Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Alberta 900 MW Cap on Wind Power Lifted

By Randyn Seibold, Contributing Writer
October 4, 2007   |   11 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"There is lots of work still to be done, and we have to make up for the time we lost since the threshold was first imposed."

-- Tim Weis, Senior Technical & Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute
11 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 11
October 4, 2007
CONTINUED

As much as you claim natural gas is the answer, prices aren't going down anytime (and have increased exorbitantly in recent years), while wind fuel remains the same... FREE. Look ahead 10 years and you'll be happy our state is taking the long view in building infrastructure for renewable energy that has stable fuel prices, no pollution, and no greenhouse gases. The last point will be especially important as California implements AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, and enters a carbon constrained world.
Comment
2 of 11
October 4, 2007
Jim,

As a Californian, I also feel your pains at the tax burdens and regulations in this state. However, California's new Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) that you lambaste is an important part of our energy future. This model is based on Texas, and today there is a story on this website about Texas' huge, cost-effective push for wind and associated transmission. The story from today states "Based on ERCOT's 2006 CREZ analysis, 5,250 MW of new wind installations would reduce customer payments to power generators by $1.2 billion per year" That is a nice chunk of money! Think how that will increase in future decades as fossil fuel prices keep their skyrocketing cost.

The new transmission infrastructure will also serve large CSP plants that are in the works for California - these plants have similar generation profiles to peak CA summertime air con loads and will be an important addition to our state's energy mix.
Comment
3 of 11
October 4, 2007
<p>Alberta uses about 18,000 MW and has 5,000 MW&nbsp; of wind under study or construction. that sounds promising. It's roughly 30%.&nbsp; </p><p>The final paragraph again points out that a significant issue in renewables&nbsp; is the power transmission infrastructure. When renewable resources are found in remote areas, the lack of infrastructure to transmit the power is a handicap.</p><p>Luckily, in my home state of Calfornia we are going to solve that problem. We are going pass bonds to over pay for building transmission lines to remote areas of the state so non-cost effective renewables can be hooked up to the power grid. Of course these renewables aren't cost effective even after we give them a free power transmission line. So we then have to give them subsidies per kwh so they can make a profit. We, the tax payers, have to pay extra to build a non profitable power line so that we can then pay extra to bring non profitable energy sources on line. </p><p>God forbid we just build a couple of clean natural gas fired plants near existing power lines near, like within 20 miles, of our cities. Sure it would save tons of money, but we would lose all those gov't jobs and regulations. .&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Yeah, I went out of my way to take a shot at my state again.&nbsp; But if you were paying the tax load in this state, you would take a few shots at it too. </p>
Comment
4 of 11
October 5, 2007
Jim,

Have you forgot about the tax breaks that coal, oil, and natural gas recieve from the federal government plus the cost of wars like Iraq. These investmetns by California for renewable energy are a pitance compared to them. Think about all the Taxes you will save by not using fossil fuels that are heavely subisdized today. This is a bargian.

Remember the remote areas of yesterday are now developed areas of today. These transmission lines may someday be in very populated areas.
Comment
5 of 11
October 5, 2007
Very vibrant discussion! I also believe imported NG to be a very precarious and environmentally detrimental resource to bank our future energy needs upon. I am intrigued by biogas opportunities, especially since many of these resources do not have to be in remote areas requiring hi-voltage transmission lines over hundreds of miles. Landfill gas, farm-manure methane biodigestors, and other bio-fuels can be converted into electricity within 20 or so miles from the demand for cities. I also want to point out that just because solar and wind are intermittent sources does not mean this energy cannot be stored and used during calm or cloudy days. I am anxious to read more about compressed wind.
Comment
6 of 11
October 5, 2007
(cont.)

Now here is the really interesting part: Germany has a little more than one fourth the population of the USA. So if Germany can go 100% renewable (which it can) then so can California (my home state) or Texas or Ontario or just about any state you care to name. It's simply a question of finding out what resources you have and using them intelligently. Will it cost money? Sure. But we're already spending gobs of money funding terrorist nations at the gas pump and then fighting them on their home soil. So we're paying for their bullets and bombs and then sending them our sons and daughters to shoot at. I respectfully submit that building transmission infrastructure for renewable power generation (even at a premium) is a far better use for our tax dollars.
Comment
7 of 11
October 5, 2007
Ian raises a very important point: biogas (gas from rotting stuff) is one of at least 4 forms of *on-demand* renewable energy, the other three that come to mind being biomass, hydro power and possibly compressed wind (see today's article on this web site about the company General Compression).

In Germany, some of the key players in each of these renewable energy forms got together and created a "virtual power plant" comprising the output from one or more power plants of each type (biomass, biogas, hydro, solar, and wind). The result: they were able to match the load profile of the entire country with ZERO assistance from fossil-fired power plants. Germany already has enough of each resource to scale up to 100% of actual demand (i.e. Load), while maintaining the same ratio as in the virtual power plant.
Comment
8 of 11
October 5, 2007
Many of the readers have raised the issue that perhaps ALL energy costs per BTU need to consider the TRUE COST to US Tax Payers. This consideration in turn requires a different calculus from the previously used simple cost in US $. When is a $ not a $ ? When it is in Kuwait, Saudi, Russian etc currency. Does a Russian energy exporter pay US Income tax ? Does a Saudi Real contain W2 contribution for Medicare ? Does a Russian Ruble contain any contribution to the security costs at any port or sea lane ?

These are items which are readily calculable and should be , by the Congressional Budget Office. So that all energy imports be taxed ( duty ? )for the appropriate contribution to put the true cost on the auction block at par with a domestically produced BTU.

Doing that, we will only be anticipating the coming auction for the shrinking supply of imported fossil fuels.
By the way, I left out the not insignificant bonus of greatly reduced pollution of the environment.

It is here and now and doable. There are bonuses; like the very significant increase in energy production hardware and software making a substantial contribution to GNP and domestic industrial employment.
Have you heard of a better ROI lately ?
Comment
9 of 11
October 5, 2007
continued

IF natural gas came from green sources ( rotting stuff) the story would be different , but that would involve investment in appropriate processes and infrastructure, and its possible that the amount generated would only make up for the reduction in local fossil sources.It would however have advantages in local employment and business and not affect the trade gap- it might be a better use for Jim's taxes, than the $3 per gallon invisible surcharge he pays in income tax for troops to support Saudi Arabia and Iraq
Comment
10 of 11
October 5, 2007
Natural gas ( ie fossil gas) isn't the answer unless you have native supplies in profusion. I believe California gets most of its gas by pipeline from canada and alaska (?) and in the very near future the excess of consumption over supply means that it will be importing LNG from the friendly reliable states that have most of the worlds reserves ie Iran ,Iraq, and Russia. In europe we have already discovered what it means to be dependent on Russia for our pipelined fuel ,as they cut it off when they want to change our opinions on things of interest to Putin.

LNG is about twice as expensive as pipeline gas, and is quite inefficient energetically, as well as requiring large infrastructure investment in special ships and ports. Foreign gas also has to be paid for in dollars, which contributes to the trade gap that is pushing the dollar down and making gas and oil and everything elsemore expensive.

Overall foreign gas is a really bad strategic move.
Comment
11 of 11
October 7, 2007
Gentleman,

In regards to shipping natural gas, it is 2x the cost of normal gas. Natural gas burns clean . Even after shipping by pipe or ship, it is cheaper than virtually all renewable energies except wind/hydro. So we might as well use it or China/India will burn it. The gas isn't going to stay in the ground.

In regards to the California transmission lines, we need more of them. The bill that send lines in to remote areas to collect geothermal, not wind, is a bad deal/industrial welfare.

A rough estimate, geothermal comes in around $.23 per kwh which is twice the whole sale market $.09 per kwh but close to the retail industrial of $.22 per kwh. The projects are already not cost effective, without the line costs.

In contrast gas fired plants, some used only at high demand times, can be run at a PROFIT even with increased natural gas prices for shipping.

One deal is good and one is bad, can you figure out which?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Randyn Seibold

View Randyn Seibold's Profile
About: Randyn Seibold is a freelance reporter, promoter, and recruiter for Canadian sustainable energy. He draws from diverse background experience, including 3 years... more »

Advertise With Us

Unirac, Inc. IntertechPira Solar FlexRack Session Solar PLANSEE SE Dow Solar Kipp & Zonen
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters