Lessons from an Alberta power market on the brink

[furrowtickler]

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 .

[furrowtickler]

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

[goalieguy847]

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)..?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

[chuckChuck]

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!

[chuckChuck]

Goalie, Even without subsidies on Lazard the LCOE renewables are some of the lowest cost new electricity in the world and that's why investment in renewables is getting close to investment in new oil and gas development, according to the IEA.

Economics is why Alberta has so many renewables being installed.

Now Danny wants to pick the winners and losers like a good free market capitalist er I mean socialist government. She wants to interfere in the market. Surprise surprise. We don't want to let those greenies upset the petro cart!

[WiltonRanch]

Tell that to the oil companies who covered a way more good ag land for many decades and you never said a thing!

Oil companies could afford to pay enough for leases pumping or not to keep farmers happy for the inconvenience. Myself I really wouldn’t care if a wind farm or solar array was put on my land but the footprint sure is a lot more than a lease. In fact the new tech now multi leg wells off of one lease shrink the footprint to f all. At the end of life of the lease the well is killed and capped and above ground remediation is done with cats in a matter of several days. From what I understand these large windmills require a deep concrete base and solar arrays are sprayed with copious amounts of soil sterilants. It would in my opinion be better if livestock were grazed around them instead. What does remediation of a wind farm look like? Danni Smith whom you really love to hate told these wind and solar outfits she wanted a plan and some money put into a kitty like oil companies do for any new wells so we don’t have a future mess with abandoned infrastructure like we do now. Is that not fair?

[chuckChuck]

The Alberta hypocrites can't even clean up their oil wells and you are bitchin about the renewable industry? Only in Alberta.

Where was the moratorium on oil and gas development untill they put a workable costed plan in place?

Alberta the land of double standards!

[Hamloc]

Tell that to the oil companies who covered a way more good ag land for many decades and you never said a thing!

Actually Chuck2, there are numerous oil leases on the land I farm. In many cases I am payed for 5 acres of which 3 I can still farm.

[fjlip]

"these large windmills require a deep concrete base and solar arrays are sprayed with copious amounts of soil sterilants. It would in my opinion be better if livestock were grazed around them instead. "

Rather permanent, costs to remove be as much as install! Kind of exponentially more expensive than covering a hole in the ground!