Lower class treatment for the home unit

The mainstream media has dutifully been moving from inaccessible technical units for power, such as the MWh, to a friendlier unit called the "home."

"LS" Computer model greatly embellishes (ie. some portions don't exist)

I have a home.
I have a smart meter on my home.
I have 2 complete years of hourly data from that meter, as well as the hourly data for the province's pricing and demand.

I produced some statistics for Ontario's electricity sector in not simply the warmish but still abstract "home" unit, but an even cosier "my home" unit - which I'll make the LS [1]

---

Production from industrial wind turbines is one area where the "home" is frequently used as a unit of measurement.  Assuming my home was typical, in 2012 the wind turbines connected to the IESO grid has peak production of over 6 million LS; outputting more power than all the homes in the province required during 23 hours (based on 4,354,381 residential customers as indicated here).  Because the LS unit changes hourly, the maximum wind production measured in the LS home unit, is usually between 1 and 4 am.when the LS is sleeping; wind output was below 10,000LS 69 hours in 2012.  Output, from 10,000 to 6 million LS, averaged ~248,000LS, which would be more impressive if the average net export level was not 533,000LS.

Misinformation about Ontario's Electricity Sector pushes into the German blogosphere

I follow, and am frequently impressed, by the Renewables International blog.

Today I am not impressed.

Ontario switching from coal to wind power | Renewables International

Issue 1:

Ontario's grid operator IESO believes total wind and solar capacity will increase by 3.2 GW over the next 18 months. By August 2014, solar and wind power will reach a total installed capacity of 6.8 GW, roughly a fifth of the province's total power generation capacity.
By that point, Ontario will have reduced its coal power down to nearly zero.

Ontario is to have coal reduced to nearly zero by the end of 2013 - and the IESO shows only another 254MW of wind capacity by that time.   

Whatever the other 3GW of wind and solar is for, it is not for replacing coal.

I politely corrected one of the writers of this new article on a statement made regarding Ontario replacing coal with wind in a January article; "Can renewables replace coal?"

My comment attached to that article was not disputed by Pembina's Tim Weis in a later comment, although Weis's interpretation of nuclear's performance remained detached from facts.  

Weis claimed that "Nuclear supply has remained relatively constant since the coal phase out officially began in 2003."  I pulled production figures for production in 2003 from page 50 of Part 3 of Canada's 1990-2009 National Inventory Report and 2012 figures as reported by the system operator.  Coal is down 26.3TWh while nuclear is up 23.2TWh, demand down 10.4 and natural gas-fired generation up 7 TWh (Ontario has moved from importing to exporting heavily).

Those claiming wind has been particularly relevant in replacing coal are delusional or dishonest.

A(nother) reason to be skeptical about wind energy reducing emissions

A recent article on Treehugger related very closely to analysis I've been performing on 2011 U.S. Energy Information Administration data.

Iowa and South Dakota Approach 25 Percent Electricity from Wind in 2012: Unprecedented Contribution of Wind Power in U.S. Midwest | Treehugger

Graph from Treehugger

Defying conventional wisdom about the limits of wind power, in 2012 both Iowa and South Dakota generated close to one quarter of their electricity from wind farms. Wind power accounted for at least 10 percent of electricity generation in seven other states. Across the United States, wind power continues to strengthen its case as a serious energy source.

The entire article can be read at Treehugger
It looks great.

But, "seriously", here's the thing ....

Data Da duh... What are we trying to do about fossil fuels?

It has been a while since I posted to this site, in part because of I've kept busy with my other sites; Cold Air Currents, where I collect, and comment, on articles of interest; and my data reporting site which provides a web portal for some of the views I've created in analyzing Ontario's electricity sector.

For this post I'll use data from my weekly reporting project  to illustrate the value of the fossil fuel villain in electricity generation.  The province of Ontario has been publicizing a desire to eliminate coal for over a decade, and actually looking at the role coal plays in the generation system is helpful in both demonstrating why it's been difficult to discard, and why recent reports are showing the expense involved with attempting to do so.

To illustrate a role played by coal, and natural gas, generation, I created a graph showing the most recent week's hourly Ontario demand (as defined by the IESO) on the right axis, along with the hourly net exported energy and the energy from dispatchable gas and coal generators.[1]

This chart emphasizes a lot on the subjects I've written about it the past, including the systemic cost of introducing, on a must-take all production basis, generation with little capacity value[2].

The graph demonstrates that when power is demanded, the fossil fuel generators produce it.

The HOEP is a market price.

Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) hosted a "stakeholder" summit on March 4th. After stakeholders network they head out with their stakes and renewed enthusiasm - with every ratepayer looking like a vampire

Slide 2 of IESO presentation

Presentation slides from the event are now posted.  There's some interesting information, but what caught my immediate attention was a graph showing both the Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP) and the Global Adjustment (GA) rate, along with the two combined as an "All-in-Price."  A nice little trend line is likely meant to imply the all-in-price has risen nice and gently.

A questionable 18-month outlook from Ontario's system operator.

Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator today released it's latest 18-Month Outlook - a document they update regularly, and I've written on regularly.

This one strikes me as less than coherent - some of the illogical content deliberate, and some irresponsibly unnecessary.
The supply advice going forward does not match the comfort level with the supply picture during the reporting period.

September 2012's report finished with:

As Ontario’s coal-fired generation is shut down over the next two years, its associated flexibility will be lost. Therefore, future capacity additions should also possess this flexibility to help facilitate the management of maintenance outages, provide effective ramp capability, supply of operating reserve and even provide regulation when necessary.

Today's finishes with

As Ontario’s coal-fired generation is shut down over the next year, its associated flexibility, such as quick ramping and operating reserve, will be lost. Therefore, future supply options, demand response programs, and storage solutions should also possess this flexibility to help facilitate the management of maintenance outages, provide effective ramp capability, supply operating reserve and even provide regulation when necessary.

From that it seems like ~3000MW of coal-fired capacity recently slated for closing at the end of 2013, halfway through the new outlook period, would be problematic.

Not so says the IESO:

Ontario will continue to have adequate generation and transmission capability to meet consumers’ needs over the next 18 months.

He Played Everything

I do not know how to act, or what the occasion demands of me.

A few days ago a tearful son gave me the news about his friend.  I did not know the boy.  

My son plays the bass; they had sometimes played together, in the music room, at lunch.  

Lately, they have not - nobody had.

Years ago, I posted comments on the site of a national newspaper under my name; Scott Luft.  My youngest son came home from elementary school one day - which that year was a wonderful environment for him -  and said he and his excellent teacher had googled my name and my comments on that site had come up.  At the time elementary teachers were threatening job action if they, ridiculously, were not paid the same rate as high school teachers.  The government was poised to introduced full-day junior kindergarten and was, stupidly, acquiescing to make that a windfall for teachers, rather than an important step to increase the role of the physical school as an anchor of a community.  

I switched my online comments to the "Cold Air" pseudonym.

American Tales: True stories from Electricity Data

U.S. President Barack Obama's annual State of the Union address (SOTU) provides an excuse to review the recent release of comprehensive 2011 Electric Power Annual data from the The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).  I've looked at the EIA data in previous years: reviewing the data to 2009 I found little indication of unique accomplishment in reducing emissions through increased generation with renewables; and a year late another look at the same issue with 2010's data reinforced that finding.  This post will look at the national data to show the main reasons for reduced emissions is better pollution control, and increased efficiency.

A switch from coal to natural gas is generally cited as a reason for reduced emissions in America's electricity generation [1] .  The President's SOTU noted emissions of "dangerous carbon pollution" have fallen over the last four years.  The last 4 years nicely commences with an economic collapse, and features a glut in natural gas supply depressing prices.  Charting U.S. production by source, back to 1997 [2], indicates the trend of increased generation from natural gas didn't begin in 2008; total generation is up ~608TWh, and generation from natural gas is up ~534TWh.