52 Replies to “Red RoseCountry”

  1. What do you expect from a province with a premier who figures that oil workers like roughnecks, mechanics, and engineers will prosper from the “new economy” by, say, knitting environmentally-compatible, carbon-free, politically-correct, sharia-compliant, and alphabet-people-friendly tea cozies?

  2. Socialism is rampant, it started off with a creep and has now made it to power. It will not stop until we are back to living like the Amish sect, no electricity, wash clothes on a washboard, outhouses and oil lamps. At the rate Ontario is going with more and more folks unable to pay hydro and water bills we will also be forced to go back to the dark ages. Candle light won’ be so romantic, it will be a necessity.

  3. Nutley is doing what Marxists with no restraints always do.
    Hard lesson for the peasants.
    They need to roll up their sleeves and give that shithouse
    of a provincial Conservative Party a thorough scrubbing while
    there is still time.

  4. CeeBeeCee sez:
    “Crowley said the $4 billion estimate, paid by government, the industry and consumers, would cover “just the amount paid to wind developers to build” renewable power facilities, he said.”
    Of course Crowley is wrong on two points.
    Paid by government – government has no money unless it takes it from the producer and consumer.
    Paid by the industry – industry has no money unless it produces goods and sell it to the consumers.
    The money comes from the consumer in all cases, however you may want to wrap it.

  5. Don’t forget that the Notley Destructive Party consists largely of people who have never worked in industry or been involved with running a business.
    Basic economics is way above their heads. Look at the finance minister. Joe Ceci is completely clueless.

  6. A mere $8 billion is a dream. They cover their asses by saying. “…perhaps higher.” Could be as much as $50 billion if she really means 30% of our electricity from renewables, aka “unreliables” .. unlikely at any cost. And if it “happened” we’d see blackouts and $1/KWh (???) power. We need more transmission, new wind turbines, way more gas for backups and buy outs of coal plants phased out up to 32 years ahead of schedule.
    Phillips (not our energy minister) has made utterly contradictory statements on renewables in the past month. On Sept 14, she said we’d get 5,000 MW of renewables that would include hydro (limited), solar (limited) and wind. Most will be wind. 4,000 MW of new wind will supply about 11,000 GWh of electricity annually or about 12% of annual needs. Last week, they said that 30% of our elect will come from renewables. The two claims are contradictory. They have no ideas what’s going on.
    Electrical generation accounts for 17% of Alberta’s emission, so if renewables became 30% (they can’t) then the theoretical emissions reduction would be about 5%. BUT (a huge “but”) there always (by law) have to be spinning reserves on standby. And the more renewables, then the more reserves on standby because of wind’s deplorable and erratic output. So we could spend billions and not be able to measure the effects on emissions. Those spinning reserves emit yet make no contribution to the grin until wind drops as it always does..and is at or near zero two to four times each week. Wind’s average output is 30% of nameplate capacity. As I write wind’s output is 9 MW of a capacity of 1450 MW. That’s 9 MW of a demand of over 9,000 MW right now! One one thousandths of our needs! And with that the NDs are going to replace coal. Morons.
    When coal is gone the ONLY baseload source will be natural gas, a wonderful fuel. But when there is only one main baseload supply (for times when renewables are doing what they do most of the time, i.e. little or nothing), then we will be vulnerable to price gouging and spikes of gas prices. Sure there is a surplus of gas at the moment, but we will see price spikes from time to time and who knows what the long term trends will be.
    And wait for it. No matter what concessions are given, greens like Phillips (the Alpha Green Weenie), Greenpeace, Tides, Suzuki, etc. will want more and more concessions and will start attacking natural gas. No matter what they are given, they will want more and more.
    The problem is we can’t top load our grid with ineffective wind and solar or we will have a wreck. Ontario at least gets 60% of its electricity from nuclear and we don’t have that luxury. We get 50 to 60% of our elect from coal and Shannon will take that away. The problem is she has no real plan to replace it.
    Utter insanity.
    CAS

  7. This is not socialism. Notely isn’t taking over ownership of the electricity systems. If she did, she might find unionized workers who could see where this was going and complain and she wouldn’t know how to stand up to her puppet masters. No, this is fascism, pure and simple. You enforce the narrative by regulation, empowering the rent seeking privateers, buying-off dissenters and in the end throwing money at firm power suppliers who are forced to operate with low efficiency to accommodate the unreliables that fit the narrative. It’s the Ontario model but under more private ownership. In the end, she can blame the “private sector” for the inevitable failure.

