Oklahoma Charges through the Nose: Solar Success Attracts Fees

[Longstreet]

Gas turbine plants can and should have a very high capacity factor - at present cheap and clean.

Oil is really not used today - maybe in the islands.

The EIA's numbers are a little out of date - 2009. I agree that Gas is probably higher at the moment. I'm not trying to put anyone down, just trying to balance out the mis-information out there.


Backup.JPG

[russ]

While your "facts" are correct, you are applying them in a completely incorrect way. You cannot directly compare nameplate capacity of all the different generation sources because of this little thing called capacity factor.

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

Specifically, things like solar and wind have nameplate capacity that is only achieved during ideal conditions. In the end, you get probably 25-30% of capacity over the long term in Cali.wind is generally considered to be between 10 and 35% - maybe 25% average. I have never seen the capacity factor listed for solar but it would more or less be sun hours /24

On the other hand, nuclear plants turn out close to 90% of their nameplate capacity. One year, the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station (in SC) produced over 100%! If they don't reach capacity in a year it is only due to poor maintenance planning.

That's why true production is a much better gauge than some fairyland nameplate capacity number. But the greens posting in this thread do so love the fairy tale number. Capacity is great when you want to compare one source of power's growth of time, but you are a fool to make conclusions on the totaled capacity. 10 MW of Solar or Wind or Hydo just isn't the same as 10 MW of Coal or Nuke.

Oil and Gas plants have lower factors because they are just to expensive to run for long periods, although I guess you could run them as base power.

Gas turbine plants can and should have a very high capacity factor - at present cheap and clean.

Oil is really not used today - maybe in the islands.

[Longstreet]

Production and capacity are not the same. Fact is that capacity went from 55GW to 74GW in 2012 (72 when deducting San Onofrio). Total annual production went down in 2012 because of the San Onofrio nuclear plant shutdown.

It sure seems like you have an axe to grind with CA, because facts are not supporting your basic argument. Thanks for trying, it's entertaining.

While your "facts" are correct, you are applying them in a completely incorrect way. You cannot directly compare nameplate capacity of all the different generation sources because of this little thing called capacity factor.

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

Specifically, things like solar and wind have nameplate capacity that is only achieved during ideal conditions. In the end, you get probably 25-30% of capacity over the long term in Cali.

On the other hand, nuclear plants turn out close to 90% of their nameplate capacity. One year, the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station (in SC) produced over 100%!!!

That's why true production is a much better gauge than some fairyland nameplate capacity number. Capacity is great when you want to compare one source of power's growth of time, but you are a fool to make conclusions on the totaled capacity. 10 MW of Solar or Wind or Hydo just isn't the same as 10 MW of Coal or Nuke.

Oil and Gas plants have lower factors because they are just to expensive to run for long periods, although I guess you could run them as base power.

[pleppik]

You're so full of yourself. I'm not promoting anything. I just looked for facts (you would be well served to do the same, but maybe it's an age thing, I don't know). Non renewable sources of energy will only be around for a century or two at best (two centuries is pushing it, but that does not change anything). You just don't have an answer to that basic issue other than some vague comments about it'll magically get better.

In order to take you seriously, you need to come up with factual answers to the basic issue. The rest is just political dogma.

Russ just uses non-sequiturs about Obama, "greens," and the supposed "religion of climate change" as a way of saying he doesn't have any substantive response.

So chill, no need to beat a dead horse.

[billvon]

You also need base load generation which is currently done by coal, gas and nuclear. Get rid of the coal and add more renewable and the tables can be tipped where there will not be enough generation when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. The process has to be such that you increase multiple types of power generation first before you shut down a large part of the existing.

Well, we've never done that before - we've never built out a significant surplus before we shut down older plants.

However, I agree that we need to do far more than just add one kind of generation and reduce another. Smarter load aggregation for load shedding, expanded HVDC transmission, improvements in solar inverters (IEC 62109 and 62116 improvements to be specific) are all going to be required. Adding renewables is just one part of the solution.

[Sunking]

Kyoto protocol dates back to 1997.

Yep and Canada got out of it because it was pointless and impossible. No nation has complied or ever will.

[russ]

Renewables only are not even going to come close - using what we presently have at least.

China, India and other developing nations use a small fraction of the power per capita that the US and Europe do. They want to have better life styles and living standards. In general they don't give a damn about global warming. They want the western nations to absorb the full impact.

No reason to make them happy on that point but they demand it.

[SunEagle]

Kyoto protocol dates back to 1997. 17 years later, we're still arguing over what we're going to do about it. That's hardly a knee jerk reaction. Non renewables are not going away anytime soon. We need to invest more in safe environmentally sound fracking, but at the same time, we need to get on with the fact that renewables are the only way we're going to have a long term future for our offsprings.

Just adding renewable generation is a knee jerk action. Renewables is just part of the equation. Take if from someone that has been in the electrical power and control industry for over 30 years

You also need base load generation which is currently done by coal, gas and nuclear. Get rid of the coal and add more renewable and the tables can be tipped where there will not be enough generation when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. The process has to be such that you increase multiple types of power generation first before you shut down a large part of the existing.

[JCP]

The jury is still out for me on how much the sea levels are really rising due to climate change but that is another discussion.

I am all for finding new and better ways to do things. I want to see renewable generation grow and I would like to see less pollution and waste.

What I do not want to see is knee jerk reactions that have little to no chance of succeeding that will put people in bad places because they just got in the way with progress or could be a hindrance to someone's idea of prosperity.

That is similar to putting the Indians on reservations and American Japanese in camps. The US was wrong on both counts but the people were made to believe through fear tactics that it was the right thing to do for their happiness and safety.

Change is needed. Although sometimes the way changes are made have consequences that out-ways the good of those changes.

Kyoto protocol dates back to 1997. 17 years later, we're still arguing over what we're going to do about it. That's hardly a knee jerk reaction. Non renewables are not going away anytime soon. We need to invest more in safe environmentally sound fracking, but at the same time, we need to get on with the fact that renewables are the only way we're going to have a long term future for our offsprings.

[SunEagle]

I don't disagree that creative destruction is a messy process, but that's also how our system has worked for ever. I'm pretty sure that the guy who made horse shoes was pretty pissed when cars came out and bankrupted him. Still, we're all better off for it.

As for the rising seas, it seems to be fairly well documented. Seems to me that the inspiration and enlightenment is on the side of folks who are looking at the future and trying to carve a different path. I don't see how much inspiration and enlightenment in climate change deniers like Russ (truth, I don't see any). Change is not a bad thing unless you're hell bent on doing things the same way for ever...

The jury is still out for me on how much the sea levels are really rising due to climate change but that is another discussion.

I am all for finding new and better ways to do things. I want to see renewable generation grow and I would like to see less pollution and waste.

What I do not want to see is knee jerk reactions that have little to no chance of succeeding that will put people in bad places because they just got in the way with progress or could be a hindrance to someone's idea of prosperity.

That is similar to putting the Indians on reservations and American Japanese in camps. The US was wrong on both counts but the people were made to believe through fear tactics that it was the right thing to do for their happiness and safety.

Change is needed. Although sometimes the way changes are made have consequences that out-ways the good of those changes.

[russ]

Portland, OR - 1970, In the summer you could not see Mt Hood some 40 miles away on a clear day - two years later you could see it clearly virtually everyday - except the 50% of the time when it is naturally cloudy.

The Columbia Willamette Air Pollution Authority came down on industry hard - just to follow the rules really. No change in cars at all.

Here in Western Turkey we get the pollution from the great green EU - backs up against the hills and requires a wind to blow it over. Get thick under certain conditions. Every once in a while about this time of the year I can see Midilli a Greek island some 70 km away - maybe 2 or 3 times a year I notice it.

A different place I had here I could see the Greek island of Kos - the garbage dump was on fire or smouldering for years - out of sight from Brussels so no harm I guess.

Most are more worried about being able to drive their EV in the HOV lanes that really seeing anything accomplished.

[russ]

Work in other countries - especially the 3rd world and one appreciates things like the NEC, UL listing requirements, some parts of OSHA even (though definitely not all). In India the company knows days in advance of any inspection of any type.

The environmental inspectors always find things in good shape and don't even have to lie too badly. The guy ahead of the IPCC comes from that culture - in the UN people take him serious and I think he is confused.

[billvon]

BTW, we've heard those complaints before as to how new regulations would increase costs and put Americans out of job. Guess what? We're still around and doing fine.

Agreed. Some examples:

Lee Iacocca: If the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” (1972)

Chrysler VP: Fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” (1974)

Ford executive: If CAFE becomes law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” (late 1970's)

No industry wants to see efficiency or pollution regulations that will cause them to have to do more work. But historically the predictions of economic or commercial catastrophe have always been wrong. And speaking as someone who first visited LA in the early 1980's - such regulations work.

[JCP]

BTW, we've heard those complaints before as to how new regulations would increase costs and put Americans out of job. Guess what? We're still around and doing fine. Now, that's not to say that every regulation is great. Frankly, CEQA in California is pretty non sensical and adds tons of unnecessary costs to any significant project here.

[russ]

Seems to me that the inspiration and enlightenment is on the side of folks who are looking at the future and trying to carve a different path. I don't see how much inspiration and enlightenment in climate change deniers like Russ (truth, I don't see any). Change is not a bad thing unless you're hell bent on doing things the same way for ever...

Creative and beneficial progress is mandatory if we are to survive. Knee jerk reactions by individuals and governments over half assed science isn't.