See, that's a reasonable price. I'd pay that without complaining haha.
Latest on renewables in California
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
Someone has to pay for all those lawsuits against PG&E.
"...no blackouts occurred when wind-water-solar electricity supply exceeded 100% of demand on the state’s main grid for a record 98 of 116 days from late winter to early summer 2024 for an average (maximum) of 4.84 (10.1) hours per day."
Pardon, but this is hardly impressive. A "record"! LOL
So, no blackouts when production exceeded demand! Wow! And all of 4.84 hours per day.
A little hyperbole going on? What’s your average for the year?
Here is something from the EIA. Mods, I believe articles from the EIA are allowed for public consumption plus it’s required to make a point.
The chart shows the addition of electrical capacity in the USA since 1930. I posted on how California is able to meet its entire requirements for a few hours each day, which is a pretty amazing achievement for the State with the largest population in the country. Have a look at the end of the chart. The contribution of new solar absolutely blows away new nuclear plants in the USA. Are the costs excessive? Maybe, but we’ll see.
As for coal, it doesn’t register as a new source of power at all. Bragging rights on cheap power are based on legacy power projects, not future growth.
The chart shows the addition of electrical capacity in the USA since 1930. I posted on how California is able to meet its entire requirements for a few hours each day, which is a pretty amazing achievement for the State with the largest population in the country. Have a look at the end of the chart. The contribution of new solar absolutely blows away new nuclear plants in the USA. Are the costs excessive? Maybe, but we’ll see.
As for coal, it doesn’t register as a new source of power at all. Bragging rights on cheap power are based on legacy power projects, not future growth.
Last edited:
Honestly I am not understanding this post.
It's also stats from 8 years ago that you have posted. But I THINK this chart below has something to do with "initial operating year" 2016
SO I take it as solar "additions" to the gird blow away nuclear as not many new plants came online, But nuclear power generation in the USA blows away solar. I do see all renewable combined (wind etc) might match or slightly exceed nuclear?
Here is what I am talking about (no idea if we are talking about the same thing)
But this is 2024 "planned" since we have barely any nuclear plants planned why its only 1.1 GW which is of course in the Southeast Vogtle Unit 4 (GA) South Carolina MAY restart construction of its two never completed plants. It's a tough call but they want to encourage tech companies.
I suspect public opinion on nuclear is changing. The country has no other choice IF and only IF we want to stop burning fossil fuel. I dont really care and not taking a position on that aspect
It's an interesting subject for sure. One thing for sure, we need to build nuclear plants.
Here is an interesting read
"As you can see, nuclear energy has by far the highest capacity factor of any other energy source. This basically means nuclear power plants are producing maximum power more than 92% of the time during the year."
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
BTW- just discussing, not debating. I find the subject of energy interesting. Im not saying solar is bad but you need the sun to shine. Sometimes I try to filter out the reality of what is reported and pretty convincing is nuclear in that one link above. But doesn't mean it's the end all of everything. But if we (not I) want to get rid of fossil fuel electricity only Nuclear can do that at the present time.
Also when it comes to power production in California. Almost 50% comes from burning natural gas. Another 30% is imported from other states. Solar and wind in CA is 27% All rough numbers and finally a mix of others like hydro-electric.
Here is the CA mix.
Source https://www.statista.com/statistics/1287660/california-electricity-generation-share-by-source/
Last edited:
Thanks for your post. We agree on lots of things. However, I was showing that future growth nuclear in the USA is at an absolute standstill. For future growth, Solar absolutely blows away nuclear. There are no nuclear plants being built right now in the USA and the last one took 20 years to get it functional. Meanwhile, California grew solar so much they commonly fulfill their requirements for the the magical 4 to 6 hours each day. Yes there are challenges because California needs to go to storage to further grow solar power.
Contributors were commenting on their cheap power. They were typically in States that had coal power or very old nuclear reactors. None of that represents the future for the USA. Flame suit on.
I'll see if I can dig up another chart. I like this one because it picked up the rise and fall of nuclear power in the USA and the onset of renewable power. It would be interesting to see a chart pick up the even greater adds of renewable power.
A 92% capacity factor for Nuclear is great. But if you can't even build it in the first place, that is useless for the future. Lets re-group in twenty years LOL and see how many nuclear reactors get built in the USA.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Oi, that chart is nameplate capacity, not electricity production. Ergo, it does not represent the "contribution" of new solar, simply the installed capacity. That's why 91.3GW of solar generates 3.9% of US electricity while 96GW of nuclear generates 18.6%:
And yes, TMI and Chornobyl pretty much killed new nuclear builds in the West, which is why comparing new nuclear to new solar, the former which has faced considerable hurdles and experienced social license issues, with a source that has been MASSIVELY subsidized is a bit disingenuous. Yes, throwing money at something typically makes it grow.
There's also no argument to be made that NEM 1 and 2 solar in California isn't excessively costly. It's literally 10x the average wholesale price of nuclear generation in the US (per kWh). This is what the majority of capacity was installed under.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Then add all your other fees and I don't think what he's describing is hyperbolic at all.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I mean, it is inherently implied in the headline. Unless you are at least somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, you aren't going to assume that "100% renewables" doesn't actually mean 100% renewables and that there are other sources operating.Nothing more was implied.
There are other sources but if you look at the GW from solar it's the numbers that count. Of course they aren't going to shut everything off just to see how cool it would be to run on just solar. This will continue until it's evident to yourself that they can for sure run just off solar for those daytime hours.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That's what NET'ing IS. The point is, Joe Average isn't going to read "100% renewables" and infer from that statement that there's still gas loaded, two nuclear units...etc. I've had this conversation enough times that I felt compelled to point it out in this thread, and we had examples, IN THIS THREAD of people not understanding that. Know your audience.
Well, that, and the grid would collapse because inverters don't produce inertia and even little things like cloud cover impact solar generation considerably, leading to frequency excursions, instability and ultimately cascading trips.
So your assumption is that at some point, they ARE just going to shutdown all the other sources for 4-6 hours?
You are aware of what just happened in Spain, right? And that this was still with other sources loaded, just at penetration levels that weren't sufficient to mitigate the frequency disturbances. The cascade stopped when it ran into the inertial brick wall that is the French nuclear fleet.
Power generation isn't a game. When things go badly in the heat of summer or the dead of winter, people die. Your neighboring province had that experience last February, total VRE collapse and were on the cusp of a total grid black at -40C, which would have caused a significant number of deaths. While I appreciate the enthusiasm that some have for VRE, it continues to surprise me how advocacy and cheerleading continue to override critical thought.
No, I did not say they would shut it all down at all. All I said was there is enough solar to power the entire province of California for 4 to 6 hours many days a month. There are other sources but together they power California and export power at certain times of the day. I do not keep busy trying to decide where the export power comes from. I'm signing off now as it sounds too much like bickering. You may cheerlead for Nuclear reactors but they are practically a dead issue in the USA. If one gets built and on production by 2045, I'll be surprised. As for bad news from energy sources, Nuclear has plenty of potential for that. Nuclear power generation isn't a game.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You said:
That's the line I was questioning.Snagglefoot said:
You claimed that this being NET was obvious and didn't need to be pointed out in the OP, despite there being replies in this thread from other members that make it clear that it wasn't. You got pushback because the headline misleads a Joe Average audience, this isn't controversial, and pointing it out shouldn't hurt feelings.
Well, luckily I live in Ontario then, eh? I don't "cheerlead" for nuclear reactors, I want cheap and abundant clean electricity, and that involves a wide array of sources, which includes nuclear as an anchor, where it makes sense. That's the difference between us, I'm actively engaged in this personally, making things happen, working with government and industry, not just getting people fired up on a message board.
This sounds like a whole lot of copium, do better.
It's a silly three card trickpulled by states and countries that want to sound greener and more impressive than they are.
South Australia did it, bragging they could run the state on reneabels ... but it was nett ... they still had synchronpus machines maintaining stability, then relied on dirty brown coal for the rest of the day...oh, and they had a system black.
Spain advertised that internationally, plus made the statement below...againn it was nett, and...they went black.
Nearly two years ago, Australia could have claimed that for the NEM...but because we can't export or import, we had to curtail (that's turn off) a huge swathe of renewables so that we had a grid a few hours later...if we could have exported the surplus, I'm sure it would have been claimed, and forgot to mention the coal that does most of the lifting...as for batteries, we talk big, than the magenta slivers the you can't see at the bottom.
In short, a renewable grid needs another entire backup grid behind it to count for intermittency....neither that OR turning renewables off make economic sense
South Australia did it, bragging they could run the state on reneabels ... but it was nett ... they still had synchronpus machines maintaining stability, then relied on dirty brown coal for the rest of the day...oh, and they had a system black.
Spain advertised that internationally, plus made the statement below...againn it was nett, and...they went black.
Nearly two years ago, Australia could have claimed that for the NEM...but because we can't export or import, we had to curtail (that's turn off) a huge swathe of renewables so that we had a grid a few hours later...if we could have exported the surplus, I'm sure it would have been claimed, and forgot to mention the coal that does most of the lifting...as for batteries, we talk big, than the magenta slivers the you can't see at the bottom.
In short, a renewable grid needs another entire backup grid behind it to count for intermittency....neither that OR turning renewables off make economic sense
or one could forget all of the balancing and have power plants that can produce power 24-7, no mater how strong the wind is, or how much sun there is.
Oregon just demolished their last coal plant, and replaced it with? Nothing.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well yes, that's what my Ontario graph I posted earlier shows. Low emissions all the time, whether it's sunny or dark, windy or still. Here's the last 14 days:
This is one of the reason why I won't go EV and avoid electric anything if possible.
The Amish feel that way too. Can someone donate an actual California power bill the break things down? Thanks.
