January 17, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

Today is is fairly cold but not extremely cold in Alberta.  Around Fort McMurray it was about -44°C this morning, and here in Bruderheim it was -30.9°C.

Presently, at 4:00 p.m., it warmed up a bit in Bruderheim to -27.9°C.

That is cold, but those temperatures are not record-cold temperatures. Still, on account of the cold weather, of which we have had fairly little this winter, the Alberta electric power industry experienced record-high consumption rates yesterday and appealed through the media to the public, especially to residential consumers, to limit their electricity consumption by not using major appliances during the peak hours of the day (during noon and supper hours).

Roughly 15 percent of electric power consumed in Alberta is being used by residential consumers.  It was not explained why the inconvenience of saving on electric energy use was placed on residential consumers and whether industrial and commercial consumers are expected to follow suit.  It is a nice thought to press the urgency of the situation home with residential consumers, to prepare them for what will quite possibly follow soon, another rate hike for residential consumers.

There would be no shortage of electric power generation in Alberta if all of the money spend on installing wind-power generation, that without fail fails to put out on cold days, would have been used instead to construct power generating capacity from conventional energy sources, either coal, or, perhaps better yet, from the surplus of natural gas with which we are blessed.  That was not done, and we now have to pay for wind-power generation that is not available when it is needed and, to boot, costs many times per unit of production what power generation construction and production from conventional fuel sources cost.

Have a look at the table “Generation”, at this link: http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet

The following table has been created from the data shown there for 2012 01 17  4:30 p.m..  Columns have been inserted to identify the percentage for each group of the energy total shown shown in the bottom line for each category.

(Link to source)

MC = rated maximum generation (Maximum Capacity)
TNG = actual generation (Total Net Generation)
DCR = Dispatched (and Accepted) Contingency Reserve

Note that of the total wind-power maximum generating capacity that can be produced under ideal conditions (865MW), at the time when it is needed most only 2.2 percent or 18MW are being generated.  That will happen every time when it gets very cold in Alberta, because then the wind doesn’t blow.

It adds insult to injury that when that little bit of wind energy, in this case 0.2 percent of the total energy produced in Alberta, gets fed into the transmission grid, it is by far and many times more expensive than what the price of electric energy usually is.

Usually energy that is being fed into the transmission grid will cost about $23.00 per MWh, but the wind power that is being fed into the grid when it is needed during very cold weather costs around $1,000 per MWh or $1.00 per kWh.  That is the cost that everyone else involved in the industry will escalate by adding their costs for transmission, distribution and distribution services.  The end consumers will have to pay for all of it but will not notice much of that, because the price to them will be averaged out, but it will still be paid by them.

Even under the best of circumstances Alberta’s wind turbines only feed about one-third of the energy they are theoretically capable of producing into the transmission grid.  When the wind blows too strong, wind turbines are shut off (they are supposed to do that automatically) to prevent having tear themselves to shreds.

Posted in Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Weather, Alternative Energy Sources | Print | No Comments »

January 8, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

For Albertans: Now that rates for the RRO (Regulated Rate Option) for electric energy have gone up to $0.15 per kWh and more in Alberta, you may wish to check this out when shopping for the best-possible price for electricity: http://www.theelectricityshop.net/content/contact.asp

The following is a quote from a  article in the Calgary Herald (published in the January 4, 2012 issue of the Edmonton Journal, p. A1):

…Nick Clark of Utility Network and Partners Inc. in Calgary said the option’s default price is an expensive route for most consumers.

“I think complacency and lack of awareness among the public is the reason for most people not signing up,” Clark said. “We are adding people every day with no cost to sign up or leave, and very few people ever leave. In 2011 we were selling (one-and two-year) plans for 6.5 to 6.8 cents, and we sold out.”

Clark’s firm offers services to major industrial users as well as many small retailers and co-ops. It also has its own retail arm, Spot Power.

Utilities, such as Epcor and Enmax, “go every month to the same wholesalers and generators, and buy power for the next month. But if you are always going to the farm gate with your hat in your hand, you are going to pay a premium,” he said.

“We buy off the power pool at the actual price.”

For example, on Tuesday, generators were getting $25 per megawatthour, or 2.5 cents per kW-h. Under a floating contract, the consumer would be paying between four and five cents per kWh. Over the past 30 days, the average price paid to generators has been $50.36 per MWh….(More)

Posted in Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

January 4, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

Fred Singer: Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!