  9. The problem is she has no real plan to replace it.
    She behaves like a Frankfurt School socialist. Their goal was the destruction of western civilization with nothing to replace it.

  11. We have incompetent people being elected by people with the same affliction,it’s widespread through all levels of government. We have no protection, we are at their mercy. It’s long past time we demand recall legislation if we are ever going to avoid messes like Ontario and now Alberta.

  12. My fear is that Red Rachel will destroy the economy by signing long-term contracts that will tie the hands of governments for the next 40 years.

  13. Alberta should borrow a pile of money and switch to Alberta-developed 100% nuclear – no emissions. Otherwise it will build up massive debt on entitlements.

  14. If it was enacted as legislation, any subsequent government can repeal it.
    It should be part of the Constitution, but it would mean revising it. I’m not sure that Dirty Pierre allowed for that, which wouldn’t surprise me as he behaved as if all legislation enacted during his tenure was perfect and complete in every way.

  15. I think that was her objective all along. The Dippers could be tossed out of power in the next election, but they’d still rule Alberta by such contractual constraints.

  16. Isn’t it interesting, when in debate Prentis called on Notley that math is hard, which it is for the socialist crowd, they news manufacturers were taken aback as to how could he say that.

  18. This is exactly what we have in Ontario. Contracts signed by McGuinty and Wynne now mean we will overpay for electricity to the tune of 133$ billion between now and 2032.
    This is a province that has such a surplus of power that it is sold at a loss to Ohio and Michigan. And then businesses move there to take advantage of the cheap power.
    Gerald Butts, the de-facto PM, is largely the architect of this insanity.

  20. I feel so in step with reality reading this while watching Trump tell Michigan that he isn’t sending another dime out of the USA for Climate Change.
    Yay Notley! Leading us in the wrong direction just in time.

  21. Past governments cannot bind the actions of future governments.  If Rachel Knothead’s government actually signs such outrageous deals, a future government would be well within its legal and constitutional right to rescind the agreement unilaterally.
    And, hopefully, they would.

  22. CAS touched on this but it cannot be said loudly or often enough to renewable energy dreamers: You cannot replace 24/7 baseload power with intermittent power. If it’s not dispatchable, it’s pretty much useless.
    Wind only produces about 25% of its capacity, solar even less. The only exception other than hydro to this renewable electricity problem is going European and converting coal plants to biomass (wood is considered carbon neutral). Luckily Alberta and Saskatchewan have large northern forests that can be logged, pelleted and burned. If hydro and biomass are not possible then a combo of natgas and nuclear is all that’s left as reasonable alternatives. Anyone trying to sell you on wind/solar as a solution to carbon emissions in our part of the world is not being honest about its limitations and costs (economic and social).
    Affordable heating, more so than electricity, is even more critical because is not optional in climates where it’s below 0 degrees Celsius, and dipping to -40, for at least 6 months per year. It’s essential because freezing cold kills more effectively and quicker than excessive heat. A factor that rarely gets considered in discussions about per capita CO2 emissions and the economic impacts of carbon pricing. What’s going to happen to heating costs for homes and businesses?

  23. LC Bennett
    Wind’s output is between 28 to 32 percent over the past few years. So far in 2016 it is 32.9% of nameplate capacity. Solar PVs or thermal systems as more like 15%. They are only about 25% in AZ and CA.
    One huge issue (and thus the whining from CanWEA) is that wind produces power at irregular times often when demand is low..at night..when wholesale prices are only one or two cents. Since there is a bidding process, wind bids at zero (or close) in order to sell all of the electricity it produces. (It is more complex that that.) That is why, the net paid to wind is actually lower then for other power source such as coal and gas. “Wind is cheap,” they say. “We want subsidies,” they say. Right.
    Two hours ago wind’s output was about 1% of capacity and now it is now about 30%. This adds to inefficiency in the system. Gas has to ramp up and down and that reduces efficiency. And as noted for evey MW o fwind install we MUST have 1 MW of gas for backup. This duplicates infrastructure.
    And BTW the claims that coal emissions are harmful to our health is a damn lie. I’d be pleased to provide the Alberta Health data disproving the claim. Of course, most Albertans live nowhere near coal plants and most are upwind. Absurd claims aimed at getting Albertans on board. Damned lies.
    Nuclear and gas are THE way to go.
    Clive

  24. You cannot replace 24/7 baseload power with intermittent power.
    Not by itself. A backup power source will be required. Excess output is usually stored, often in batteries, though pumping water into a reservoir (later used to drive a hydroelectric generator) is another possibility. When the stored capacity is depleted, then an auxiliary power source, usually a genset, is used.
    What the Dippers imply is that those backup sources aren’t required.

  25. “My fear is that Red Rachel will destroy the economy by signing long-term contracts that will tie the hands of governments for the next 40 years.” Scar
    What the fu*k! Do you think contracts can’t be nullified. A contract is just a understanding between two parties and would normally have conditions such that each party can negate the contract. It is not a to the death gangster blood bond…
    The Canadian Government can vote to end any commitment under the BNA act … Indian treaties etc… All contracts authorized by an Act of Government may be rescinded by an Act of Government….
    Contracts are opened up and changed everyday

  26. One huge issue (and thus the whining from CanWEA) is that wind produces power at irregular times often when demand is low..at night..when wholesale prices are only one or two cents.
    Not necessarily. For industrial and commercial loads, maybe. There’s about a 3 – 4 hour lag between peak insolation and peak temperature and wind. That means that a wind turbine generator would likely have its highest output late in the afternoon, right around quitting time for many employers.
    However, residential loads can have 2 peaks: one in the early morning (people getting ready for the day) and one in the early to mid-evening. After around midnight, the load demand often drops off significantly because people are asleep. It’s unlikely that it won’t go to zero because of all of the various devices that people use in daily life, such as chargers, digital clocks, and so on.
    Predicting photovoltaic output is relatively easy because of the sun’s regular daily and yearly cycle. Wind turbine generator output isn’t as straightforward because of wind’s irregular nature.
    Many designers make use of what’s known as a typical meteorological year for a given location. Several years of weather data are used to determine the values for each hour.

  27. It’s unlikely that it won’t go to zero
    Sloppy editing on my part. I meant to say: “It’s unlikely that it’ll go to zero”

  28. They had massive deforestation in Europe, and there are more forests now than there were in North America a hundred years ago. This is because the Europeans discovered that it was way better to burn rocks than trees for fuel and in North America we discovered oil, which we could burn for heat instead of trees. Burning trees for power is literally going back to the stone age.

  29. Once you add in the cost of the wind and solar plus backup (entirely natgas in practice because both batteries and reservoir system are impractical at this time) you’ve effectively doubled or tripled the cost of electricity. That’s not a affordable in a cold, dark northern climate. Look at the economic mess in Ontario as prices have doubled.
    In addition, the natgas plants become uneconomical as a backup due to inefficient use but are necessary to load balance. Every wind/solar MW must be backed up by an immediately dispatchable 24/7 source. Grid instability begins once wind hits 10% and serious instability occurs as it goes over 20%.
    In the end taxpayers and consumers pick up the cost of coal plant shutdowns and coal operators compensations, subsidies to build renewables, the cost of redundant natgas backup, subsidies for natgas because they become unprofitable, more transmission infrastructure for dispersed energy generation causing higher transmission costs and, looking again at Ontario, paying both wind and solar not to produce power or paying other regions to take it. Green energy is absurd in so many ways. To add to the absurdity, neither source overcomes their own carbon footprint produced during manufacturing and assembly (see work by Google engineers). It’s not like windfarms burst from Gaia’s breast fully formed and operational.

  31. BD
    To get a proper picture of wind output during the day go here:
    http://ets.aeso.ca/
    See left menu and select from the list of:
    Current
    Historical
    Trading Page
    Supply Forecast
    Then “select a report” using down arrow button
    Scroll to “daily market report”
    Then select a date using the Begin Date:(MM/DD/YYYY) windows
    For each day, see second chart with the green bars designating wind output. (Be careful here…the Y axis range varies day to day.)
    Check several days. You will soon see that wind output is quite random within any one day but often (not always) lower in periods of peak demand and higher between 10 PM and 4 AM…varies a lot. For the past 4 or 5 days wind is highest at night and lowest in day. Remember, we collect wind in Alberta over and area larger than the Netherlands.
    I’ve been tracking this for a long time. Frustrating.

  32. ooops….MY ERROR
    See left menu and select Historical from the list of:
    Current
    Historical
    Trading Page
    Supply Forecast

  33. I knew about the randomness of wind speeds when I examined weather data while I worked on my last 2 graduate degrees.
    I compared hourly insolation with hourly wind speed of a 20-year data set by using auto-correlation, and found that there was about a 3 – 4 hour time lag between them. Similarly, I compared mean hourly values with similar results.
    A gap like that is expected due to atmospheric convection. A similar time difference can be seen when comparing hourly insolation with hourly temperature.
    These are general trends as conditions for a certain hour on a given day one year will likely be different for that same time and day for another year. Variations like that are one reason why Typical Meteorological Year data is often used.

  34. Phillip
    Were it so simple to cancel contracts….we’d all like to think so. See here:
    Cancelling Contracts: The Power of Governments to Unilaterally Alter Agreements
    https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/cancelling-contracts-power-of-governments-to-unilaterally-alter-agreements.pdf
    The good note is this:
    “…if democratically elected governments are to establish their own policies, they require the ability to make unilateral changes to agreements made by previous governments. If they cannot legitimately do so, then their predecessors can control policy decisions beyond the terms of their democratic mandates.”
    But it is still fuzzy and you can bet international investors who put in (say) $5 billion into wind here in Alberta based on 20-year subsidies (guaranteed income) will sue AB govt in a heartbeat.
    The saving grace is that one suspects the current owners of wind here (Enmax, Capital Power, TransAlta etc) are damned shy about making renewable investments. Sure they’d accept iron-clad contracts BUT if they kill their customers, then they kill the markets.
    European and Australian investors are working on wind projects here and subsidies from Shannon “I know everything” Phillips.
    Gonna get ugly in 2019.
    Bah!

  35. Once you add in the cost of the wind and solar plus backup (entirely natgas in practice because both batteries and reservoir system are impractical at this time) you’ve effectively doubled or tripled the cost of electricity.
    For a large urban setting, quite likely. However, it can work as a small-scale distributed system for, say, a neighbourhood housing development. They can be more flexible to changing load demands and battery storage can be more practical.
    People forget that a metropolitan area is simply a large dynamic load to a power grid. I was reminded of that during a course I took many years ago when we measured the line voltage. We could see that it was seldom at 120 VAC and changed constantly.
    In addition, the natgas plants become uneconomical as a backup due to inefficient use but are necessary to load balance. Every wind/solar MW must be backed up by an immediately dispatchable 24/7 source.
    Not so much inefficient but, rather, that they’re often idling in a standby mode with little or no load on them.
    To add to the absurdity, neither source overcomes their own carbon footprint produced during manufacturing and assembly (see work by Google engineers).
    Neither does conventional power generation.

  37. Battery storage is still impractical in that situation due to 1) high cost and short lifespan of batteries 2)the need to increase the amount of wind turbines. To explain point 2) : if you use batteries then you must have enough turbines to produce electricity for immediate use and storage. Not just overnight storage bit enough to last for several days *and* you still can’t guarantee constant supply because you’re at the mercy of Mother Nature. Once you do the math on that you’ll see that it’s impractical. Natgas is the only backup supply that can guarantee the lights will go on when you flick the switch.
    Leaving natgas in standby mode is incredibly inefficient, followed closely by ramping up and down. Combined cycle baseload natgas on the other hand is as good as coal with half the emissions. There’s no need to waste money on wind and solar. Or hydro, biomass and nuclear. Possibly carbon capture coal, but I’m not convinced it is cost effective.
    No one expects fossil fuel plants to be carbon neutral. Wind and solar are supposed to be, or why bother. Greens are misleading naïve politicians and the public about wind and solar power. They solve nothing while increasing costs and reducing reliability. They are not only unnecessary, but counter-productive .

  39. high cost and short lifespan of batteries
    Sealed lead-acid batteries are relatively cheap, costing about $1/A-h. Most of the ones I’ve used in my cars lasted me around 5 years, which is a bit longer than what’s expected. Batteries which are designed for use in renewable systems, and which can handle deep discharges, could have about a 10-year lifetime.
    Another advantage to SLA batteries is that they are ubiquitous and can be easily recycled.
    Batteries, however, have a physical constraint on them. They are limited on what currents they can handle for both charge and discharge. One of the reasons is to prevent the electrolyte from dissociating and, thereby, producing hydrogen.
    if you use batteries then you must have enough turbines to produce electricity for immediate use and storage
    Actually, it’s supposed to work the following manner. The main generating capacity should meet the required load demand. Any excess that’s produced is stored, within the aforementioned limits. However, some designers may choose to make the batteries part of the system load when they are charging.
    Not just overnight storage bit enough to last for several days *and* you still can’t guarantee constant supply because you’re at the mercy of Mother Nature.
    Most renewable energy system designers allow for at least 3 days of storage capacity. I’m assuming that figure was derived from actual operational experience.
    When there’s still a shortfall, the auxiliary genset can be used to make up the difference and, possibly, charge the batteries.
    Natgas is the only backup supply that can guarantee the lights will go on when you flick the switch.
    In a large utility setting, quite probably. For smaller loads, such as a farmhouse, maybe not. A small-scale system could likely produce what’s required.
    Greens are misleading naïve politicians and the public about wind and solar power.
    I’ve read numerous articles about renewable energy systems. Sadly, many of them were poorly designed, often by people who really didn’t do their homework on how to build them properly with minimal losses. They often had far too much capacity and nowhere to put the excess output.
    I also read a lot of research publications on the subject. Much of the work that was done was, frankly, rubbish and wasn’t thought through properly.

  40. Alberta must be allowed to suffer. No bailouts, no tax breaks, nothing. The consequence of sheltering Albertans from the consequences of their own bad decisions, will be to fill Alberta with fools. Everybody needs to vite against wealth redistribution at every opportunity. It may sound good at the time, but it always leads to the same place.

  41. Any power given to government, is eventually and inevitably used as a club against you. So keep voting for parties who always want more power for government. This time will be different. Never vote for anyone who ever talks about firing a precious civil master; liberty and self determination are for suckers.

  42. This greenwased solar/wind scam is beyond ludicrous.
    Those who think our energy problems can be solved with cheap Asian solar panels and batteries don’t understand the scale of what’s needed to make any significant impact on fossil fuel used for base load electricity. Their solar ideas might work OK for off-grid families who are passionately committed to their ‘independent’ lifestyle, but solar and wind falls far short of what’s needed to power the grid.
    Yes, cheap solar panels and wind turbines made in China can displace some fossil fuel extracted in Canada. However cheap components made by pollution spewing factories in Asia actually increases pollution. China contributes most of the toxic coal pollution that’s poisoning our atmosphere and 30% of the greenhouse gasses that some people believe are causing the weather to change.
    All of Canada’s fossil fuel industry including the oilsands contributes 1% of the global greenhouse gasses. More importantly Canadian fuel provides jobs for Canadian taxpayers; it puts a roof over their head and food on their table.
    Cheap Chinese solar/wind is not the best choice. It’s not economically feasible to mine the raw materials or produce PV solar components in North America. The labor costs in North America are prohibitively expensive and North American environmental regulations which keep our air, water and land from being heavily polluted don’t exist in Asia, so nearly all of the mining for materials and PV production is over there where they can pollute and keep their production costs low. The electricity to run their mines and PV solar factories comes from dirty coal burned without stack scrubbing and the mines and factories dump pollution into the environment. The same goes for their wind turbines. The amount of environmental destruction and toxic pollution from PV solar and wind turbine production in China far exceeds the damage caused by the oil sands operations. Chinese green energy is as dirty or perhaps even dirtier than the oil sands.
    Some people seem to believe toxic pollution is OK as long as it happens somewhere else in the peeing end of the pool.

  43. I don’t understand why people haven’t protested against this take down of coal a cheap way of making electricity along with gas fired generators is the way to go.
    THERE IS NO CASE OF GLOBAL WARMING a 0.02 degree doesn’t make it warm. We are in a cold period now. NO to a tax on Carbon and No to a Carbon Tax provincially or Federally. People in Alberta need to do something now or you will be hooped!! Just look at Ontario!! That will be you soon!

  44. Batteries are OK to run the motor on your furnace if your house is about 1500 square feet, the fridge and one burner on the stove, for about a day. Try feeding any major factory or oil refinery with batteries, it just doesn’t work. Alberta is looking at using natural gas for making power, and that’s OK. However you’re looking at double the rate per KW over coal. That’s where the dilemma starts. We’ll be competing with 8 cent per KW, not to mention cheap labour.
    Nuclear power was once an edge that Canada had over much of the world. Remember the Candu reactors?? Check out who’s got the edge now!!
    https://youtu.be/qFWDYYaOyT0

  45. Ooops–sorry! ”We’ll be competing with 8 cent per KW, not to mention cheap labour.” should read ”We’ll be competing with China at 8 cents per KW, not to mention cheap labour.”

  46. During my Ph. D. research, I investigated using renewable energy to power a large commercial agricultural facility. My conclusion was that it wasn’t feasible, particularly compared with running a new transmission line off the utility grid.
    Nuclear fission might not be such a good idea, either. Aside from concerns about the handling and storage of radioactive waste and the enormous cost of cleaning up contaminated regions (restoring Hanford would require tens of billions of dollars to ), the bureaucracy involved in building and commissioning a new reactor is prohibitive.
    It can take 20 years between the initial proposal to the the first production of power. The documentation required to demonstrate compliance with regulations would result in the felling of a small forest to produce the paper that’s needed. The length of time required could add extra costs to the overall price because of inflation and changing market conditions.
    Then there’s the possibility that when the reactor finally goes critical, the market for its power might not even exist.
    During that time, the contractor building the plant could go out of business. There may be issues about quality control:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    Financing might even be an issue:
    https://ryanjhollander.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/failed-visions-of-a-nuclear-future-the-satsop-power-plant/
    Forget nuclear fusion. The Tokamak design has been proven to be feasible in laboratory tests, but no one knows when a large-scale commercial reactor will go into operation, if at all. (There’s the old joke about fusion being available within 5 years for the last 50 years.) Other concepts, such as inertial confinement, might never be feasible.
    One focused fusion method, inertial electrostatic confinement (sometimes referred to as the polywell) has been proven using lab test reactors, but funding for the group which demonstrated it was cut about 10 years ago. It’s promising but there’s little development money available, if any.
    Besides, try convincing the Khmer Vert about nuclear power….

  47. The big reactor designs of the seventies are as obsolete as gas-guzzlers of the same era. Thorium is the nuclear fuel of the future. Thorium is relatively abundant and the waste is much less toxic, and it will work well in the CANDU reactors. Canada was once a world leader in small modular 10-20MW nuclear reactors. About 20 of them are still in service around Canada. search SLOWPOKE.

  48. “No, this is fascism, pure and simple.”
    Exactly! Bolos take over the businesses and run them into the ground with incompetent management. Fascist allow you to continue to own the company but tell how to run it.
    B, “Besides, try convincing the Khmer Vert about nuclear power…”. Exactly, this shutting down of the coal industry is multi-faceted in that they want to tackle coal first while wearing down oil, and then give the coup-d-gras to oil. It is all about fulfilling Maurice Strong’s dream of shutting down the western economies.

  49. I know about SLOWPOKE. My alma mater, the University of Alberta got one about 40 years ago.
    As for thorium, it probably is a better fuel, but Canada doesn’t have any deposits as opposed to uranium.
    One reason I’m intrigued by the polywell is its relative simplicity. In addition, if one used the proton-boron 11 reaction in such a machine, the by-product is helium with no neutrons. Protons are merely ionized hydrogen and boron can be extracted from borax, which was used as an additive for laundry detergents.
    The reaction, however, needs to be confined by strong magnetic fields. Accomplishing that was one of the most difficult aspects of the work that was done.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation