[Boris2k7]

Cap on wind power riles critics (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=4b50f040-e413-49d2-877c-700393e66a06&k=25441)
Alberta limiting production of green energy
Jason Fekete, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, July 30, 2007

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/2142/windfarmgb2.jpg
A wind farm in southern Alberta.
Herald Archive

The Stelmach government foresees nearly doubling the amount of wind-power generation allowed in Alberta, even as the province remains the only jurisdiction in Canada to cap the production of wind energy.

"There is every possibility that (the cap) could move to, in the interim, someplace around 1,500 megawatts," said Energy Minister Mel Knight. "As we move along and Alberta's system becomes more robust, and we're able to integrate more wind, I can see it moving beyond that."

The wind power industry is demanding the province go further than raising the amount of production permitted and remove the cap outright.

Alberta's Electric System Operator introduced last year a limit of 900 megawatts of wind-energy generation, saying it was uncertain about whether wind conditions and patterns could be properly forecast -- something needed to produce a reliable stream of power.

The decision enraged wind-energy producers, which have thousands of megawatts in the queue. The rules made Alberta the only jurisdiction in Canada to impose such a cap.

"Replacing it with a higher cap is not a preferred option," said Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. "A cap sends a signal that a door is closed, and for investors in the industry, that sends a negative signal."

Knight said increasing the cap to 1,500 megawatts could make room for between six and 10 new wind farms.

That could be big news for southern Alberta wind-energy producers, with more than a dozen new projects in the queue.

But Hornung said maintaining a cap system will leave industry in the same position it faces today.

A recent report from the electric system operator indicates conditions could soon be ripe to remove the cap on wind-power generation, he said.

There are well over 3,000 megawatts of wind-energy projects being "actively pursued" in Alberta, Hornung said, most of them in southern Alberta from Medicine Hat in the east to the B.C. border in the west.

There are about 10 wind-power projects on line in Alberta capable of producing about 500 megawatts of electricity, according to system-operator data, so there's still room to add load to the system before it reaches the 900 megawatt limit.

Regardless, Tim Weis, a senior policy adviser at the Pembina Institute, said Alberta must eliminate the cap and jettison the "dubious distinction" of being the only province to limit wind-power generation.

"I would hope the minister isn't just thinking of moving up the cap," said Weis, who specializes in wind power for the environmental think-tank. "The industry really isn't supportive of simply moving up the threshold."

The system operator's decision to introduce the limit was a "knee-jerk" reaction, he added, and ill-advised as the province tries to diversify its economy and energy alternatives.

"This is a long-term resource we can be harvesting long after the (oil and gas) money is gone," he said.

NDP environment critic David Eggen, who's long been lobbying the government to axe the cap, said more wind power will help slash greenhouse gas emissions spewed by coal-fired electricity plants.

The Tory government's priority for building transmission lines has gone to the carbon-based energy suppliers, he argued, which has further hindered wind-energy generation.

"If these guys (the government) are free marketers, get out of the way and let the renewable energy groups into the market," Eggen said. "There are so many delaying tactics to prevent renewable energy from getting a foothold in this province."

Yet, wind power isn't necessarily winning everyone over.

An American scientist contends in a new paper in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology that renewable energy is anything but green.

Rather, wind and solar farms will harm the environment more than they will help it, suggests Jesse Ausubel, director of the human environment program at New York's Rockefeller University, insisting nuclear energy is greener than other forms of renewable energies.

For example, he writes that a line of wind turbines running across the Rocky Mountains from Vancouver to Calgary -- a distance of approximately 1,200 kilometres -- would produce the same amount of power as one nuclear power plant.

"All the renewables are extremely invasive of nature," Ausubel told CanWest News Service this week.

jfekete@theherald.canwest.com
=========================================================

So, we open up the energy debate yet again. Nuclear? Wind? Solar? Sustainability? Long-term? Green?

The subject has environmental, economic, and, indeed, social implications. Discuss.

[Calgarian]

What purpose could a cap serve? this has to be the result of some lobby group for the carbon based energy companies, this makes as much sense as capping solar power.

I think we should have 2 or 3 nuclear power plants in Alberta (at least 1 in the oil sands area), solar panels on every building (this is one of the sunniest places on earth afterall) big or small, and windfarms to capture the strong winds that constantly blow over the mountains.

[Rise_of_the_West]

I don't claim to be an expert (yet) in wind power or power systems in general, but I belive the theory behind the caps is to prevent shortages of energy. Since wind is not always reliable (sometimes theres lots, and somtimes none at all), there can be a higher probability of demand outpacing supply. The province wants to limit the chance of this happening, so thus the cap on maximum allowable wind energy (currently arround 900 MW).

See wind tends to die out at night, thus you cannot count on it 24 hours a day to supply peak energy. The solution to this is a diverse source system, with different sources of energy all contributing to the pool.

For futher information about these caps you can try to search AESO's website: http://www.aeso.ca/ (AESO for those of you who don't know is the alberta electrical system operator, who keeps watch over the energy pool in the province.)

[h0twired]

I don't claim to be an expert (yet) in wind power or power systems in general, but I belive the theory behind the caps is to prevent shortages of energy. Since wind is not always reliable (sometimes theres lots, and somtimes none at all), there can be a higher probability of demand outpacing supply. The province wants to limit the chance of this happening, so thus the cap on maximum allowable wind energy (currently arround 900 MW).

See wind tends to die out at night, thus you cannot count on it 24 hours a day to supply peak energy. The solution to this is a diverse source system, with different sources of energy all contributing to the pool.

For futher information about these caps you can try to search AESO's website: http://www.aeso.ca/ (AESO for those of you who don't know is the alberta electrical system operator, who keeps watch over the energy pool in the province.)

That is exactly what the purpose of the cap is for.

You have to have limits on energy sources that are less reliable than others and you can't put all of your eggs in one basket when it comes to wind and solar power generation.

[jlousa]

The solution is higher intergretion of our electrical networks. The solution could be, build as many windmills as you want, when there is oversupply, BC can shut down the hydro dams and buy your energy, when the wind dies down, turn the dams back on and use up the energy from the water that has been saved. in effect the dams become huge batteries. This is in effect already in some regions.

[freeweed]

solar panels on every building (this is one of the sunniest places on earth afterall)

Just a minor quibble, but at our latitude solar is really, really poor. We do get lots of sun, but it's incredibly weak as the sun is perpetually close to the horizon (compared to, say, the tropics).

It certainly wouldn't hurt, but a less-sunny equatorial solar panel works far better than one in sunny Calgary. I've seen the numbers, it's depressing. :( Yes, I've been praying for cheap efficient solar panels for pretty much my entire life.

[ScottFromCalgary]

Apparently they are starting to have some issues arise with the abundunce of wind turbines around Pincher Creek. The municipality initially agreed to allow 500 turbines (I think it was 500 anyways) but now that they have actually built a couple hundred of them they municipality is starting to get cold feet. With so many of these turbines everywhere, it is starting to be a blight on a beautiful natural landscape. They are especially worried since there is another 100 or so that have already been approved and are going to be built. Further complicating the issue is that these turbines provide a pretty solid income to the landowners in the area, who own land that isn't that good for farming or ranching apparently. Of course there are other landowners who don't want these turbines near their property, which pits neighbours against each other. The turbines need to be located on ridges and other visible locations since that is where they maximize the amount of wind they receive. Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Blood PuP]

Just a minor quibble, but at our latitude solar is really, really poor. We do get lots of sun, but it's incredibly weak as the sun is perpetually close to the horizon (compared to, say, the tropics).

It certainly wouldn't hurt, but a less-sunny equatorial solar panel works far better than one in sunny Calgary. I've seen the numbers, it's depressing. :( Yes, I've been praying for cheap efficient solar panels for pretty much my entire life.

Indeed. When I was back in school one of the teams for their 4th year engineering project looked at putting solar panels on the buildings on campus. The focus was on doing the olympic oval since it has the most surface area. They could not get the numbers to get anywhere close to feasible even using unrealistically numbers for panel efficiency. I believe the numbers where so bad that they ended up getting a new project since it so quickly became evident that the proposal would not work.

[DizzyEdge]

The solution is higher intergretion of our electrical networks. The solution could be, build as many windmills as you want, when there is oversupply, BC can shut down the hydro dams and buy your energy, when the wind dies down, turn the dams back on and use up the energy from the water that has been saved. in effect the dams become huge batteries. This is in effect already in some regions.

Indeed, I recall some island was attempting to have 100% green energy, and their plan was to build a large reservoir, and use the sporadic wind energy to pump water into it, so the filling wouldn't be smooth, but the hydro power generated from it would be. As long as they had a large enough reservoir to deal with the slow times, and enough windmills to keep it topped up they would be fine. Excess 'power' in the form or water could just be drained off as needed.

[Calgarian]

Solar panels on every building would only be to reduce the demand on the network, not to eliminate it. I never realized that solar power is so weak here, I'm sure solar panels would make some difference though.

As for the people in Pincher Creek complaining that the wind farm are ugly (which they of course are), I think too bad so sad, deal with it.

[Boris2k7]

Solar panels on every building would only be to reduce the demand on the network, not to eliminate it. I never realized that solar power is so weak here, I'm sure solar panels would make some difference though.

As for the people in Pincher Creek complaining that the wind farm are ugly (which they of course are), I think too bad so sad, deal with it.

I don't think they are ugly... in fact, I am quite mesmerized by the turning of the mills, especially when you see them off in the distance popping out over bald prairie with a sunset behind... :cool:

[Doug]

The solution is higher intergretion of our electrical networks. The solution could be, build as many windmills as you want, when there is oversupply, BC can shut down the hydro dams and buy your energy, when the wind dies down, turn the dams back on and use up the energy from the water that has been saved. in effect the dams become huge batteries. This is in effect already in some regions.

Hydro would be the perfect match for wind power as it can be instantly switched on when wind dies. Alberta doesn't have many sights that are suitable for hydro. Another solution would be to have windmills scattered over large geographic areas so that when winds are light in one area, they might be sufficient for generation in other areas.

In an ideal world, the Alberta electrical grid would be better tied into BC's hydro generation. Unfortuneately due to the difficult topography of the Rockies and the fact that most of the border between AB and BC is protected national and provincial parkland, that isn't likely to happen. Plus BC has become a net importer of electricity. The Revelstoke Dam is relatively close to Calgary and has two provisionable powerhouses that could be developed without any incremental impact of the Columbia River.

The cap is academic anyways as generators are still a long ways away from hitting it.

[ScottFromCalgary]

I don't think they are ugly... in fact, I am quite mesmerized by the turning of the mills, especially when you see them off in the distance popping out over bald prairie with a sunset behind... :cool:

I agree that they are pretty cool to look at, and I think that the people of Pincher Creek would agree. Their problem is that there is getting to be so many of them that it is turning the other way.

As for the people in Pincher Creek complaining that the wind farm are ugly (which they of course are), I think too bad so sad, deal with it.


So if a developer built a piece of shit downtown and told you "too bad so sad, deal with it", would that be acceptable?

[canucklehead2]

The cap needs to be removed plain and simple. The reasons behind them seem to be more about protecting the market share of the coal, oil and gas industry than preventing brown-outs. Sure Wind will never become a base power source due to its intermittent nature, but that doesn't mean it should be purposefully limited to a small fraction of the total energy supply.

[Xelebes]

So if a developer built a piece of shit downtown and told you "too bad so sad, deal with it", would that be acceptable?

Edmontonian: Oh fiiiine....

[freeweed]

The cap needs to be removed plain and simple. The reasons behind them seem to be more about protecting the market share of the coal, oil and gas industry than preventing brown-outs. Sure Wind will never become a base power source due to its intermittent nature, but that doesn't mean it should be purposefully limited to a small fraction of the total energy supply.

The people building coal and gas power generation plants (we don't burn oil to generate electricity here as far as I know) are the same people building wind turbines.

There's no great conspiracy involved - we could blanket the province in windmills and it would hardly put a dent in our fossil fuel production.

It IS mostly about having a reliable power grid (as I've recently learned, because I questioned this cap when I first heard about it too).

[e909]

The funny thing about power generation is that all power is used within a second of its generation. It has to be generated as its consumed.

Now imagine that Alberta had 50% of its power generated from windmills. What happens when say, lighting knocks out transmission lines between Alberta and BC, it's a heatwave, and there's no wind outside.

It's not some giant oil/big business/etc conspiracy.

[The Geographer]

What if lightning knocked out the transmission lines from a major coal power plant in Alberta, putting it offline during a heatwave? Lots of crap can happen.

[e909]

What if lightning knocked out the transmission lines from a major coal power plant in Alberta, putting it offline during a heatwave? Lots of crap can happen.
You can control the output of a coal power plant. You can't do that with wind.

It would definitely be a problem trying to bring the grid back online if your generators are based on an environmental factor.

[freeweed]

What if lightning knocked out the transmission lines from a major coal power plant in Alberta, putting it offline during a heatwave? Lots of crap can happen.

You knock out one source of power, and others kick in. That's how you design a proper electric grid, with a certain level of redundancy.

The problem with wind is that there is no redundancy. If the wind ain't blowing, you get zero power, and there's no way to design around that - except making sure you have enough non-wind power to compensate. Which is exactly the point of this policy.

[The Geographer]

But cannot the redundancy of the coal-fired plants be used just as easily to replace wind power if need be? If the redundancy exists to replace any potential knockout at a coal plant, it won't just disappear once a relatively small amount of power generation is converted to wind.

[frinkprof]

Apparently they are starting to have some issues arise with the abundunce of wind turbines around Pincher Creek. The municipality initially agreed to allow 500 turbines (I think it was 500 anyways) but now that they have actually built a couple hundred of them they municipality is starting to get cold feet. With so many of these turbines everywhere, it is starting to be a blight on a beautiful natural landscape. They are especially worried since there is another 100 or so that have already been approved and are going to be built. Further complicating the issue is that these turbines provide a pretty solid income to the landowners in the area, who own land that isn't that good for farming or ranching apparently. Of course there are other landowners who don't want these turbines near their property, which pits neighbours against each other. The turbines need to be located on ridges and other visible locations since that is where they maximize the amount of wind they receive. Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
Adjacent landowners being pitted against each other regarding energy resources is nothing new. Landowners fight over gas wells on each other's property all the time. Of course, gas wells don't dwarf your house, and you can't simply slant drill to wind under (or over in this case) someone else's surface property.

Anyway, I think most people here are on the ball with regard to diversifying power sources. I would personally like to see nuclear come into the fold in Alberta, and if costs ever make it at all feasible, solar power.

Also, I'd like to see all this talk of the potential of microgeneration come to fruition. If people could put a 8-10 foot windmill in their garden and a couple of solar panels on the roof, demand for power could be mitigated.

[freeweed]

But cannot the redundancy of the coal-fired plants be used just as easily to replace wind power if need be? If the redundancy exists to replace any potential knockout at a coal plant, it won't just disappear once a relatively small amount of power generation is converted to wind.

You answered your own question. So long as wind is kept to be a reasonably small amount, there isn't an issue. Which is why we have the cap. The cap might seem a bit low, but I'll trust the electrical engineers on this one.

Look at it this way - if ONE coal plant goes off the grid, we have several others to pick up the slack. The odds of every coal-fired plant going down are pretty much zero. However, when wind stops, IT STOPS FOR ALL WINDMILLS. So you can't have wind providing too much power as any wind outage is an entire wind outage. Make sense?

Regardless, the fact that we still burn coal for power is disgusting. It's time to build some bloody modern nukes, and the first person that mentions the word "Chernobyl" in complaint is forcibly sat through a 2 year engineering course to make them understand that we have never, and will never build a plant that could blow up like that.

Oh and for the record, the wind farms around Pincher Creek are some of the most beautiful sights in this country. It's almost magical to drive through them. I'd LOVE to be able to look out my window at a bunch of windmills generating clean, endless power. And yes, I'd easily put one in my backyard, especially if it made me some extra cash.

[The Geographer]

Freeweed, I am pretty sure relatively small could still remain MUCH LARGER than what they have now. And seriously, it is not like the coal capacity is just going to disappear; it isn't retaining coal capacity that causes greenhouse gas emissions, it is burning coal. So, if there is a slowdown of wind at Pincher Creek or other areas, you can ramp up production at the coal plants.

I mean, how much electricity does the largest coal plant in Alberta provide? Is our wind generation near that or seriously above it? And seriously, what are the odds of all turbines in Alberta getting NO wind?

And I personally think that nukes and wind are the way to go.

[agent_imperial]

And seriously, what are the odds of all turbines in Alberta getting NO wind?


I'd like to weigh in on this subject. I work as an energy trader at a major company here in Calgary. I watch the electricity market every minute of every day that I'm here. In response to you above question... it happens all the time. For instance at this very moment all of the installed wind capacity in Alberta (497MW) is only producing 3 MW.

The thing is that wind is purely variable... and you can't just turn it on when you really need it. So when there is a major event (like last month when we had 5 coal plants offline) wind cannot respond. The price sat at $1000/MWh for nearly 10 hours and wind was only producing 40MW... not much help. For reference, a normal price at this time of year is around $60-$70/MWh. The consumers are the ones that end up paying the price.

So basically the problem is that for every MW of wind you add to the system you have to add another MW of gas, coal, or hydro to be available for days like this with no wind. And the problem with that is that it skews investment incentives for non-wind producers... you can't force one company to build extra capacity just to accommodate wind generators. And furthermore it doesn't make economic sense to double build capacity. My personal opinion is that the companies who want to build wind power should also provide their own form of reserve for slow days (be it hydro, or gas) to reflect the true economic cost of building wind capacity.

I'd be happy to answer any more questions you guys have. BTW there is a public website where you see the generation and demand levels for all electricity producers in alberta. Go to www.cupil.com and have a look. :cheers:

[The Geographer]

:haha: Okay, I submit, I submit. I suppose the answer is some sort of cheap battery storage system. Although, I am partial to the idea of putting in a bunch of nukes.

[agent_imperial]

Unfortunately there are no cheap battery systems yet. The ones that do exist are very expensive and can only replace a few seconds of a coal plants output until reserve energy can be dispatched on.

I actually quite like the idea of nukes as well. Very efficient, clean, and have a low variable cost. It's just finding a company willing to put up billions to build one that is the hard part. Plus since Alberta's market is relatively small it would have a hard time absorbing all those extra MW coming online from a nuke. I think a lot of companies are worried about building a nuclear plant based on average electricity prices today only to see prices bottom out when their 1000MW of supply came online... effectively putting themselves out of business. For nuclear to work in Alberta they would need to partner with large oil sands producer and get fixed price contracts to produce steam for use in bitumen extraction.

[The Geographer]

In addition to a potential climate change plan that includes the government-sponsored phasing out of coal. ;) I personally wouldn't mind government support to a project that helps achieve wider societal goals.

[agent_imperial]

I personally wouldn't mind government support to a project that helps achieve wider societal goals.

I guess that all depends on how left wing or right wing we all are. :D

[The Geographer]

I guess that all depends on how left wing or right wing we all are. :D

Hey, the French are 80% nuclear, aren't they? :D

[1ajs]

fuck nukes invest in a full fusion power plant...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

[freeweed]

Well if we're going to ask for a fusion plant, none of which are any closer to 20 years away, can we also ask for world peace and a pony? :jester:

[The Geographer]

Well if we're going to ask for a fusion plant, none of which are any closer to 20 years away, can we also ask for world peace and a pony? :jester:

World peace? Yes. But a pony?!?!?! Do you know how much those eat? The price of stabling? (I don't, but I assume it is pretty high!)

[yads]

The cap needs to be removed plain and simple. The reasons behind them seem to be more about protecting the market share of the coal, oil and gas industry than preventing brown-outs. Sure Wind will never become a base power source due to its intermittent nature, but that doesn't mean it should be purposefully limited to a small fraction of the total energy supply.


Ok buddy. It's precisely the reason it should be limited to a small fraction of the total energy supply.

[Boris2k7]

I'm resurrecting this thread even though it dropped way, way down. This is our Renewable Energy thread. Let this coexist with the Nuclear Power thread.


TransAlta unveils wind farm in strategy battle (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=8ec77bbe-8565-43ae-ac1c-9440f55f64bb&k=22830)
Geoffrey Scotton, Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Electricity generation giant TransAlta Corp. became the second Calgary company in as many weeks Wednesday to unveil plans for a major new Alberta wind farm, announcing it will build a $115-million, 66-megawatt facility just outside of Fort Macleod.

It's expected to produce power by the end of 2009.

The announcement came as activist TransAlta investor group Luminus Management LLC argued a downgrading of Calgary-based TransAlta's investment grade credit rating is inevitable -- and consequently, TransAlta should adopt Luminus's recommended strategy of TransAlta boosting a buy-back of shares through additional debt or other means.

Transalta's board has largely rejected Luminus's ideas, although it is pondering the sale of non-core assets including 511 megawatts of generation at two plants in Mexico, sales that might fetch as much as $600 million; and have just boosted TransAlta's dividend for the first time in nine years, by eight per cent to $1.08 per share.

"TransAlta's strict, continued insistence on maintaining an investment grade credit rating in the face of an inevitable downgrade limits much of its strategic flexibility and creates significant risks to shareholder value," Luminus said in a statement Wednesday.

Luminus, which owns about eight per cent of TransAlta, has submitted shareholder proposals to sell-off non-core assets, increase debt, buy-back shares and install Luminus representatives on the TransAlta board, and is seeking support for a vote at TransAlta's annual meeting April 22.

TransAlta said the new Blue Trail wind power project, which must be approved by regulators, will include 22, three-megawatt wind turbines, supplied by Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark, and will eventually lift the company's wind power portfolio to 314 megawatts of output.

"This project will be ready to be commissioned by December 2009, which will help alleviate some of the supply concerns in our home market," said Snyder. "The project meets TransAlta's return thresholds and is consistent with the company's capital allocation plan."

Analysts were pleased with TransAlta's decision to move forward with the wind power project, which follows closely a proposal announced Feb. 4 by Greengate Power Corp. of Calgary for a $600 million, 300-megawatt windfarm north of Lethbridge at Blackspring Ridge.

Shares of TransAlta gained 46 cents to close Wednesday at $34.

gscotton@theherald.canwest.com

[Rusty van Reddick]

Hey Boris, why not make a new thread since the cap has been eliminated?

[Boris2k7]

Hey Boris, why not make a new thread since the cap has been eliminated?

Good point.