![Sandiego_skyline_at_night[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/sandiego_skyline_at_night1.jpg?quality=83)
“By striking a sensible balance between protecting our environment and growing our economy, San Diego can support clean technology, renewable energy, and economic growth.”
San Diego joins San Francisco, Sydney, and Vancouver in its effort to run entirely on renewable energy.
Good luck with that, what could possibly go wrong? Striking a “sensible balance” should also include a backup generation plan for those times when wind doesn’t blow, sunlight is reduced, or private schemes go belly up because the subsidies that make them profitable get yanked.
And, with the fragility of the power grid responsible for the Great 2011 Southwest blackout, one wonders how well San Diego will fare if their windfarms don’t produce enough power and load shedding occurs to protect the grid from failure, like it did in 2015, leaving thousands in San Diego without power.
Plus, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is offline, and will be decommissioned, so San Diego is in an even weaker position that they were before, losing 20% of their local power capacity. Renewables just won’t maintain a reliable base load.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’d be great for the astronomers at Mt Palomar.
The sky glow caused by lights in San Diego County (left):
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/palomar/community/images/lightpan.png
Just to be an annoying pedant, the observatory is on Palomar Mountain. An even closer source of light pollution is Temecula, Murrietta and Rancho California.
Feeling good is expensive.
ristvan:
The UK’s descent into brown-outs, and maybe even black-outs is accelerating. Scotland alone has lost 3.6 GW of generation capability with the closure of the Cockenzie and Longannet (coal) power stations. The SNP have just ‘won’ an election for the Scottish Parliament, but will be reliant on the Green Party as they don’t have an overall majority. Long-term plans have been to close the nuke stations as well, and the Greens will be looking for their pay-offs, so you can bet they’ll insist on the closure of Hunterston and Torness, so that’ll be another 2.2. GW lost.
Scotland’s peak consumption is around 6 GW.
These will be interesting times.
I might just move to somewhere warmer and sunnier.
I would suggest you hurry. After a few Western nations collapse due to these kind of insane policies, the remainder will close immigration to those who lived there, because they don’t want the same to happen to them.
There’s a feeding frenzy going on in California led by Governor Brown to see which cities can out promise the other for the “carbon free” nirvana. Not content with already being one of the biggest users of gas and lowest user of coal they (led by Governor Moonbeam) want to show the world just how far into energy suicide they can travel. As a “sanctuary state” water, electricity, and energy usage keeps escalating and paid for by other people’s money. They meet the definition of ‘rabid’ in their quest. Witness the state’s use of MTBE to reduce pollution but instead causing more harm by showing up in drinking water….it’s a carcinogen… leading to ban it after the damage was done. Once a leader in controlling pollution California is now the leader in unintended consequences and vying to remain the leader.
We’ve already wasted billions proving that renewables won’t work, so this effort is delusional at best and fraud at worst.
California needs to be told that WHEN this fails, A) US taxpayers will not bail them out, and B) Businesses that will be blighted by this madness should consider relocating to states that still have a few sane politicians left.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
http://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/EROI-of-Solar-Wind-Nuclear-Coal-Natural-Gas-Hydro.png
It is hard to make much of a case for renewable energy. It is just a fancy way to make energy more expensive – and there are cheaper more efficient ways to do that, without blighting the landscape with renewable energy.
For 100% renewable power, you can run the solar cells at night with lights powered by diesel or coal-fired generators and activate the wind-turbines in becalmed periods with diesel or coal-fired fans. It’s about that stupid. There could be a flood of refugees back east over the Rockies once that scheme gets going.
“For 100% renewable power, you can run the solar cells at night with lights powered by diesel or coal-fired generators and activate the wind-turbines in becalmed periods with diesel or coal-fired fans. It’s about that stupid.”
😂……… 😂😂
Best to run the solar cells from energy produced from biodiesel (produced with fertilizer made from nat gas, of course).
Anthony, Do you have a link for the reference to Sydney at the beginning? I’m not aware of any such ambition, not that it would make sense, given that the eastern grid, the largest in the world, is 73 per cent powered by coal. Canberra, where I live, has announced just such a plan, but for the same reason that is nonsensical too.
Don I suspect it may apply to the “Grand Duchie of Pixie Land” otherwise known as the City of Sydney, i.e. the local government council covering central Sydney. A bit like the grand plan for Canberra I suspect, stick windmills in everyone else’s back-yard so that we can be pure as the driven snow on our “100% renewables”.
‘Sustainable Sydney 2030 also set a target for the City of Sydney LGA to have capacity to meet up to 100% of electricity demand by local generation by 2030. Of this local electricity demand, renewable electricity generation was expected to supply 30% and trigeneration 70% of the City’s LGA by 2030.’
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/153282/Renewable-Energy-Master-Plan.pdf
I flew in to Canberra (I always get itchy when there is a concentration of pigs…errm…I mean politicians about) last week on a project and as we crossed the border to the ACT I could see at least 40 wind turbines. Not sure what plant that is, but they were in operation, probably driven by all the hot air coming out of The Lodge as Turnbull announces a double dissolution election today (he must be contemplating his retirement as he will lose the top job on the 2nd of July. Buh bye Turncoat).
This is project actually great news. It will make a perfect case study revealing the reasons renewables cannot get the job done. I say rock on San Diego; show us the way!
Hey, if it works for San Diego it should work for Seattle. All you Seattle municiple leaders you should be jumping on that renewable’s bandwagon.
Charles Dolci – Seattle shouldn’t have a problem with renewable energy. Instead of solar collectors you install mini-generators on the downspouts of the roofs and Voila! – Rain Power.
Don’t worry, they will-unless they come up with an even more unlikely scheme.
Or just stop eating meat. Everyone skips that in their articles.
It may sound a little harsh, but I think we need a big city or region to go down. Simply to illustrate to the rest of the world how daft these ideas are. And I do feel sorry for the people who will inevitably suffer or in some cases die because of this misguided ideology…but they did however vote for these idiots so what can you say?
Didn’t Spain already experience something like that with it’s energy policy?
Washington has not learned from Spain’s love of renewables with an economic crash?
charles nelson commented : “… I think we need a big city or region to go down.”
UK or Germany or both at your service. La Nina should overtax their already depleted energy supply and provide a taste of unintended consequences to the populace. Couple home energy starvation with industry already shutting down and we should have a hum dinger of an example from two of the leaders in pushing ‘carbon reduction’. I feel for the people but have often said their leadership in this folly only means they will be at the cutting edge of inevitable failure.
My guess the renewable energy is going to suck more than it blows.
Ho hum… seen this play out in another form already. In the 70s I was living in a dorm room heated from the classroom steam circuit at a southern university.
When the northeastern states gambled and went to short-term energy contracts to save money just before the “oil crisis” guess what happened? They were caught with insufficient quantities of heating oil and natural gas at reasonable prices.
No problem! The feds just stepped in and terminated the contracts in force in the southern states and handed the energy over to the northeastern and mid-western states. So when the winter winds blew down from the plains I had the privilege of freezing my *ss off from 5pm each Friday until 7am every Monday. Nothing like having the sweat on your feet freeze to linoleum tile. And oh those nice bracing showers!
Never doubt, when west coast dreams turn ugly it will be the rest of the country which will take the brunt of the inconvenience and expense.
It seems to me that somebody on this comment chain would have linked to the actual Climate Action Plan, and the Appendices, which show the various measures that are contemplated. The Appendices are at https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/final_december_2015_cap_all_appendices.pdf
The CAP itself is at https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/final_december_2015_cap.pdf
The CAP does not state an intention to go 100 percent solar in San Diego. There are no plans that would increase the likelihood of blackouts. Instead, there is a clearly stated purpose to comply with all Federal and State laws, among which are a safe, reliable, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible electricity supply. This clearly means a connection to the grid, where solar energy is received as it is generated, and the grid supplies power when solar does not.
What is likely to occur is some efficiency measures for buildings, cars, methane capture from landfills and a wastewater treatment facility, and purchase of “green” energy. Any shortfalls in the greenhouse gas reduction goals are to be made up by purchasing Renewable Energy Credits.
The idea that renewables cannot supply 100 percent of a city’s electricity is just not true. There are plenty of ways to store excess wind or solar energy for release and use at a later time. San Diego has plenty of hills and low mountains for installing pumped storage hydroelectric systems, plus low-cost grid-scale batteries can be used, and the patented, newly-approved Rail Energy Storage by ARES North America can be used to good advantage.
Roger Sowell commented: “…The idea that renewables cannot supply 100 percent of a city’s electricity is just not true. There are plenty of ways to store excess wind or solar energy for release and use at a later time. ”
“Excess” energy from wind and solar? “Plenty of ways”? Really? With all due respect I don’t think you know what you are talking about. It would require more money, land, and time than is currently available to reach this goal in 20 years for an area the size of San Diego. Look how long the EU has been at it and what percent they are generating. That’s reality. You’ve been drinking Jerry Brown’s Kool Aid. The proof is in the pudding and th world is not technologically ready for 100% wind and solar energy and that’s a fact.
Yep, Roger has it nailed. That’s why he wants Diablo Canyon to close down since renewables and storage will get it done. California Dreamin’ is what it is.
Ah, the usual WUWT denigrators when it comes to anything about renewable energy. I refer you to my replies on other comments about pumped storage hydroelectric, ARES rail energy storage, and grid-scale batteries. Those are three ways that are proven. As to excess energy from wind, that occurs from time to time already, where a grid operator must detach some wind-turbines from the grid. Typically this occurs at night when the wind blows strongest and the grid demand is lowest. Such situations provide incentive for more grid-scale storage.
Now, to your assertion that San Diego is too large for solar energy. The facts are that San Diego County has approximately 3.3 million people. That is a bit less than ten percent of all of California at 39 million. If electricity use is proportional to population, then San Diego requires approximately 3,000 MW on average, with peaks somewhat higher, or 4,500 MW. That is the equivalent of 8 solar power-tower plants of the same size as Ivanpah Solar, at 377 MW. The plant required only a bit more than 2 years to construct.
There is also the 550 MW Topaz solar PV plant in California. San Diego would need only six of those to provide its average power needs. There is plenty of room in California away from the populated coasts, and plenty of time to build such power plants.
The proof really is in the pudding, we can agree on that. The technology is installed and operating. I note that California has almost zero grid instability issues with the solar and wind energy already installed. The grid routinely obtains 43 percent or a bit more from renewables, for an hour or more during the early afternoon. The lights stay on.
Roger Sowell commented : “…Ah, the usual WUWT denigrators when it comes to anything about renewable energy….”
You would be surprised at how many of us support solar and have panels installed. It’s not “anything about renewable energy” I object to it’s the unsubstantiated claims being made and the ridiculous amount of money being thrown (literally) at the industry to make it work and along the way more environmental damage is occurring than what it’s replacing without any concern. Hypocrisy at the max. It’s not about renewable energy but instead about supporting an ideology and eliminating fossil fuels and nuclear. Admit it. So far the renewable energy produced in the world doesn’t come close to replacing what has been decommissioned on either an energy or reliability basis and no amount of misinformation can change that fact. Used appropriately solar is a good addition to our energy mix but not a viable replacement unless its’ efficiency can be improved by an order of magnitude and stored in a cost conscious manner. Wind has time and time again proved a failure in energy produced, cost to implement and maintain, and protecting the environment. You can support renewable energy but don’t try to put lipstick on the pig.
@markl Re:
“You would be surprised at how many of us support solar and have panels installed.” — Not a bit surprised, since the US just celebrated the 1 millionth solar installation.
” It’s not “anything about renewable energy” I object to it’s the unsubstantiated claims being made and the ridiculous amount of money being thrown (literally) at the industry to make it work and along the way more environmental damage is occurring than what it’s replacing without any concern. Hypocrisy at the max.”
Please point out any unsubstantiated claims I have made. I cannot speak for anyone else, but my statements are based on facts and careful research. As to ridiculous amounts of money being thrown at the industry, I wrote on this just the other day, showing the miniscule impact of subsidies on wind-turbine projects. Solar is also subsidized to a minor extent. The entire point of such subsidies is to provide incentive for private sector to develop, test, and improve the systems until they are economically viable on their own. This is a legitimate purpose of government.
As to environmental damage, one could argue that coal-mining creates immensely more damage than do all the wind-turbines in the US.
“It’s not about renewable energy but instead about supporting an ideology and eliminating fossil fuels and nuclear. Admit it. ”
I certainly agree that eliminating nuclear energy is a very good thing. The nuclear industry had it’s moment in the spotlight, 50 years or more actually, and to show for it they barely achieved 11 percent of world’s electricity production. Nuclear essentially replaced oil-burning power plants. No argument, that is a fact. I don’t agree that eliminating fossil fuels is a good idea, although I am aware there are people who think it is a good idea. I am from the oil and gas industry, second generation. Oil and gas provide irreplaceable benefits in the entire world’s economy.
Back to wind vs nuclear, it is a fact that nuclear energy in 1986, the year Chernobyl exploded and irradiated all of us, provided the identical amount of electricity world-wide as did all of renewable sources in 2014, just 28 years later. That is a solid fact. Wind is also the major provider of renewable energy. In fact, wind-energy in late 2015 provided the same amount of electricity as did all of hydroelectric dams in the US. Each provided approximately 5 percent of the entire US grid demand.
“So far the renewable energy produced in the world doesn’t come close to replacing what has been decommissioned on either an energy or reliability basis and no amount of misinformation can change that fact.”
Not clear what you mean by that, perhaps nuclear energy from the decommissioned wording. As stated just above, renewables in 2014 equaled all of nuclear energy 28 years earlier in 2016. For reference, see my blog post http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-30-years.html titled “Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster 30 Years After: Subtitle: No More Chernobyls – Build Wind-Turbines and Solar Power.” As to reliability, of course the power flows only when the wind blows. That is why the present, economic solution is to have gas-turbine power plants operate in load-following mode. However, as I stated on other comments, grid-scale batteries and the ARES rail energy storage system now provide viable, economic alternatives without many geographic limitations.
“Used appropriately solar is a good addition to our energy mix but not a viable replacement unless its’ efficiency can be improved by an order of magnitude and stored in a cost conscious manner.”
The concept of sole-sourcing energy is simply not valid, unless one speaks of hydroelectricity in a region such as near Niagara Falls or the Bonneville Dam. On a national basis, we will have a mix of energy sources including hydroelectric, natural gas, coal for a few more years, nuclear for a few more years until the aging reactors are retired for good, and several forms of renewable energy. It makes perfect sense for the sunny SouthWest to install solar-energy power plants, at large scale to reduce unit costs. That is precisely what is occurring. It also makes perfect sense to harvest a portion of the immense wind energy that flows through the middle of the US along the Texas-to-North Dakota corridor.
“Wind has time and time again proved a failure in energy produced, cost to implement and maintain, and protecting the environment. You can support renewable energy but don’t try to put lipstick on the pig.”
The facts show that wind-turbines have done exactly as was predicted: early versions had flaws that were identified, then corrected in later versions. Today’s wind-turbines are far more effective, more efficient, and much more economic than turbines of 30 years ago. Today’s modern wind-turbines achieve a capacity factor of 43 percent as the national average for the month of April (when wind is relatively strong). The annual average capacity factor in the US is now 34 percent. That figure will increase over time, just like automobile average miles-per-gallon increase over time, as older units are removed from service and newer, more efficient units are built. It is also important to note that all natural gas power plants in the US operate at an annual average capacity factor less than that of wind, at 29 percent.
Costs to operate and maintain wind-turbines are very low for new projects, and increase over time. The O&M costs are approximately 0.5 cents per kWh in the first year or two, and increase to 2 cents per kWh after 10 years of operation. You could look it up, or see my post at http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/wind-turbines-operations-and.html
As for protecting the environment, a wind-turbine does no more harm than a tall tree on a prairie. A bird or two may get killed, and that is regrettable but so far unavoidable. There are improved designs in the works that are much more bird-friendly. I cannot say more on that topic.
Renewable energy is not a pig in need of lipstick. It is instead a racehorse that is beautiful to behold. The systems work exactly as designed, producing power when the wind blows or when the sun shines as the case may be. There were some poorly-vetted and ill-designed projects such as Solyndra, but Vestas, GE Wind, and Siemens all make very good products. Billionaire Warren Buffet is no fool yet he spends billions of his dollars on one wind project after another.
No amount of disinformation or denying the facts will change the facts.
“I certainly agree that eliminating nuclear energy is a very good thing.”
Why would you want to suppress the energy source with the least impact on the biosphere?
Why do you support crazy subsidies to bird choppers and bird friers?
Why do you want to make people poorer?
Why do you want to wreck the economy?
Yes San Diego has plenty of hills to use for pumped storage. Unfortunately they have already voted it down so you can kiss that one goodbye also. .
Big reservoirs create huge pressure and can cause quakes.
There are plenty of ways to store excess wind or solar energy for release and use at a later time.
This statement is misinformed, deluded, or dishonest. Not knowing the source I won’t speculate which.
There is no convenient and affordable way of storing energy, other than pumped storage and pumped storage has relatively high efficiency losses. The usual approach is to make fossil generators load-follow which makes them less efficient, more emitting, and higher cost. This is a transfer of renewable backup cost to fossil. Accruing the increased fossil cost back to renewables makes them look even worse.
Some of this just borders on stupid. Some Northeast nuclear plants are being shutdown because renewables are being used for baseband and the nuclear plants are being forced to load follow. Shutting down the nuclear plants increases costs and emissions.
If you mess up the system enough that the cost of generation gets high enough, say 20+ cents renewables start to make sense. If smarter people prevail and insist that power be produced at least cost renewables don’t see the light of day.
If renewables made economic sense subsidies would be unnecessary.
@ur momisugly PA, Re:
“”There are plenty of ways to store excess wind or solar energy for release and use at a later time.”
This statement is misinformed, deluded, or dishonest. Not knowing the source I won’t speculate which.
There is no convenient and affordable way of storing energy, other than pumped storage and pumped storage has relatively high efficiency losses. The usual approach is to make fossil generators load-follow which makes them less efficient, more emitting, and higher cost. This is a transfer of renewable backup cost to fossil. Accruing the increased fossil cost back to renewables makes them look even worse.”
Actually, my statement you disparage is highly informed. I have more than 40 years experience world-wide as an engineer with almost all forms of energy systems. As I wrote earlier, there are several proven ways to store grid-scale quantities of energy. The US already has thousands of MW and MWh of pumped storage hydroelectric with more being installed. A new entry into the field is the ARES Rail Energy Storage, with the first project underway near Las Vegas, Nevada. The ARES system can be built anywhere there is a suitable gradient in the land, no water is necessary. This opens up enormous areas for grid-scale storage.
The affordability is acceptable, given the benefits from storing off-peak power and releasing it later as on-peak. More recently, grid-stability benefits easily justify the cost of storage. The ARES system is advertised as costing only 60 percent of a similar sized PSH. The efficiency losses are 20 percent in the US on PSH, and 15 percent for the ARES system.
Next, you assert: “Some of this just borders on stupid. Some Northeast nuclear plants are being shutdown because renewables are being used for baseband and the nuclear plants are being forced to load follow. Shutting down the nuclear plants increases costs and emissions.”
That is incorrect. US nuclear plants are shutting down because they cannot compete economically with low-cost natural gas-based power, and wind-energy. US nuclear plants don’t follow the load, instead they are infamous for operating at baseload whether the grid needs the power or not. They therefore force the price of power down to zero and at times to negative values. Shutting down nuclear plants decreases the wholesale electricity prices.
Next, you assert: “If you mess up the system enough that the cost of generation gets high enough, say 20+ cents renewables start to make sense. If smarter people prevail and insist that power be produced at least cost renewables don’t see the light of day.
If renewables made economic sense subsidies would be unnecessary.”
Wind and solar already make economic sense, with the average residential electricity price at 12 cents per kWh in the US. What many people fail to understand is that 12 cents per kWh in 2015 is essentially the same after adjusting for inflation, as in 1985. The subsidies for wind-energy are tiny, and amount to far less than one-tenth of one percent of the typical consumer’s electricity bill.
“They therefore force the price of power down to zero and at times to negative values.”
No they don’t. Wind turbines do.
“Shutting down nuclear plants decreases the wholesale electricity prices.”
OK, you are a troll.
Goodbye.
“low cost grid scale batteries”? Where exactly do these things exist? What are they made of (certainly not ‘renewables’ nor CO2 friendly materials)?
“the grid supplies power when solar does not” So, how is the high load, infrequently used (assumed) power that the ‘grid’ supplies generated & stored? Say you are successful in creating a reasonably sufficient supply of solar generated power. If that happens won’t the ‘grid’ tend to reduce its power output (because nobody is buying it they won’t have the money to maintain it) so, eventually,, when you call on it for a peak load (because solar isn’t supplying the power and your ‘low cost’ ‘grid scale’ batteries run down) it won’t be there. Well, I guess you can pass legislation requiring the grid to take power from someone else to meet your needs.
This is my single greatest issue with these grandiose, wonderful sounding generalities. They tend to depend on technological development (in this case low cost, environmentally friendly, low maintenance, high capacity ‘grid scale’ batteries, a technology that does not currently exist and may never exist. For example, Tesla announced that they were going to develop and sell a reasonably priced 10KWH battery storage system that could be mounted on a garage wall and would store individual home solar power. They recently announced they were dropping that idea to focus on their car battery idea, although I suspect they actually got a taste of the technological and cost hurdles and just dropped it as not feasible.
That and solar & wind are NOT sustainable. Yes, sunlight is free, the wind blows for free, but solar panels are not and once installed, they do not last forever. Same with wind turbines only it’s worse because they use rare earth metals (that are mostly mined outside the US so we’re trading ‘oil dependence’ for ‘rare earth metal dependence’) that are most decidedly not sustainable (there is a finite amount of these types of metals). What’s the current useful life of a wind turbine?
@Bill Marsh Re: ““low cost grid scale batteries”? Where exactly do these things exist? What are they made of (certainly not ‘renewables’ nor CO2 friendly materials)?”
I refer you to my blog article, also posted on WUWT (with additions by Anthony) – http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/this-battery-is-game-changer.html
and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/08/this-new-battery-is-a-game-changer/
The batteries are an improvement over lithium-ion, using halogenated polyacetylene as patented by BioSolar, Inc. The “where” part of your question is in Santa Clarita, California, just north of Los Angeles, California. The batteries have one-fourth the cost, and twice the energy density of present batteries.
RE: ““the grid supplies power when solar does not” So, how is the high load, infrequently used (assumed) power that the ‘grid’ supplies generated & stored?”
As all those who design, build, and follow closely the evolution of the US grid know, some forms of renewable energy are very stable: geothermal, biomass, biogas, and small hydroelectric. California has all four of these, with approximately 1,700 MW produced around the clock.
For supplementing the variable output from renewable sources, solar thermal, solar PV, and wind-turbines, the usual grid supplies are natural gas-power plants. As a recent example (out of thousands of system), a 940 MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plant was just awarded to Siemens AG for installation in Lordstown, Ohio for wind-turbine grid-stabilization on the PJM grid. My article on this with reference to the Siemens announcement is http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/gas-turbine-power-plant-low-cost-and.html This CCGT power plant costs one-tenth of what a similar sized nuclear plant would cost, will be built and operating in 2 years, and has excellent load-following capability.
CA, and many other states, also has grid-scale storage installed. Those include pumped storage hydroelectric (PSH), a battery system on Santa Catalina Island, and a few others. Another PSH system of 1,300 MW is under construction near Palm Springs. The state has mandated more grid-scale storage.
The fact is that solar and wind are indeed sustainable, with costs for both technologies falling rapidly year-over-year. Wind-energy in the US has grown rapidly and now equals the output of hydroelectric power. In another year, wind-energy will surpass the hydroelectric output.
“This CCGT power plant costs one-tenth of what a similar sized nuclear plant would cost”
If you were really an engineer (you are certainly not), you would know that the cost of nuclear plants is mostly caused by absurd safety requirements, insane regulatory burden, and absurd uncertainty WRT to licencing.
simple-touriste, Re “If you were really an engineer (you are certainly not), you would know that the cost of nuclear plants is mostly caused by absurd safety requirements, insane regulatory burden, and absurd uncertainty WRT to licencing.”
Chemical engineer, University of Texas at Austin 1977. Courses in nuclear chemistry and engineering.
What I know about nuclear power plants and their high costs is that 1) they operate at low pressure and essentially zero superheat so the Rankine cycle is not very efficient, 2) the low efficiency requires more steam to circulate to create the same power output, 3) the major equipment is therefore much larger due to the increased flows, 4) the PWR design has much more equipment and therefore higher costs e.g. the reactor pressurizer, steam generators, the pressurized water pumps and motors, 5) the inherent danger of uranium fuel melting requires triple safety boundaries, one being the fuel rods, two being the reactor vessel, and three being the containment dome, 6) the damage from a loss of coolant accident, LOCA requires a redundant reactor cooling system, and 7) a fuel storage area is required for spent fuel rods, along with water circulating pumps and cooling system.
If you can justify the removal of any or all of those high-cost items, please let me know which ones, and the specific reasons you cite to declare them absurd safety requirements, or unnecessary for operation.
“What I know about nuclear power plants and their high costs is that 1) they operate at low pressure”
I have no idea what you mean. I have noticed that you never give numbers, only vague statements, like non-scientists, esp. journalists, politicians, propagandists… do.
“the low efficiency requires more steam to circulate to create the same power output”
compared to what?
And how is your “efficiency” in any way relevant?
This is the typical ecoloon argument of inefficient nuclear energy. Who cares if it is “inefficient”? Do you propose “efficient nuclear energy”?
“the PWR design has much more equipment and therefore higher costs”
compared to?
I am bored now…
“the damage from a loss of coolant accident, LOCA requires a redundant reactor cooling system”
Not sure what you meant here, but I am pretty sure it’s incorrect.
Anyway, you managed to miss:
– the many additional safety measures used in many Western reactors since decades
– the fancy new ultimate protection measures like the “core catcher” in new reactor designs like the EPR
– the level of terrorism-resistance which is not expected for any other industrial facility
– the hysteria about trivial releases of “radiations”
– the loss of lives caused by the inept evacuations in Fukushima
– the fact that those responsible for these deaths are applauded
Are you ignorant of all these widely reported facts?
Are you for real?
Are you lost in irrelevant thermodynamic technicalities? Do you get your informations from ecoloon propaganda?
In California, Hydro-electric is NOT considered as a renewable source. They don’t care how you get the water into the lake.
G
There is also one other problem with your pumped storage concept.
Hills and mountains are somewhat like the pyramids. They generally tend to get smaller in area as you get closer to the top. So you can’t have the water at a high elevation and at a high volume (mass) at the same time.
George e smith, I’m not following you on this one. The mountains and hills do get smaller at the top, but the reservoir gets larger and larger as the depth increases. So, the higher the surface elevation, the more volume and mass are in the reservoir.
So you are proposing that the hill be replaced by water ?
The water at the bottom of the hill has no potential energy. “bottom of the hill, being input to the turbine impeller.
I know that there is a pumped storage operation in the State of Missouri, Taum Sauk, I think it is called.
Near as I can recall it’s about 1700 feet; and you can’t get any higher on the ground, and still be in Missouri.
Missouri does have the Missouri and the Mississippi rivers, and others, so there is plenty of water. But it is just a token situation. Not a serious source of renewable energy.
By it’s very definition, a pumped storage source must be intermittent, and requires some “backup” (actually “frontup”) source of electricity. Using electricity to run a pump should be a felony offence.
G
I believe Roger is thinking that the reservoir would be created by putting dams between the mountain tops, and making the area between the mountains the reservoir.
Something is missing.
My utility buys at an average of less than $40 per MWhr (including up to $80 for its windmill portion). It sells at about 0.10/kwhr..
San Diego sells for about 0.35/kwhr … how much are they buying for?
They must have some serious operational costs & inefficiencies to go along with the elevated green costs.
Inverse economy of scale.
Yes it’s called PG&E.
I live in Georgetown, Texas, about 30 miles from Austin. The Georgetown municipal electric utility recently declared that Georgetown’s electrical load is now (or will soon be) supplied by 100% renewable sources. Wind and solar. These plants are something like 500 miles away on the other side of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Waco. The plants feed into the same electrical grid (Texas is apparently somewhat isolated electrically) that all other Texas communities draw from. Although Texas is the largest producer of wind energy in the U.S., by far most of Texas electrical generation comes from coal, nuclear, and gas. So, while the Georgetown utility has signed contracts with these distant wind and solar generators, and will send them checks commensurate with their output up to Georgetown’s contemporaneous demand, it seems to me that Georgetown consumers will in effect be supplied by roughly the same proportions of electricity from wind, solar, nuclear, coal, and gas as any other average consumer drawing from the Texas grid. It is the Texas system operator that must make sure that the statewide system can absorb the intermittent supply from wind and solar without reducing reliability. I don’t know who pays for that — the generation reserve and transmission capacity needed to deal with this intermittancy. I doubt that that cost is paid by little Georgetown. I believe the only claim that may have some meaning is the percentage of total Texas demand supplied by “renewables,” not the percentage of, in this case, Georgetown’s total generation payments to distant wind and solar generators who simply pour what they can into the grid. These municipal claims about their extent of reliance on wind and solar need to be seen in the larger context appropriate to each region.
Are the Texas grid operators going to install some kind of ‘electricity monitoring’ device to ensure that Georgetown only gets electricity generated by the Solar & Wind ‘plants’ and not that ‘dirty’ electricity generated by gas, oil, coal, & nuclear sources? How else can Georgetown make a claim like that?
Whether or not the wind and solar is generating enough to meet Georgetown demand at any given time, Georgetown will always just draw what it needs from the Texas grid (I think and hope!) I don’t know how the payments get sorted out. As a result of the utility’s claim to 100% renewable generation, many people here think that all our electrical stuff is actually powered by wind and solar, as though Georgetown were an island and reliant only on these generators. The utility and local government seem happy to leave people with this general impression since it sounds so grand.
It’s all accounting. Enron was very good but not good enough.
Kudoes to the team that set up the electrical grid in Texas.
========
Alberta has/had a similar plan that allowed users to pay “extra” to get wind power. The extra amount went to the wind companies I presume.
It’s a feel good thing I suppose. The interesting thing is that now that coal is being pressured to shut down, the actual generating rate I now pay has dropped dramatically – my last bill for electricity was 3.6 cents Canadian for the first 700 kWh and 4.5 cents Canadian for the next 500 kWh. That’s about half of what it was a year or so ago. That’s not the total though as you have to add transmission, distribution, administration and taxes that takes the total cost to 11.2 cents Canadian per kWh – or about 8.5 cents US based on the current exchange rate (variable rate plan).
I can’t imagine why I would want to pay extra to build bird choppers.
..I think it’s hilarious that liberal greenies think it’s possible to tell the difference between GREEN electrons and NASTY electrons !! It’s not just in Texas either…
The Salton Sea area is only about 120 miles away and has one of the largest geothermal energy potentials in the world. I believe the potential is about 80,000 MW capacity. California never used more than ~52,863 MW per day in peak demand (July 10th, 2002) and is usually around 40,000 to 45,000 MW per day peak demand. Driving manufacturing and employment out of state certainly helps to lower peak demand.
Currently there are 11 geothermal plants in the area, each one generating not more than 49.9 MW. That only requires county approval and not the approval of the CA Energy Commission as plants 50 MW and above do. That does not give you sufficient economy of scale.
Currently, Controlled Thermal Resources, an Australian company, has a lease with IID – Imperial Irrigation District, a municipal utility that both provides irrigation water to farms and power to the area, for 1,900 acres. They are planning to build a more economically viable 250 MW plant near Calipatria at the southern end of the Salton Sea.
The up-front costs are huge and loans are hard to come by as utilities are reluctant to buy this energy as it is quite expensive. IID power is quite cheap. If San Diego or CA more or less outlaw thermal energy from fossil sources and demand 100% renewable energy, or unreliable energy as I prefer to call it, then geothermal all of a sudden becomes economically viable and a good source for base-load power. It is technologically viable and can provide power without interruption.
The area south of the border in Mexicali has a rising demand for power and IID is planning several connectors to Mexico. There are actually a number of companies from abroad looking to develop commercial properties and power plants in the Imperial / El Centro / Salton Sea area.
Regardless, it is always a bad idea for politicians to meddle in the economic decision making of companies and individuals based on unsubstantiated scientific claims and highly questionable assumptions. This leads to terrible misallocations of capital and makes us all poorer.
Are there any studies on how low wind and solar can get in peak demand periods? South Australia is one of the great white hopes of green dreamers, but often relies on 95% of its power from fossils and interconnectors (to more fossils) during heatwaves:
https://climanrecon.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/wind-power-capacity-credit-in-south-australia/
Unless San Diego is an island grid within California, this is a meaningless proclamation.
There has been mention about the ACT down here in Australia claiming to go 100% renewable electricity by 2020 too which is totally bogus since almost all their power comes from interstate generators. On a local forum, I suggested that phase shifting transformers should be installed at the ACT borders with the active current limited to the output of the interstate windfarms they have contracted. This would provide a pseudo 100% renewables experience for them. The entertainment value would be worth the cost of the transformers.
As a matter of interest I have been looking at production from Aust.windfarms for the last two months; there are 39 of them with a total nameplate capacity of 3669 MW. For March and April they have been operating with an average capacity of 23%. However, around 60% of the time production has been 13% or 450 MW.
the equivalent of a small coal station.
The politicians are talking about 50% renewables by 2030, approximately 15,000 MW of 24/7 electricity is required. To do this for the 60% of the time mentioned one needs 15,000/ 13% or 115,385 MW of wind turbines. This is 28,846 four MW units and would require about 58,700 sq. km. of suitable land, about 22,500 sq. miles. Just think of the problems involved and even then what happens on a windless day?
It’s really laughable but that is the calibre of our lot.
A lot of data are given on the site: energy.anero.id.au/wind energy
I was looking at the historic wind-speed charts for San Diego on Wunder-ground.
It is apparent that the coast is hugely effected by a regular sea breeze system, and only recieves significant wind after say 9am. So if wind will form a significant proportion of their generation, there will be little energy for overnight car charging, and little energy for the morning rush hour. So a continual backup storage system will be required for overnight generation (no solar either at this time).
In addition I noted gaps for up to ten days without any significant wind. So this backup system (presumably pumped water storage) will have to cope with 10-day outages. That would be a vast and hugely costly backup system. In addition, the installed turbines would have to be multiplied to provide enough power to cope with normal demand, to provide the same again to cope with the usual overnight wind outage, and to provide even more to recharge the backup system for a 10-day outage. Since most wind systems are only 25% efficient, they would need to build quadruple the namplate capacity of the turbines to charge the backup system for daily use, and then probably double again to cover the long-term outages (they may get two long-term outages, with only two weeks of wind in between).
Alternatively, the backup system could be coal and gas powered, as that would be reliable and not require so many turbines to be built in the first place. But if they go to the trouble of making a fossil fuelled backup system, I would suggest that they just cut out the renewables and use the backup system – it would be much more reliable, and much much cheaper.
If they go for a crazy all-renewables system, I foresee the first ‘renewables refugees’. Businesses will relocate to Texas, where they can get energy at 1/3 the cost, and the workers would have to follow. And the high cost of energy and reducing local tax returns would impoverish the remaining population, resulting in widespread poverty and hardship. The scene would be similar to ‘The Grapes of Wrath’, but with the ragged refugees fleeing a renewables fantasy, rather than the failed agriculture of the Dust Bowl mid-West.
Ralph
Prepare for bankruptcy, instead, perhaps. We’ve seen what Obama’s socialism has done to Detroit, and other hot spots. They made it worse, IMO. Now more cities will fall, until we get a patriot at the helm of the ship of state? Obama is NOT a patriot, IMO – in fact, one might argue that he is the exact opposite of a patriot.
Germany, and other countries, have jumped on the renewables slippery slope and are suffering the consequences. California will not learn from other peoples’ mistakes.
“A good analogy for reliance on renewables is the age of Sail. Sailing ships moved goods around the world from the 16th century until the beginning of the 20th century.
[…]
“Germany is really building 2 energy infrastructures. A renewable infrastructure and a backup fossil fuel infrastructure. They recently built 19 new modern coal fired stations in parallel to their investment in wind and solar. The reason is simple.
“On a cold December evening when there is no wind the renewable power supply is zero, and all their coal stations must be ramped up to maximum output.”
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7120
Well I guess since we never quite managed to generate a Mad Max style post-nuclear apocalyptic world the greens are just going for a different route to that kind of scenario. I don’t think there’s any stopping it now. If you tried to reverse this and implement sensible energy policies there would be mass riots from the millions of brain-dead green zombies. It’s only a race for whether we simply hand over the western nations to Islam or destroy them first via energy insanity and economic collapse.
Following this there will be centuries of brutal primitive war between the burgeoning hordes of Islam and the rest of humanity and perhaps in a few millennia or so mathematics will be rediscovered and a technological culture may arise once more. Anyone in this putative second renaissance who mentions the words “green” or “liberal” will be sentenced to instant death without trial and it will be necessary to find a new word to describe the colour of chlorophyll.