California generated 10% of it's energy via solar in 2015

[SunEagle]

Even if carbon capture and storage ever works, that would only take care of the co2, not the mercury and fly ash.
I'm afraid the technology to do what you propose does not exist yet, and may not be thermodynamically feasible.

So it's kind of a moot question. Coal is dying in the US, and few will mourn its passing.

I agree with you that the coal industry is dying.

I do not agree that only a few in the world will mourn its passing.

Although I will also say that people who do not depend on it will applaud it going away.

[DanKegel]

So if the power producers from coal were able to charge per MW pricing as for solar/wind, so that they can pay for upgraded equipment to clean up the pollutants would you sign up for that?

Even if carbon capture and storage ever works, that would only take care of the co2, not the mercury and fly ash.
I'm afraid the technology to do what you propose does not exist yet, and may not be thermodynamically feasible.

So it's kind of a moot question. Coal is dying in the US, and few will mourn its passing.

[8.4]

Coal, on the other hand, seems like all downside. While nuclear power plants produce nasty waste, at least it's compact. Coal-fired plants produce great gobsmackingly large amounts of toxic waste. They're also a major source of mercury air pollution. So, no need for politics to drive the shutdown of coal plants; health considerations, climate change considerations, and water quality considerations suffice.

So if the power producers from coal were able to charge per MW pricing as for solar/wind, so that they can pay for upgraded equipment to clean up the pollutants would you sign up for that?

[DanKegel]

I'm no luddite (well, ok, I bought a car without power windows on purpose, so I guess I am); I'm optimistic that by simply applying lessons learned from previous nuclear reactor failures (TMI, Chernyobl, Fukushima, and others; see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/sa...ety-of-plants/ ) the plants can be operated safely. (And in well-run countries, they probably will be.)

Coal, on the other hand, seems like all downside. While nuclear power plants produce nasty waste, at least it's compact. Coal-fired plants produce great gobsmackingly large amounts of toxic waste. They're also a major source of mercury air pollution. So, no need for politics to drive the shutdown of coal plants; health considerations, climate change considerations, and water quality considerations suffice.

[jflorey2]

Ask the folks in Fukushima if they agree.

They'd probably give you an answer. They might talk about the annoyance of having to move. The ~7000 people a year who die from coal pollution in the US wouldn't be able to answer such a question about coal power. Their families might feel pretty strongly about it, though.

Every technology has risks. If Fukushima - an accident that killed no one - represents the worst case accident with modern reactor technology it is definitely one of the safer methods of generating power out there.

If you could eliminate every risky form of power, AND substitute that with clean risk-free power, that would improve everyone's life. We can't do that. Coal power kills people through emitted pollution. Natural gas kills people through explosions and other accidents. Nuclear power makes people afraid, and requires them to move when there's an accident. Solar and wind power is intermittent. Hydro doesn't work everywhere, and requires dams that cause ecological problems and put people at risk for dam collapse.

In terms of future safety, reduction of CO2 emissions and improvement in people's lives, replacing coal with nuclear will absolutely be a step forward. The biggest barrier to that is simple fear, rather than technological barriers.

[SunEagle]

Ask the folks in Fukushima if they agree.

That said, the fixes for the problems that happened there seem simple. Even current nuclear designs can be relatively safe, as long as we keep applying lessons learned from past problems.

California doesn't have many coal-fired power plants in state.
The LADWP is selling its interest in an out of state coal-fired plant, but for environmental reasons, not political ones.

Concerning Fukushima, it was a terrible event and I feel bad for the loss of life and property that resulted from it.

But when it comes to fear, I guess we can ask the same question to people that live in earth quake zones or close to dormant volcanoes. Both areas have the potential for major loss of property and life yet I do not see people fearing the outcome of a natural disaster as much as compared to man made mistakes.

I would disagree with you concerning the motivation for companies and states to cut themselves or sell off coal-fired plants. IMO it is a combination of environmental AND political.

[J.P.M.]

I have a 3kw system installed on my home in Western Australia, I believe we have similar climate to California. You can see how much is produced for yourself. Our winter months are June, July and August. I am surprised at the output of your large system.
Cheers
Jon
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n300817[/ATTACH]

Are those #'s for 2 month periods ?

[Beanyboy57]

My install was finished just before Christmas. Since that time we've had nothing but rain/clouds and it appears because of el nino that we will have that ugly weather through april 2016.

So far this year (Jan) I've made 208 KWh with a 11 KW system.

Typically is solar generation this poor in S. CA during the winter months? Hardly seems like it is worth the investment. What have others generated so far this month (Jan 1-11)?

I have a 3kw system installed on my home in Western Australia, I believe we have similar climate to California. You can see how much is produced for yourself. Our winter months are June, July and August. I am surprised at the output of your large system.
Cheers
Jon
2016-01-18 (3).png

[DanKegel]

Even with the few problems the atomic generating plants have had, they have safely generated more kWh's then older fossil fuel plants. It just looks like people seem to fear nuclear more than climate change and yet nuclear is more green than RE.

Ask the folks in Fukushima if they agree.

That said, the fixes for the problems that happened there seem simple. Even current nuclear designs can be relatively safe, as long as we keep applying lessons learned from past problems.

California doesn't have many coal-fired power plants in state.
The LADWP is selling its interest in an out of state coal-fired plant, but for environmental reasons, not political ones.

[SunEagle]

Over an engineering career, I had occasions to study/investigate failure modes/probability of power systems once in a while. Someone posited that the high reliability of nukes coupled with the gravity of a catastrophic failure might have some of the same characteristics as a Dirac Delta function at the point of meltdown. That's one way to look at it, but not real comforting, or practical on a day/day analysis.

I agree. While relatively safe a melt down of a reactor can result in far worse situation then years of acid rain or oxides from the coal plants.

Still I have high hope for the generation III reactors. Too bad only those are being built outside the US.

[J.P.M.]

Even with the few problems the atomic generating plants have had, they have safely generated more kWh's then older fossil fuel plants. It just looks like people seem to fear nuclear more than climate change and yet nuclear is more green than RE.

Over an engineering career, I had occasions to study/investigate failure modes/probability of power systems once in a while. Someone posited that the high reliability of nukes coupled with the gravity of a catastrophic failure might have some of the same characteristics as a Dirac Delta function at the point of meltdown. That's one way to look at it, but not real comforting, or practical on a day/day analysis.

[SunEagle]

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).

Even with the few problems the atomic generating plants have had, they have safely generated more kWh's then older fossil fuel plants. It just looks like people seem to fear nuclear more than climate change and yet nuclear is more green than RE.

[SunEagle]

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)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n300751[/ATTACH]

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.

[DanKegel]

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).

[ulrich]

Are you telling me that CA is not shutting down generating plants that use nuclear, coal, oil or other fossil fuel burning?
[...]

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