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

[SunEagle]

The grid has a lot of redundancy in it to avoid blackouts. It really isn't that big of an engineering problem to factor in the variability or renewables to achieve the desired level of up-time. You just keep backup plants like we have today.

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

[Sunking]

Not any more. After San Onofre shut down we've been running on a lot of imported power in Southern California.

We do have a lot of issues. We avoided blackouts last summer pretty narrowly. (You can tell how close we are coming by looking at the CAL-ISO demand vs supply graph.) Traditional renewables will help in some cases, but not all, since demand is not always correlated to solar supply. Combined solar thermal/natural gas plants will help, as will straight gas peakers. We will have to build more of those.

You do realize you are talking to Green Mafia right? They have no clue what is really happening or how things work. They live in Fantasy Land of Make Believe. Example he has no idea for every RE watt of power you build, you have to duplicate it with conventional power to be ready to go in a moment notice. That means unnecessary cost to the consumer which Green Mafia loves to do . Utilities are not going to eat that cost. They have no idea demand is growing, and supply is shrinking. Each year CA gets further behind.

[jflorey2]

California has a lot of exess capacity . . . There is significant excess capacity in the electrical generation system.

Not any more. After San Onofre shut down we've been running on a lot of imported power in Southern California.

It would be a lot of issues if the electric grid didn't have excess capacity.

We do have a lot of issues. We avoided blackouts last summer pretty narrowly. (You can tell how close we are coming by looking at the CAL-ISO demand vs supply graph.) Traditional renewables will help in some cases, but not all, since demand is not always correlated to solar supply. Combined solar thermal/natural gas plants will help, as will straight gas peakers. We will have to build more of those.

[Sunking]

The grid has a lot of redundancy in it to avoid blackouts. It really isn't that big of an engineering problem to factor in the variability or renewables to achieve the desired level of up-time. You just keep backup plants like we have today.

You have no clue what you are talking about. 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. That is why your fricking rates are so damn high coupled with tiered rates.

In states like TX are Exporters. Rates in TX are less than 10-cents per Kwh. In most locations if you use more than 2000 Kwh in a month, the rate goes down, not up. You crazy effups out there have to pay more during the day during peak hours, and if you go over a certain amount get your rates jacked. You might like that, but I guarantee you and Dan are an extreme minority that need to just accept the facts, people reject your POV and need to just shut up and start building power plants before it is too late. AZ, NV, and WS cannot keep making up for the shortages, and no chance can solar to do that. If you think otherwise you have no fricking clue how power generation and distribution works.

[veritass]

I agree that the 20% point is probably a good one to shoot for. My concern does not have to do with climate change or what is causing it.

My worry is for the people of CA (or anywhere in the US) go to a point where they believe their power reliability is 100% only to be subjected to brown or rolling black outs.

I never would have thought that to be a problem here in Florida but during the Christmas of 1989 where we had very low temperatures and the power the state was purchasing from Georgia was cut off because of their needs. Since a number of Florida generating plants were down for maintenance the end resulted in limited power available which caused rolling blackouts (15 min off / 45 min on). It was not fun.

It is possible in this day and age that for some reason or another electric power is not available. Putting too much of your eggs in the RE basket without keeping a secure base generation can increase the chances of the lack of power when you need it.

Hopefully cheap energy storage will become a reality sooner than later and help minimize the chance of power outages but would you gamble on it?

The grid has a lot of redundancy in it to avoid blackouts. It really isn't that big of an engineering problem to factor in the variability or renewables to achieve the desired level of up-time. You just keep backup plants like we have today.

[SunEagle]

My back-of-the-envelope guess is that California could get to at least 20% solar without having to curtail nuclear plants and without storage.

I'm not sure why you're worried about brown-outs. The gas-fired plants that we're currently using will run less during sunny and windy days, that's all.

It'll take us a while to get to the point where we're curtailing solar a lot, and by that time, storage will be coming online.

I know, if you don't believe that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel is causing climate change, none of this makes any sense.
But the science is solid, scientific consensus among climate scientists and climate economists is solid, and the folks who deny that are an increasingly isolated minority.
The opposition to the idea seems to be solution aversion -- folks who think the idea means they'll have to give up their minivans and SUVs, and live in cold dark hovels, tend to disbelieve the idea.
As costs keep coming down for the non-fossil-fuel-based economy, I think the political party currently fighting it will flip-flop, and accuse the other party of being 'soft on climate' Give it ten years.

I agree that the 20% point is probably a good one to shoot for. My concern does not have to do with climate change or what is causing it.

My worry is for the people of CA (or anywhere in the US) go to a point where they believe their power reliability is 100% only to be subjected to brown or rolling black outs.

I never would have thought that to be a problem here in Florida but during the Christmas of 1989 where we had very low temperatures and the power the state was purchasing from Georgia was cut off because of their needs. Since a number of Florida generating plants were down for maintenance the end resulted in limited power available which caused rolling blackouts (15 min off / 45 min on). It was not fun.

It is possible in this day and age that for some reason or another electric power is not available. Putting too much of your eggs in the RE basket without keeping a secure base generation can increase the chances of the lack of power when you need it.

Hopefully cheap energy storage will become a reality sooner than later and help minimize the chance of power outages but would you gamble on it?

[DanKegel]

My back-of-the-envelope guess is that California could get to at least 20% solar without having to curtail nuclear plants and without storage.

I'm not sure why you're worried about brown-outs. The gas-fired plants that we're currently using will run less during sunny and windy days, that's all.

It'll take us a while to get to the point where we're curtailing solar a lot, and by that time, storage will be coming online.

I know, if you don't believe that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel is causing climate change, none of this makes any sense.
But the science is solid, scientific consensus among climate scientists and climate economists is solid, and the folks who deny that are an increasingly isolated minority.
The opposition to the idea seems to be solution aversion -- folks who think the idea means they'll have to give up their minivans and SUVs, and live in cold dark hovels, tend to disbelieve the idea.
As costs keep coming down for the non-fossil-fuel-based economy, I think the political party currently fighting it will flip-flop, and accuse the other party of being 'soft on climate' Give it ten years.

[SunEagle]

Using renewable energy requires CA to import less energy. Only if California severely mismanages their grid will there be black out and brown outs. California has a lot of exess capacity of emergency and high demand. There is significant excess capacity in the electrical generation system. It would be a lot of issues if the electric grid didn't have excess capacity.

If you say so. I guess no matter what I say you just won't believe what you don't want to hear.

If it was me I wouldn't trust that the grid won't be overloaded at some time or if the electric rates go up in a state that relies on too much RE..

Oh. Here is something you might want to read about the difficulties of clean energy.

[veritass]

Come on Dan. You know why the electric tariffs are so high in CA and adding more RE will not drop those charges. Look at New England. They are being hit with increasing "transmission" costs because they do not have enough "in state" generation to cover what they need.

Unless the people of CA start to really conserve there will be ""brown or "black" outs should the demand exceed the supply.

Using renewable energy requires CA to import less energy. Only if California severely mismanages their grid will there be black out and brown outs. California has a lot of exess capacity of emergency and high demand. There is significant excess capacity in the electrical generation system. It would be a lot of issues if the electric grid didn't have excess capacity.

[SunEagle]

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electric...tem_power.html says 2014 imports were down 2.6% from 2013 (due in part to transmission line service problems), doesn't have 2015 data yet.
So if it did go up 2%, that'd still be below 2013. Do you have a link to your source?

I'm not sure why you keep saying Calfornia's energy policy is failing... I suppose http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclem...e-electricity/ would explain, but it mostly says "electricity is expensive in california". It's true, when you actually fight climate change instead of denying it exists, power might cost a little more, but at least we're working on solving the big problerm rather than ignoring it. And since we waste a lot less electricity than most states, we don't end up paying that much more for our power. You know the old saying: waste not, want not.

Come on Dan. You know why the electric tariffs are so high in CA and adding more RE will not drop those charges. Look at New England. They are being hit with increasing "transmission" costs because they do not have enough "in state" generation to cover what they need.

Unless the people of CA start to really conserve there will be ""brown or "black" outs should the demand exceed the supply.

[SunEagle]

Good, that means they can avoid transmission costs by installing more solar.

Which only works when the sun is shining. What part don't you get concerning this technology.

Without sun or wind the only other major source of RE is hydro and CA has already seen it's share of less water than usual so I wouldn't count on that being the main supplier of power.

So what other power source "in state" are you going to tap to keep the lights on?

If you have to import all that power you will be held hostage to higher transmission costs and fees from the other power producers and the lines in between.

If you want to be self sufficient you need a solid portfolio of power generation. That includes all types of RE along with Nuclear and unfortunately fossil fuel burning plants.

[DanKegel]

Utility-scale solar has a capacity factor of about 25% near Los Angeles, which is a fancy way of saying solar provides energy for about a quarter of the average day. So 25%, I'd say. But with some load shifting, could be a bit higher, even without storage.

Well, that's if load is constant throughout the day. If there's more load while the sun shines, the number's higher.
Looking at http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html, seems like the peak after sunset doesn't quite fill in the hollow after sundown, so maybe 30%.

But you really don't want to curtail nuclear power plants, and they generate about 9%, so maybe only 21%

[veritass]

What is the Max California could generate with solar? 30%, 40%? without some sort of storage, I can't imagine more than 40% since sun only shines less than half of the day.

The grid always had a lot of redundancy in it before solar and wind.

[Logan005]

What is the Max California could generate with solar? 30%, 40%? without some sort of storage, I can't imagine more than 40% since sun only shines less than half of the day.

[J.P.M.]

My install was finished just before Christmas. Since that time we've had nothing but rain/clouds and it appears because of el nino that we will have that ugly weather through april 2016.

So far this year (Jan) I've made 208 KWh with a 11 KW system.

Typically is solar generation this poor in S. CA during the winter months? Hardly seems like it is worth the investment. What have others generated so far this month (Jan 1-11)?

Hard to say if your output is off. It depends on the weather of course, but also on orientation, shading and other factors. I'd check output on a sunny day.