Many WUWT might think that renewable energy just can’t cut it, and when it comes to certain demand situations that may be a very valid issue. However, there has been quite a surge in installed renewables for daytime generation in California over the last 6 years, and the numbers from CAISO do tell a story that is surprisingly positive. Engineer and attorney Roger Sowell explains more about this month in this guest post. -Anthony
Guest essay by Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/
From CAISO, record-setting renewable production
A lot of good is being done by renewable energy power plants in California, especially with the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility at very limited capacity due to an earlier leak. Renewable power plants are preventing the grid from experiencing blackouts.
The graphic above, from California Independent System Operator, CAISO, shows renewable power production for what appears to be the record-setting date thus far, June 14, 2016. Total renewable energy was 211,546 MWh. Yesterday, June 22 was not far behind with 208,949 MWh.
Today, June 23’s results are shown below, not quite a record but still a bit more than 200,000 MWh from renewables. see link to CAISO archives on renewable output.
Renewables on June 14 provided an average of 33 percent of the 24-hour total system demand. On an hourly basis, renewables provided 46 percent of the load at 3 p.m. that day. The load on the grid peaked at approximately 39,500 MW just before 6 p.m. Solar production peaked at approximately 7,400 MW.
These results are higher than the peak production in 2015, which was 189,000 MWh in a 24 hour period. As could be expected, peak production occurs when solar power is at or near the Summer Solstice, June 20th typically, but also when wind production is greatest. Wind production was at a maximum thus far at 92,000 to 93,000 MWh in the first half of 2016. On June 14th wind provided 92,250 MWh. Typically in California, wind production peaks in June or July then decreases for the remaining months (source, EIA).
Renewables for June 23, 2016
showing Solar PV exceeds 7,000 MW
and total Renewables exceeds 200,000 MWh
The renewable energy produced saves the state from burning natural gas in the gas-fired power plants, which is a very good thing as this summer’s loads must be met without the full production of stored gas from Aliso Canyon. How much gas is not burned is somewhat difficult to estimate because one must know which gas-fired power plants are not being run and their respective heat rates. Also, as some gas-fired plants are no doubt operated at a slightly reduced rate, one must know the heat rate for each power plant at the reduced output. Reduced output from selected plants is advisable to allow rapid power increase to compensate for variations in the renewable production due to clouds, and changes in wind speed.
However, an estimate of the natural gas not burned can be made by taking the total renewable output from wind and solar, 167,950 MWh on June 14 (per the table at the top of the article), and using an average of 45 percent thermal efficiency for the power plants not being run. On that basis, approximately 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas was not burned on that day. Per California Energy Commission documents, that is nearly the same gas withdrawal rate at Aliso Canyon when it is at full operation (1.9 billion cubic feet maximum withdrawal). See Table 1 in “Aliso Canyon Action Plan to Preserve Gas and Electric Reliability for the Los Angeles Basin,” see link
The state’s ability to produce renewable power has changed dramatically since the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) was taken off-line suddenly in 2012 as shown in the graph below:
As shown in the figure and California Energy Commission’s page (see link), solar PV capacity grew from 214 MW at the end of 2011 to 5,498 MW at the end of 2015. More capacity has been added so that, as above, solar PV now can produce approximately 7,000 MW. Solar thermal recently has exceeded 700 MW peak.
It is especially ironic that renewables, once derided as destabilizing a grid, are now riding to the rescue and helping to prevent blackouts on the California electric grid during summer heat waves. One can only imagine the rolling blackouts and uproar with Aliso Canyon gas storage effectively out of commission, SONGS nuclear generating shut down, and if no renewable power plants had been installed over the past 5 years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Roger Sowell, Esq, thank you for the essay.
I have written about CAISO here, and I have been checking their web page again lately. The renewables standard (AB 32 — I voted for repeal) has been responsible for making electricity more expensive, and the expensive energy is cited as one reason why businesses move out of state or expand out-of-state instead of in-state. That said, I have been similarly surprised, even pleased, by how much of total demand has recently been met by solar PV panels.
Readers probably recall that the two San Onofre nuclear power plants were shut down because of a failure of routine maintenance: old pipes were replaced by new pipes that had not been made up to standard (a case study for “Murphy’s Law”). Authorities decided in favor of permanent shutdown instead of refurbishment because of the cost of the latter. But the cost of refurbishment would have been approximately the cost of the Ivanpah solar power plant (which has problems of its own), and would have generated much more electricity, probably for much longer.
PV panels constitute toxic waste once they reach 30-40 years of age. Per megawatt-hour of power produced, PV panels are more toxic waste than is produced by nuclear power. To my knowledge, the cost of handling all that toxic waste is not yet included in the price of the solar power.
Slightly off topic: Those new heat exchanger pipes have been designed with a commercial grade but faulty fluid dynamics software package. I wonder what fluid dynamics code do climate models use.
Close, but not quite accurate. The SONGS shutdown saga was due to badly designed steam generators. Excessive tube wear created holes in the tubes due to a previously unknown vibration. The company chose to shut down the plants permanently rather than comply with the NRC requirement to identify the problem cause and correct it.
see ‘San Onofre Shutdown Saga” at http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-23.html
Roger, do you have a link to the report that says radioactive material got in to the steam generator side of the process?
It seems odd that the pressure gradient between the two systems would allow this to happen.
For Galvanize, re June 25, 2016 at 1:59 pm
The pressure gradient is exactly how the radioactive, high-pressure water from the reactor leaked into the lower pressure shell-side of the steam generator.
The NRC report on the SONGS January 31, 2012 incident is at this link. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tube-degrade/event-plant-condition.html
The pertinent part reads:
“Prior to the event, Unit 3 was operating at 100 percent rated thermal power with no plant evolutions in progress. On January 31, 2012, Unit 3 control room operators received an alarm that indicated a primary-to-secondary reactor coolant leak from steam generator 3E0-88. The alarm received was from the main condenser air ejector radiation monitors, which continuously samples from a vent line for the purpose of rapidly identifying steam generator tube leaks.
“During follow-up inspections of the Unit 3 SG tubes, the plant operator, Southern California Edison (SCE), discovered unexpected wear in both SGs, including significant tube-to-tube wear in the free span areas of over 100 tubes. Pre-planned testing of 100 percent of the SONGS Unit 2 (Unit 2) SG tubes was in progress as part of a regularly scheduled refueling outage when the event occurred in Unit 3. Testing results from Unit 2 also revealed unexpected tube wear at the retainer bars. Additional analysis and testing ultimately resulted in identifying two tubes with tube-to-tube wear similar to what was observed in Unit 3.”
matthewrmarler June 25, 2016 at 9:58 am
You are surprised that an industry is gaining market share when it receives a subsidy of billions of dollars per year and is supported by a law FORCING people to buy their crappy product??? That surprises you?
Remind me not to hire you as my accountant, Matt. I am absolutely stunned that you find the so-called “success” of such an industry even slightly surprising.
Name your industry, give me billions in subsidies, and I’ll guarantee I can gain market share. This is absolutely unsurprising, so I’m shocked by your surprise.
w.
It is especially ironic that renewables, once derided as destabilizing a grid, are now riding to the rescue and helping to prevent blackouts on the California electric grid during summer heat waves. One can only imagine the rolling blackouts and uproar with Aliso Canyon gas storage effectively out of commission, SONGS nuclear generating shut down, and if no renewable power plants had been installed over the past 5 years.
With this much power from solar, the electricity crisis of the early 2000s would not have occurred. With the A/C usage and water needs of CA, isn’t PV power worth consideration even if it is more expensive than hydropower?
Another question: With the reduced usage of natural gas power plants, won’t those power plants last longer?
matthewrmarler June 25, 2016 at 10:07 am
Not as much as you think, because they need to be “spinning reserve” for wind and sun. This is different from the reserve needed for e.g. nuclear and hydro, which don’t change that fast.
So the turbines are kept spinning, and are ramped up and down to fill in the minute-by-minute gaps in the wind. As you might imagine, this is the worst possible condition for a turbine, to be run up and down all the time.
And as a result, no, you don’t get the expected savings.
w.
Did you just say Hydro doesn’t change fast? Hydro is possibly the fastest changing of all the power generators. It can change pretty much in real time.
Roger Sowell June 25, 2016 at 6:16 am
This is complete and arrant nonsense. I cited my post above called “Make 29% On Your Money Guaranteed, which you obviously didn’t read. It listed the following kinds of solar subsidies for one single project:
• Federal grants
• Low interest Federal loans
• Federally guaranteed loans
• Above-market state approved power contracts
• Tax exemption for solar power equipment
• Accelerated depreciation
This does not include the subsidy of a “renewable mandate”, which is nothing more than a government-backed monopoly ripoff … nor does it include the tax benefits for rooftop solar, nor State grants and low-interest loans for both rooftop and grid-scale solar, nor the above market prices paid for rooftop solar electricity, prices which are directly passed on to poor buggers like myself in the form of higher electricity costs.
In other words, your claim that “wind and solar each have only one [form of subsidy]” is absolute and total rubbish, and it reveals that you are either desperately ignorant of the subject … or much worse.
w.
Willis: I have not seen Mr. Sowell respond to this point, he does not seem capable of recognizing that his subsidy talk is simply false. I am happily surprised that he does realize the falsity of the CAGW. How these facts don’t collide in his head, I don’t know. Maybe he should read more Mark Steyn, and see that the answer to his “what to do the next 20 yrs” is, watch a great state and people utterly collapse under the weight of their extreme folly. Installing more solar panels and windmills won’t change that. I really wish I could see some light in the tunnel for them, but they refuse to provide elec and water for the existing population. They will suffer the consequences, and I hope we in the midwest will have time to learn from the mistakes CA has been making for decades, due to their green madness.
Amount of subsidy per MWH produced is a much better way of quantifying it. $ per MWH is far more relevant than $ spent on the industry.
Over the years I have followed some of the claims made by supporters of solutions to electrical generation that employ methods other than using coal/gas/nuclear as a fuel source. Despite plenty of investment and research it remains difficult to forecast a world run using solar, wind, geothermal or even hydro generated electricity. It is true there are uses for such methods if the conditions are right, otherwise it is impractical on the wider scale. Here Mr Roger Sowell identifies the advances made by California, impressive in a way, but what really stands out is that this State imports about a third of all the electricity it needs. As the old traditional plants are closed it is easy to imagine a situation when the people of this State will have to go without power on a regular basis, industry either having to invest in standby power or do what it is doing now, leaving.
There is no change to my conclusions that the decision to turn away from practical power generation must eventually impose a reduction in living standards because modern life is constructed around a reliable grid. The answer to the problem, conceding that there may be an issue with CO2 release, remains nuclear, the costs of which are artificially high due to onerous regulation and the refusal to develop the technologies that use better designs that are inherently safer. This fits in with the backward looking attitudes common amongst the influential.
The Eloi with their solar and wind generation, may think they rule the day.
But the Morlocks with base load nuclear and fossil fuels, we rule the night.
And a continent-wide ice storm of ash fall will turn day to night.
Proud to be a Morlock.
That cannibalism thing, just a rumor we spread to keep ’em off our lawns.
The only reason there is a natural gas shortage in California is they will not allow any new pipelines to be built. My former employer had two fully subscribed pipelines planned for southern California 4 years ago. We tried to permit them and get right-of-way for three years, no way, so we gave up even though they were fully funded. You saved 1.3 BCF? Whoopee! That is less than 4 months gas production for one shale gas well. It’s nothing if you have the infrastructure. We can put up hundreds of acres of bird chomping windmills, but we can’t bury a 20 inch pipeline? Any given area along a pipeline construction route will be torn up for a few weeks while the pipeline is laid, but after it is done the landscaping is restored and you can’t even tell it is there, except for the warning signs. A wind or solar farm is in your face for decades! Your gas shortage is a self inflicted wound.
Andy May: Amazing how the protestors want to stop an “invisible” utility while the very visible bird choppers are promoted.
there is much wrong with this article. Renewables have a place in providing power but it is hardly cost effective.
The proponents (commies and elities and those parasites that live on the collective) of renewables have always fudged and hid the true costs of the operations.
No one ever adds the losses to conventional energy production which is often squandered or dumped to accommodate the renewable power production. Renewables don’t take the credit for the fact that they can not operate alone since they can not provide continuous power yet they still try to separate out and refuse to include true costs.
honesty would go a long way, unfortunately the green team lacks it.
You have to account for how much they reduced demand by sending businesses and people out of state.
Perhaps someone could also publish what the renewables production was on the lowest production day of the year – perhaps the winter solstice? – and how California managed to keep the lights on.
A question for those who may have the pertinent data:
What is the ratio of the average cost of manufacture, installation, and maintenance of the photovoltaic solar panel to the average cost (at nationwide rates) of the electricity produced by the same panel during its service life, compared to the same ratio calculated for a modern nuclear plant?
That is the only question that matters, behind all the smoke and mirrors painted by Mr. Sowell.
Well Roger never answered the eagle deaths I guess he is okay with that.
Here is insanity. Up here in BC because of our abundance of hydro electric power you can pretty much say say BC is 100% renewable, only a handful of gas generators and only two off those run 24/7 feeding into Alberta. No coal plants, I repeat no coal plants but the nutters running the province gave us a carbon tax, insanity.
NC:
You hit some hot buttons for me.
The BC Carbon Tax is like the one just implemented in Alberta – it is a hidden sales/consumption tax used to “redistribute” wealth. In fact the BC government promotes itself on this “social” program. So does Alberta. It really isn’t about CO2, it’s about finding a socially acceptable way to increase taxes to increase government income for vote buying exercises, rewarding friends of the government and those they think will re-elect them.
Note that BC operates large coal export facilities so that raw coal can be sent west and the processed coal (emissions) can come back west in the air. 😉 Just kidding. Probably shouldn’t even say that as it wouldn’t be good if BC increased the tax on coal exports from BC and the US that goes through the BC ports. (They won’t, they are promoting coal exports.)
http://www.energybc.ca/profiles/coal/coalminingbc.html
Note that while BC exports a LOT of electricity to the US and MAY have plants supplying Alberta 24/7 the current inter tie flows would indicate there is not much happening at the moment. There is also flow the other way from Alberta to BC depending on what is being done with power in BC. Exports to the south are more beneficial to BC than to Alberta. However, the inter ties are two way streets.
http://bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/ExportsImports/Data/ElectricityTrade.aspx
Note that while BC is usually a net exporter, in 2006 BC IMPORTED 7 million megawatt hours of electricity from the US.
Here is the current inter tie flow between Alberta and BC for the last week – essentially zero – a bit of flow in each direction.
https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/our_system/transmission/transmission-system/actual-flow-data.html?WT.mc_id=rd_txmn_actual-flow-data
The inter ties are limited in actual capacity compared to stated capacity, sort of like wind name plate capacity versus operating production. Then look at the flow into the US. BC provides quite a bit of electricity flow southward. BC Hydro planning provided for over capacity in their hydro plants in order to have export capability, some of which purportedly was Columbia River Treaty specified and some of which may have been negotiated to offset things like not raising of the Ross dam which could have flooded the Skagit Valley back into BC if my old memories are correct. And still sometimes they have to import power. 40% of the time over the last 18 years, BC was a net importer of power. Hence, the desire for Site C on the Peace.
Not everything is as it first seems.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Full disclosure: there are power lines that run from the BC Peace Hydro Power projects all the way to the Oil Sands about 16 miles north of Fort McMurray. What other feed ins there are I don’t know but there are lots of substations and connections along the way. Looked this up on Google Earth some years ago for a project I was working on. The resolution in GE is good enough to follow the power pole shadows all the way from Fort McMurray to Vancouver and the cut lines from Prince George to Kitimat.)
How does CA classify the millions of dollars worth of hydro power imported from British Columbia during the “manipulation” crisis some years back? That turned into a bad debt they never covered….. Because they could get away with it. Pay up before we turn on the switch. Fry, freeze, starve, drought, all because CA really don’t seem to care about consequences of their loony energy policies.
The Sierra Club has been part of the crooked governance in Washington, Oregon and California for years. They conspired to remove the renewable designation from HydroPower for the mendacious purpose of creating a false renewable ratio and justification for expanded subsidies for wind and solar.
State agencies are inundated with agenda driven activist bureaucrats masquerading as public servants.
The comingling of efforts by government agencies, renewable interests and environmental NGOs showered with government grants is corruption pure and simple.
Don’t forget the bird shredding/cooking subsidy. If a coal fired power plant kills one eagle, the fine is huge.
Or some ducks in an oil sands settling pond.
The drivers are renewable and green. The technology is neither throughout its life cycle from recovery (i.e. shifted environmental disruption), to distribution (i.e. large-scale environmental disruption), to production (i.e. active environmental disruption), to reclamation. The “green” industry and their environmentalist lobbies are, unfortunately, exempted from their extraordinary claims, which causes misalignments in global science, education, economics, politics, and energy production choices.
Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident (partial meltdown)
With over 300 civilian reactors operating worldwide, someone has gone to extraordinary lengths to promote an irrational fear of nuclear science.
‘We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
The reality is PV, and wind require massive subsidies and that is illogical. If it were practical/sustainable it wouldn’t need any subsidies never mind massive subsidies.
A statistics Sowell conveniently omitted:
“There are about 2,500 of these golden eagles in California and the biggest wind turbine farm is said to kill about 80 of these eagles each year, on average. Instead of being concerned about this number, the state is looking to triple their wind turbine capacity”
http://toryaardvark.com/the-united-states-is-littered-with-more-than-14000-abandoned-wind-turbines/
There are now six big wind farms in California. Assume no more wind farms will be built and the five big wind farms are killing the same number of eagles as the biggest wind farm. The golden eagle will be extinct in California in just 15 years unless they breed faster. But propangadists say never mind this anyway the cats kill more cuckoo birds.
Thanks for the article, but nothing you said even matters in the long run. That’s because the zero (at best) EROI for wind power, and outright negative EROI for solar doom the entire enterprise from the outset. Wind and solar are just not dense enough power sources. We have known this for decades and after billions of dollars of research, this has not changed. The more try to depend on these power sources, the faster we doom our children to a dark and cold future.
And there is the crux of this whole discussion. What is the next technology that has sufficient density?
I say the best answer resides inside Lockheed Martin’s Skunk works in their compact fusion design. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
Imagine 100 MW on a 40 foot trailer. Fantastic. (Although I can’t find out where the heat exchangers go and they would seem to require just a bit more real estate. Sarc.)
Time to buy some long-term stock.
John
We have been putting reactors on ships for more than 50 years. No imagination required. Ours work too.
Kit, I was referring to fusion, not fission.
Lockheed’s Web site now says they propose to replace the gas section of power plant turbines with inputs from the fusion reactor. I assume this means steam is generated and run through the power section.
I could then see how a compact fusion steam generator could be sited next to existing thermal natural gas plants, many of which are around 100 MW, and allow dispensing with the inlet gas line and it’s daily cost of fuel.
As someone who has spent 35 years in nuclear construction and operations, it’s easy for me to conclude that shutting down Diablo Canyon is a big mistake.
And yet I don’t begrudge PG&E too much for deciding to close the plant. California’s politicians set the agenda for how energy resources will be managed in their state, and if you want to make a profit selling electricity in California, you must play the politician’s game by their rules.
And there just might be a silver lining to this dark cloud.
The easiest way to find out just how far and how fast adoption of the renewables might progress here in the United States would be to set aside the entire state of California as an experimental Wind & Solar Energy Resource Exploitation Zone.
Restructure California’s energy marketplace in a way which guarantees a 12% annual rate of return on any new money invested in wind power technology, in solar power technology, and in grid-scale energy storage technology which is installed inside the state’s borders.
Grease the regulatory skids for review and approval of new wind and solar facilities so that groups opposed to their siting and construction are prevented from obstructing fast track development.
Impose strong sanctions and enact powerful economic disincentives against the further use of electricity generated by fossil fuel and nuclear facilities, regardless of where those facilities are located, in state or out.
If California must be disconnected from parts or all of the Western Interconnection to achieve a full and honest abandonment of fossil-generated and nuclear-generated electricity, then so be it.
OK, we must ask the question, will it all work out according to plan? (Assuming there actually is a definitive plan, not just a series of pie-in-the sky energy policy documents.)
If wind and solar are everything their most ardent advocates say they are, then after a decade or so, California should have the cheapest, the most plentiful, and the most reliable supply of electricity in America.
How about it, all you Californians who are claiming the renewables can do it all. Let’s see you put your money where your mouths are and show us how it’s done.
BB
I do ‘begrudge’ PG&E for failing to influence state legislature for reasonable policies. The CEO came from wall street and was not informed that utilities are public services.
I also worked at the Rancho Seco that PG&E helped close so their nuke plant could be put in the rate base.
Retired Kit P, having spent the early part of my career passing through the nuclear industry’s many trials and tribulations in learning how to build a nuclear plant to the NRC’s standards while staying on schedule and on budget, I am empathetic with your feelings concerning PG&E’s decision to appease California’s eco-politicians.
And about the time we got it all figured out in the mid to late 1980’s, the market for nuclear plants evaporated.
We have to remember that in today’s energy marketplace, going with anything other than natural gas for power generation is strictly a public policy decision.
That said, the green politicians have convinced a majority of California’s voters that wind and solar backed by energy storage technology can handle all of the state’s power needs.
Sure it’s hogwash. But most of California’s energy customers now think that converting to wind and solar is the best long term solution for their energy needs.
OK, all you Californians, that’s fine. Just be that way.
How should private enterprise handle a situation like the one that now exists in California?
If the highest priority for a corporation is to make a profit for the investors, then it’s best for corporate leadership to believe the customer is always right.
Just charge the customers what it costs to deliver the product plus a reasonable profit; give them what they say they want; and then go on about the company business of making a buck for the stockholders.
If California ever restructures its energy marketplace so as to guarantee a 12% annual rate of return on all new money invested in wind and solar, I’d personally have no qualms about joining the mad stampede to cover every open piece of ground in the state with a windmill or a solar panel.
Roger writes “Renewable power plants are preventing the grid from experiencing blackouts.”
This is not universally true.
When renewable plants are not producing because of the long-known problems of no sun, no wind, such renewable plants cannot ever prevent the grids from having blackouts. And that down time is more than half the time.
To the contrary, at such times fossil and nuclear backup power keeps the concept of renewable grids alive in the hearts of some.
It would be a more frequent claim that fossil and nuclear backups are preventing the grid from experiencing blackouts when wind and sun fail, but that again is not universally true.
While I have become accustomed to expect double-speak from lawyers, I have encountered it less commonly from engineers.
Maybe this is because engineers try to get the right answer 100% of the time, especially when lives depend on the quality of their work; but lawyers in adversarial situations know that on average, they have to settle for the right judgement only 50% of the time.
Roger seems to provide a walking example where combining engineering and law in one person leads to a joint probability of being right about 1% of the time.
That is not universally true either. It depends on your definition of ‘right’. Probably Roger has his definition, I have mine and mine is strict.
Roger Sowell June 25, 2016 at 8:31 pm
Roger, you started out by saying:
When you claim that renewable energy can not only cut it in California but is “surprisingly positive” without saying one damn word about the horrendous subsidies that are required to keep the edifice propped up, you are indeed selling the California plan. You have put out claims that are all roses, and you made absolutely no mention of the fact that consumers and the taxpayers and the poor are paying through the nose for your damn renewable power.
The California story is not “surprisingly positive”, that’s hype. When you give an industry billions of dollars in subsidies, you don’t get to claim that market penetration proves success. That’s lawyerly BS of the highest order.
So yes, Roger, you are acting just like a used car salesman. You talk all about how great the car is, but you don’t mention a single one of the ongoing problems that drive the car’s operating cost up through the roof. As a lawyer, I’m sure that you are very familiar with the concept of “lying by omission”. You’re telling the truth … but not the whole truth, and that means that you are just another useless salesman.
w.
Willis, the words you are complaining about in the article’s first paragraph were written by Anthony Watts, the host of WUWT.
I suggest you take this up with him.
My words begin with “From CAISO, record-setting renewable production.
A lot of good…”
I’ll be interested to read your response.
But, as I have a full schedule today, it won’t be until around 6 pm PDT.
Roger, thanks for the clarification, you are correct.
However, your own words start with:
so despite my error, my point still stands completely unaltered—you are indeed selling the California plan. Those plants are not doing “a lot of good”. They are horribly expensive, wildly intermittent, and they are driving my electricity costs through the roof.
And that, I can assure you, is not good … well, it’s not good for anybody who is not some ambulance-chasing lawyer desperately trying to sell the California plan. For you, I guess it’s great … except for the unimportant details that you’ve carefully avoided, which are that meanwhile the poor get shafted, we get blackouts and brownouts, and my rates go up in order to subsidize rooftop solar for the rich.
Sorry, amigo … that’s not “good” on anybody’s planet.
w.
Willis, that’s a very weak reply. You insulted the host and made no apology to him. Where are your manners?
The point of this post, of course, is the California grid is stable and providing power to those who want and need it, at least that is true thus far this summer. The renewables are adding a significant amount to the grid at 150,000 to 200,000 MWh daily, thus preventing a blackout or brownout. Several state agencies have stated the grid is on the edge of blackouts with the Aliso Canyon storage facility not able to meet the gas delivery requirements as it has done in the past. Those are the facts.
That is the “lot of good” I refer to, as anyone who can read will understand. Or, perhaps you would prefer the grid to destabilize and have blackouts during the heat of the summer, with thousands of people ill or dying from the heat. Turning off the renewables would do exactly that.
I also noticed that you have not provided your proposals to make the California grid a low-cost operation as I requested above. Exactly what changes would you make? You can get a start on what to consider at
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/designing-electrical-grid-from-scratch.html
Another statistics Sowell conveniently omitted:
“Two factors led to a major shift in causes of multiple mortality events (MMEs) in bats at around 2000: the global increase of industrial wind-power facilities and the outbreak of white-nose syndrome in North America. Collisions with wind turbines and white-nose syndrome are now the leading causes of reported MMEs in bats.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.12064/abstract
Wind turbines are now the leading cause of bat deaths worldwide. But propangandists say never mind that too anyway fungus is also killing bats.
I’m with w. Why? Only if you value wind and solar as so inherently preferable to such a degree to warrant removing by force of government more reliable and inherently less costly sources.
In so far as nuclear, subsidy and the environment is concerned, 95% of total output of wind fields in the fourth largest wind producing state in the nation as of 2013 is equal to the annual production of one of two nukes being forced out of business by the partnership of wind and government. Exelon is begging the state for a level playing field to keep open a 150 acre site with 14,150 acres of conservation and recreation. That or build another 122,000 acres of bird and bat choppers with no conservation or recreation and a statewide skyline dominated by Big (Brother) Wind. Doubling the subsidies in order to enable them to double the rates. And have the local utility send us monthly reminders that we use too much of their product. Oh, I forgot, it’s two nukes so double the bad stuff. Again, Why?
What is Roger going to claim next? San Diego is better at snow removal because they started keeping records on snow days closing schools and achieved a record of zero days putting Chicago to shame.
As others have pointed out and Roger has glossed over, California imports one third of its power. That is EPIC FAILURE. The rolling blackouts in 2000/2001 is another example of epic failure. California does not learn from history.
The great utilities always produce more power than their customers need, selling the cheapest power to their own customers. Neighbor utilities would buy the higher cost surplus power because it was often cheaper than their costs. My first nuke plant startup after getting out of the navy was for one of these great companies. Because the PUC said the nuke plant was not needed, the utility could not put it in the rate base. The utility did not fight it in court. At the end of the month, a bill was sent to all customers apologizing for the higher cost power made with oil. The cheaper nuclear generated power was sold to NYC. That did not go over very well and the PUC relented putting the nuke plant in the rate base.
Good utilities import part of the year and export part of the year with close to a zero net balance.
Bad utilities fail to meet their customer’s needs.
Wind and solar are bad engineering ideas ideas. Utilities would only do a token amount for public relations. A 1% renewable mix is not going to adversely affect the rate base. Increasing the mandate for renewable power will initially result ‘record setting’ amounts but that is not sustainable. Just like last time from the Carter era, the bad ideas will go away for a generation. Then some inexperience POTUS and governors will say they a good idea.
Perhaps you should run up to Iowa and tell them that their low power prices, stable grid, and 30 percent (and higher) average amount of wind power on their grid is a (what did you call it? oh yes) “bad engineering ideas ideas.”
I’m sure they will be delighted and impressed to hear your expert views.
And, let’s explore your views on importing power from other states. Should California refuse to import power from the Hoover Dam, hundreds of miles away in another state? Was the federal government wrong to build Hoover Dam and produce power from it, with the express purpose of sending that power to Southern California?
How about nuclear power from the Palo Verde plant near Phoenix, again hundreds of miles away in another state? If California is not importing the nuclear power, exactly who will buy that 900-plus MW of electricity from Phoenix? Are you advocating shutting down one-third of that triple-reactor plant?
And what should California do about the offer to sell power from the states of Washington, and Oregon, who have excess power to sell? Should California say no, we would like to build our own power plants and you can let yours sit idle?
Just curious how this works in your mind.
Lived in Iowa for a while working at a nuke plant. Low power prices and a stable grid. Might have something to do with being close to Powder River coal. Of course this is before wind farms in Iowa because the California experience showed that that generation of wind turbine was a bad engineering idea.
Roger like many in California do not understand leadership. The resurgence of wind farms in the US started in Texas under governor Bush and a modest requirement. Thanks to the ignorant policies of Clinton, natural gas prices became very volatile. The 2005 Energy Bill provided incentives for many things. Iowa and the rest of the corn belt rapidly supplied ethanol. Places like Iowa and the PNW jumped on collecting PTC money.
So A) California has not provided leadership; and B) in 2016 and fracking as stabilized natural gas prices. So, yes wind and solar are still terrible engineering ideas. Good engineers can make bad ideas work part of the time.
“Should California refuse to import power from the Hoover Dam, hundreds of miles away in another state? ”
Notice how good Roger is at debating but ignorant of good practices. What California should do is what everyone else has done since Hoover Dam was built. Build coal and then nuke plants to meet growing demand.
Just for the record, Lake Mead is not doing very well. One of the places we winter. Water level is way down.
“California is not importing the nuclear power, exactly who will buy that 900-plus MW of electricity from Phoenix?”
Again, Roger is ignoring all the fossil plants in the southwest.
“And what should California do about the offer to sell power ….”
For those who do not know, the state of California demanded that the the federal government sell power to California destroying a vibrant aluminum industry.
Here is how it used to work. Power from the PNW would go south in the summer and the southwest would send power north in the winter. Liberal governors in Washington State and Oregon have been trying to close the coal plants that serve Seattle and Portland for 20 years. Like Roger, they want the nuke plant closed too.
Here is the problem. One out five years is a drought year. Natural gas pipelines are at capacity. It gets in winter.
So the grid works well for sending power to California. If things are tight, Roger should be praying for the coal and nuke plants here along with a mild summer. Sometimes there is no excess power to send.
For those who have an expert opinion on how to change the California grid to meet their agendas, here is a partial list of issues to consider when making changes to a grid.
1. Power grid first of all, must be safe
2. Power grid second, must be reliable
3. Power grid third, must sell affordable power
4. Utilities must obtain a reasonable return on investment
5. Power grid must meet all demand conditions, all the time
6. Account for variations in demand daily, weekends, seasonal
7. Account for planned and unplanned asset outages
8. Account for adverse weather, earthquakes, fire, flood, wind, tsunami
9. Account for blackouts and brownouts
10. Account for fuel supply issues including disruptions (coal, natural gas, etc)
11. Account for available space (if any) on railroads for coal
12. Account for growth in demand, if any
13. Account for environmental impacts – wildlife, air, water, soil, radiation, noise, explosion, etc
14. Account for transmission and distribution systems
15. Account for customers’ ability to pay – poor, elderly, etc
16. Account for power attributes as attracting commerce and industry
17. Pricing must also pay utility for fuel and other operating costs
18. Account for critical services – hospitals, life-support systems at residences, etc
19. Account for cooling water, river, lake, ocean, or air-cooling, mixed-cooling
20. Account for customers’ installation of solar on property, and wind – will you buy from individuals?
21. Account for other states with offers to sell power to California, yes, no, what conditions
22. Account for large industry or commercial sites that self-generate, will you be their backup?
23. Account for large industry or commercial sites that produce excess – will you buy?
24. Account for location, siting, of generating assets, and environmental justice issues
25. Account for location and siting of transmission assets, distribution assets
26. Will you cooperate in a regional grid, or a very large regional grid?
27. For experimental technologies that need research and development – will you fund this? How?
28. How will you determine acceptable pollution emissions to air, water, soil, and via radiation?
29. What levels of animal, bird, fish, and other marine life’s deaths will you accept and how to justify these?
30. What level of grid reliability will you deem acceptable, and how to justify this? 99% or higher?
31. How will you ensure that grid reliability is uniform across all areas, so no group is discriminated against?
32. How will you price the power sales, by residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, or other method?
33. Will you have a flat rate, or a tiered pricing system, and why?
34. Will you encourage efficiency in use, or profligacy, or be neutral, and why?
35. How will you address energy profligacy by a rich few, and the increased generation assets?
36. If nuclear is part of your assets, who pays for a nuclear disaster and related deaths? Property damage?
37. How will you bring electricity to a very small user in remote areas? Not at all?
38. Will you install above-ground or in-ground distribution, where and why?
39. Will you allow distributed generation, if so, at what size and where?
40. How will you address the disparity in use vs location in California, with coastal areas
. having mild summers and winters thus low usage, but inland areas
. having hot summers and cold winters thus much higher usage?
41. For gas-fired peaker plants, if you have those, how will you regulate their use?
42. For large hydroelectric plants, if you have those, how will you decide where to put them?
43. How will you decide when to retire an asset, either generation, transmission, or distribution systems?
44. On a daily and hourly basis, how will you choose which generating assets to run, which to order to stand by, and which to hold in reserve?
45. How will you ensure complete compliance with all Federal Laws and regulatory agencies, including but not limited to FERC, Nuclear Regulatory Agency, PURPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, various national energy policy acts, and state agency regulations such as California Energy Commission, California Coastal Commission, California Public Utility Commission, and California Independent System Operator, California State Water Resources Control Board, and California Air Resources Board?
If you have a silly agenda that is causing the problems, change the agenda. Last time the governor got recalled. You get a better actor. Instead of rolling blackouts you have forced outages from failed equipment and declare it conservation.