In 2005, California produced less solar electricity than it did in 1990.

All of a sudden we don't hear very much from Governor Hydrogen Hummer's Brazillion solar roof's advocated.

You will recall, if you've been on this site for some time, that a bunch of fundie anti-nukes were all over this space telling us how the Repuke governor of California - cranked up like Barry Bonds - was a great guy because of his brazillion solar roofs.

I said it was nonsense, and it still is nonsense.

In 2001, anti-nuke fundies here - a fundie is someone who cannot change his or her mind about dogma no matter how much scientific evidence is presented - telling us all about the grand solar energy future.

In 2006, they were falling all over themselves in praise of the pre-embalmed governor, because he was right with them in the ashram chanting "solar roofs...solar roofs...solar roofs. Om. Om. Om."

Meanwhile on Planet Earth: http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/ELECTRICITY_GEN_1983-2006.XLS

The units are units of energy. Um, er, I mean "Om," it would seem that the amount of solar electricity produced in California in 2005 was 77% of what it was in 2000.

Wind production in California in 2005 was marginally down from 2004, and clearly the non-renewable geothermal fields in California were in decline.

In 2005, despite all sorts of representations about conservation, California used a record amount of electricity.

Now.

I can't wait for all of the fundies here to start talking once again about Governor Hydrogen Hummer's brazillion solar roofs program. They've been rather silent on this matter recently.

Let's link it again:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/ELECTRICITY_GEN_1983-2006.XLS

p.s.
"Whatever........."

NOT. So, if ignorance is the lack of knowledge of some subject, what knowledge was lacking in the above specific arguments in the OP? Do you have some facts to refute the points made by the OP of which he (and I) are unaware? I would appreciate them. Thank you.

p.s.
"What's the point......" (?)

Why do you respond to the OP if you have nothing to add/say?

Nevermind. Whatever.

I'm waiting.......

I added a critique of your first response. A whole four sentences, I might note. Pretty cogent by your standards. Your max is three words. Pretty pithy.

Enough childishness, I'm going to bed.

In case you're not familiar with California politics, Schwarzenegger is a Republican.
He fought against the Democrats in the state legislature but failed to get his worst policies implemented.
So he put his Republican proposals into a set of initiatives,
and the Republican Clear Channel media monopoly tried to bullshit voters into voting for it.
But it was voted down, only after that did Arnie start working with the Democrats.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_career_of_Arnold_Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger was first elected as Governor of California in the 2003 recall elections and won re-election in 2006.

<snip>

In the spring of 2005, polls began showing Schwarzenegger's approval ratings had dropped to between 40-49%.<11>

On June 13, 2005, Schwarzenegger called a statewide special election for November 8, 2005, to vote on a series of reform measures he initially proposed in his 2005 State of the State address. A non-partisan Field Poll poll released a week later showed his support had dropped to 37%, one of the lowest approval ratings for any California governor and barely above the support of recalled former Governor, Gray Davis.<12>

<snip>

In the November 8, 2005 special election, California voters dealt a devastating blow to Schwarzenegger by soundly rejecting all four ballot initiatives that Schwarzenegger had proposed to reform the state government. All propositions were defeated by a margin of at least 7 percentage points. The two propositions most key to Schwarzenegger's agenda, propositions 76 and 77, were defeated by 24 and 19 points respectively.

The defeat left Schwarzenegger significantly weakened politically, depriving him of the one source of leverage he had against the Democratic legislature. Some opponents took to calling him "the One-terminator," a play on his popular role as "the Terminator" in films, implying that his chances of winning re-election had been diminished.

In the aftermath of the election, Schwarzenegger has moved back to the center. He has hired a former aide of Gray Davis as his chief of staff, and is working with California State Senate Majority Leader, Don Perata, for development of a bond, estimated in the billions of dollars, to accelerate construction of infrastructure such as freeways and waterworks.

<snip>

I am sorry to have yet another post with numbers in it and I agree it's awfully fucking mean of me.

We certainly wouldn't want our little fundie anti-nukes to burn any more of the sticky glue between their illiterate ears.

It would be far, far, far, far better to address climate change with a bunch of rhetoric being sure to insert my head up my ass while I say "by 2050..."

Now.

Hold your breath. Stomp your feet. When you turn blue, fall down.

If the anti-nuke fundie cult wasn't so pathetic, it would almost be amusing.

solar and nuclear first hand. I do have a problem with your post because the pv panels installed are not batteries in that after a year or 2 they are exhausted and must be thrown out. Any pvs that were in place in 1990 would still be producing power today barring them being transported due to the owner moving or the building burning down. Add to that the many more pvs that went into place afterwards says to me your source is bunk or misinterpreted and thusly your post is too. To add to this was the time period when the rolling blackouts occured due to a shortage of power many blame for barring any new nuclear facilities when it was a very hot summer with more people using ever more power. After that occured I do know the incentives from the state of California for renewable energy sources bloomed and created a large scale renewable boon to the state and imho helped stave off future rolling blackouts or their frequency.
Less generation now compared to 1990 is pure bunk in any state of this country, but especially California as their needs were great enough that it was a viable hedge towards a solution to a bad circumstance.
edit to add:
The Million Solar Roofs Iniciative was created by Bill Clinton and not A. S.. It just so happens it took the need of a state with an energy crisis with a republican governor to implement the policies of a previous democratic president. Their incentives are not as great as they used to be, but solar pvs are at an alltime high. These same incentives do also apply to wind generation, but wind generators are mechanical in nature and are prone to becoming broken and obsolete. They are still wide spread and still in use with few offline.

If "living with Ed" Begley puts some solar panels on his roof it will show up as a reduction in his demand. Anyone could accomplish the same reduction simply by turning something off -- maybe getting rid of an old beer refrigerator in the garage, turning up the thermostat of their air conditioner, etc.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want solar installations with no net power export to show up in these statistics you'd have to add their production to the overall demand on the grid.

Is this what solar proponents want, to point this out, to install dual meter systems so they can sell electricity to the utility at one price, and buy it right back at a higher price?

When you look at the accounting this way the overall sleight-of-hand is revealed. The guy who has solar panels on his roof has spent a whole lot more money, often taxpayer money, to reduce demand on the electric grid equivalent to amounts that can be achieved by much less costly means.

A guy can get rid of the old inefficient beer fridge in his garage and replace a few incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, and he's just as far ahead as he'd be if he put a kilowatt of solar panels on his roof.

Suddenly the guy with the solar panels on his roof doesn't look so special anymore... especially if he's building his system with my money. In fact he's sort of irritating.

Personally I'd much rather see solar subsidies going to projects that serve everyone. Yeah, I know an electron on the grid is an electron, but I want to see the solar panels that my taxes are pay for on places such as inner city school or public transit stations, and not as bragging-toys for affluent people who are probably consuming more resources than 99.99% of us do.

conservation often goes hand in hand with getting a pv system and most that are not into renewable energy DO NOT CONSERVE. You are also quite naive into thinking YOU paid for the whole system as incentives only pay a small portion. Also, know that many people do not get incentives to go renewable and get it anyway, of which I am one of them in a small way. It does not pay me to have it and you're out of your mind if you think profits are being made from installing solar systems for the home owners that have solar as the initial investment even in the state of California is far higher to the buyer even after incentives than you'd see possibly coming back in 20 years or more in many cases. Furthermore, many have to put up with those ranting about asthetics on the property that are going the little extra to do this and have to pay higher property taxes due to a major investment onto the home. Seems to me that benefits you. California may not have all of those nasty hurdles I have, but it's not peaches and cream for those going for renewables and it's not at your expense either like you think. If it was as you say you'd be doing it too. Solar does help everyone as another generating station would've had to have been built and paid for by you and everybody else too. Are you dumb enough to think they are free or that they don't get help on state and federal levels? The power plants get more funds than renewables do overall and you'd do well to admire anybody that would go to the troubles and expenses to produce power.
You have no friggin idea of what you are talking about and would do well to go learn something before opening your mouth. Power is not cheap and is paid for by all of us, but you don't or won't see it realisticly no matter the generating source. There is no cheap power. Then I guess you deserve more brownouts/blackouts while polluting the air with your mouth doing nothing more than ranting of who owes you.

That would benefit every taxpayer much more than the solar panels on some private individuals roof, and that would be IN ADDITION TO the public benefit of reducing the power network's peak demand.

Yes, photovoltaic installations should be protected from homeowner associations and municipalities who object to them for aesthetic reasons in much the same manner as communication antennas and dishes are protected. Photovoltaic panels have to see clear unobstructed sky in the same way that satellite television dishes have to see the sky.

I'd be quite happy to see my neighbors putting up solar panels if it wasn't at my expense. But quite honestly unless the system is connected to the network on a separate meter, we are never going to know just how valuable the photovoltaic installation is to the general welfare. I tend to think the owner of these system get the most value from them, and therefore we shouldn't be subsidizing these systems with tax breaks.

And I also agree that conventional power stations are not properly regulated or subsidized, and that a significant portion of the revenues they generate is lost to corruption.

Looking at the overall system I think we should be doing everything possible to eliminate the use of coal for power generation within the next twenty years, and we should start this process by banning all new construction of coal fired power plants. But you and I both know that's not going to happen. The coal industry is too entrenched in politics. The perverse outcome of anti-nuclear activism and the unrealistic expectations of solar proponents is that they are benefiting the dirtiest and most destructive power industry there is -- coal.

options for doing this than individuals in most states and as to your rant rehash you still don't know what you are talking about. If it were so lucrative for those doing this then you'd be doing it too so don't bs me and everybody else here. You can go on seeing the power plants get so much more of your tax money than renewables do and be happy.:dunce:

In fact, in many ways, it is complimentary to it.

Perhaps that is the simple point I was trying to make.

Solar electricity cannot displace coal. Mining and burning coal is destroying the earth's environment.

Until it can be demonstrated that solar electricity can displace coal I will continue to regard its potential as an environmentally benign power source as small.

When we develop alternative energy and conservation schemes that make the coal industry squeal in fear, then we are doing something right.

For now, solar electricity is no threat to the coal industry, and I doubt it ever will be.

As natural gas supplies get tight, California will probably not allow coal fired power plants to be developed within the state, but we will almost certainly import more coal generated power from other states with less stringent environmental regulations.

Promotion of solar electric systems does nothing to address this very serious problem. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to lump solar electric systems that produce no net power on the grid with other forms of conservation. Unless a person with a solar system on their roof is getting a check from the power company for the electricity they produce, then what they are doing is exactly equivalent to conservation. Reducing the amount of electricity used by a house or business during high daylight has exactly the same environmental benefits as installing a solar electric systems of similar ratings.

That's not "b.s."

power need without the pollution and green house gasses. Yes, there is a problem with current generation methods and I would like to hear what you propose as a solution.

http://sustainlane.us/sl-media-California_Leads_Green_Rush.jsp

California Leads Green Rush
Surprisingly, Oakland tops list of cities drawing more juice from renewable energy.


by Andrea Quong

April 17, 2007

Call it the green rush. Californian cities are leading the way to a rosy future based on renewable energy, a survey of the nation’s 50 largest cities has found.

Renewable energy use, defined as the energy used to power the grid, is on the rise in some American cities, according to SustainLane, the San Francisco-based company that tracks the sustainability of cities and which also conducted the survey. But, among the top 10 cities that draw most on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, small-scale hydro and geothermal, four are located in California.

Prompted by state mandates, city governments are increasingly weaving renewable energy into the fabric of their power grids. “You have this common thread,” said Warren Karlenzig, chief strategy officer at SustainLane, which publishes an Internet information clearinghouse for state and local governments on sustainability.

In California, Oakland tops the list with 17 percent of its grid generated by renewable energy. Its proximity to wind farms partially upped its ranking, according to Mr. Karlenzig. And the midsize city also draws on solar farms, run by the state utility Pacific Gas and Electric, and small-scale hydro power located in the Sierra Nevadas, he added.

Sacramento, which has the largest number of residential and business solar units in the country, tied with San Francisco and San Jose for second place. Twelve percent of their grids are powered by renewable energy.

Portland, Oregon came in third after totting up a 10 percent renewable energy ranking. It was trailed by Boston, at 8.6 percent. Not surprisingly, only 5 percent of the energy used for electricity in Los Angeles was generated by renewable sources. And though New York City is testing technology that harnesses tidal currents in the East River, it’s off the radar.

Also, the green rush isn’t confined to California. In Austin, Texas, where residents and businesses can opt for renewable energy, the city not only supplies electricity from the grid via renewable sources―mainly wind―but it also allows startups with innovative technologies to use the grid as a testing ground, Mr. Karlenzig said.

More Greenbacks for Startups
In the future, cities yearning for more green will get a much-needed push from startups. U.S. venture investments in energy-technology startups nearly tripled to $2.4 billion in 2006, according to an annual report put out by cleantech research and publishing firm, Clean Edge. It also predicted that the global market for solar cells will grow from $15.6 billion in 2006 to $69.3 billion in 2016, and the wind power market will increase from $17.9 billion in 2006 to $60.8 billion in 2016.

That massive trend will eventually translate into a rush of greenbacks for alternative energy startups, like Palo Alto, California-based solar cell-maker, Nanosolar, and GreenVolts, a Berkeley, California-based maker of rooftop solar-electric systems.

It's our dependence on natural gas that makes me nervous... Just like Germany, it's gonna be "Hello Coal."

Grid-connected PV installations in California increased from 2.3 MW in 1990 to 139 MW in 2005...

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/emerging_renewables/GRID-CONNECTED_PV.PDF

Nine parabolic trough power plants with a combined capacity of 354 MW(e) have been operating CA since the 1980's

http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-234.pdf

Any changes in CA solar power generation reflect accounting uncertainties (i.e., accounting production from small residential PV arrays) and inter-annual variation in PT plant output due to O&M.

California PV and Concentrating Solar Thermal Electric capacity is booming...

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/2007/morse_look_us_csp_market.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/emerging_renewables/GRID-CONNECTED_PV.PDF

...and anyone that tells you otherwise invents make-believe molten salt breeder reactors in his apartment...

(note: there are no new nuclear plants in development in CA - republics are trying to build them, but CA Democrats have thwarted them so far)

renewable toys excluding hydropower have never matched nuclear power's production.

Of course, there are ZERO anti-nuke fundies who can explain why after not building a reactor for several decades, all of the cute yuppie renewable toys we hear about have yet to match nuclear power combined.

I note that I produced the State's - not mine, but the State's - report on energy production by all power means. California's nuclear industry is, excepting hydro, the largest form of climate change gas free energy.

There are ZERO anti-nuke fundies who seem to recognize that solar cells apparently do not last forever and ultimately become electronic junk dumped in landfills. If one "installs" one million automobiles that has little bearing on how many automobiles are functioning and driving. In fact, that's why they have junk yards.

The solar industry - which has been next to useless in fighting climate change - apparently can't even keep up with its failed systems.

I indicated at once that the fundie cult would ignore the numbers, because cult behavior is indifferent to science - no amount of science can change the views of a cult, Pat Robertson's or Amory Lovins' and calculation.

QED.

Now, I'm not in a cult and I don't do chanting and I am fully aware that if cult members chant "molten salt...molten salt...molten salt...molten salt..." for 30 years - Amory Lovins did just that - it will not change the energy production numbers in California.

The point of this thread was to demonstrate that Arnie's little cult is mere marketing and as such, in an era of climate change is morally vapid.

QED again.

139 MW + 354 MW = 493 MW.

And that's the clear summer day at noon peak.

Sadly, clear summer day peak demand in California is something like 50,000 MW.

493 MW / 50,000 MW = .00986

Even if you massage the numbers a bit, upping your solar plant output, and lowering total peak demand by some dubious method of averaging, you are still trying to pay us one or two cents for a dollar.

The California economy is currently kept aloft by natural gas. If the supply of natural gas is interrupted, or if (horrors!) natural gas reaches that magic number where solar electricity is "competitive," then the California economy will be crashing down around us. How we make electricity will be among the least of our problems.

What's probably going to happen as North American natural gas supplies get tight is that California will import much more coal generated electricity from nearby states, or even Mexico. I don't see us having the economic might to attract LNG imports from overseas.

In the final analysis basing our electricity infrastructure on fossil fuels was a terrible mistake, and wind and solar power are not going to save us. The economic structures that develop after the economic crash will have little resemblance to the economy of today. If we are lucky the transition will occur smoothly without any serious social disruptions, but I'm pessimistic about that. I figure it's going to be like the Great Depression, and I pray it doesn't end in War.

Is this an expensive boutique product that has found a niche, or is it going to take over the entire market?

I think thus far it's a niche product, sort of like one of these:



Solar electric is useful because the peak production coincides with the peak load in California, but the price would have to fall beyond any reasonable expectation for it to displace existing baseload power power plants.

There will be no time in the foreseeable future when we can replace the nuclear power pants at Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, and Palo Verde with baseload solar electricity and the associated power storage systems because doing that will not be economically feasible, even with huge subsidies.

You could replace Palo Verde with renewables and storage and have money left over.

"It supplies electricity at a marginal cost of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, but the fixed cost per kWh for the plant's licensed lifetime is about 22 cents per kWh. By comparison, the three-year average production cost was 2.53 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generators in the region."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Especially for highly disputed topics.

:eyes:

They use an integrated approach to power generation that can be used as a model for areas with different resources.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:hrafo_BWLxUJ:www.davidjhess.org/SMUD.pdf+eliminate+nuclear+power+sacramento&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=usCase

Studies of the Greening of Local Electricity:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
By David Hess
Copyright © 2005 David J. Hess

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is the sixth largest publicly
owned utility in the country and is an independent local government entity that is
governed by an elected board of directors.
...
By 2003 SMUD had 553,000 customers and a peak load of 2809 MW. As with
most utilities, SMUD’s power sources in the early 2000s included both its own
generation and grid purchases. The overall mix in 2003 was 34% large hydro, 45%
natural gas, 5% nuclear, 7% coal, and 9% renewables. The nuclear and coal percentages
were imputed (based on statewide averages) from grid purchases; SMUD’s own
generating capacity was 57% hydro, 41% natural gas, 1.2% wind, and 0.7% solar. About
20% of SMUD’s demand was met by the Upper American River project, which has
multiple sites of hydroelectric generation and reservoirs on the river.
2
During the 1970s, when the antinuclear movement was at its peak, SMUD’s
Rancho Seco plant (935MW capacity) was a target of demonstrations. Although the
utility did not close the plant during the height of the antinuclear movement, in 1989 the
public voted in a referendum to close it. Since the closure, SMUD has acquired a
reputation as one of the nation’s leading utilities in the area of renewable energy.
...
Even before the nuclear power plant was closed, SMUD had been providing
leadership in the development of renewable energy. For example, in 1984 it built the
nation’s largest photovoltaic plant (1MW) at Rancho Seco. “One of the impressive things
about that installation,” said DeAngelis, “is that it is still operating at over 80% of its
rated output, better than expected performance for a new technology with undetermined
durability at the time.”
...
We now have almost a thousand
installations in the Sacramento area. We have a significant solar program that has been in
existence for twenty years, probably longer than any utility in the country. We showed
substantial leadership during a period when there was very little growth in that industry,
at least for domestic, grid-connected installations.” By 2005 the photovoltaic capacity
was about 9 MW AC and the utility was adding about 1 MW per year in new
installations.
Although solar is very popular with customers and continues to grow, it
represents less than 1% of SMUD’s renewable energy portfolio. Larger contributions are
estimated in 2006 to come from wind (45%), geothermal (26%), biomass (22%), and
small hydro (6%).
...
“Wind is low
cost, and we’re doing a lot of work to integrate it with the traditional utility operations.
The issue with wind is intermittentcy.
...
We have a proposal for a
pumped storage facility as part of our hydro facilities, which could add another 400 MW
of dispatchable power generation and would give us the ability to use wind electricity
generated when electricity demand is low. The pumped system would be about a 70%
efficiency, which isn’t bad.”

The number of fundie antip-nukes who can comprehend numbers is - and I hate to use a number here - zero.

It wasn't some dumb ass fundie unreferenced picture.

There is no sense in trying to explain to fundie anti-nukes the difference between power and energy. In general, they have the scientific educational level of spoiled oranges, not that I wish to cast negative aspersions on spoiled oranges.

Oh, and there is, as one should expect, no attempt to reference the number of solar cells that ended up in landfills as electronic waste. According to fundies, every solar cell installed still is with us - much as Jesus and Mary are still with us.

If...and there is no evidence that this will happen...the solar yuppie toys were to become a significant form of energy - the refuse of the brazillion solar roofs that were crisped by climate change would become something of a waste problem.

Bus solar energy in California, as well as on the rest of the planet is just an insignificant toy for yuppie brats, and so for now, its waste profile gets a "bye."

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA

Renewables + hydro provided 22% of the state's electricity during the same period.

Nuclear, however, provided only 17% of the state's power.

Looks like renewables rule in The Golden State...

I'm not going to let them play these word games,
they try to call nuclear a renewable for RPC's,
while seperating hydro from other renewables to make them seem less.

let acreage in other states do the work

That would generate a lot of renewable electricity, and increase the amount of fresh water we could export to Southern California. But the permits would be a bitch.

From the link you posted, jpak, "other renewables" are about 11% of California's electric supply. Photovoltaic solar is a fraction of that.

But natural gas is the most remarkable and frightening number on the list. Inevitably the coal industry will be in our faces when supplies of natural gas get tight. The rest of the figures on your link really don't matter.

I expect as the cost of natural gas increases we are pretty much doomed to take the path Germany has, and increasingly resort to coal fired plants.

The pressure to build new coal fired plants will only stop when government mismanagement, political corruption, and climate change collapse the existing economy.

was page 5 of this pdf: http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/emerging_renewables/GRID-CONNECTED_PV.PDF

493 MW * 0.30 = 148 MW.

Ouch indeed.

Of course the no-nuke people always confuse the the measures, which makes a response like yours almost reflexive for those of us who understand the math...

But yeah, a 1200MW nuclear power plant turning away 24-7 puts out a whole lot more energy than a 1200MW solar plant that peaks when the sky is clear and the sun directly overhead.

The statement that less electricity was produced from Solar energy in 2005 than in 1990, California, makes no sense whatsoever, as far as I can tell...

Well first of all it's 2008 (as near as I can tell,) so I've got to wonder why we're talking about 2005 (but, whatever.....)

Is the man claiming that solar installations were taken off-line in the intervening 15 years? That they fell apart, wore out or ceased to function? That the sun stopped shining? I tried to check out his links, but was ubable to open either one of them. But I think that he has made a statement that is untrue, can't be supported in any way, and is ridiculous in nature.....

As for the Brazillion Scwartznegger Barry Bonds etc. tirade-- well, whatever... I live in California, I'm no fan of the Schwartzman, but the Million Solar Roofs program is pretty good for our state. It's working, it's successful, and it's growing. Here's some good information about it:

http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/energy/million-solar-roofs/legislation

As for the Solar vs. Nuclear dance that never ends--- I don't really get it.

I understand that some people support nuclear power, and I understand why they do. I don't agree with them, but I understand their position. But I don't understand why anyone would be against solar power (or wind power) and be antagonistic towards it. Nuclear power has it's pros and many well known cons, but I don't see any cons associated with solar power. So I would think that nuclear advocates would be for both.

Unless they have a financial stake in nuclear power that is threatened by any rival technology. If solar power is as weak as they claim, then it's not really a rival.

Is it?

The numbers are solid.

If you don't want to use a microsoft product to open the file, download OpenOffice. (You'll probably want to get it on cd if you are on dialup.)

I hope I explained my disagreements in the posts above. The basic problem I have with ant-nuclear activism and unrealistic solar projections is that they end up benefiting the coal industry.

That's what has happened with the German solar and anti-nuclear initiatives, and that's what will happen in California.

Furthermore Arnold Schwarzenegger was directly involved in the fraudulent California Electricity "crisis" that preceded the recall of Gray Davis. I suspect the GOP charged him the messy work of covering it up in exchange for their financial support.

Arnold is a savvy player who wanted a high political office and he got it

allthough I disagree.

California is not and will not build any more coal fired or nuclear fired facilities.

California is turning more and more to solar and wind power.

I'll look at any normal links that anyone puts up-- I'm not downloading anything though-- but saying that California is using less solar energy today than in 1990 is not correct. Whether we should pursue solar or nuclear, or both, or biofuels, or clean coal, or geothermal are valid topics for discussion. There's good arguments for all of these that are worthy of discussion.

But if anyone says that we are using less solar energy today than we were in 1990, then I write that person off.

Coal vs. Nuclear is not my debate, as I reject them both out of hand. And I also do not care if the meter stops running tomorrow if it has to be powered by one of those two sources.

That's my personal viewpoint.

This is why I don't bother arguing numbers with pro-nukes - they don't understand the numbers.
See post #26.

Fledermaus (76 posts) Thu Jan-17-08 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
26. Not in the report, Approximat California small-scale photovoltaic output 203.3 gigawatt-hours
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 07:16 PM by Fledermaus
These hours are not in the reports

Notes:
This number only includes generator-reported electricity, not electricity produced by many small-scale photovoltaic installations throughout the state. Based on the the Energy Commission's Renewable Energy Program records, the state has financed approximately 135,517 kilowatts (kW) of solar photovoltaic capacity. Assuming that each installed kW of PV-generated 1,500 kWh in 2005, then the combined output of these PV systems would add another 203.3 gigawatt-hours to the gross system power totals.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power...

or perhaps "fraudulent" is a better word, to be constantly raging about the million solar roofs program and then refuse to count the watts that it produces....

The program is, in fact, a success and it is still expanding:

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/10/20/million-solar-roofs-program-gets-off-to-a-bright-start

But the real solar energy news in California is the solar thermal installations that are currently in the works:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/25/financial/f170204D70.DTL&feed=rss.news

"07-25) 17:42 PDT San Francisco (AP) --


"Pacific Gas and Electric Co. announced plans Wednesday to buy enough electricity to power 400,000 homes from a masssive solar park covering up to nine square miles in California's Mojave Desert.


"The San Francisco-based utility signed a 25-year contract with Solel Solar Systems, based in Beit Shemesh, Israel, to purchase 553 megawatts of electricity — equivalent to the amount generated by a large coal-fired power plant. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.


"The Mojave Solar Park, estimated to cost $2 billion, would dwarf the largest solar plants operating today, which generate less than 100 megawatts of electricity."

.....

California currently gets 17% of it's electricity from renewables and 21% from coal. If this project is successful it could change that balance forever...

That's what they do...

These hours are not in the reports

24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, then I'd be a millionaire.

That's the kind of math you are doing. It's interesting to think about, but so what?

If someone has solar panels on their R.V. or off-grid cabin or house, or if someone has a grid-tie system on their house but they still consume more electricity than they consume, then they are not part of the equations we are looking at.

Nobody pays me to cook my own dinner.

It really doesn't matter who buys them or how they get used.
It wouldn't matter if Donald Trump used them all to power a ritzy casino in the desert.
He's not, but a lot of them are being installed on supermarkets, which have huge peak load requirements,
keeping the freezers and refrigerators running while customers open the doors to get their food.
All of that is irrelevant, because the purpose of the program is to drive the price down:

They'd probably be a useful thing for someone to have available when civilization collapses.

"If I don't return ma, there's some solar panels, a rifle, and ammunition hidden behind a false wall in the basement. Don't let anyone know you've got them, and don't take them out unless you must."

If the problem is that we need to stop using coal, then we need to stop using coal. Solar electricity is not going to displace fossil fuels or nuclear power within the framework of the existing economy. To accomplish those environmental and social benefits we seek we shall have to change the basic structure of our economy.

An economy powered by renewable energy doesn't look anything like the economy we have now. An economy powered by renewable energy cannot be achieved by small subsidies and tax breaks that favor renewable energy. There's no gradual way to get from a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy economy -- the process will require a major reconstruction effort that will be painful and messy, and will probably be initiated by economic catastrophe on the scale of the Great Depression.

just signed a contract for a Solar Thermal plant that will have the output of a large coal fired plant and use transmission lines from a retired coal plant. There's a link to an article about it in post 36 above.

www.sce.com/SC3/dpv2.htm

SCE always has some pretty things in the window, but I wouldn't buy anything there.

They say they want to "support the interconnection of new generation projects and to help meet the needs of California electricity customers."

I don't think they'd be quite so vague if they meant to buy solar electricity.

Public policy will also have to address urban planning, transportation, and other issues of sustainability.

Something like a ban on all new coal plants and the forced retirement of existing plants, with the dirtiest least efficient plants being the first to go.

But that's not going to happen until the storms of climate change are tearing apart our house.

But this has to be done in the framework of legislation and electricity policy. Not some kind of edict

JEDKNE.
Neither does Al Gore.

"An economy powered by renewable energy doesn't look anything like the economy we have now. An economy powered by renewable energy ... will require a major reconstruction effort that will be painful and messy, and will probably be initiated by economic catastrophe on the scale of the Great Depression."

In spite of the fact that anti-nuke fundies can't compare two numbers, and in spite of the fact that anti-nuke fundies - and I love to repeat that a fundie is merely a morally obtuse brat who will not change his or her dogma for any amount of science or for any number of numbers - have been here announcing that "solar prices are going to fall any day now" they have not.

Now we have anti-nuke fundies announcing that 660 > 681.

When Orwell wrote the famous book 1984 - and I realize that this may be obscure since anti-nukes can't read and don't read - wherein the hapless Winston Smith was compelled to believe by the State that 2 + 2 = 5, he had no idea, I think, that people would deliberately choose to deny numbers without being tortured.

Of course, fundie anti-nuke brats don't give a rat's ass who is tortured as they oppose the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy.

Now.

The dumbass fundie anti-nuke community can do all kind of but...but...but...shit ass morally indifferent posturing, but the fact is that 681 > 660.

Got it?

And while we're talking about the illiterate inability to read, all the games of pretend in the world do not make 2007 (or 2008 for that matter) 2005. In fact, shit-for-brains anti-nukes were here in 2005, 2003, almost continuously announcing that the solar revolution took place two and a half hours after the last piece of data?

And why is that?

Because fundementalism is a faith not a science.

Now. Once more. 681 is not greater than 660.

Got it?

No?

Why am I in no fucking way surprised?

2005 is not 2007 or 2008.

In any case, there is no evidence whatsoever that the dumbass anti-nuke cult has any more clue about what is happening in 2008 than they had in 2005.

Basically, the anti-nuke cult is chanting the same shit it was chanting in 2005, the same shit it was chanting in 2001, the same shit it was chanting in 1990, the same shit it was chanting in 1980 when Saint Amory handed down his Oracle from Snowmass.

Meanwhile, people are dying in huge numbers from dangerous fossil fuels. The fundie cult couldn't care less.

In 2005 was the same shit back then. "World's Largest" solar thread after world's largest solar thread. It's been going on for years here and it would appear that the anti-nuke cult thinks that memories are erased.

Fuck that Orwellian shit.

Numbers are numbers. Tough shit crybabies.

It's like watching an airplane fall out of the sky.

Your subject line has nothing to do with the text. It has nothing to do with the thread you are "answering" either. You insult everybody and change the subject to nukes.

Sucks, sucks, sucks

op cit.

God forbid that people be allowed to generate their own power and be allowed to share their excess electrictiy with other people.

lu·cid

–adjective 1. easily understood; completely intelligible or comprehensible: a lucid explanation.
2. characterized by clear perception or understanding; rational or sane: a lucid moment in his madness.
3. shining or bright.
4. clear; pellucid; transparent.

It will not reduce our economic dependence upon fossil fuels.

Is that clear enough?

Solar electricity is not a bad thing in and of itself, and yes it's nice to share your solar power with your immediate neighbors, but mostly it is negligible. Even if it were to be installed at very large scales it would still be complimentary to base load coal fired power generation.

Solar electricity generation is in fact being used as window dressing by economic and political powers who fully intend to increase our use of coal as natural gas supplies falter.

Praising solar power without recognizing the underlying motives of the very large institutions that are planning to ramp up coal production will not protect what is left of our natural environment. While we are pursuing solar fantasies they will be ripping up the ground beneath us.

The first order of business is to shut down the coal industry. That's not going to be accomplished by the unrealistic promotion of solar energy.

No single source is replacing the others and all have their drawbacks. All get monies through your taxes with renewables sucking the least from you. You can rant about solar not being a cure all and you'd be right. Of all renewables I'd classify hydro as the highest potential, but all of this is not relevant to anything as your complaint has no answers and solar along with other renewables are at least a partial answer. If it is your wish to increase nuclear facilities know that I feel safety measures need improving with them and disposal of nuclear wastes given a high priority before that it done. This method of power generation does suck the most tax dollars to keep it viable even without what I stated needs done. For California I think it is a very stupid idea putting in nuclear facilities because of the earthquake threats. Don't let anybody tell you they make them earthquake proof because that is a misnomer. They are reinforced though.
Now given the fact that renewables have contributed great sums of power that although can't replace said coal, lng, or nuclear facilties altogether, it seems assinine for your complaint to be about it because there wouldn't then be enough power in California for all to use at will today. You give nothing positive with no answers and at least renewables is a partial answer to the problem. For you to complain that solar may not in all cases give all of the power needed to a household is very dumb indeed as it can give most of the power needed to most households. You look at the fact that there may be a few kilowatt hours more needed and fail to see that no new coal, lng, or nuclear plant needed to supply the power the renewables made with the brunt of the costs going to those that purchased the renewables. Those power plants are more heavilly funded with your tax money than renewables and the remainder you pay for anyway through your electric bill spread out over time and it never goes down and it never gets 'paidoff' with power plants.
When individuals start generating power you must understand that even if it wasn't renewable and was a comparable home lng generator that it seems more costly to the individual because he has to buy the generator upfront and outright without 'making payments' in most cases and of course he still is paying for the lng to run it. The costs of that may even seem small compared to renewables, but the fuel costs over that same length of time will far exceed the costs of a renewable system when put out over 30 years even if the fuel costs stayed at the same price it is today. You and most everybody else out there do a pay as you go with power generation from utilities. They spread out the costs to make it seem cheaper than it really is and your tax dollars are being funneled into these plants moreso than renewables. The cost to the taxpayor with renewables comes only with the purchase, but power plants are every year draining money from you the taxpayor.
Everybody can rant about any power generation method as all have their negatives. It seems funny that you should complain about the least polluting and least cost in taxes to you methods without coming up with any answers whatsoever. Like I said before, you really don't know what you are talking about.

You can't be serious. You advocate trashing what little is left of our natural streams and rivers?

California already has a very substantial hydroelectric system that is tuned fairly well to reduce peak power demands in addition to generating power. Climate change will almost certainly reduce its capacity when there is less snow in the mountains.

But more importantly this hydroelectric system was built at terrible expense to the natural environment. We ought to be tearing dams down, not building them.

Our problems will not be solved with "technical fixes" like solar electricity or nuclear power. They will only be solved by a massive restructuring of our economy.

This restructuring is inevitable -- things cannot go on as they are. If we don't deal with the economic and environmental problems directly and forthrightly by ourselves, then mother nature is going to do it for us by catastrophic means.

One way or another, our culture of consumerism is going to end, and it won't matter at all how many affluent or less then affluent people have solar panels on their roofs.

how do you see this "resturcturing" taking place? You've said it will likely be unwilling on our part, forced on us by economic collapse. Could you be more specific? What do you think is going to happen? What will our response be? Basically, whats your opinion on the future of American and global generation of electricity?

:hi:
Alec

The first steps won't have much of anything to do with energy technology. To hold ourselves together as a nation we will need to build a very strong social safety net to assure that all people will have food, shelter, and medical care even as the climate changes, the seas rise, and markets collapse.

This social safety net would include a single payer health care plan and guaranteed education and work programs for those who become unemployed and displaced by energy shortages, droughts, rising sea levels, and the like.

The quicker we get this social safety net in place, the less painful the transition to a post peak-oil society will be. If the wealthy withdraw and leave the rest of the population to their own devices, the Union will fail, there will be chaos, and it won't matter how many wind turbines or solar panels we have in place because the majority of people will have more pressing needs, such as obtaining an adequate food supply.

People who are secure in their persons are much more likely to come up with solutions to the problems we have created for ourselves.

Hydro does not have to be huge dams as there is something called microhydro and there's also paddle wheels that could dip into an already existing large stream of water, but you give no fixes with lots of rhetoric. If it's that bad for you and your ilk, please do us a favor and disconnect from your utility. Just think of all the electric and taxes you'd save on then. Heaven knows it will save some grief here with people having to listen to your uneducated rants on everything. Do note that electric production isn't directly related to economy except that industry will stop without it and then you have an economic problem far exceeding your wildest dreams.
Bye Bye Doinger.:freak: :dunce:

Crazy, queer, creepy, full of crap... but "uneducated?"

:woohoo: