrastructure, and spend the huge sums to build pipelines, gas plants, refineries, tankers, service stations, create a drilling industry etc. just to avoid the inconveniences of intermittent power. Because they really wouldn't seem like inconveniences if that is all we had ever known.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Hamloc View Post

                              Hmmm, have you told Trudeau or Guilbeault or the CBC? They all still believe that the future is powered by wind and solar! Yes they are intermittent and as such you have to build the whole grid around this reality. I don’t believe this makes the resulting electrical generation cheaper. And no I don’t see any value in covering good cultivatable land with solar panels. If you want to cover reclaimed industrial lands that can’t be farmed have at it. Or if you want to cover roofs in the city, sure. But leave good agricultural land alone.
                              Tell that to the oil companies who covered a way more good ag land for many decades and you never said a thing!

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...