On October 1, Friends of Science hosted Randy Stubbings to discuss the implications of Net Zero policies on the design, cost and reliability of Alberta’s future power grid. Mr. Stubbings is experienced in the design and construction of the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) and establishing the terms of reference and technologies for the Alberta Electrical System Operator (AESO). Several pennies dropped for me as he took us through his slides and charts. First some definitions. "Interruptible energy sources" are things like wind and solar. They produce power at low operating cost during the roughly 40 percent of the year that the wind blows and the sun shines. When there is no wind or sun, they do not produce power and so there is a need for another, more reliable power source. The real problem with interruptible energy sources is that we can’t predict when the wind won’t blow, or when the sun is obscured by clouds. More reliable backup power sources must be available one hundred per cent of the time during these periods.These are "Dischargeable energy sources" and they produce this more reliable backup power from things like natural gas, nuclear or coal. This power is available on demand for over 90 per cent of the year. The other ten percent of the year is for routine maintenance during predictable and planned shutdown periods. Here is the problem in round numbers. The more sun and wind energy sources that are connected to the electrical system, the more unreliable is the entire system. For example, if sun and wind sources are to provide fifty percent of the province’s energy demand of say 100 megawatts, then sun and solar systems will be built to provide 50 megawatts of power that is available 40 percent of the time. This means that the electrical system must provide 50 megawatts of dischargeable power to make up 100 percent of the system demand plus there must be an additional 50 megawatts of standby, dischargeable power to accommodate periods when the sun and wind are not providing power. The system redundancy is 50 percent. If the system relies on 70% wind and solar then there must be a redundancy of 70 percent dischargeable power (in round numbers). If the system redundancy is not provided then, at unpredictable times of the year, 70 percent of the power consumers will have no power because there is no power from sun and wind. And because Murphy’s Law is immutable, that power blackout will occur during the coldest days of the winter. Many people will freeze in the dark.Additionally, under current AESO rules, power is paid when power is consumed. If there is idle, redundant dischargeable power, the producers of that power will only be paid when they sell their megawatts of power. If they build a plant for 50 megawatts of power but only sell the equivalent of 20 megawatts of power, then they will demand a very high price for that power. How else to pay off the cost of building the plant and the operating cost of continually starting up and shutting down? If Alberta customers don’t want to pay this very high cost, then no one will build the plants, and we will all freeze in the dark.As Mr. Stubbings spoke, I had a growing sense that anyone who buys electricity in a Net Zero-focused Alberta is being bilked. And bilking me is not a public good so let’s dispense with that argument.Tell me, then, why I must pay the very high cost of redundant power stations or suffer the risk of freezing in the dark and cold? So that other people can feel good about being “Net Zero”? What if I don’t want either alternative? What if I don’t care about Net Zero and don’t believe the false data that supports such a ridiculous notion? No one wants to answer that question. Here then is an alternative, modest proposal for consideration.The problem is that under current AESO guidance, the system must bear the risks of Net Zero to guarantee system reliability in 2050. “The system” means all Albertans. We must all bear the same costs and the same risks. But perhaps a better approach is to balance costs and risks according to power user preference. What if all electrical users were given a fact sheet which identifies the projected costs of electricity for the all-dischargeable power option and the costs of the Net Zero dischargeable plus interruptible power option? The information pamphlet would identify the unit costs of each energy alternative and the probability distribution of the times and duration of zero delivery of interruptible power — effectively how long those who choose the interruptible/dischargeable energy option can expect to freeze in the dark each year. With this information each user would make a choice to be connected to either all-dischargeable power or interruptible plus dischargeable power.From this data the government will have a basis to design and build the 2050 AIES. Those who are willing to spend three or four days each year freezing in the dark will be able to feel good about their faux Net Zero energy choice and people like me, who have a high regard for warmth and light, can suffer the ignominy of being irresponsible and self-centered. In fact, I believe that, when confronted with the certainty of three or four winter days of freezing in the dark (or the very high cost of the redundancy to prevent the freezing,) very few people will choose the interruptible power supply option. So few that the stupid fever-dream of Net Zero will be over. Madam Premier can tell Mr. Prime Minister that the people have spoken, and no one wants what he is selling so please, Mr. Trudeau, go pound sand. It will be argued that you can’t ask people to make decisions today that are not active for twenty-five years. But whether the people make the decision, or the government makes the decision, the decision will be made. It is better that we, rather than the government, make those decisions. Besides, the problem exists today. Each solar panel and windmill added from now on increases system costs and reduces system reliability.My solution is to distribute the risk according to preference and identify the true believers in Net Zero. I am guessing that when the cost of such virtue signalling is identified and payment is required, there will be a lot less Net Zero virtue signalling. If you want to take on the risk of Net Zero, interruptible power, then fill your boots and be sure to have a fireplace in your house. But don’t ask me to subsidize your choices which, frankly, I think are beyond stupid. But I could be wrong, so choice is important.
On October 1, Friends of Science hosted Randy Stubbings to discuss the implications of Net Zero policies on the design, cost and reliability of Alberta’s future power grid. Mr. Stubbings is experienced in the design and construction of the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) and establishing the terms of reference and technologies for the Alberta Electrical System Operator (AESO). Several pennies dropped for me as he took us through his slides and charts. First some definitions. "Interruptible energy sources" are things like wind and solar. They produce power at low operating cost during the roughly 40 percent of the year that the wind blows and the sun shines. When there is no wind or sun, they do not produce power and so there is a need for another, more reliable power source. The real problem with interruptible energy sources is that we can’t predict when the wind won’t blow, or when the sun is obscured by clouds. More reliable backup power sources must be available one hundred per cent of the time during these periods.These are "Dischargeable energy sources" and they produce this more reliable backup power from things like natural gas, nuclear or coal. This power is available on demand for over 90 per cent of the year. The other ten percent of the year is for routine maintenance during predictable and planned shutdown periods. Here is the problem in round numbers. The more sun and wind energy sources that are connected to the electrical system, the more unreliable is the entire system. For example, if sun and wind sources are to provide fifty percent of the province’s energy demand of say 100 megawatts, then sun and solar systems will be built to provide 50 megawatts of power that is available 40 percent of the time. This means that the electrical system must provide 50 megawatts of dischargeable power to make up 100 percent of the system demand plus there must be an additional 50 megawatts of standby, dischargeable power to accommodate periods when the sun and wind are not providing power. The system redundancy is 50 percent. If the system relies on 70% wind and solar then there must be a redundancy of 70 percent dischargeable power (in round numbers). If the system redundancy is not provided then, at unpredictable times of the year, 70 percent of the power consumers will have no power because there is no power from sun and wind. And because Murphy’s Law is immutable, that power blackout will occur during the coldest days of the winter. Many people will freeze in the dark.Additionally, under current AESO rules, power is paid when power is consumed. If there is idle, redundant dischargeable power, the producers of that power will only be paid when they sell their megawatts of power. If they build a plant for 50 megawatts of power but only sell the equivalent of 20 megawatts of power, then they will demand a very high price for that power. How else to pay off the cost of building the plant and the operating cost of continually starting up and shutting down? If Alberta customers don’t want to pay this very high cost, then no one will build the plants, and we will all freeze in the dark.As Mr. Stubbings spoke, I had a growing sense that anyone who buys electricity in a Net Zero-focused Alberta is being bilked. And bilking me is not a public good so let’s dispense with that argument.Tell me, then, why I must pay the very high cost of redundant power stations or suffer the risk of freezing in the dark and cold? So that other people can feel good about being “Net Zero”? What if I don’t want either alternative? What if I don’t care about Net Zero and don’t believe the false data that supports such a ridiculous notion? No one wants to answer that question. Here then is an alternative, modest proposal for consideration.The problem is that under current AESO guidance, the system must bear the risks of Net Zero to guarantee system reliability in 2050. “The system” means all Albertans. We must all bear the same costs and the same risks. But perhaps a better approach is to balance costs and risks according to power user preference. What if all electrical users were given a fact sheet which identifies the projected costs of electricity for the all-dischargeable power option and the costs of the Net Zero dischargeable plus interruptible power option? The information pamphlet would identify the unit costs of each energy alternative and the probability distribution of the times and duration of zero delivery of interruptible power — effectively how long those who choose the interruptible/dischargeable energy option can expect to freeze in the dark each year. With this information each user would make a choice to be connected to either all-dischargeable power or interruptible plus dischargeable power.From this data the government will have a basis to design and build the 2050 AIES. Those who are willing to spend three or four days each year freezing in the dark will be able to feel good about their faux Net Zero energy choice and people like me, who have a high regard for warmth and light, can suffer the ignominy of being irresponsible and self-centered. In fact, I believe that, when confronted with the certainty of three or four winter days of freezing in the dark (or the very high cost of the redundancy to prevent the freezing,) very few people will choose the interruptible power supply option. So few that the stupid fever-dream of Net Zero will be over. Madam Premier can tell Mr. Prime Minister that the people have spoken, and no one wants what he is selling so please, Mr. Trudeau, go pound sand. It will be argued that you can’t ask people to make decisions today that are not active for twenty-five years. But whether the people make the decision, or the government makes the decision, the decision will be made. It is better that we, rather than the government, make those decisions. Besides, the problem exists today. Each solar panel and windmill added from now on increases system costs and reduces system reliability.My solution is to distribute the risk according to preference and identify the true believers in Net Zero. I am guessing that when the cost of such virtue signalling is identified and payment is required, there will be a lot less Net Zero virtue signalling. If you want to take on the risk of Net Zero, interruptible power, then fill your boots and be sure to have a fireplace in your house. But don’t ask me to subsidize your choices which, frankly, I think are beyond stupid. But I could be wrong, so choice is important.
