Oklahoma Charges through the Nose: Solar Success Attracts Fees

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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