Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[fryewe]

Alberta has deregulated its electrical power industry. Power companies contribute the power they produce to a pool and the price for electricity fluctuates based on demand.
By mid-2000, strong economic growth in Alberta had led to a dramatic increase in demand for elec- tricity. Meanwhile, the power supply remained constant which caused prices for electricity to soar. For example, in 2000, the average price for electricity was $133 per megawatt hour, but prices spiked to $183 between June and December later that year.
With the rise in electricity prices expected to continue in future years, Calgary Transit officials sat down with Vision Quest Windelectric and ENMAX and forged ahead with plans to strike a 10-year deal. Not only would this deal to buy wind-generated power benefit the environment, it would also provide budget stability to fluctuating power prices. While details of the city's pricing contract with with Vision Quest and Enmax are subject to a confidentiality agreement, its substance is simple. When Alberta power pool prices dip below wind power prices, Vision Quest will charge Calgary a premium. When power pool prices are high, Calgary will get a rebate.
Calgary Transit realized when it signed the contract with Enmax and Vision Quest that it ran the risk of seeing power pool prices decline once the inevitable new power producers come on line in a few years time. However, it was calculated even under the worse case scenario, the most the city could lose is about $2.5 million (a premium of one-half cent per passenger) over the course of the 10-year contract.

http://library.tac-atc.ca/proceedings/2002/calgary.pdf

Crony capitalism?

How much of the cost of this project was public money, or was "paid for" by tax breaks or subsidies, or rate guarantees by other than the Calgary government?

Why was the pricing contract subject to a confidentiality agreement?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

... In other words, there will be NO wind power to operate the Calgary LRT for the next 2 days.
Will the LRT shut down? If not, where will the power come from?

the Castle River facility has a total capacity of 44 megawatts. Were it to produce at full capacity, it would generate about 385.44 gigawatts (385,440 megawatts) annually.
It doesn’t.
The 60 turbines actually produce about 125,000 megawatt hours of electricity annually.

During windless periods the power to operate comes from a mix of other renewable energies: hydro, biomass and solar power; or by natural gas and coal.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

BTW: Why do environmentalists embrace a technology (wind power) which kills wildlife?
Seems kind of..... Hypocritical.

Turbines at the Castle River Wind Farm were not a major hazard to birds or bats during our study. Our estimated collision rates were similar to rates documented elsewhere in the western and midwestern United States. Collision rates were not high enough to have an effect on local or regional populations of birds or bats.
➥ http://www.batsandwind.org/pdf/Castl...rta%20Canada.p

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by fryewe

http://library.tac-atc.ca/proceedings/2002/calgary.pdf

Crony capitalism?

How much of the cost of this project was public money, or was "paid for" by tax breaks or subsidies, or rate guarantees by other than the Calgary government?

Why was the pricing contract subject to a confidentiality agreement?

The aggregate purchase price for the Initial Assets was approximately $1.7 billion, which was satisfied through the issuance of Common Shares, through entering into various short term and long term loan agreements, and the assumption of certain outstanding indebtedness.
➥ http://www.transaltarenewables.com/s...R%20Filing.pdf

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The aggregate purchase price for the Initial Assets was approximately $1.7 billion, which was satisfied through the issuance of Common Shares, through entering into various short term and long term loan agreements, and the assumption of certain outstanding indebtedness.
➥ http://www.transaltarenewables.com/s...R%20Filing.pdf

GM, your post and link refer to the 2013 acquisition of TransAlta Renewables vice the 10 year contract with Calgary in 2000 re wind power provisions for the light rail system in Calgary (which should have expired in 2010 but was perhaps revised or renewed or extended).

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SailOar
You seem pretty dismissive today. Must be that US anti-intellectualism leaking out

Building heating/air conditioning is one of the largest uses of energy.

Insulating a building is equivalent to putting on a warmer jacket and then being able to turn down the heat or AC. Win-Win

Originally Posted by Exile

Assuming you can afford to pay the up front costs to accomplish it, that is.

Retrofiting insulation to a building can be very expensive. However, superinsulating new construction adds only about 5% to its cost. In an era of $140/barrel oil it pays for itself very quickly. In an era of <$40/barrel oil, it takes a bit longer.

The International Building Code provides for much higher standards of insulation and energy efficiency than what is typically implemented in the US. It's a national shame that we haven't implemented even the most basic energy reforms in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern..._Building_Code

International Building Code

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

1. Indeed!

2. The LRT does not run on electrons delivered straight from wind turbines. Instead, it’s connected to the standard electricity grid. But while that grid is still dominated by natural gas and coal, Calgary’s 2001 investment meant 12 wind turbines were erected, providing 21,000 megawatt-hours of wind power a year, the amount of electricity that the LRT uses.

Then in 2012, Calgary went all-in on renewable energy, purchasing 100 per cent renewable power for all of the city’s operations. This investment meant two wind farms got built, totaling 144 megawatts of installed wind capacity.

While the CTrain is still 100 per cent powered by wind, the city’s other operations use a mix of renewable energies: wind, hydro, biomass and solar power. The power purchase agreement totals 450,000 megawatt-hours a year or the equivalent power demand of over 65,000 Calgary homes.

I don't understand the statement repeated by you & Jack that "the CTrain is still 100 per cent powered by wind." As you also point out, the CTrain along with the rest of the city gets its electrical power from the same power grid. That power grid is supplied with electricity from a variety of sources, including wind & other renewables.

If the point is that the wind component alone produces electricity in an amount that would be sufficient to power the CTrain 100%, then that's an interesting fact but doesn't tell us much. Neither does how much of the renewables feeding the grid supply electricity to city services or any specific number of homes.

The more relevant question is what percentage of renewables vs. fossil fuels powers the grid after the 2012 expansion of wind turbines came online, that same grid that in turn supplies power to the city of Calgary. Not the train, the city services, or a portion of the homes, but the power grid itself.

Can someone kindly & succintly answer that question?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't understand the statement repeated by you & Jack that "the CTrain is still 100 per cent powered by wind." As you also point out, the CTrain along with the rest of the city gets its electrical power from the same power grid. That power grid is supplied with electricity from a variety of sources, including wind & other renewables.

If the point is that the wind component alone produces electricity in an amount that would be sufficient to power the CTrain 100%, then that's an interesting fact but doesn't tell us much. Neither does how much of the renewables feeding the grid supply electricity to city services or any specific number of homes.

The more relevant question is what percentage of renewables vs. fossil fuels powers the grid after the 2012 expansion of wind turbines came online, that same grid that in turn supplies power to the city of Calgary. Not the train, the city services, or a portion of the homes, but the power grid itself.

Can someone kindly & succintly answer that question?

Google is your friend

Alberta's Electricity Generation - 2014



Generation Gigawatt Hour (GWh) Generation Share By Fuel
Coal
44,442

55%

Natural Gas
28,136

35%

Hydro
1,861

2%

Wind
3,471

4%

Biomass
2,060

3%

Others*
373

0%

Total
80,343

100%

The wind turbines brought on stream were to provide enough power to run the LRT.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Google is your friend

Alberta's Electricity Generation - 2014

More current

Alberta's Installed Generation

As of July 2015

Generation Capacity
Megawatt (MW)

Capacity By Fuel

Natural Gas
7,080

43.6%

Coal
6,258

38.5%

Hydro
900

5.5%

Wind
1,459

9.0%

Biomass
447

2.8%

Waste Heat*
98

0.6%

Total**
16,242

100%

Source: AUC and Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/electricity/682.asp

Notice coal and natural gas are being decommissioned.