Monday, January 2nd 2012, 4:14 PM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline “They are real — and they’re spectacular.” He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!” — also taken from a Seinfeld episode — in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy….(Full Story)

After I had posted the link to that article to my Facebook wall, someone commented:

That looks like a quality site. Interesting that only land-based temperature sensors show a rise in temperature and not sea or atmospheric sensors. Could the rise be because of the rise in concrete? Cities act like storage heaters and are always a bit warmer, if the thermometers are nearer cities then there is your answer.

Yes, concrete in cities has a lot to do with hot and somewhat rising land-surface temperature records, but that is not all.  The circumstances involved are complicated.  Here is my response to the man:

Yes, it not only looks like but it is a respectable website. It presents primarily the views of skeptics who do not deny that there is a warming trend in global temperatures but who are doubtful that much of the increase of about 0.7 degrees C during the past century was caused by anything that was done by people.

Your question deserves a long answer, and it is essential that before and after reading all of this comment by me, you have a look at some of the graphs and comments shown at http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150216691769443.332265.591619442&type=3
They strongly relate to many of the issues discussed in the following.

The vast majority of skeptical climate scientists feels very strongly that our sun, a variable star, modulates climate trends on Earth. They should know. Most of them had long careers in climate sciences, meteorology and such. Fred Singer, for example, the author of the lead-in article in this discussion thread, has very respectable credentials.

He, “…(born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

About concrete, roofs, parking lots, etc. in urban areas affecting temperature trends, yes, they do. A very large number of official temperature measurements are being taken in weather stations that are in urban areas or at airports. About 0.5% of the global land surface is considered to be urban. A very disproportionately-large portion of weather stations is located in urban locations. It would be ludicrous to assume that all of the temperature values measured at those stations are representative of or close to global, average temperature values, however one may decide how such a hypothetical global average can be accurately determined.

The effect that the urban environment has on temperature values is real, it has been measured, and allowances and adjustments have been made for it in the official temperature record — with frequent revisions as the debate of the effect progressed from initial denial to tacit acceptance. It is called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.

One of a number of research studies targeting the UHI effect addressed California. The results from that study support what you surmise. The issue of the UHI in California is very well illustrated by this graph: http://prntscr.com/4sm9m
(quoted at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-phil-jones-calling-a-scientist-the-jerk-over-his-uhi-discoveries-in-calfifornia/ )

There is much disagreement between climate scientists who consider their science in constant need of refinement (something that applies to all true science) and those who oppose them and insist that mankind is to be blamed for the current global warming — even though there have been many and often much greater intervals of global warming throughout human history, long before any SUVs were even a gleam in the eyes of automakers, even long before there was any industrialization at all, not only on earth but even on other planets of the solar system.

The one camp feels that correlations exists between hundreds and thousands of aspects of the incredibly complex global climate system. They seek to measure all possible climate factors and to gain an understanding of the roles they play, their correlations and of the mechanisms that drive them.

The other camp feels that the global climate is essentially stable and would remain stable if it were not for mankind mucking things up. They seek to build computer models that are to game their theories, with the outcomes being hoped for to match what their theories predict, even though reality increasingly diverges from the predictions that result from those theories.

There is a much, much better correlation between the variations of solar radiance and global temperature variations than there is between global atmospheric CO2 trends and temperature trends.

While the mechanisms that make the sun such a large influence on global climate are being increasingly better understood, global temperature trends have miserably failed to come even close to reaching the enormously escalating temperature increases that the proponents of the man-made global warming theory had insisted on predicting. In fact, while atmospheric CO2 levels keep rising (quite likely as a result of the Sun’s influence and increasing solar activity since the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850 and before), global temperature trends have remained flat for the last decade.

Puny man remains puny, and there is little reasonable doubt that the climate on Earth is driven, dominated and controlled by the largest source of energy in our solar system, our sun. Mankind’s influence appears to be pocket change in the enormously large, astoundingly complex and nested systems of energy flows affecting climate on Earth. Nevertheless, the proponents of the theory of man-made global warming promote their beliefs with religious zeal and, in the name of “the precautionary principle”, pursue their goals that cost many trillions of dollars and the systematic deconstruction of the economies of the developed nations.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

January 4, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

You decide whether global warming is a problem, globally or where you live.

Latest Global Temperatures as of Dec. 2011
By Dr. Roy Spencer

11-Year Weather Trends at Elk Island National Park
(from 2001 01 01 to 2012 01 01)

From that:

Posted in Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »