-
-
For those of us who are not necessarily as informed, it would be helpful if you could be more specific in what way veritass is incorrect.
From what I can find CA's energy imports have much more to do with price than with capacity.
For example, this site: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electric..._capacity.html
In 2014, CA's in-state generation capacity was 78,865 MW against a peak load 62,454 MW (source: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electric...ak_demand.html) - Admittedly the generation capacity is not all available at a given time, but it still seems like Sunking's absolute and extreme arguments are unfounded. While imports may have been in the vicinity of 30%, the implied conclusion that CA's production capacity is 30% under peak demand seems fallacious.
An assumption that CA's ability to import will abruptly be shut down also seems excessively dire. I side with veritass on the question of why CA needs to be energy-indpendent in the first place - The Pacific Northwest has massive hydroelectric resources that allow it to produce in excess of local demand - doesn't it make sense for this power to be sold to customers in CA if it can be done economically?
BTW: In doing some of this research I found an excellent paper discussing some of the complexities of integrating Variable Energy Resources (VERs) into the CA grid: http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/Pu...ort_Integr.pdf
The paper covers many of the issues hinted at in this thread in detail, and seems to offer workable solutions for many of them (the paper doesn't address reliability, but it discusses the complexities of accommodating variable generation in view of RE targets). Interestingly enough, the issue in particular that seems to create difficulty is that during the spring, solar generation will cause net demand to go below the *minimum* amount of power non-dispatchable generators will generate (i.e., the generators that can't be turned on/off will be generating more power than needed, which causes issues, because the power has to go somewhere).Comment
-
That doesn't look like an answer to the question that was asked.It is not a difficult question to answer. The more excess capacity you have the less chance you have a brownout. And as batteries get cheaper, it makes sense to use batteries to even out demand, rather than invest in peaker plants and excess reverses.
Comment
-
Does the paper Ulrich linked to help?
It looks pretty meaty.Comment
-
I don't think NV will cut off CA for any length of time unless there is a major reason. What I am talking about is the potential of short term outages.
It comes down to math and statistics not reports showing historical energy usage.
By reducing the number of power generating facilities you increase the chance of a disruption by not having the same amount of spare capacity in place when you need it. On top of that you put a higher strain on the transmission lines to get power from point A to point D where before you could get power to D from B & C which are now gone.
One major reason people fear climate change is because they relate it to additional bad weather and more storms. That usually means more clouds (less solar generation) and higher wind speeds (wind turbines shut down due to design being exceeded). Both of those add to the formula of less generation and increases the potential power outages.
I can go on to add in earthquakes but that is something CA would have a problem with even with more legacy power generation.
All I am saying is that increasing the amount of RE generation also increases the chance of power disruptions and black outs. Power generation is not simple or cheap. Even with today's technology it can be a balancing act to keep the lights on 24/7. Is that too hard to understand?
Look. I want to see more solar and wind power generation installed. But I also want people to understand the RE is not the only answer to their power issues and have potential issues besides the costs of installation.Comment
-
Nonsense. People would blame a California politician and continue to drive to Vegas on the weekends. (Sunking, of course, would blame Obama.)
In any case, they'd still sell us power 99% of the time, because they (like most people) like money. They'd just cut us off on hot, still, partly cloudy days when renewables aren't providing much and everyone is running their air conditioners. (And of course they could argue that blacking out San Diego when it's 85 degrees there is not as big a deal as blacking out Henderson when it's 115 degrees there.)Comment
-
For someone who want to see more solar power, you have very little good to say about it. Why do you want to see more solar and wind installed? Here is your chance to prove you aren't a fossil fuel shill.
Admin note, veritass you are way out of line, SunEagle is a great mod and I believe a realist. Take a week off.Comment
-
Are you telling me that CA is not shutting down generating plants that use nuclear, coal, oil or other fossil fuel burning?
If they were increasing their own generating systems along with adding better transmission lines they could become less reliant on power from other states. They should then increase their RE sources. IMO they are putting the cart before the horse. RE is desirable but should not be first unless you have a solid base generation not dependent on the weather.Comment
-
That's my understanding -- solar and wind are being added to the mix, they're not replacing anything in particular.
Maybe much later, after storage comes of age, we can start retiring fossil fuel power plants. Until then, they're needed at night etc.
California is certainly improving transmission lines, see https://www.caiso.com/planning/Pages...g/Default.aspx
But I don't think we have to wait to have perfect transmission lines before we start adding renewable energy.Comment
-
CA is shutting down some capacity, but there are a few mitigating factors.
1. Possibly most importantly, CA's peak usage traditionally has been daytime summer - Solar is excellent at reducing this peak. Therefore the absolute peak consumption net of solar has gone down considerably (and may still go down a little more). So what's not clear (I don't have the numbers) is if the generation from the sources you mention has increased or decreased as a percentage of net peak demand.
2. Even though nuclear, coal and oil are being reduced, natural gas-based generation has been increasing significantly: see attached chart (reference: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electric..._capacity.html)
CA Installed In-State Electric Generation.JPG
Comment
-
Nuclear was not reduced by renewables; it was reduced by a botched upgrade to higher capacity.
Unlike in Germany, there is no widespread sentiment against nuclear energy in California (though there is some concern about safety, given the lessons of Fukushima).Comment
-
I agree that CA continues to increase their natural gas fired generating plants. The published schedule is 4 new gas plants in 2016 and 1 in 2018.
There are also 2 Geothermal planned for 2017 and 3 in 2018. But there may also be some type of political push to shut down the remaining coal, oil and nuclear facilities.
My concern is will all of those new planned generating plants be able to cover the increase of solar generating facilities which come to about 14 total for 2016 & 2017.
If they aren't careful CA could over extend their RE generating and not have enough to cover the demand at night if a few of those natural gas facilities are down for maintenance or other unscheduled shut down.Comment
Tweet
Comment