Guest essay by Wayne Delbeke
From the 180 on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Monday, March 21, 2016.
The maximum California can realistically achieve from renewables is 18% of their total energy supply.
The comment was made by a former member of the California Energy Commission during a CBC review of Alberta’s goal of “UP TO 30%” of it’s power supply from wind and solar. The key word from a political standpoint is “UP TO” since 1% actually achieves the goal POLITICALLY.
The new Alberta government plans to use a carbon tax to fund subsidies for “renewable” energy projects – whatever that means. People think “solar and wind” but that is not necessarily the case.
Still an interesting listen.
Summary below:
“In California where I used to be a regulator, we went out and did a complete estimate looking at all the land we could get access to and be able to use for renewables and find out what’s the best you could do… and the best we could ever imagine, if you fully committed to renewables was thirty percent. Then we backed off and said what’s it realistically going to be, and the best we could come up with was eighteen percent. – Michal Moore, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary “
“Last week, The 180 visited the town of Hanna, Alberta, where residents worry they’re living in a town without a future.
Hanna’s coal-fired power plant has had an uncertain future since the release of the NDP’s climate plan in November. Dean Girodat works at the mine that feeds the plant, and is worried about life after it closes — both in terms of his own ability to make a living, and the province’s ability to power itself without coal.
But while coal power is on the way out in Alberta, wind is picking up. The Alberta government’s plan sees renewable energy, like wind and solar, to provide up to 30 per cent of Alberta’s electricity once coal is gone. The 180 visited a turbine farm near Pincher Creek, Alberta, where wind from the Rocky Mountains whips across the rolling foothills and ranch-land.
Wayne Oliver supervises TransAlta’s wind operations in Pincher Creek, Alberta. (Kathryn Marlow/CBC)
Wayne Oliver is the Operations Supervisor for the company TransAlta’s wind operations in Pincher Creek and Fort Macleod. The company operates 412 turbines around around Pincher Creek.
If you consider that your fuel source is free, once you put up your tower, all you have to do is maintain it. Then, it’s a great supplemental source of energy for the grid… of course, sometimes it’s not windy. I don’t know if wind will replace everything we have, but it’s a great supplemental source of energy. -Wayne Oliver
So there’s one of the challenges in bringing renewable energy up to 30% of Alberta’s energy grid. Right now, wind turbines provide 4% of Alberta’s electricity. Solar power, another renewable energy source, has challenges of its own, such as efficiency in a province where for much of the year, the sun is at a low angle.
Michal Moore is a Professor of Energy Economics at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. He was also a commissioner of the California Energy Commission. He says getting renewable sources to power 30% of Alberta’s grid is a good, but difficult, goal.”
Note: in the last full year of reporting (2014), Coal-fired plants provided 55% of Alberta’s power. There is more Natural Gas generation (44%) than Coal-fired on line but coal-fired (38%) was still providing the majority of electricity in the province. That may change as there are a number of new NG plants. Wind and solar – not so much. It’s snowing as I write this, my solar panels are covered with white stuff and the wind is calm. But I have grid power and a Propane fired 12 kW generator for when the wind and/or snow knock the power out – which happens regularly in my remote neck of woods in the Alberta boreal forest.
The NDP goal of 30% of electricity from Wind and Solar in Alberta is likely nothing more than “California Dreamin’ ” If sunny California can’t achieve 30%, then it is highly unlikely that Alberta will – in terms of ACTUAL production as opposed to “installed capacity”.
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Electricity/682.asp
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Electricity/681.asp
“Diesel generation with instantaneous response is the most common wind backup, no?”
No! Where did you get that idea? You know that the grid has been around for a long time before wind. I am old school and like a 25% reserve margin. Smart utilities make a bundle selling excess power to those who do not plan as well.
If 4% of generation comes from, then that is 4% less fossil fuel being burned. It does not mean that we have to build new plants to backup wind.
Just for the record diesel is not instantaneous. There are a few isolated small grid that use diesel. This is a very expensive way to make power. Wind can be used to save on fuel.
Diesel and single cycle gas turbines can be brought on line much faster than a steam plant. When the steam plant is warmed up, it takes over and the less efficient plants are shut down.
RAcook writes
“What is “your” source for any of those claims? Each is dead wrong.”
Note that RA does not provide a source. I am a mechanical engineer with 45 years experience. That makes me a source. What is clear to me is that is just repeating something he heard and does not understand.
Here is a link to the status of nuke plants compiled from NRC daily reports which is public record: http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear-power-plants/
Here is another source of info on the power industry: http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Publications-and-Brochures/Energy-Markets-Report/Energy-Markets-Report
“Coal (and now even the big nuclear plants) ARE being stopped and started daily (or more often!)”
So clearly, that is not true.
“But, today’s EPA does NOT LET the plants “idle” at low power: Their air permits REQUIRE all of them (coal, single cycle gas turbine, AND dual cyc…”
That would be a matter of public record. RACook should be able to find at least one example to link.
“Aww, c’mon.”
Nice rant James. In the real world, real problems are evident. In the US, grid operators are not having a problem managing wind generation.
“It is not free power. It is therefore unsound even for saving the world.”
I agree. The criteria for making electricity is people need it. Not saving the world.
“You should not be so smug. You engineers have broken lots of stuff getting to your solutions. For example, next time you construct a plant that can tolerate a major quake, try to put the backup generators someplace where they won’t be swamped by the consequent tsunami.”
I try so hard not to be smug. Maybe James should try harder too. James ignores the huge loss of life from a natural disaster to incorrectly point out what he thinks is an engineering mistake that resulted in property damage.
Engineers, like me, design nuke plants to as set of rules called design criteria. The design criteria for natural disaster is the worst disaster in in 200 years. Those are called Design Basis Events. We also consider things we do not expect or Beyond Design Basis events. Property damage is acceptable. No one was hurt because of fuel damage.