SDA readers are now informed about one of the ill effects of how subsidies introduce price distortions into the market - when the price signal is distorted, how uneven outcomes and intra-industry subsidies exist.

There is many examples of this across different generation forms and commodities, and there is many, many political actors and corporate beggars all fighting to get to the subsidy trough.

You really don't want to know. It'd make you write your MP.

And look at how far that has gotten you.

Nice to see the market at work....now we can all pay for power we don't need or want!

Time for sodium-suphur (NaS) battery storage.

"...Using so-called NaS batteries, utilities could defer for years, and possibly even avoid, construction of new transmission lines, substations and power plants... They make wind power — wildly popular but frustratingly intermittent — a more reliable resource..."

usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2007-07-04-sodium-battery_N.htm

I believe the phrase is:"Government would screw up the Lord's prayer even if they wrote it". It seems as if the Production Tax Credit and state Renewable Energy Credit legislation was written without a break even set point. Poor writing or is the law of kickback at work? News of this kind of stuff will never see the vlight of day in the MSM because it goes against the lefty eco-green dogma.

Whenever someone talks about subsidies, royalties, surcharges, taxes, etc. I challenge them to cite me an example of an industry that a government has gotten involved with and not screwed it up.

"""""" I challenge them to cite me an example of an industry that a government has gotten involved with and not screwed it up. """"""

thee industry of governing:-)))))))

Well, personally I kinda like the "giant toaster" idea. Gonna need some really big bread, though.

and ladies and gentleman this is why wind power is a destabilizer in power supply systems. It is why wind makes base load supply from coal more expensive to build and operate making the grid more and more reliant on wind and this more vulnerable to the capricious nature of the wind.

A couple of generations from now we will look at the derelict wind turbines that were built today with the same kind of quaint fascination that we look at the traditional Dutch windmill today. But then it will be a marvelling at the folly of it all.

Trevor,

I would venture a guess that Norway would be a prime example. They own at least half of most of the major business's in their country (StatOil, the Utilities, Telecommunications companies, etc.), and they have a 300 billion dollar slush fund as a result. They remove only what they expect to generate as a return on their investments, which usually is around 4%. I'm sure they'll be dipping into it over the next year or two, but I think they're a pretty prime example of how the government can play a role in industry and not screw it up.

I guess this situation is different though since the market is getting distorted by price controls.

And once again, screwy government policies invoke the Law Of Unintended Consequences.

----- Original Message -----
From: KAROL KAROLAK
To: Bill.Hughes@ontario.ca
Cc: Baird.J@parl.gc.ca ; Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca ; mintc@tc.gc.ca ; enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca ; smitherman. ; jennifer.morris@ontario.ca ; saad.rafi@ontario.ca ; rick.jennings@ontario.ca ; tony.rockingham@ontario.ca ; kaili.sermat-harding@ontario.ca
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:30 PM
Subject: Alternative power generation - wind power farms.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you on the issue of alternative power generation in this province.

Much has been said lately about wind power generation in Ontario and it seems to me that lot of money is being invested in creation of wind power farms.

It seems to me that lot of that effort is misguided as wind power is unpredictable source of energy and hooking up wind power generators to electrical grid causes more problems than it solves.

It is not to say that wind power generators are useless but it seems to me that they if things were arranged properly wind power could be put to much better use by supplying peak power on demand rather than providing unpredictable power at all hours.

Idea is quite simple: Best location for Wind Turbines' installation is off-shore and it applies to lakes same way it applies to sea, for detailed reasons see:
http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/offshore.htm

Wind turbines farms erected on lakes (crown property) do not create as much opposition from nearby residents to low frequency noise they generate as land based Wind Turbines Farms do.

Ontario has an abundance of lakes. Many of these lakes have natural coves that are quite deep. Some of these coves can easily be cut off from main lake by erection of a dam.

High cost generator components of each wind turbine can be replaced with simple right angle gearbox and a shaft extending to the bottom of the wind turbine tower driving submerged high volume water pump reducing initial investment cost quite significantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine
The generator component, which is approximately 34% of the wind turbine cost, includes the electrical generator, the control electronics, and most likely a gearbox component for converting the low speed incoming rotation to high speed rotation suitable for generating electricity.


Pipes can be run from the bottom of cut-off cove to the wind turbines erected on the lake along the bottom of the lake. These pipes would be connected to high volume water pumps driven by wind turbines pumping water out of cut-off cove into the main lake. Cost of that piping would be paid for by saving on cost of electric generators that would otherwise have to be installed at each wind turbine.

Thus created difference in water level between the lake and the cut-off cove can in turn be used to drive conventional water turbines installed at the dam hooked up to conventional generators supplying electricity at the peak demand.

Such peak power generating stations could be equipped with pumps driven by electric motors during off peak hours to supplement action of wind turbines.

This kind of arrangement would allow utilisation of wind power at much reduced initial cost and it would help to solve rather than contribute to energy generation crisis in this province.

Sincerely,

Karol Karolak P. Eng.

Sent email link to my MP. Not expecting much. Hope (stupid concept... and I'm too lazy to change) our subsidy policies are different.

This is amazing. The electricity rates here in Texas are among the highest in the nation; we're paying more per kilowatt-hour than just about anyone else in the USA.

But - the producers are charging less than nothing? That's amazing; my bills certainly reflect a positive amount - an average of over $.15 per kilowatt-hour. Perhaps someone can explain to me where all that money is going.....

Karol, I trust you are aware that with such a scheme you just lost about half the energy generated from friction and heat losses. Second, given the remote location of many of these lakes, those that aren't fully occupied by cottagers and can be expected to fight such a plan tooth and nail, you have no doubt costed in the greatly increased transmission infrastructure which will be required for such a widely distributed system.

So, when you've costed both of these things in, please come back and tell us all just what the price of delivered power will be. Small hint, since the regular cost of land based wind is about 15 cents, your number should come in somewhere well north of 30.

Joey, a couple of points. First, I expect that the electricity rates in Texas are based on the hourly dispatch cost of electricity. Wind doesn't count, as it can't be dispatched, so in general terms it's how tight the margin is between hourly demand and available reserve of the remaining non-wind generation. That's probably rather tight, as like most other places in the US, generation has been severely underbuilt over the past 10 years or so.

Second, remember that Texas utilities have sales agreements with California for peaking load in particular. So, you're bidding for your supply against demand in California, a state which gets nearly 40 per cent of its electricity from out of state. In short, because of the size of its market, California tends to set the price.

Where's the money going? Only the wind generators are getting a negative value, and even they aren't because they're getting the subsidy plus or minus the market rate. The subsidy is about 35 cents/kWh so they can afford a lot of negative price against their subsidy. The revenue is going into the hands of the non-wind producers charging the market rate. If you restrict cheap baseload supply, which most states in the US have been doing for the past two decades at least, you get a sellers' market. Every time you side with the environmentalists over preventing a power project, either generation or transmission, you are encouraging the upward rise in the price of electricity.

Be comforted; price strangulation to restrict the supply of electricity is exactly what Amory Lovins and the rest of the Gangrene crowd want to bring us all to that eco-paradise just around the corner.

cgh
Let me enlighten you a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine
Efficiency
Large modern water turbines operate at mechanical efficiencies greater than 90%

Bulding two or three dams between two or three adjacent enogated islands does the same thing as a cove. Mechanical loses are quite small when large diamater pipes are used for pumping.

What did you mean say when you wrote;
you have no doubt costed in the greatly increased "transmission infrastructure which will be required for such a widely distributed system."??
Did you mean distribution of water pumping or distribution of electricity generation??

BTW: peak power water pumping power stations are quite common in Europe and they usually use two adjacent lakes on different altitude (upper lake is usually man made). These power stations are economical even without extra help from wind power.

Please read up before you express your opinions.

BTW: Economy of Peak Power Generation is based on price difference between peak power cost and dip in energy demand power cost.

Karol: You must have just graduated from one of our respected universities.Now you will find out the cost of your plan.#1 Environmental impact study on project.#2Enviro study on dam.#3 The impact on the Sudbury blue frog and the resulting delay in construction.#4 The pollution in the lake when construction of the dams is started,the protest from Dr.Fruit Fly and the resulting shut down.#5 The cost of housing the workers in a camp during these shutdowns.#6 The delay in building the transmission lines because of all the deforestation and the resulting blockading of roads to prevent treespass by greenies and others.#7 If your plan would go thru it would take as long or longer to generate the first kilo of power as if a nuclear plant was built which would make a lot more sense.I will say a side benifit would be a plant to provide fish meal from the ground up fish.

barjebus; Under the previous govt in Saskatchewan we had what they called a rainy day fund to protect us in difficult times like Norways slush fund.The govt.changed and it turns out that it was a LINE of CREDIT that wasnt being used.There was NOT ONE DOLLAR in the fund.There must be no sales taxes in Norway like Alberta.If there are then someone is lying or there is a miniscule return on investment.

Karol, some marvelous evasions in your post. Your system substitutes a pump for an inverter. Heat losses. It's got a pipe system instead of conductors. More heat losses. It's got a water turbine. More heat losses, even if it's 90 per cent efficient.

I referred of course to the transmission system.

Yes, pumped storage systems are common in Europe. What you evaded was at what cost.

Your biggest evasion was what the delivered cost of power from your system was. Until you can answer that question, this isn't a solution to anything. I'll give you a hint, wind is about 15 cents/kWh. Given the power losses in your system, it should be somewhere north of 30 cents.

Until you can answer any of these questions, don't waste our time with your silly fantasies.

Oh, and by the way, wikipedia isn't a definitive source of anything. Do sharpen up your research skills a bit.