![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.
By 2035 the planet will be in the grips of a neo Maunder Minimum according to the Russian climate scientists!
A few facts on grid-scale solar energy in California, and other states. This is from The US Energy Information Agency, March 2015. Naysayers can scoff as much as they like. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20492
Title: “California first state to generate more than 5% of electricity from utility-scale solar”
Excerpt: “California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA’s Electric Power Monthly. California’s utility-scale (1 megawatt (MW) or larger) solar plants generated a record 9.9 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2014, an increase of 6.1 million MWh from 2013. California’s utility-scale solar production in 2014 was more than three times the output of the next-highest state, Arizona, and more than all other states combined.
“Several large plants were phased into operation in California during 2014, including two 550 MW solar photovoltaic plants, Topaz and Desert Sunlight (Phases 1 and 2), as well as the 377 MW Ivanpah (Phases 1, 2, and 3) and the 250 MW Genesis solar thermal plants. In total, nearly 1,900 MW of new utility-scale solar capacity was added, bringing the state’s utility-scale capacity for all solar technologies to 5,400 MW by the end of 2014.”
And to those who argue that California also has the highest electricity prices in the US, wrong again. California residential electricity price is approximately 17 cents per kWh, with 8 other states having higher price. California’s high prices are due to the large population (39 million people) and low electricity consumption per capita. The utilities must bill more per kWh to pay for the infrastructure.
Roger, I wonder if you are for real, or paid, or…
Your “solar” plants made with money stolen from the people. They are abominable bird destroyers and need gas to start.
And they fail to deliver as projected.
Roger, I can’t follow your logic on high cost of electricity in California because it has a high population.
Also here are the electricity rates in San diego which rise much higher than the minimum rate you quote:
https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/1-1-16%20Schedule%20DR%20Total%20Rates%20Table.pdf
Catcracking, the concept is that low volume requires a higher cost per unit. In California, the electricity consumption per capita, and per residence, is very low compared to the US average. The same amount of infrastructure for transmission and distribution is in place but few electrons are flowing. The cost to build and maintain that infrastructure must be allocated over fewer kWh, therefore higher prices.
The rate I quoted is the average residential electricity rate for CA in early 2016 per EIA. I am aware of the various rate prices based on the tier system in California. Those are not useful when comparing California prices to other US states or the national average.
@roger
“Catcracking, the concept is that low volume requires a higher cost per unit.”
That’s idiotic.
You. Are. Not. Making. Sense.
Are you for real?
Please, leave.
Not sure who’s paying $0.17 kWh in California, I’m not and my business electricity runs about .026 Kwh..png)
Nuclear still quite competitive.
Ivanpah produces about 1/4 of it’s nameplate capacity and in 2014 average wholesale cost was 167 Mwh. There’s no denying we can produce a fair amount of energy from renewables but it will cost us.
It all happens because the polticians do not know the difference between kWh and kW.
I wonder from where the Schropp guy (above) got his MW per day unit.
“While the city already produces the second largest electrical output from solar energy in the U.S., the new plan further details a way to cope with the changing climate.”
How exactly does this plan “cope” with a changing climate?
– Increase the number of air conditioners as the temperature rises?
– Less water supply as rainfall decreases?
– Rising sea level?
According to the IPCC, the human contribution to the influx of CO2 into the atmosphere is 3% of the total, the rest being due to natural sources.
This IS madness. There is no other word for it.
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. 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.”
We would have to create “excess solar energy” first. Yes the technology exists and with enough money and space you could do it but it’s not practical. The cost would be prohibitive to provide 100% renewable energy plus renewable provided backup. San Diego has hills but it lacks water source so it would have to be saved, evaporation replenished, and recycled increasing the area required. There is no such thing as “low cost grid scale batteries” that could provide storage for a county the size of San Diego. Where is it scaled to that extent besides on paper?
“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.”
Great, let’s use an unreliable source of energy as a backup. All you have to do is look at the stats for name plate vs. actual output of wind turbines to understand we miscalculated the most simple part of that equation in the vast majority of locations.
” That is the equivalent of 8 solar power-tower plants of the same size as Ivanpah Solar”.
Bad example since Ivanpah missed it’s engineering target. A failed solar solution experiment sold to and paid by the public with it’s own unique unintended consequences for the environment it’s supposed to protect.
“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.”
Your large solutions are on paper…..no? Name one large city with energy 100% provided by wind and solar. Just one. Yes I agree theoretically it can be done but at a cost that is prohibitive.
“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.”
Minuscule compared to what? Should we count the bankruptcies? How about the equivalent energy costs using conventional methods? “Legitimate purpose of government”? That’s a hoot. We’re not talking subsidizing research but subsidizing companies to make a profit off of existing technology at the expense of the people some of whom cannot take advantage of it but all will pay for it. Socialism for the elite
“As to environmental damage, one could argue that coal-mining creates immensely more damage than do all the wind-turbines in the US.”
So exchange one form of damage for another is OK? Besides, the environment can co-exist with coal mining and usage if done properly and it is more cost efficient providing energy to more people.
“The concept of sole-sourcing energy is simply not valid…”
Didn’t you say “The idea that renewables cannot supply 100 percent of a city’s electricity is just not true…”? I believe that’s the crux of this thread.
“The facts show that wind-turbines have done exactly as was predicted…. ”
That’s just obfuscation and I know you are fully aware that is not how it was sold to the public.
“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.”
And they produce more energy, more reliably , at a better price to the consumers. What’s your point?
” Billionaire Warren Buffet is no fool yet he spends billions of his dollars on one wind project after another.”
Because he’s guaranteed a return through subsidies that I help provide and tax breaks that I make up the difference and not because it’s a successful business. The government is shoving it down our throats whether we agree or not and making us pay for it.
“No amount of disinformation or denying the facts will change the facts.”
Obviously you are a proponent of wind and solar and I would be as well if it didn’t require me to support it at my expense and it was more environmental friendly. Renewables today are a destructive solution to a non problem. Renewables today are driven by ideology and not science, economy, living standard, or availability to more people who need energy. Are those facts wrong?
@roger Sowell
“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.”
So 100% renewable energy is just press release. The grid is not 100% renewable. The grid is a zero-sum game. Even if San Diego purchases from a renewable energy generation company, another buyer will be forced to buy from fossil fuel generation companies because the renewable energy purchased by San Diego is no longer available in the grid.
“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.”
From MIT Technology Review – One of the most ambitious solar energy projects on the planet is in trouble. The $2.2 billion Ivanpah concentrated solar power facility in California has fallen well short of its expected power output and now has a year to get itself back on track, or it risks being forced to shut down.
That said, onshore wind, rooftop solar PV, geothermal and pumped hydro storage are economically viable.
Wind needs subsidies and more costly than nuclear, coal and natural gas.
This is wonderful. Let these nut cases try 100 %, renewables with no [fossil] fueled back ups to fall back on, and to then to live there.
Ideally we should send all the Green types to a deserted island, and let them create their ideal world.
Michael Elliott.
They will try to do all sorts of idiotic things as long as they are using other people’s money.
Reminds me of the German’s bragging on how much of their electric base is provided by “renewables” without ever mentioning that they rely on the rest of Europe whenever their “renewables” fail to generate enough power.
To be pure, I assume San Diego will cut off all interties that might supply backup power produced by non-renewables — including nuclear and hydro. (Hydro, since California doesn’t consider it a renewable.)
There was a time, long, long ago, when I wanted to live in San Diego. Silly me.
Driving everything else out of business using the government for subsidies to them, increased costs to everyone else. and capping it all off with regulatory favoritism. It leaves everyone paying higher prices and subsidizing those who charge them. And it won’t work.
How very popular, Lefist, misanthropic, anti-environmental and brainless can you get? Moving On to health, education, welfare, the family and the Bill of Rights.