Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 227 posts

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#71

Post by xxpor »

softfalcon wrote: post #62

Hey folks, I live in Alberta. This isn't as big of a win as you all think it is. We replaced coal burning with natural gas and gasoline burning power generation. For those who will say, "but Alberta has wind and solar!" please know that our current premiere (similar to a governor) is actively attacking all of our renewable energy investments. Her name is Danielle Smith and she's quite literally a former oil and gas l…

Actual gasoline? Unless you're talking about super-isolated northern communities on generators [which should still be using diesel rather than gasoline], that seems... insane.

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#72

Post by nemomarx »

softfalcon wrote: post #62

Hey folks, I live in Alberta. This isn't as big of a win as you all think it is. We replaced coal burning with natural gas and gasoline burning power generation. For those who will say, "but Alberta has wind and solar!" please know that our current premiere (similar to a governor) is actively attacking all of our renewable energy investments. Her name is Danielle Smith and she's quite literally a former oil and gas l…

How much is natgas? I Do think it's still better than coal in terms of emissions and particulates and such.

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#73

Post by 7thaccount »

octocop wrote: post #69
energy123 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being larger isn't a disadvantage. Wind correlation drops exponentially as a function of distance. Land use becomes a non issue.

>Wind correlation drops exponentially as a function of distance. By what principle? I'm just curious, first time I'm hearing this.

They just mean if you have geographical diversity, it helps with the availability of renewables.

For example, if wind is in 5 different locations across Alberta (for sake of example), you're less likely to run into issues with losing it all at once like you would if all your wind came from a single area and the wind stopped blowing there or dropped to a very low value.

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#74

Post by chollida1 »

It is frustrating as someone who lives in Canada and has spend so much money to remove coal that India and China have said FU to the world and increased their coal usage.

I guess given that those two countries are keeping Russia afloat by buying their oil it shouldn't be a surprise, but its still disappointing to see those countries choosing the path they did.

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#75

Post by [deleted] »

octocop wrote: post #69
energy123 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being larger isn't a disadvantage. Wind correlation drops exponentially as a function of distance. Land use becomes a non issue.

>Wind correlation drops exponentially as a function of distance. By what principle? I'm just curious, first time I'm hearing this.

[deleted]

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#76

Post by chollida1 »

energy123 wrote: post #51
Teever wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems straightforward but it isn't. Alberta is about twice the size of Germany, 50% larger than California and has a meager population of 4.3 million spread out across that area.With a latitude that ranges from 48' to 60' and a wide variety of geography there's a range of availability in solar and wind. Alberta politics is also a factor. Alberta is a complete aberration in North American democracy in that more or…

Being larger isn't a disadvantage. Wind correlation drops exponentially as a function of distance. Land use becomes a non issue.

> Being larger isn't a disadvantage.

It most certainly is for distribution and generation near population density.

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#77

Post by Waterluvian »

chollida1 wrote: post #74

It is frustrating as someone who lives in Canada and has spend so much money to remove coal that India and China have said FU to the world and increased their coal usage. I guess given that those two countries are keeping Russia afloat by buying their oil it shouldn't be a surprise, but its still disappointing to see those countries choosing the path they did.

As a Canadian it’s hard for me to be upset given we still emit far more carbon per capita than China or India.

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#78

Post by Symbiote »

xxpor wrote: post #71
softfalcon wrote: post #62

Hey folks, I live in Alberta. This isn't as big of a win as you all think it is. We replaced coal burning with natural gas and gasoline burning power generation. For those who will say, "but Alberta has wind and solar!" please know that our current premiere (similar to a governor) is actively attacking all of our renewable energy investments. Her name is Danielle Smith and she's quite literally a former oil and gas l…

Actual gasoline? Unless you're talking about super-isolated northern communities on generators [which should still be using diesel rather than gasoline], that seems... insane.

As posted elsewhere anyway, Alberta doesn't have any oil-fired power stations: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/CA-AB

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#79

Post by chollida1 »

hollerith wrote: post #63
mywittyname wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. I wish we had a better metric than GDP for capturing the downstream impacts of an industry. Say a town grows up around a single manufacturing plant. That plant might only account for 30% of the town's GPD because people use their wages to buy food, housing, etc. But when that plant closes up and 90% of the towns income disappears, it's hard to argue that the plant only contributed 30% of the economy in that ca…

Does the notion of a GDP even make sense for a town? I've never seen it applied to any unit except nations as a whole (or the EU). I suspect you need to collect reliable information on imports and exports and capital flows to calculate GDP, and a town can't collect it because it doesn't have, e.g., a customs bureacracy.

> Does the notion of a GDP even make sense for a town?

Yes, of course it does. Why wouldn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

Re: For the first time in more than 150 years, Alberta's electricity is coal free

#80

Post by ataylor284_ »

mthoms wrote: post #46
soperj wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BC has Coal as it's number 1 export, and logging a close second.

“Almost all of the thermal coal Canada produces comes from coal mines in Alberta and is exported, mainly to Asia, from ports in B.C.” https://globalnews.ca/news/10392382/canada-coal-exports/

More than half of Canada's coal production is metallurgical coal, suited for steel production. Most of that is mined in BC and exported. The grandparent comment and the above response are both true.
Post reply on HN