Suckered again

[nickjbor]

It's this kind of nonsense that the greems would have government throw millions of dollars at.

http://www.globeadvisor.com/servlet/Articl...61130/RREGULY30

part of the reason for this is neither province has any idea how to use wind power. wind power is ment to supliment the existing grid, not replace it. wind power could never power "200,000 homes" because the question is simple - what happens on a non-windy day? the idea is to build a certain number of wind farms, and have a certain number of solar panels around (in europe they do this, they encourage households to have at least 1 panel each) this works because normally on cloudy days its windy, so 10% of your energy is generated by these sources; and 10% is the best you'll ever get out of them, but that's 10% less oil we have to burn. if your an environmentalist, that means 10% less toxic gasses in the air. if your a capitalist that means 10% less oil that's used and 10% less demand means lower prices at the pump.

[Saturn]

When we are convinced that nuclear is the only feasible way to go, they will make a good sale.

It's not Saturn, what do we do with the waste? Nuclear is the ultimate passing of the buck to future generations.

I didn't say I agree. But it's not easy selling nuclear, the public is not to keen on it. You have to try some other options, show that they don't work (you make sure of it) and then you say "Well, nuclear sucks, but it's the best option available." And we pass the buck to future generations in many other aspects, so why not this?

[fellowtraveller]

I work in power transmission and I can tell you our current system in Alberta is at the full capacity of wind that we can allow. Anything more will make the system too unstable.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that we can't add any more wind turbines? What do you mean "full capacity of wind?" How would it make the system unstable to add more?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being facetious, I just don't understand how we can have too much wind generated power.

Utility systems must be and are designed to provide for a certain, fixed level of both production and consumption. The power lines from power stations have a diameter of wire designed to carry a specific load. Conventional generating stations produce a certain, fixed amount of juice. Imagine all of the electricity comes from coal powered stations........Planning for system capacity, so that the requirements every home on the grid is factored in, is a matter of adding up all the demand, subtracting scheduled downtime of the generating plants, and adding back a bit as a safety factor.

Enter windpower. Windpower cannot be part of that supply calculation, since there is no guarantee that they will contribute anything to the minimum that must be availble 24/7.

Therefore, any capital cost for wind power is redundant capacity, which means the output from a wind turbine must be fully duplicated elsewhere in a reliable installation. Expensive. It also requires that you have a ready market for excess electricity, since you just cannot shut down and start up conventional plants on a moments notice when the wind gusts.....

So that is what is meant, IMO, about making the grid unstable with wind power. If you don't have that very expensive, very reliable redundancy built in- you can't add a huge amount of windpower. Way too risky.

[Michael Hardner]

fellow traveller,

thank you for throwing some light on this issue for me. but if what you're saying is true, then how could wind power ever have been considered at all ?

[fellowtraveller]

fellow traveller,

thank you for throwing some light on this issue for me. but if what you're saying is true, then how could wind power ever have been considered at all ?

Because the system is huge and interconnected, and can accomdodate some instability, some variance. But that amount is limited. A certain amount of overproduction must be built in to accomodate scheduled and unscheduled down time at conventional plants, and wind can fill in the gaps some of the time. If there is overproduction, sometimes it can be sold to other grids. But to have a system in a modern, industrialized nation that relies too much on intermittent electricity will be a disaster, which is why grid managers say : so much, and no more.

Same thing with solar.

The alternative sources that are environmentally friendly, sustainable and relatively constant that bear looking at are wave power (generated by ocean wave action) and geothermal. Given the line losses explained here, that doesn't help much if you're living far from the ocean or far from geothermal sources.

[jdobbin]

fellow traveller,

thank you for throwing some light on this issue for me. but if what you're saying is true, then how could wind power ever have been considered at all ?

Some of the questions raised about noise, killing birds and connecting to the grid are here.

http://www.nypirg.org/fbg/wind/#how

[fellowtraveller]

fellow traveller,

thank you for throwing some light on this issue for me. but if what you're saying is true, then how could wind power ever have been considered at all ?

Some of the questions raised about noise, killing birds and connecting to the grid are here.

http://www.nypirg.org/fbg/wind/#how

They don't really get into the severe limitations, or costs of wind though......that source is disengenuous, with this:

"Electric generators put power into the grid at hundreds of locations and consumers take power from the grid at their homes and businesses. Generators operate to keep the grid in balance (not overflowing) at all times. That means that when one generator is added, another needs to turn off."

It doesn't mention that you still must build virtually 100% of the maximum demand on the system using more reliable sources So, in that sense, wind power is purely a redundant, and therefore very expensive source. You can't spend billions on coal, nuclear, hydro and natural gas plants and then expect to turn their production off and on like a light bulb fifty times a day. We're not talking about a Honda generator stopping and starting, these are huge plants that take days to get running, or take offline. You do have to build those reliable sources to provide power to the maximum amount foreseen to be required on the coldest or hottest day of the year.