[fryewe]

By the logic of Jack and GM,

since my total energy supplies include the solar heat for my pool and the diesel engine for auxiliary power for my sailboat, and

my energy needs include heating that pool and motoring the GICW,

I could claim that my solar panels on my pool house provide the energy for me to cruise the ICW, and the diesel in my fuel tank the energy to heat my pool, or

since both provide enough energy for either task, I can claim that

my pool is 100 percent heated by my solar panels AND my sailboat is 100 percent powered by my solar panels...

although those panels don't provide energy enough for both at the same time.

[Exile]

I was asking about greater Calgary but no matter since the city is probably responsible for most of the consumption in the province.

So in other words, 90% of Alberta province was fossil fuel generated in 2014, and approx. 82% in 2015. Of the renewables, wind leads the pack at a whopping 9%. But of course that's much more variable than all the others depending on much the wind blows.

And so your take away from these numbers is that coal & natural gas are being "decommissioned?" Slowly reduced but likely never eliminated might be more accurate & honest.

And again, the statement that the wind turbines were installed to run the train seems more marketing than substance. I'm sure it helped convince the taxpayers to approve all the new govt. debt, assuming they were ever consulted. The reality is that the turbines feed 9% of the power grid, and happen to produce enough electricity to power the train. But the turbines were installed at great cost to supplant only a small portion of the population's power needs. Characterizing it this way would be more in line with intellectual integrity.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

So in other words, 90% of Alberta province was fossil fuel generated in 2014, and approx. 82% in 2015. Of the renewables, wind leads the pack at a whopping 9%. But of course that's much more variable than all the others depending on much the wind blows.

And so your take away from these numbers is that coal & natural gas are being "decommissioned?" Slowly reduced but likely never eliminated might be more accurate & honest.

Not quite. Jack's two posts mix apples and oranges.

The first is a summary of energy generation in GWh. The second is a summary of installed capacity in MW.

So...because coal and NG provided about 90 percent of energy needs, and are only about 82 percent of the installed capacity, their reliability and responsiveness and resilience seem to be about 110 percent of other sources.

Also, the decommissioned plants cited in the report (all coal and NG, and comprising about 1500MW of capacity) were all decommissioned prior to 2014 and thus are not included in the 2015 installed capacity.

The report also notes that about 1300MW of new gas capacity has been added in the past two years, and about 350MW of wind and biomass.

[Lake-Effect]

Wow. 3 pages of intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irrelevance.

Originally Posted by StuM

Typical greenie propaganda, distortions and lies.

Calgary's light rail transit system does not "use wind power for its electricity"!

In 2001, Calgary city council voted to purchase 21,000 megawatt-hours of wind power a year for 10 years. That’s the amount of electricity that the LRT uses in a year. Now, the LRT does not run on electrons delivered straight from wind turbines — instead, it’s connected to the standard electricity grid. But while that grid is still dominated by natural gas and coal, Calgary’s 2001 investment meant 12 wind turbines were erected."

It would be just as true to claim that any public utility or mix of utilities in Calgary that use 21,000 mWh p.a. "runs on wind power".

That statement would only be true if they shut down the system everytime those 12 turbines were producing less than the current light rail demand.

This is a giant turd.

Most of us pay taxes and have one current account. If you pay X in taxes from that account, and your great uncle left you X in his will, which you deposited in your account... would someone lose their **** and accuse you of "propaganda, distortions and lies" if you said "my taxes were 100% paid by my inheritance"? really?

Yet you guys riff on this irrelevant, tiny point for 3 pages. That right there makes it prety clear how intellectually lazy and dishonest many of you are being about AGW, and about alternative/renewable power in general.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Stu is right. If Calgary shuts down the gas and coal fired electrical plants, all of the companies and utilities like the train service who claim to use 100% wind, would shut down and stop immediately. The greenies around here always claim the same boatload of BS. There's a local "green" radio station just down the street that's been claiming that it's 100 % solar powered for the past ten years on just the twenty panels located on its roof. Most knuckleheads actually believe the load they spew.

More of the same. Twist, then attack. btw, I happen to know what equipment you'd find in a low power community radio station, and what it would take to power them. About the equivalent of a few hair-dryers. Easy to achieve with a few panels and a battery-bank. Another ******** point bites the dust.

Originally Posted by StuM

The true bottom lime is that wind and solar are incapable of providing consistent base load power and to claim than anything which runs 24/7/365 operates solely on either of them is total BS.

everyone knows the baseline thing, Stu... But that's not the claim. The claim is that the X units of power provided by the additional renewables equals 100% of the power required by the transit system. Taxes/inheritance thing again.

Originally Posted by StuM

OK then, provide a reliable source which shows that the Calgary LRT and City operations are run on a grid which is not connected to any fossil fuel powered base load power stations. Not just a press release from a green power advocacy group.

Still a stupid point. Let it go, Stu, move on....

Originally Posted by StuM

Please just answer this one question: How do they separate that renewal energy from the other 70% of coal and gas generated electrons on the grid?

... ok, not gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

JDo you actually believe that the entire city of Calgary municipal government facilities and services would continue to function on a calm, snowy day... operating entirely off a wind, solar energy grid? 100 percent green... no contribution from a gas or coal fired electrical generating plant.

This is what you're claiming, do you really believe this?

Not what's being claimed, Ken. Stupid point no matter who's made it...

But I guess it seems fun. Anyone can play...

Originally Posted by fryewe

Jack, 100 percent powered and "based on" are not the same thing

It's a pile-on!

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't understand the statement repeated by you & Jack that "the CTrain is still 100 per cent powered by wind." As you also point out, the CTrain along with the rest of the city gets its electrical power from the same power grid. That power grid is supplied with electricity from a variety of sources, including wind & other renewables.

Whoops, Gord drives the final nail into the stupid argument. Time for a fast deke to conspiracy-land...

Originally Posted by fryewe

How much of the cost of this project was public money, or was "paid for" by tax breaks or subsidies, or rate guarantees by other than the Calgary government?

Why was the pricing contract subject to a confidentiality agreement?

I sure hope the last three pages have had entertainment value, because it was devoid of information or logic. I fear it's brought the global IQ down by almost a point. Global dumbing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Not quite. Jack's two posts mix apples and oranges.

The first is a summary of energy generation in GWh. The second is a summary of installed capacity in MW.

So...because coal and NG provided about 90 percent of energy needs, and are only about 82 percent of the installed capacity, their reliability and responsiveness and resilience seem to be about 110 percent of other sources.

Also, the decommissioned plants cited in the report (all coal and NG, and comprising about 1500MW of capacity) were all decommissioned prior to 2014 and thus are not included in the 2015 installed capacity.

The report also notes that about 1300MW of new gas capacity has been added in the past two years, and about 350MW of wind and biomass.

The reality sounds even further removed from the impression I got from Jack's posts. Thanks for reviewing the report or I would have been misled.

At perhaps the most simplistic level, it would be like me saying that the wood stove I use in winter to offset the propane gas I primarily use to heat my house is responsible for actually providing the heat for 15% of the sq. footage of my house. But the reality is that it merely provides an offset that reduces a small amount of propane consumption. When I'm home to keep the wood stove going, that is. Otherwise it's just like when the wind fails to blow in Alberta.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by troppo

But will I still be using sails on my boat in 100 years? Perhaps my boat will be run by nuclear energy.

I can guarantee that you will not.

[Kenomac]

[QUOTE=Lake-Effect;2003997More of the same. Twist, then attack. btw, I happen to know what equipment you'd find in a low power community radio station, and what it would take to power them. About the equivalent of a few hair-dryers. Easy to achieve with a few panels and a battery-bank. Another ******** point bites the dust.. [/QUOTE]


It's not a local community radio station. It's a major FM radio station called "The River" 92.5 covering all of Eastern Massachusetts. The solar panels on their roof wouldn't even be sufficient to keep the lights on in the lobby.

Them claiming to be 100% solar powered is just marketing B.S.