“Sharper arguments are more fun than dull ones”

It's been an interesting week for me. Monday started with fresh data feeds, at the IESO, that allowed me to get some data for 2010, and January 1^st, 2011, that I noted contained some record figures. Friday morning, Tom Adams noted the post on his site – which I appreciate. Wind Concerns Ontario put the entry up on their site – which I also appreciate.

Initially I thought this was a great thing.

Then I went to my post on the records – and noticed the second sentence begins, "Here's a pair of records" and goes on to list 3 records (following a period instead of a colon).
If I were commenting on this story, I'd be critical of me! Months ago I had a comment on the Globe and Mail site responded to. I had noted KWH – and the comment was that if I really wanted to be taken seriously I should use correct notation (kWh). My response was not nice – it was also wrong. I do wish to be taken seriously, and I should know, and use, the correct notation. So a long overdue thank you to the poster I sent the nasty comment to, which I now apologize for.

I also don't want to get paralyzed in an attempt to get everything perfect. That too has been on my mind as my desire to respond, seriously, to the draft Supply Mix Directive was delayed by a desire to communicate my argument in a way that would bear scrutiny. Finally, I opted for simplicity of quality and simply opened the directive, opened up a text editor, and starting commenting in order of the directive's structure – when the time came I pulled up a spreadsheet too. I did post my response, but I don't want to revisit it as I might be embarrassed at communicating incoherently.

But that is only one purpose of writing. As I wrote "To replace coal generating capacity, you need a source with the same attributes as coal", I had arrived at the other reason to write. It took a lot of work for me to get to a simple conclusion.

Tom Adam also posted a response to the Supply Mix Directive, co-authored by Parker Gallant, which included: "Although the LTEP fails to provide sufficient information to assess the capacity and energy outlook assumed, using assumptions we believe reasonable it appears that the government is forecasting a supply mix for 2030 where about 83% of Ontario's generation will come from inflexible baseload and intermittent supplies. There is no precedent for such a power system anywhere in the developed world to our knowledge."

Yeah – that's what I was getting at!

Working through things is my usual method of learning. But it isn't my ideal way of learning.

For me, that involves some of the old Socratic method, mixed with a bit of humility in meeting criticism.

I posted a pro-nuclear comment, regarding the economics of the Point Lepreau refurbishment, on Tom Adams site in August. I received an e-mail shortly after. For those who have struggled with my blog thus far, the content might not be surprising. Could I make the points coherently?

I could, and did, edit the post.

Some time later I ran a set of numbers and began distributing claims all wind output is, essentially, exported. The numbers I ran were simply the hourly wind production in the province subtracted from the hourly exports in the province. The percentage of hours where wind generation exceeds exports is very small – low single digits.

I received this comment. "Applying the methodology described above to any small power source one could "prove" that almost all of its output is exported." I didn't really want to hear that … but he had a point. I'd since found out these same discussions/arguments have been occurring in Denmark, and elsewhere.

So I ran another set of queries to see if export levels went up, as wind production went up. They didn't in past years (but they did in 2010).

 This is the data I came up with (updated to be current):

	2009					2010
Wind (MW)	# of Hours	Hours of Wind  > Exports	Net Hourly Export	Sum of Avg Ontario Demand	Average HOEP	# of Hours	Hours of Wind  > Exports	Net Hourly Export	Sum of Avg Ontario Demand	Average HOEP
<100	2389	2	1,152	15,933	$31.43	1871	24	887	16,734	$42.69
100:199	1941	3	1,220	15,627	$30.95	1893	48	919	16,290	$39.53
200:299	1330	8	1,154	15,847	$32.80	1277	42	904	15,999	$38.86
300:399	930	8	1,181	15,997	$36.21	983	45	910	15,867	$36.21
400:499	751	7	1,240	15,936	$30.36	770	18	1,108	15,892	$33.58
500:599	585	24	1,125	16,138	$30.12	594	29	1,159	16,038	$34.97
600:699	393	30	1,134	16,150	$29.49	435	23	1,139	15,868	$33.71
700:799	268	32	988	15,888	$27.21	361	19	1,349	16,425	$33.72
>800	173	27	1,203	16,196	$29.72	576	31	1,443	16,365	$30.95

 
The data did show my point was incorrect - but becoming less incorrect – and it did point to some more troubling aspects. I've highlighted the one I've picked out for more review – In 2010, the production of the wind turbine fleet impacted the HOEP more than Ontario's demand did. The problem for me is this is far muddier, the work far harder, the conclusions far more complex, and difficult to communicate, than my original "all wind is exported" premise.

Which is a good thing. As Mr. Adams once wrote me, "Sharper arguments are more fun than dull ones."