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 »

November 5, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In October 2011, the Alberta Government launched a massive advertising campaign promoting the idea that billions of dollars of tax revenues and increased electricity rates (which climbed in October to about 12.5 cents per kWh for residential consumers) are needed to achieve “carbon” capture and sequestration (that is: “storage”), in an attempt to have Alberta do its part in regulating global climate trends.

First of all, the “carbon” in carbon capture and sequestration is a misnomer, because what is supposed to be captured is not carbon but carbon-dioxide, plain, old CO2, a benign, harmless trace gas that is essential to all life on Earth and without which life as we know it would not exist on Earth.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been measured regularly and systematically since 1959.  Some people, some of whom are scientists, assert that global temperature trends are being affected and even controlled and driven by atmospheric CO2 levels. That assertion is not supported by hard evidence.  At best, nothing more can be said about it than that it is a theory for which the science is not settled.  It is supported only by computer models.

Computer models will say what they are designed to say, and the adage about computers, “GIGO” (Garbage In, Garbage Out), applies with a vengeance to computer models.  No scientific evidence exists that proves that atmospheric CO2 levels are a controlling factor in global temperature trends.

On the other hand, a good many scientific facts relating to CO2 have been established and are supported by real world measurements, such as,

1. There is no correlation between rising temperature trends and increasing CO2 levels.
2. In 1998, the global temperature trend levelled off and can even be said to have fallen a bit, while atmospheric CO2 increased since then to about 392 parts per million or about four hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere.
3. Man-made CO2 emissions comprise only about three percent of total atmospheric CO2.  The other 97 percent of atmospheric CO2 originate from natural sources.
4. Plants will stop growing when atmospheric CO2 reaches a level of 200 parts per million and will begin to die off when the CO2 level falls to 150 parts per million.
5. The rising CO2 levels during the last thirty years have helped along the greening of the planet and increased agricultural productivity (e.g.; by about 25 percent in China).  In reality, increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have helped substantially to alleviate world hunger.

The truth about CO2 emissions is not wanted by those who spend our money.  Indeed, some people try to oppress it!  Good luck with that.  The advent of the Internet has made it practically impossible to suppress the truth, but the Alberta Government’s CCS propaganda campaign makes it obvious that good, old propaganda tactics are alive and well.  There are just fewer people now who will be willing to swallow government-sponsored lies than there were, say, during the Hitler era.

John O’Sullivan: Popular Skeptic Writer Fired for Exposing Carbon Climate Fraud

Friends, I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101, was  terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles  published over a two-year period with them ar….(Full Story)

In  case you missed the link to it in John O’Sullivan’s article, the  observations offered here are fairly straight-forward and easy to  understand:

Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West

Well, in a somewhat bizarre twist, it looks like I must reconsider my opposition to CO2 reparations. The notion that the evil sources of CO2 “pollution” must pay those who are lowering the planet’s CO2 levels….(Full Story)

So,  guess what! If we believe that man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of  catastrophic global warming, then let’s do the best thing possible to  ameliorate the problem.  Let’s make sure that the underdeveloped and  developing nations acquire the same living standard as achieved by the  developed nations, and the problem will go away all by itself.

However, if anyone wishes to put his money where his mouth is with his climate change superstitions and wants to spend billions of dollars implementing measures for amelioration of catastrophic global warming, let him do it with his own money, at the source and not here where it will do no good.  However, if he wants to spend that much money to do some good for humanity where he lives, let him spend it on fixing things that need fixing, such as our health-care system.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Censorship, Shell CCS Project, Corruption & Fraud, Electric Energy Prices, Community & Industry, Climate Change, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

October 22, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

There is jubilation and rejoicing over the shut-down of the U.K.’s white elephant of a carbon capture and storage project at Longannet, Scotland.  Shell was one of the parties developing that project.  The project was shut down, because it is too expensive.  Of course, without massive subsidization through tax- and utility-rates no one in their right mind would have expected a profitable rate of return on capital investment.  Read more about it.

There is a comparably-sized CCS project in the planning and engineering stages in Alberta, Canada, Shell Quest CCS project that is supposed to capture CO2 from the Shell Scotford oilsands upgrader, pipe it to Thorhild and blow it down Mother Earth’s derriere through a number of boreholes there, to have it “safely” stored forever, thousands of feet below the surface.

There are CCS projects that use CO2 injection into oil-bearing strata to boost the production of crude oil in oil fields that approach the limits of production by conventional methods.  No one ever made the slightest pretense that the CCS project at Longannet, nor the Shell’s Quest CCS project at Scotford, Alberta, ever were to provide a return on capital investment.  Both projects are manifestations of the politicians’ mania of obsessing with using CCS projects as thermostats with which to regulate what cannot practically be regulated, namely global CO2 contents in the air and thereby our climate trends.

The CO2 that is supposed to be sequestered is a beneficial atmospheric trace gas, a natural fertilizer that increases the productivity of the biosphere and agriculture.  U.K. politicians have come to their senses and put an end to their squandering of more than a billion dollars on a folly that cannot possibly have more than a minuscule, unmeasurable impact on climate trends, while at best the role of CO2 on those trends has not yet been substantiated.  Meanwhile, Canada’s politicians still want to carry on with their obsessing.

About three percent of global, annual CO2 emissions are man-made, 97 percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources that are not affected in the least by such CCS projects.  The CCS projects that are slated to be put into operation are expensive, and their costs will be born by consumers of electricity and other forms of energy, whose rates will be jacked up considerably to pay for the folly of trying to do the impossible.

Shell’s Quest project at Scotford, Alberta, will be funded mainly by Alberta taxpayers (about $800 million).  Federal tax revenues will provide about $200 million, and Shell will contribute roughly $150 million, which costs will without a doubt be recovered through the price for oil that will be produced and sold by the Scotford upgrader.  Also without a doubt, Shell’s Quest CCS project will generate wealth for Shell (mark-up on oil prices), for the provincial and federal governments (through taxes that are called royalties), while the taxpayers and the consumers of energy will be left holding the bill.  The consumers and taxpayers never turn out to be the winners in these games.

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Taxes, Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

October 7, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

The Guardian, 2011 10 06

Flagship UK carbon capture project ‘close to collapse’

Scottish Power, and its partners Shell and the National Grid, have just completed a detailed study of the CCS scheme and have deep concerns about its commercial viability without heavier public backing….(Full Story)

Note: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) a.k.a. Carbon Capture and Sequestration, is a misnomer.  It is CO2 (carbon dioxide) that is being captured and stored or sequestrated.  I guess that CO2 is being called carbon by the proponents of CCS schemes because in that fashion it is a little easier to invoke unfounded fears of “carbon pollution” that is falsely alleged to drive up global temperatures and burn all life on Earth to a crisp.

CO2 is a vital natural fertilizer without which life as we know it could not exist on Earth. All life on Earth is carbon based and exists within a biological life-cycle that evolved to have plants extract carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere, while almost all other life forms depend on plants doing well enough to be a direct or indirect source of food without which no other life can exist. CO2 is a trace gas that comprises a little less than 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. The majority (97%) of atmospheric CO2 stems from natural sources, while a tiny fraction (3%) of atmospheric CO2 is man-made.

The unproductive, useless and expensive luxury of burying a minuscule portion of man-made CO2 is a futile attempt to regulate global temperature trends. There is no scientific proof that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 drive up temperature trends.  Even though all measurable evidence that has been found indicates that rising temperature trends have a direct, positive influence on global atmospheric CO2 levels over time and life on Earth, economic policies throughout the developed nations are now geared to regulate and restrict the minuscule, man-made portion of atmospheric CO2. Moreover, the developed nations impose policies that restrict the economic development of the under-developed nations, also in attempts to constrain man-made CO2 emissions.  Those policies keep the underdeveloped nations in squalor and poverty.

Carbon capture and storage schemes such as the UK carbon capture project at Longannet in Scotland are not economically viable and can be brought into existence and operation only and entirely through massive subsidies derived either through taxes or through surcharges on utility prices or both. CCS schemes that serve no other purpose than to bury CO2 may reduce global temperatures somewhat. However, their impact will be so small that the temperature reduction hoped to be achieved a hundred years from now can only be calculated to be at best a few ten-thousands of a degree Celsius, which is far beyond the capacity of any instrumentation in existence to measure. The calculated delay of global warming will by the year 2100 amount at most to only a few hours.

The most efficient method for the disposal of man-made CO2 is to let it escape, unhindered, into the air, whereby it can then contribute to the greening of the Earth.

Yes, our globe has for a long time suffered from a dearth of CO2. Scientific evidence shows that the rising CO2 levels experienced lately are caused by global warming resulting from a more active Sun. Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently at 392 parts per million by volume or at 0.0392% of the atmosphere. Plants will stop growing when CO2 levels drop to 0.02% and die when CO2 levels fall to 0.015%. Earth experienced periods during the recent geological past when CO2 levels were many times, 10 and even 20 times, higher than they are now. Many recent scientific studies established that the rising levels of CO2 have contributed to the greening of the Earth and caused substantial increases in agricultural productivity during the past 30 years or so.

The CCS project at Longannet in Scotland is only one of such projects in the planning, engineering or construction stages around the world. It is also not the only one that is in peril. See “High costs bury AEP’s carbon plan”. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2011/07/15/high-costs-bury-aeps-carbon-plan.html

“…American Electric Power [AEP] said it would halt a project to bury carbon dioxide deep beneath a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, experts say the decision reflects a seismic change in the economics of generating electricity.”

The CCS project at Longannet in Scotland is also not the only one involving Shell. Shell is promoting CCS projects in Alberta, Canada. The Alberta Government reserved $2 billion for those. While one of Shell’s CCS projects will collect CO2 for injection in central Alberta, to enhance oil-field production, another one is a CCS project called Quest that will not serve any purpose other than to inject CO2 underground for storage.

Shell’s Quest CCS project will cost about $1.25 billion dollars and is planned to go into operation in about 2015. About $150 million of the costs will be provided by Shell. The remainder of the construction costs will be born by Canadian (mostly by Albertan) taxpayers. Shell’s commitment for the construction of their Quest CCS project is a result of a condition by Canadian governments for granting the operating licence for Shell’s Scotford Oil-Sands bitumen upgrader at Scotford, Alberta.

Shell’s Quest CCS project is purely political folly funded by taxpayers and users of fossil fuel.  It is not something that Shell should be required to put into operation.
____________
More concerns about Shell’s Quest project are expressed in the following article, “No price too high for appeasing climate alarmists”, http://lce.folc.ca/2010/11/06/no-price-too-high-for-appeasing-climate-alarmists/

Here is Shell’s website that promotes Shell’s Quest CCS project: http://www.shell.ca/home/content/can-en/aboutshell/our_business/business_in_canada/upstream/oil_sands/quest/

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Deficits and Debts, Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

July 16, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

The king wears no clothing, but it is even worse that he can’t afford to pay for being made to look like a naked fool.

High Costs Bury AEP’s Carbon Burial Plan
Posted on July 15, 2011 by News Staff

American Electric Power has scuttled its pilot project to bury CO2 from its Mountaineer coal-burning plant in Red Haven WVa. The original projected cost, before unanticipated overruns, was $668 million. About 1/3 of the gross output from a plant would be required to capture, compress and inject the CO2 into the ground, generating an automatic 50% increase in the cost of net output, before conversion costs.

“The AEP plan, announced with much fanfare in 2009, marked the first time that carbon dioxide was to be captured and buried at a US power plant.”

The pilot system would only have captured 110,000 tons of CO2 per year, out of a total of 7.9 to 9.8 million tons per year from the plant. The company, headquartered in Columbus, “cited difficulties in getting state regulators to approve charging customers for the costs of carbon capture.”

From this morning’s Columbus (OH) Dispatch: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2011/07/15/high-costs-bury-aeps-carbon-plan.html?sid=101

______________
It is a good thing that the people that made the decision to scuttle the AEP CCS project came to their senses. A country that is at the verge of bankruptcy should not waste one-third of a power plant’s energy production to bury even a fraction of the beneficial natural fertilizer that plant exhausts into the air, fertilizer that is essentially free of cost.

The economics of the decision to scuttle the CCS project are sound and make sense. It boggles the mind why anyone in their right mind and not blinded by harmful environmental fanaticism ever made a move to spend even a single dollar on such a hare-brained scheme.

The situation with Shell’s CSS project in Alberta is no different with respect to it being a hare-brained scheme by environmental fanatics and government agencies catering to them holding Shell over a barrel. Don’t blame Shell for the idea that blowing CO2 down Mother Earth’s derriere at a billion-dollars a shot is a thing that Alberta consumers must fund. It is a political decision which Shell supports only because it cannot lose on it on account of taxpayers and consumers footing the bill.

I you think that those observations are not substantiated by facts, then you better have a look at the comments that were posted at wattsupwiththat.com in relation to the AEP CSS scheme.

Posted in Climate Craziness, The New World Order, Shell CCS Project, Corruption & Fraud, Community & Industry, Electric Energy Prices, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

June 13, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Some recent energy articles of interest

By John Droz, Jr.

An interesting article appeared in a wind industry trade journal: “Is Wind Energy The New Wedge Issue For Conservatives?”
( http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7757 ).

Some of the comments are: “The acrimony is being powered by a combination of small-government conservatives who see wind and other renewables as a waste of money and by others who consider wind a technology that will never be as effective as oil, coal or natural gas.” In other words people are objecting to wind energy as it is expensive and ineffective. Imagine that!

And there is this from the comptroller of Texas (a very pro-wind state): “wind is an expensive boondoggle that does not produce jobs”.

Note that the industry does not respond with proof that these positions are wrong, but rather tries to dismiss them as being political…
—————————–

A wonderful assessment of wind energy by an energy expert http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/05/26/fitting-wind-onto-the-electricity-grid-part-2/ .

A VERY promising development where New Jersey is dropping out of the RGGI program http://www.atinstitute.org/ati-statement-on-gov-chris-christies-plans-to-remove-new-jersey-from-rggi/ . Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the other member states.

Renewables Laws Changing is a positive development compared to the prior RPS mandates
http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/11/05/renewables-laws-changing .

Some good comments by the governor of Maine about a more sensible position on renewables
http://waldo.villagesoup.com/column/columnpost/weekly-radio-address/400386 .

A new MIT study has some unique perspectives on the economics of wind energy http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/6317 .

“Oil ‘subsidy’ and ‘tax breaks’ nonsense” gives a superior overview to this contentious issue:
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9598/pub_detail.asp

“The Politics of Alternative Energy 1: The Myth of Viable Industrial-scale Renewable Energy”:
“‘Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.’ Winston Churchill’s dictum could have been coined for the green advocates of the renewable energy revolution; a revolution that demonstrates a thorough-going disconnect between the political rhetoric and a grasp of the physics and economics vital to energy realism.” http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7616/The-Politics-of-Alternative-Energy-1–The-Myth-of-Viable-Industrial-scale-Renewable-Energy

“Inconvenient Truths about Renewable Energy”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576327410322365714.html?KEYWORDS=energy#printMode .

Another Real Estate professional speaks out saying that wind projects can bring down home values 25 to 40 percent — for as much as 2 miles away: http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=35521 .

In a fascinating development a Spanish judge orders a wind project to be dismantled
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/18/wind-farm-ordered-dismantled/ .

“NY Wind: Much Ado About So Little” http://www.windaction.org/faqs/31912 .

One of the key facts to focus on is that there is no such thing as wind energy by itself. This article makes that very point
http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/12/11/wind-power-is-gas-power-and-comes-with-pollution/ .

The Australian government is revisiting the wind acoustic issue. The good news is that some of the presenters at their discussion are actually qualified scientists who contend that there are serious human consequences to wind development. See http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/june-6-2011-645-pm-ny-city-time/ .

Green Energy costs 1500 jobs http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/247946/EU-push-for-green-energy-costs-another-1-500-jobs .

Why do we need to choose between nuclear and renewables — we don’t:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/27/why-choose-nuclear-renewable-energy .

“Everything you’ve heard about fossil fuels may be wrong” talks extensively about wind energy
http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels .

A good letter about Yucca mountain and the US economic benefits of nuclear energy http://tinyurl.com/3pcmyrk .

Some recent global warming articles of interest —

“Former ‘alarmist’ scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science”
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/ .

“Germany’s green government advisors admit frankly that decarbonization can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy - both nationally and internationally.” http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article13396336/Wir-rutschen-Hals-ueber-Kopf-in-die-Oekodiktatur.html .

A fine discussion of Patrick Moore and the religion of environmentalism
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/5/the-personal-costs-of-spurning-green-misanthropy .

“The Global Warming Doctrine is Not a Science” (Vaclav Klaus): http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2830 .

Thank you for your support.

john droz jr.,
physicist & environmental advocate

Posted in Electric Energy Prices, The New World Order, Energy Newsletter, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources, Fines & Penalties, Climate Change, Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »

April 8, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Yesterday, when we picked up our mail, we found a copy of an expensive brochure “ALTALINK : Report to communities,” 14 pages, on high-quality, non-recyclable, heavy-weight paper, with many colour photos. Five of the photos feature wind turbines, while a few portions of the report identify the growth and proliferation of wind turbines, collectively called “wind farms” by ALTALINK.  It remains up to anyone’s imagination how it is possible to farm the wind, but the brochure must have cost a fair bundle.  AltaLink could have saved the effort and built a few miles of transmission line instead.

It is not clear what that brochure — apparently distributed to all Alberta households — is intended to achieve, other than to make people believe that everything is good about ALTALINK and their endeavors, e. g.: to connect wind turbine installations to the electricity grid.  ALTALINK does not involve itself in electricity generation.  It only installs and maintains the high-voltage transmission network used to connect all of Alberta’s electricity distributors to sources of electricity generation.

ALTALINK is Ralph Klein’s brainchild, an offspring that is the product of his party’s imagination in search of increased revenues, the deregulation of the utility industry that immediately brought much higher electricity rates to all consumers of electricity in Alberta, especially to residential and small-business consumers, after all of the large electric energy consumers and retailers had already secured long-term energy contracts. (It is in the news today that Ralph Klein is suffering from a serious, rapidly-progressing, incurable form of dementia.)

I will not discuss in detail all of the claims presented in “ALTALINK : Report to communities,” but I will discuss only some of the claims that misrepresent facts of wind-power generation and pricing of electricity rates.  A much abridged version of the brochure is accessible on the Internet.

Wind-Power Generation

Page 3 of “ALTALINK : Report to communities” states:

Connecting wind power — Albertans now have access to twice as much wind power as a result of AltaLink’s Southwest 240 kV Project. Energized in October 2010, this 90-kilometre transmission line between Pincher Creek and Lethbridge allows for 1,000 megawatts of wind‐generated electricity to reach homes and businesses throughout the province. That’s equal to powering 1,600 homes each month.

Participation of the local First Nations communities, the Piikani and Blood, was essential to the success of the project. Significant employment was created by this project and more than 80 Alberta businesses supplied services or materials.
(Source URL)

How wonderful!  Still, that claim suffers from a few problems.  According to AESO (Alberta Electric System Operator), the total wind-power generating capacity in Alberta is 777MW, of which often as little as 0MW and hardly ever even close to its maximum generating capacity is being produced and put on the grid. At the time I am writing this, the grand total of 67MW out of the total nominal and much-advertised 777MW wind-power generating capacity is being produced.  You can verify what the wind-power generated in Alberta is at any time you wish to look it up.

However, only a fraction of the wind-power generated in Alberta and put on the grid comes from the Pincher Creek area at any time.  The total wind-power generated in the Pincher Creek area is currently 0MW,  and the 67MW generated through wind power in Alberta come from a single source that is not in the Pincher Creek area.  It is the Ghost Pine Wind “Farm” in Kneehill County, in the Drumheller area.  The Ghost Pine Wind “Farm” has a maximum generating capacity of 82MW, and the construction of a 140kV transmission line to connect it to the grid was completed not all that long ago.

A lot more of Alberta’s wind power generated does not come from the Pincher Creek area.  That means that perhaps at some point in the future there may be a total of a 1,000MW generating capacity installed in the Pincher Creek area, but, unless a lot more Wind-Power generating capacity will be installed in the Pincher Creek area in the future, it will not be required.  The “90-kilometre transmission line between Pincher Creek and Lethbridge” that “allows for 1,000 megawatts of wind‐generated electricity to reach homes and businesses throughout the province” will not be required until the power it is intended to transmit can and will actually be generated.  The transmission line is most definitely not required right now.

I wonder why ALTALINK did not say so in their promotional brochure.  What the heck, it is only money that we consumers pay for right now through our power bills, and there is no shortage of that money coming in, right?

Talking about money, the lower-left-hand corner of page 5 of  “ALTALINK : Report to communities” contains a pie chart that breaks down the price of the good deal Ralph Klein gave us on the electricity rates we must now pay. I will translate that chart into plain English.

Breaking Down an Average Electricity Bill

Generation
The cost you pay for the electric energy you have used in a given time period: 56%

Administration
Cost that you pay for administration charges such as fees related to billing and customer service: 7%

Distribution
The cost your distribution company charges you to build, operate and maintain the local distribution system: 27%

Transmission
Cost that TFOs, such as AltaLink, charge to build, operate and maintain the provincial power system: 10%

I know, you don’t pay your electric energy bill in percent, you pay for it in dollars.  So, let’s make those figures a bit more meaningful.  The total electricity cost in terms of percent is quite useful for that.

56% of what you pay for electric energy consumption pays for the cost of electricity generated and put on the grid.  That is roughly 2.4 cent or $0.024 per kWh you consumed and includes a reasonable margin of profit for the generating companies.

46% of what you pay for electric energy consumption is for AltaLink and the distribution company that bring the electric energy from the generating companies to your house.  That is roughly 1.9 cent or $0.019 per kWh of electric energy you consumed and includes the cost of all of the overhead and a reasonable margin of profit for those services.

The total cost of the electric energy you consume and of the services required to bring it to your home is about 4.3 cents or $0.043 per kWh consumed, including a reasonable margin of profit for all involved in doing it and billing you for it.  That is it!  No more and no less.  That is all there is.

You probably pay a substantial amount over and above that for each kWh you consume.  That is money that will not go to waste.  It will provide a clear profit over and above all who are feeding on your wallet, including the Government of Alberta.  If you pay 8.6 cents or more per kWh consumed, you pay an extra 100 percent or more over and above what is required to provide for the costs and a reasonable margin of profit for all who so generously bring you your portion of the lifeblood of the nation: electric energy.

However, in all of that, remember that included in what you pay for electric energy is something the powers never tell you about. Electric energy generated from wind power is not free.  It is one of the most expensive forms of energy imaginable.

The electricity grid has no spare capacity at any time.  When the wind does not blow, and when the beautiful wind turbines that spoil the skylines in increasingly more Alberta locations turn, just idling away to keep themselves from seizing up, without producing any power for the grid at all, and often consuming power just to stay healthy, something must take up the demand, and spare capacity must be put on line.  If not, then there will be brown-outs and even black-outs.

Other than generating more hydro power (which we don’t have much of), a natural-gas-fired power generating plant is easiest to put into operation.  It takes up to about three hours to be on full production.  Coal-fired power plants take a lot longer, up to three days to be on full generating capacity, which is why they are being kept on spinning standby, consuming fuel all the while when not required to produce electric energy, so that they can be put into full production on short notice, which is still too long for comfort.

Spare capacity that can be put on the grid instantaneously when the wind does not blow constitutes unscheduled demand and drives up the price of electric energy into the lofty neighbourhood of $1000 per MWh, which means a cost of up to a full dollar per kWh to bring it on the grid.  With the convenient percentage figures that AltaLink provided on page 5 of their promotional brochure, it is not hard to figure what the consumers must pay for that, namely two or more dollars per kWh.  However, the pain of paying for that is made easier to bear by making you pay for every kWh you consume a good portion more than it is worth.  A $1000 per MWh spread over all of the kWh you consume during the year works out to just a few cents per kWh consumed but can be a substantial portion of all of the cost of the electric energy you consume throughout the year.  It just depends on when, how often and for how long the wind does not blow.

Yes, when it comes to electric energy generated by wind, the wind does not come free of charge.  The only thing that is free is death, and we all must pay for that with our lives.  However, we can do something about paying the enormous profits made by many from wind power generation.  We can begin to ask the powers to stop pulling the wool over our eyes.

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

September 10, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Those Deadly, Green Solar Panels

August 21, 2010—Not only does solar energy cost more to produce than
it gives back, but rooftop solar panels are dangerous to your health and
hearth. In Germany, Australia, and the U.S.A. fire departments are
warning of the deadly threat of fighting blazes associated with solar
panels….(Full Story)

That story is referenced in the article accessible through the following link.

Larouche Political Action Committee
Solar Cells versus Plant Cells: In Defense of Chlorophyll
September 8, 2010 • 10:30 AM
by Oyang Teng and Sky Shields

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Alarmist Insanity, Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Explosions & Fires | Print | No Comments »

March 27, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Ontario Demand and Market Prices

Note: As of March 27, 2010, at 1:00 PM EDT,  the price was 3.01¢/kWh
Average Weighted Price for March was 2.81¢/kWh
Average Weighted Price since Jan 1, 2010 was 3.30¢/kWh

That low price has not been seen in Alberta for more than ten years now.  The price per kWh in Alberta has been more than twice the price in Ontario ever since Albertans were saddled with deregulated electric energy prices.

Alberta TMR Reference Prices (per MWh; divide by 1,000 to derive price per kWh)

A contract price will help to provide a steady, non-fluctuating rate for electric energy bills.  However, there is not a single energy provider in Alberta who will provide electric energy at close to the low price paid by Ontarians.

For residential users, farmers and small businesses in Alberta, deregulation of the electric energy market was a false promise that, instead of “putting more money back into the pockets of Albertans” (Ed Stelmach *) more than doubled the price of electric energy, beginning Jan. 1, 2000.

* We will continue to monitor energy supplies and pricing and take appropriate action when necessary in the best interest of all Albertans.
The Alberta Government is committed to putting more money back into the pockets of Albertans.

Ed Stelmach (PC), Alberta Minister of Transportation,
MLA Vegreville-Viking, 2002 04 19,
in his response to an open letter on utility pricing policies.
(Source)

Since then, the deregulation of Alberta’s electric energy industry cost Albertans far in excess of $10 billion dollars, much of which added to the windfall revenues gathered by the Alberta Government.

By the way,

Tracking Earth Hour in the Greenest State

27 03 2010 Earth Hour comes to every time zone at 8:30 PM today. Will it make a difference?

Their website says:

On Earth Hour hundreds of millions of people around the world will come together to call for action on climate change by doing something quite simple—turning off their lights for one hour. The movement symbolizes that by working together, each of us can make a positive impact in this fight, protecting our future and that of future generations. Learn more about how Earth Hour began, what we’ve accomplished, and what is in store for 2010.

As Anthony Watts properly identifies at his blog, “…last year, according to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), Earth Hour made zero difference to the California power consumption. Zero, zip, nada. ” (read more)

Effective propaganda always makes attractive claims, but you can bet your life on one major aspect of it.  The more wide-spread a propaganda campaign ranges, and the more intensive it is, the more money it will cost.  In the end, those costs are always paid by the end consumers.

Posted in Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Energy Purchases | Print | No Comments »