California generated 10% of it's energy via solar in 2015

[DanKegel]

Are you telling me that CA is not shutting down generating plants that use nuclear, coal, oil or other fossil fuel burning?

That's my understanding -- solar and wind are being added to the mix, they're not replacing anything in particular.

Maybe much later, after storage comes of age, we can start retiring fossil fuel power plants. Until then, they're needed at night etc.

California is certainly improving transmission lines, see https://www.caiso.com/planning/Pages...g/Default.aspx
But I don't think we have to wait to have perfect transmission lines before we start adding renewable energy.

[SunEagle]

Who proposed doing that?

(SunEagle isn't a fossil-fuel shill, he's a real guy, and he brings up good issues sometimes.)

Are you telling me that CA is not shutting down generating plants that use nuclear, coal, oil or other fossil fuel burning?

If they were increasing their own generating systems along with adding better transmission lines they could become less reliant on power from other states. They should then increase their RE sources. IMO they are putting the cart before the horse. RE is desirable but should not be first unless you have a solid base generation not dependent on the weather.

[DanKegel]

By reducing the number of power generating facilities...

Who proposed doing that?

(SunEagle isn't a fossil-fuel shill, he's a real guy, and he brings up good issues sometimes.)

[veritass]

Look. I want to see more solar and wind power generation installed. But I also want people to understand the RE is not the only answer to their power issues and have potential issues besides the costs of installation.

For someone who want to see more solar power, you have very little good to say about it. Why do you want to see more solar and wind installed? Here is your chance to prove you aren't a fossil fuel shill.

Admin note, veritass you are way out of line, SunEagle is a great mod and I believe a realist. Take a week off.

[jflorey2]

While other states could cut the cord to California, were NV ever to try that move, us Californians would simple stop gambling there.

Nonsense. People would blame a California politician and continue to drive to Vegas on the weekends. (Sunking, of course, would blame Obama.)

In any case, they'd still sell us power 99% of the time, because they (like most people) like money. They'd just cut us off on hot, still, partly cloudy days when renewables aren't providing much and everyone is running their air conditioners. (And of course they could argue that blacking out San Diego when it's 85 degrees there is not as big a deal as blacking out Henderson when it's 115 degrees there.)

[SunEagle]

While other states could cut the cord to California, were NV ever to try that move, us Californians would simple stop gambling there.
No power, no gambling. The state of Nevada would close tomorrow without Californians gambling there.

I don't think NV will cut off CA for any length of time unless there is a major reason. What I am talking about is the potential of short term outages.

It comes down to math and statistics not reports showing historical energy usage.

By reducing the number of power generating facilities you increase the chance of a disruption by not having the same amount of spare capacity in place when you need it. On top of that you put a higher strain on the transmission lines to get power from point A to point D where before you could get power to D from B & C which are now gone.

One major reason people fear climate change is because they relate it to additional bad weather and more storms. That usually means more clouds (less solar generation) and higher wind speeds (wind turbines shut down due to design being exceeded). Both of those add to the formula of less generation and increases the potential power outages.

I can go on to add in earthquakes but that is something CA would have a problem with even with more legacy power generation.

All I am saying is that increasing the amount of RE generation also increases the chance of power disruptions and black outs. Power generation is not simple or cheap. Even with today's technology it can be a balancing act to keep the lights on 24/7. Is that too hard to understand?

Look. I want to see more solar and wind power generation installed. But I also want people to understand the RE is not the only answer to their power issues and have potential issues besides the costs of installation.

[Yaryman]

CA has no spare capacity for redundancy. If for whatever reason AZ, NV, and WS were to cut the cord, CA goes dark with rolling Blackouts. WTF do you think CA has to import 30% of the electric power for. Because they do not have capacity. CA is Dependent on out of state energy.

While other states could cut the cord to California, were NV ever to try that move, us Californians would simple stop gambling there.
No power, no gambling. The state of Nevada would close tomorrow without Californians gambling there.

[DanKegel]

Does the paper Ulrich linked to help?

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-IEPR-06/TN205828_20150825T141913_Rachel_Gold_Largescale_Solar_Association_Comments_Report_Integr.pdf

It looks pretty meaty.

[J.P.M.]

It is not a difficult question to answer. The more excess capacity you have the less chance you have a brownout. And as batteries get cheaper, it makes sense to use batteries to even out demand, rather than invest in peaker plants and excess reverses.

http://www.brattle.com/system/news/pdfs/000/000/749/original/The_Value_of_Distributed_Electricity_Storage_in_Texas.pdf

That doesn't look like an answer to the question that was asked.

[ulrich]

It is not worth my time and energy to continue any conversation with veritass. His mind is made up and he just doesn't understand.

For those of us who are not necessarily as informed, it would be helpful if you could be more specific in what way veritass is incorrect.

From what I can find CA's energy imports have much more to do with price than with capacity.

For example, this site: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electric..._capacity.html

In 2014, CA's in-state generation capacity was 78,865 MW against a peak load 62,454 MW (source: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electric...ak_demand.html) - Admittedly the generation capacity is not all available at a given time, but it still seems like Sunking's absolute and extreme arguments are unfounded. While imports may have been in the vicinity of 30%, the implied conclusion that CA's production capacity is 30% under peak demand seems fallacious.

An assumption that CA's ability to import will abruptly be shut down also seems excessively dire. I side with veritass on the question of why CA needs to be energy-indpendent in the first place - The Pacific Northwest has massive hydroelectric resources that allow it to produce in excess of local demand - doesn't it make sense for this power to be sold to customers in CA if it can be done economically?

BTW: In doing some of this research I found an excellent paper discussing some of the complexities of integrating Variable Energy Resources (VERs) into the CA grid: http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/Pu...ort_Integr.pdf

The paper covers many of the issues hinted at in this thread in detail, and seems to offer workable solutions for many of them (the paper doesn't address reliability, but it discusses the complexities of accommodating variable generation in view of RE targets). Interestingly enough, the issue in particular that seems to create difficulty is that during the spring, solar generation will cause net demand to go below the *minimum* amount of power non-dispatchable generators will generate (i.e., the generators that can't be turned on/off will be generating more power than needed, which causes issues, because the power has to go somewhere).

[veritass]

It is not worth my time and energy to continue any conversation with veritass. His mind is made up and he just doesn't understand.

Pot calling the kettle black.

[SunEagle]

Well that means no you have no education or electrical experience. CA has NO EXCESS CAPACITY, thus why 3 different states have to ship power into CA in to make up for what CA cannot generate. Change your username to Dunnochit.

It is not worth my time and energy to continue any conversation with veritass. His mind is made up and he just doesn't understand.

[veritass]

Well that means no you have no education or electrical experience. CA has NO EXCESS CAPACITY, thus why 3 different states have to ship power into CA in to make up for what CA cannot generate. Change your username to Dunnochit.

The question is whether California can avoid blackouts and brownouts. To this point California has done a great job of grid uptime despite have a large amount energy imports. There is no reason this should change if they have more renewable power. It is just a question of grid management and cost. Why does California need to be energy self-sufficient? Why does that matter? Yes California average around 100% excess capacity when factoring in imported energy. Your brain dead thesis that an area called a state needs to have 100% self-sufficiency in power generation in ludicrous.

[Sunking]

It is not a difficult question to answer. The more excess capacity you have the less chance you have a brownout. And as batteries get cheaper, it makes sense to use batteries to even out demand, rather than invest in peaker plants and excess reverses.

http://www.brattle.com/system/news/p...e_in_Texas.pdf

Well that means no you have no education or electrical experience. CA has NO EXCESS CAPACITY, thus why 3 different states have to ship power into CA in to make up for what CA cannot generate. Change your username to Dunnochit.

[veritass]

And what engineering background or experience do you have concerning the power generating / transmission industry, to make that statement?

It is not a difficult question to answer. The more excess capacity you have the less chance you have a brownout. And as batteries get cheaper, it makes sense to use batteries to even out demand, rather than invest in peaker plants and excess reverses.

http://www.brattle.com/system/news/pdfs/000/000/749/original/The_Value_of_Distributed_Electricity_Storage_in_Texas.pdf