[jdobbin]

They don't really get into the severe limitations, or costs of wind though......that source is disengenuous, with this:

"Electric generators put power into the grid at hundreds of locations and consumers take power from the grid at their homes and businesses. Generators operate to keep the grid in balance (not overflowing) at all times. That means that when one generator is added, another needs to turn off."

It doesn't mention that you still must build virtually 100% of the maximum demand on the system using more reliable sources So, in that sense, wind power is purely a redundant, and therefore very expensive source. You can't spend billions on coal, nuclear, hydro and natural gas plants and then expect to turn their production off and on like a light bulb fifty times a day. We're not talking about a Honda generator stopping and starting, these are huge plants that take days to get running, or take offline. You do have to build those reliable sources to provide power to the maximum amount foreseen to be required on the coldest or hottest day of the year.

I agree. I don't think it is completely reliable. I think of it as mostly a supplement to the more reliable sources of power.

[Charles Anthony]

Before this thread turns into a scrolling quotation fun ride, I am stepping in here on a point of order: Guys, trim your quotes!

The majority of the posts in this thread have the same amount of whitespace as the added replies.

[mikedavid00]

Rocket launches have too high a failure rate to seriously consider that proposal.

You'd be needing a huge rocket, piles of money. I don't think a rocket is the most efficient way to transport things (most of rocket used just to get out of atmosphere). \

I was just kidding about the rocket.

[punked]

Pfffffftttttt Alberta energy pfffffttttt.

Who told you Alberta is caped for its wind casue that is just wrong geoffory. In a deregualted system you can;t just go no we don't want your energy.

Alberta is curently doing projects to double the energy which is made by wind so it seems far from caped out. Infact they don't plan on capping out till their wind power is expanded by four times the amount they have now. They are far from being a world leader in wind and not even close to caped out.

As far as Alberta being a Canadian leader in wind that title actually goes to the east coast province of PEI who as of right now has 5% of its total energy made by wind and who is hoping by 2015 to have 100% of its energy by wind. Ontario now has 400 megawatts of wind power generation, compared with 300 megawatts in Alberta. Let us not forget as far as renewable goes Quebec, BC, Manitoba, New Foundland and the Yukon have hydro, New Brunswick does a lot of Thermal too putting Alberta far beind on the renewable energy in comparison.

Alberta does lead Canada in Green house gas emissions though 31.2% from the energy sector.

Geoffry is really trying to put a spin on his provinces power generation but seriously i don;t know if he is trying to lie or he is just misinfromed but seriously.

[Riverwind]

Alberta does lead Canada in Green house gas emissions though 31.2% from the energy sector.

Energy which the rest of the world desperately needs. Energy exporters should not be penalized for a problem created by consumers in other countries.

[punked]

Alberta does lead Canada in Green house gas emissions though 31.2% from the energy sector.

Energy which the rest of the world desperately needs. Energy exporters should not be penalized for a problem created by consumers in other countries.

I dont see how passing the buck solves the problem which you aren't addressing. If Alberta is making all this money from it's resources it could easily poor some of it back into the energy sector. Instead they deregulated something which should be regulated and let the elephant lose in the china shop. Seriously the whole point in deregulation is people will do what is cheapest and in Alberta that is burning shit and putting it into the air. No one wants to punish you for your energy, I just think you should take responsibility for it.

[geoffrey]

I dont see how passing the buck solves the problem which you aren't addressing. If Alberta is making all this money from it's resources it could easily poor some of it back into the energy sector. Instead they deregulated something which should be regulated and let the elephant lose in the china shoppe. Seriously the whole point in deregulation is people will do what is cheapest and in Alberta that is burning shit and putting it into the air. No one wants to punish you for your energy, I just think you should take responsibility for it.

That's ridiculous. Alberta produces CO2 so Ontario and Quebec can run their industry. If Canada is a country, the burden of CO2 will nominally fall equally upon each province. Ontario is a far greater cause of Alberta's CO2 then Albertans could ever hope to be.

That CO2 burned to get the oil out of the ground is just step one in a manufacturing and transportation regime firmly controlled in Eastern Canada. They need to pay the tax as much as we do in Alberta.

A carbon tax that has Albertans paying more per capita will only increase the outrage at the ridiculous equalisation arrangement that exists, we pay enough already. NEP II is simply unacceptable.

[punked]

I never said their should be a tax. I said Alberta should give back what it takes. That means building a more sustainble energy sector. This shouldn;t be hard to do put up some more wind turbines you have plenty of room and as for storing energy, store your extra wind power in hydrocells they are crazy good at saving energy. You are ignoring at there are soluation out there and trying to put the blaim some where else. If you are making 31.2% of the GHG's in Canada and you are the richest province than pony up and start doing something because someday the oil is going to run out and if you don;t invest it you are going to be screwed time moves forward but whenever I talk to an Albertan they seem to think it stops. I am not saying Alberta should be punished for it;s industry just that you have a responiciblity you are the ones making those emmissions. When the fishing industry was crashing was Nova Scotia telling Alberta to stop fishing? No casue that is silly we were taking all the fish and should be the ones to correct that problem.

Quebec is almost soly hydro, what you want them to reduce their emissions? That doesn;t make sense.

[jbg]

Before this thread turns into a scrolling quotation fun ride, I am stepping in here on a point of order: Guys, trim your quotes!

The majority of the posts in this thread have the same amount of whitespace as the added replies.

Why

justify

right?

Just

curious

.

[geoffrey]

I never said their should be a tax. I said Alberta should give back what it takes. That means building a more sustainble energy sector. This shouldn;t be hard to do put up some more wind turbines you have plenty of room.

Our grid is maxed out on wind power. We are the leading producer of wind energy in Canada... if not North America (never seen N.A. stats).

[hiti]

Just as solar energy users have a back-up system cause the sun does not shine 24-7, so too back-up systems are used for wind energy. Using a combination is what the goal should be which would help enormously in greening electricity and heating of homes and businesses.

The latest energy efficient hotel that was built in Red Deer, Alberta operated totally with solar energy but still has a back-up system. http://www.tiny.cc/JuIdy

[Saturn]

That's ridiculous. Alberta produces CO2 so Ontario and Quebec can run their industry. If Canada is a country, the burden of CO2 will nominally fall equally upon each province. Ontario is a far greater cause of Alberta's CO2 then Albertans could ever hope to be.

That CO2 burned to get the oil out of the ground is just step one in a manufacturing and transportation regime firmly controlled in Eastern Canada. They need to pay the tax as much as we do in Alberta.

A carbon tax that has Albertans paying more per capita will only increase the outrage at the ridiculous equalisation arrangement that exists, we pay enough already. NEP II is simply unacceptable.

Wow, hold on. Oil and gas companies get away with nasty practices in Alberta that one else would get away with anywhere else in the developed world. Next, Alberta is building COAL plants - something that is no reasonable developed country would do (yes, clean coal technology exists but that's NOT what Alberta is builiding). Albertans drive the dirtiest fleet of vehicles in the country. You can't blame all your emissions on the oil and gas industry. Most of Alberta's oil and gas exports go to the US, not to Quebec or Ontario. And nobody is talking about CO2 taxes on the producer. A carbon tax should be like any other consumption tax and would be paid by the consumer. Now if you happen to waste a barrel of oil for every 4 barrels you produce, then it's your own fault that you use such bad technology to extract your oil.

[punked]

I never said their should be a tax. I said Alberta should give back what it takes. That means building a more sustainble energy sector. This shouldn;t be hard to do put up some more wind turbines you have plenty of room.

Our grid is maxed out on wind power. We are the leading producer of wind energy in Canada... if not North America (never seen N.A. stats).

Your Gird is not maxed out that is a lie there are plans to double Albertas wind power in the next 5 years.

You are not the leaders in wind power where did you get that idea? Ontario makes more wind power. HOw about you produce some stats casue I already have in the post you ignored.

[geoffrey]

Your Gird is not maxed out that is a lie there are plans to double Albertas wind power in the next 5 years.

You are not the leaders in wind power where did you get that idea? Ontario makes more wind power. HOw about you produce some stats casue I already have in the post you ignored.

Good thing you know nothing about the industry.

The U.S. produced 6,700 megawatts, while in Canada, the leading provinces, Alberta and Quebec, produced 275 megawatts and 113 megawatts, respectively, according to the Global Wind Energy Council and the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/ind...ContentID=13118

So Alberta is more than TWICE the next province in wind generation, with Ontario very far behind. At least look up my statements before you call me a liar. Your ignorant attitude towards Alberta is showing with shot from the hip comments like that.

So where is your proof of this secret plan? I work in the industry, there is no capacity. Sorry.

[punked]

"Ontario now has 413 megawatts of wind power generation" As of November 2006. Thats close to twice as much as Alberta last time I cheaked. Oh and PEI has 5% of their total power from wind. I am so glade you know nothing about Canadian power. I apperently know more about the industry than you.

[Proud Canuck]

I heard somewhere that England was planning to put windmills in the ocean to generate power, I don't know if this is feasible or not, but it wouldn't be a bad idea here to put a couple of those suckers in Hudson Bay, you wouldn't lose any landspace, and i'm pretty sure its windy there a lot of the time.

You do not need wind! They are using an under sea power generator that uses the ocean current to generate electricity. There is also one that uses the tides to generate electricity. It turns with the tide to provide a constant flow of electricity.

[Proud Canuck]

"Ontario now has 413 megawatts of wind power generation"

They would have more power if they had the land they needed to develop the wind turbine farms.

I found an interesting document from Wind Energy Niagra. Got to http://www.regional.niagara.on.ca/governme...anels_4_5_6.pdf