Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[DanKegel]

Why would you spend a lot of money on batteries when fixing the nuclear power generating system be better.

Batteries wouldn't be an especially big part of the solution; did you read my earlier post?

https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar/solar-energy-facts/302169-solar-to-provide-20-of-energy-by-2027?p=337011#post337011

You'd need some batteries at night, sure, but other techniques -- wind, efficiency, load shifting, thermal energy storage -- would carry more of the nighttime load, I think.

As for nuclear power being cheaper, well, I'll believe it when I see it, I guess.

[jflorey2]

I don't think nuclear is especially cost-effective at the moment, alas. San Onofre would be really, really expensive to fix at this point, and new reactors can't compete with gas.

Sure they can. Modern nuclear designs (like the AP600) require far less siting, less monitoring and are easier to maintain and refuel than older designs. And they are passively safe, which means less time/money for contingency planning.

If you want greater solar penetration you need baseload generation. And if you care about CO2 emissions, that baseload generation better be nuclear.

Why would PV not working at night prevent 25% RE penetration from being practical in, say, California or Texas?

As I said before, you could probably get 20% penetration in many markets. 90% (your claim that we were discussing) is not practical.

[SunEagle]

I don't think nuclear is especially cost-effective at the moment, alas. San Onofre would be really, really expensive to fix at this point, and new reactors can't compete with gas.

Why would PV not working at night prevent 25% RE penetration from being practical in, say, California or Texas?

Why would you spend a lot of money on batteries when fixing the nuclear power generating system be better.

[DanKegel]

Dan do you have any idea why building NUKE plants is so expensive?

Yeah, they're big and complicated, and people freak out when they explode It's a bit like manned spaceflight, safety demands are high.

If we're lucky, though, Westinghouse's AP1000 will have enough volume to get costs down. First one's supposed to come online in 2018, with three more following close behind.

[Sunking]

I don't think nuclear is especially cost-effective at the moment, alas. San Onofre would be really, really expensive to fix at this point, and new reactors can't compete with gas.

Why would PV not working at night prevent 25% RE penetration from being practical in, say, California or Texas?

Dan do you have any idea why building NUKE plants is so expensive?

Of course you do, you know exactly why. Because obstructionist like yourself triple the cost with Red Tape, Rhetoric, and fear mongering. You want nothing more than to bankrupt the economy and destroy the country. Why the hell do you think Democrats lost control of all the Federal government, state and local legislators plus 39 governors in the last 8 years. Why in the hell do you think a buffoon like Trump got elected? Because the country told you to get lost comrade, Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

I always knew the RNC could get a ham sandwich or shadow puppet elected POTUS against Billiary. To bad it was Chump. Anyone else would have been a landslide. But me thinks Trump might shake things up for the good.

[DanKegel]

I don't think nuclear is especially cost-effective at the moment, alas. San Onofre would be really, really expensive to fix at this point, and new reactors can't compete with gas.

Why would PV not working at night prevent 25% RE penetration from being practical in, say, California or Texas?

[jflorey2]

It's not just the governor. It's everybody who cares about the climate, which is a fairly large set of people in LA.
Watching temperatures keep rising, and the icecaps melting, is an ongoing nightmare; a lot of people are motivated to help solve the problem.

Great! The fastest thing we could do is restart San Onofre. Over a gigawatt of carbon-free power. Next fast-track the ~26 new nuclear reactors that have been proposed. That will provide the baseline power that you need to support a lot of renewables.

[jflorey2]

Hmm. Not sure why you think it's not practical.

Because . . .

I totally agree PV plants don't produce power at night, of course . . . .

[DanKegel]

My guess is that they are just saying what your Governor wants to hear

It's not just the governor. It's everybody who cares about the climate, which is a fairly large set of people in LA.
Watching temperatures keep rising, and the icecaps melting, is an ongoing nightmare; a lot of people are motivated to help solve the problem.

[SunEagle]

The current infrastructure handles nighttime power well; let's see what it would take to just keep using that for nighttime power, and use PV and wind to get to, say, 25% RE penetration.
With me so far?

The challenge is how to practically handle the transition from sunny/windy to not-sunny/not-windy; the existing infrastructure take time to warm up.
Energy storage and/or demand management can help with that rampup time, as could fast-starting NG peakers.

LADWP is currently doing a study to see what it would take to get LA to 100% renewable electricity; it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. They're pretty well attuned to practical, I don't think they'll sugarcoat their report too much. (Although I bet they'll still plan on some offset shenanigans.)

It will be interesting to see how they can get to that number. My guess is that they are just saying what your Governor wants to hear but in all practicality (if they can even do it) the cost to make it happen is going to bankrupt the state.

[DanKegel]

So you still need some other type of generating plant running a base load. That cost needs to be figured into the cost of RE and then use some type of % for when it would run every day or ~ how many days a year.

The current infrastructure handles nighttime power well; let's see what it would take to just keep using that for nighttime power, and use PV and wind to get to, say, 25% RE penetration.
With me so far?

The challenge is how to practically handle the transition from sunny/windy to not-sunny/not-windy; the existing infrastructure take time to warm up.
Energy storage and/or demand management can help with that rampup time, as could fast-starting NG peakers.

LADWP is currently doing a study to see what it would take to get LA to 100% renewable electricity; it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. They're pretty well attuned to practical, I don't think they'll sugarcoat their report too much. (Although I bet they'll still plan on some offset shenanigans.)

[DanKegel]

No, this isn't cost-effective at all. I am talking about practical - i.e. possible with reasonable constraints, like not bankrupting the utility industry, raising your taxes by 20% or diverting the Colorado River for more hydro power. ...

Do you agree they don't produce power at night?

Hmm. Not sure why you think it's not practical. I totally agree PV plants don't produce power at night, of course, but that doesn't mean renewable energy can't achieve high penetration practically.

[SunEagle]

Oh, you were interested in cost-effectiveness, not strict possibility. That's another kettle of fish. I'll post a reply about cost-effectiveness later, but for now:
do you agree that new utility scale wind and PV solar bids have been coming in well under the cost of new coal plants lately?

That type of power generation is just moving the target around. So coal is getting more costly and RE may be getting less costly. But I still think the math is slanted because the cost to generate via RE does not take into consideration a 24 hour day as a coal or other fossil fuel plant can provide.

How much does it cost to generate power to cover the times when solar can't or when wind can't during a 24 hour period? Also how much does it cost to provide power for an entire 24 hour period when RE can't supply any due to either weather or some other reason? It will be very costly to have a lot of Peakers all lined up running all day long to keep the lights on.

So you still need some other type of generating plant running a base load. That cost needs to be figured into the cost of RE and then use some type of % for when it would run every day or ~ how many days a year.

[jflorey2]

Oh, you were interested in cost-effectiveness, not strict possibility.

No, this isn't cost-effective at all. I am talking about practical - i.e. possible with reasonable constraints, like not bankrupting the utility industry, raising your taxes by 20% or diverting the Colorado River for more hydro power. It is, of course, possible to switch to 90% renewables very quickly - just make it a law, punishable by death, that no one use anything but renewables. It is not, however, practical.

do you agree that new utility scale wind and PV solar bids have been coming in well under the cost of new coal plants lately?

Absolutely.

Do you agree they don't produce power at night?

[DanKegel]

No, not practically in most places in the US.

Oh, you were interested in cost-effectiveness, not strict possibility. That's another kettle of fish. I'll post a reply about cost-effectiveness later, but for now:
do you agree that new utility scale wind and PV solar bids have been coming in well under the cost of new coal plants lately?