Alberta’s coal phaseout: can wind replace coal?

Last time I started to unpack the inherently dismal performance and underlying economics of wind power in Alberta. The whole reason Alberta has started this dysfunctional relationship with wind is because it has a dream that wind will somehow replace coal for electricity generation. This dream is shared by wind advocates across the globe. Can it ever achieve reality?

Recall last time I showed each grid-connected Alberta wind farm’s output over the period October 24 2018–June 25 2019. I presented the data in the form of non-exceedance curves for each wind farm. I repeat that figure below. (If the individual plots are too small you can enlarge them; they won’t pixelate.)

All the curves have the same general shape: they all slope steadily upward from left to right. They all look pretty much the same. Ho-hum, kind of boring.

Now, let’s look at the non-exceedance curves for each of the sixteen Alberta coal plants, over the same period.

Notice how the coal curves are much different in shape than the wind ones? In particular, look at the plots for the Genessee, Keephills, and Sheerness facilities—those are the ones that, going by the capacity factor (CF) figure in the plot titles, saw most of the action over the sample period. Note the location of the dashed median lines in the plots for those facilities. Compare those positions with the median line positions in every single one of the wind plots.1

That difference in the shape of the curves and the location of the median lines is, in a nutshell, why wind absolutely will not replace coal in Alberta. The location of the median lines in the coal plots is determined by the will of the system operator, instructing the operators of the individual coal plants at time t_1 to put x megawatts of power into the system at or by time t_2. The coal plant operator receives the order from the system operator, and throttles the boiler accordingly—if the system operator wants more power, then more pulverized coal is fed to the firebox.

The location of the median lines in the wind plots, on the other hand, is a function of the inherent intermittence of wind. There’s nothing the wind farm operator can do to change that. Wind blows when wind blows. How much does it blow in Alberta? Look at the wind plots. Wind farm electrical generation is a rough proxy for the fluid dynamics of wind at that location over a period. The non-exceedance curves in the individual plots give probabilities, based on the output values of the sample. That’s how much the wind blew over the roughly 344,000 minutes October 24 2018–June 25 2019 in each of the locations where the Alberta wind farms are.

Wind advocates’ answer to the impossibility of matching wind output to system demand on a timely basis is typically twofold:

  1. Scale up the number of wind farms so they collectively produce as much energy over a year as the coal plants collectively do.
  2. In periods where wind output exceeds demand, store the surplus in batteries. Use the stored energy to cover the shortfall during periods where wind output falls short of demand. That way, non-exceedance curves of the combination of wind plus battery output would, in the aggregate, resemble those of those coal plants that saw the real action over the period.

The first is a political non-starter. Wind turbines occupy around 28 hectares per installed megawatt (Meredith Angwin in her excellent Campaigning for Clean Air arrives at 34.5 hectares, which is likely more reliable; I’ll stick with 28 because all my calculations are based on it and I’m too lazy to change). To replace coal with an 80:20 mix of gas and wind would require over 1,000 square kilometers of territory for just the wind turbines—that’s greater than the amount of land distrurbed by oilsands operations. To completely replace coal’s annual output with wind would require plastering Alberta with 5,000 km\textsuperscript{2} of wind turbines (more if Meredith’s number is the right one). That won’t happen.

And the second part of the twofold wind advocate answer to matching wind to demand—using batteries to store surplus wind output—is even more risible. I’ll explain why next post. For now, recognize that grid-scale battery storage capacity costs around CAN$278 per kilowatt-hour.

NOTE: The recent Alberta provincial election that saw Jason Kenney replace Rachel Notley as premier puts Alberta in line to become one of the federal “backstopped” provinces—i.e. one of the provinces that does not have a carbon tax that is to the liking of the current federal government. All of the aforementioned Alberta coal plants meet the criteria for a “covered facility” under the Output Based Pricing System (OBPS)—i.e., they all emit more than 50,000 tons of CO2 per year. Genessee Unit 1 threw more than 30 times that amount into the air just in the roughly 8-month period studied here. Every coal unit with a mean output greater than 10 MW broke the 50,000-ton limit in the 8 months.2 That’s every plant except Sundance 3 and 5. It will be interesting to see how or whether the Alberta coal plants get tagged with the federal backstop tax.

  1. Recall from the last article that the median lines in these curves are at the output (x-axis) value above or below which there’s a fifty-fifty probability the farm will produce at any given time.
  2. Mean MW \times 5,735 hours (344,112 minutes \div 60 minutes per hour = 5,735 hours) = megawatt-hours over the period. Multiply that figure by 800 grams per kilowatt-hour (the approximate average CIPK of Alberta coal-fired power generation) to find total grams of CO2; divide by 1,000,000 to obtain tons.)

9 comments for “Alberta’s coal phaseout: can wind replace coal?

  1. Andrew Jaremko
    July 13, 2019 at 12:17

    Steve – thanks for the article series. I’m looking forward to part 3.

  2. July 13, 2019 at 19:56

    Sadly, none of this is news to anyone who’s ever looked at daily and annual demand curves.

    What’s downright depressing is that you can explain this to Greens, and they dismiss it out of hand.  Green isn’t a political or energy position, it’s a religion.  We can hope that the inherent contradiction between “climate change is a global threat” and “we must rely on renewables even if they are unreliable” will kick some out of their romantic delusions, but I fear that the majority of them are beyond reach of arguments based on mere information.

  3. July 24, 2019 at 19:49

    As of today, seems even less likely that wind will replace coal, as they are restoring the energy-only market. “A key difference between the markets is how electricity generators are paid.

    In energy-only markets, electricity generators are paid only for the electricity they produce in real time when electricity is required.
    In capacity markets, electricity generators are paid for their overall ability to produce electricity, in addition to the electricity they produce and sell in real time.
    Government will table the necessary legislation and amend regulations to stop the implementation of the capacity market as soon as possible.”

    • Andrew Jaremko
      July 25, 2019 at 12:16

      Thanks Todd. I’m an Albertan who hasn’t been keeping up with what my government is doing. It’s good to see that we haven’t fallen for any of the market distortions that have been tried in other places. Maybe we could even set up a sensible plan to reduce carbon emissions while maintaining reliable electricity.

  4. Eddie
    November 3, 2019 at 08:11

    For wind turbines “land use” is not the same as other generation methods like coal because that figure incorporates the distance needed between turbines. The land can still be dual used for farming for example. The actual footprint is just the turbine base and minimal infrastructure. That’s actually what makes it an attractive option as you can develop wind farms as a secondary source of revenue for land owners. They can either own the turbine and sell the power or lease their land. From that perspective the land usage is not an issue. Alberta alone has 23 million acres (93 million sq km) of farmland. Also, thete is still innovation happening in this area. They are building larger wind turbines that produce more energy so that footprint is actually decreasing.

    • Paul Olsen
      November 21, 2019 at 16:50

      Eddie, it’s good to focus on that portion – required land area. It is the most arguable point of this data. The rest is somewhat difficult to refute.

      To dumb it down further. They are stating that we would need a whole lot of windmills.

      And if having built all those windmills, there is no cost effective storage method for storing said windmill electricity to be used during peak periods of demand. There would also be large periods of overproduction of said windmill electricity that would have to be stored when capacity is not required.

      I know that they are wind turbines, and not windmills, but its more romantic to think of Europe and the legend of Don Quixote with the backdrop of windmills then the modern giant airplane propellers of today’s world.

      Who cares what the area/windmill is at the end of day as that is essentially only a function of the effectiveness of the current machinery.

      The points are:

      The large number of windmills required. Who really wants to see these everywhere in large quantities?

      Windmills cannot supply electricity when peak demand is.

      There could be days or weeks with little or no wind power.

      Without backup storage of windmill electricity, which is cost prohibitive, to add additional capacity – how can this occur?

      • November 21, 2019 at 17:02

        this scaling problem is not insignificant, as you point out. For me, storage cost, astronomical though it is, is secondary to land use when we start considering the sheer numbers of machines required just to meet electricity demand.

        And the problem just gets worse. Add heating demand, then add transportation energy demand, to electricity demand. That’s one super-important grid, as if it isn’t super important already. My prediction is, long before the latter expansions occur people will have figured out what a joke it is to suggest that 100 percent RE is viable.

        • Eddie
          January 15, 2020 at 01:24

          So your argument boils down to the number of devices needed. I don’t see that as a very strong argument for why it’s not viable. I would actually say the reverse is true.

          In fact decentralization of power generation would increase reliability and resiliency. As would offering a mix of renewal energy power sources.

          Imagine the extreme case where each individual can generate electricity with solar panels or wind turbines and store or feed excess production into a smart grid. In this scenario you would never worry about a fault with an individual device. This is far more reliable than depending on a single power supplier.

          This strategy is also more flexible as increasing capacity can be done in smaller increments rather than having to invest in mega power plants that take years to plan and construct. Shorter time frames also allows you to take advantage of the latest innovation in the technology. Turbines and solar panels are continuing to improve every year.

      • Eddie
        January 15, 2020 at 01:04

        Storage is an issue that can also be addressed in numerous ways.

        Besides centralized batteries provided by the utility, leverage batteries people will have in their electric cars. Pay people for their extra unused capacity when needed.

        Besides chemical batteries there are other gravity based options like pumped hydro systems and similar ideas that store energy as potential energy.

        Other options include molten salts and compressed gases in mines, etc.

        Storage is not limited to lithium batteries only and is an area ripe for innovation. This is where we can create new industries if we treat it as an opportunity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *