I can't get over this video about how fears over nuclear waste have been exaggerated. The guy in the video would go on speaking tours all across the US trying to un-demonize nuclear power. He eats nuclear waste in the video, as he would commonly do at all of his lectures. He died of parkinsons at the age of 82.
"Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.
Galen Winsor has traveled and lectured all over America, spoken on national talk radio, and made several videos exposing the misunderstood issues of nuclear radiation. He shows that fear of radiation has been exaggerated to scare people … so a few powerful people can maintain total control of the world’s most valuable power resource. Filmed by Ben Williams in 1986."
how so? I drive past blackspring ridge regularly, those mills can't be taking up more than 1 acre of unfarmed land each, I just looked it up and they say that is supposed to produce like 1000gwh / ann. so that would 166 acres / million mwh, substantially different than that chart shows.
how so? I drive past blackspring ridge regularly, those mills can't be taking up more than 1 acre of unfarmed land each, I just looked it up and they say that is supposed to produce like 1000gwh / ann. so that would 166 acres / million mwh, substantially different than that chart shows.
Been mentioned on here, but putting solar on farmland in a way to only provide shade during the heat of the can produce both agricultural benefit as well as power
I think the wind is a misnomer in that graph, because you have have mixed land use with wind, in a way you can't with the others.
Agreed, it’s not intuitive that the wind box is so large given that it’s ‘just a pole’ but maybe there’s a safety radius? Or to match the same output you need a billion turbines and poles?
Agreed, it’s not intuitive that the wind box is so large given that it’s ‘just a pole’ but maybe there’s a safety radius? Or to match the same output you need a billion turbines and poles?
Like I said though, the Blacksprings Ridge project in Alberta with already 10 year old tech, just with an eyeball test they are off by 2 orders of magnitude with that graph on the land the Turbines are actually occupying, they have to be including the land between turbines that is still actively cultivated.
The graph shows 17000 and it should be closer to 170.
edit: not as important in Alberta, but it also ignores that offshore wind is probably a great on the land use front, they done studies on the structures for offshore rigs, and found they actually form wonderful artificial reefs, and promote bio-diversity. One would assume you'd see a similar impact from offshore wide turbines, dragging the land use number closer to 0, and have a positive impact on sea habitats.
Like I said though, the Blacksprings Ridge project in Alberta with already 10 year old tech, just with an eyeball test they are off by 2 orders of magnitude with that graph on the land the Turbines are actually occupying, they have to be including the land between turbines that is still actively cultivated.
The graph shows 17000 and it should be closer to 170.
edit: not as important in Alberta, but it also ignores that offshore wind is probably a great on the land use front, they done studies on the structures for offshore rigs, and found they actually form wonderful artificial reefs, and promote bio-diversity. One would assume you'd see a similar impact from offshore wide turbines, dragging the land use number closer to 0, and have a positive impact on sea habitats.
I’m guessing the chart only considers to total area of a deployment without considering whether the land within the deployment area can be used for other things. Somewhat misleading (intentionally or not)
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Does the way Alberta regulates power, etc have something to do with getting this investment?
Why isn't Sask doing this? Manitoba?
A big part of it is the de-regulated model for sure. You still have to get permits, get into the AESO queue to connect to the grid, etc., but it's a lot easier to enter into virtual Power Purchase Agreements with large-scale customers (like a swap agreement) a producer will sell the power to someone at a fixed price, but also transfers over certain Environmental Attributes so that the customer can show they're 'directly' purchasing power from renewable sources.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to calf For This Useful Post:
Great news, and I think the pace would be even higher if regulations were setup to encourage home owners, small business and even corporations to invest in solar.
Been reading a bit about solar paybacks in Alberta compared to Manitoba, and I honestly can't wrap my head around why on earth anyone would invest $1 in solar energy in Manitoba when Manitoba Hydro absolutely does not pay you a fair rate for what you put back into the grid.
Stuff like that has to change in order to encourage people to invest. Even businesses.
Great news, and I think the pace would be even higher if regulations were setup to encourage home owners, small business and even corporations to invest in solar.
Been reading a bit about solar paybacks in Alberta compared to Manitoba, and I honestly can't wrap my head around why on earth anyone would invest $1 in solar energy in Manitoba when Manitoba Hydro absolutely does not pay you a fair rate for what you put back into the grid.
Stuff like that has to change in order to encourage people to invest. Even businesses.
Solar incentives are great, but to be honest in most places they're unnecessary and can be counter productive even. It's extremely variable depending on where it is.
For example, in most of UK and Europe the cost of electricity is so high that roof top PV with a battery pays off within 2-3 years with zero incentives. In BC, electricity is so cheap that despite generous net metering and federal incentives my newly installed panels will take 10+years to pay off if you don't include potential home price increases.
On the counterproductive side, generous rooftop solar incentives including net metering in the Netherlands have led to 30% of homes having panels and negative pricing leading to electricity companies losing their shirts. So far this year there's been well over 100 negative pricing hours and there was even a few hours where consumers were paid $0.33/kW to use electricity! I think policies need to be flexible and there can't be a one size fits all solution or you either delay or destroy the momentum altogether
This pace is already causing problems in Alberta. The Bulk Electric System is already seeing system stability issues around Brooks due to all the inverter based resources (IBRs) concentrated in that area. They need to build some batteries or other types of frequency response devices PDQ.
You can read the Reliability Requirements Roadmap on the AESO website if you suffer from insomnia and want to learn more.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
One would think if the solution is battery storage, then it is an easy one.
It's a solution but it adds another cost for the electricity system that didn't really exist before the proliferation of wind and solar. Here's Australia costs for Frequency Control Ancillary Services from 2010 to present day, during a period where aging coal power plants were retired and replaced by wind and solar farms and rooftop solar.
This pace is already causing problems in Alberta. The Bulk Electric System is already seeing system stability issues around Brooks due to all the inverter based resources (IBRs) concentrated in that area. They need to build some batteries or other types of frequency response devices PDQ.
You can read the Reliability Requirements Roadmap on the AESO website if you suffer from insomnia and want to learn more.
So who pays for the reliability upgrades in a system like Alberta's? In BC it would obviously be Terasen or BC Hydro, but how do you pass those costs on and who actually purchases a battery?
So who pays for the reliability upgrades in a system like Alberta's? In BC it would obviously be Terasen or BC Hydro, but how do you pass those costs on and who actually purchases a battery?
Ratepayers
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
Sorry, I get that in the end the consumer pays. What I mean is, the energy retailer that sells you the electricity is just buying it wholesale and selling it to consumers. AESO monitors the system but doesn't sell the electricity. The producers sell the electricity but don't buy transmission or reliability assets, so how do they get built?
The way I'm trying to understand this: if I buy my milk from the milk delivery truck, who pays for the road he drives on?
Sorry, I get that in the end the consumer pays. What I mean is, the energy retailer that sells you the electricity is just buying it wholesale and selling it to consumers. AESO monitors the system but doesn't sell the electricity. The producers sell the electricity but don't buy transmission or reliability assets, so how do they get built?
The way I'm trying to understand this: if I buy my milk from the milk delivery truck, who pays for the road he drives on?
In Alberta, generators pay for their connection, full freight.
Load customers pay for their connection, but there are provisions within the tariff for system investment that is funded by the AESO through the transmission charge.
Ancillary services (like what we are talking about) are 100% funded through the transmission charge.
System inertia from large spinny generators was effectively "free" before the proliferation of renewables.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DoubleK For This Useful Post:
