California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Unfortunately there are some inaccuracies.

California needs a demand of roughly 25 giga watts (consistently) to meet demand.

The falsity to the article is that PV production only occurs with 2/5 of a 24 hour cycle. The numbers are according to name plate installations, not a "consistent output", like a nuclear power plant, or water damn can produce. Then their are also variables with the CEC ratings, (which by the way the CEC still has incorrect output of micro inverter harvest efficiencies)

California also see's a rate of exchange for inflated energy rates at 8%, no where near the level of hawaii, but still the 3 highest in energy rates, next to NewYork, and Hawaii.

Like I've said before after tax credits, and accounting for 5 year depreciation write off in year 1, california has been in grid parity because of the peak hour tier structure. So the capacity to build faster before the tax credits expire is on the rise.

As a contractor even though the CSI fund is extinguished, I am estimated to see 100% more output in solar builds than I did last year. Every one is scrambling for the tax credit, and write off, and we all know that PG&E is inflating their costs at extremely high levels. Fear of infkated energy costs by Sun Edison, SMUD, PG&E is causing the demand for solar installation to increase.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

gWh

When I read that article it was in reference to name plate installation, which is kind of in conflict of the true demand that is required, so when I see 18% in relation to true usage and hours it is only an impact of 3.5% not 18%

I don't think solar has even made a dent in the economic impacts, and any time california nudges closer to making an impact the utility companies raise their rates, complain and cry like babies to the state senate that something needs to be done about it, that they are losing money.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Lee Dodge wrote: »

Most interesting, Bill. It looks like today (3/12/14) during the middle of the day, that solar is meeting about 15% of the instantaneous power needs, and that wind meets another 6% of the instantaneous power needs, while small hydro and other renewables (excluding big hydro) add another 4 or 5%.

What does today or the next 3 weeks have to do with 18~22%? Its the beginning of spring, so not every one is running their heat pumps/ AC compressors that consume loads. I myself turned off my heat pump 2 days ago. Dead of winter, and middle of summer in california are where the peak consumable loads are, not at the beginning of spring or last few weeks into fall.

So from a realistic point, although probably pessimistic of me (the grump of the forum), the solar report you saw this year is almost really no different than last year. Other than spring of 2013 solar offset energy loads by 2.7% where as now it is offset by 3.5% annualized.

Not to mention those solar production numbers and consumption numbers, solar percentages go up, because truth is consumption has been going down due to title 24. Title 24 is the energy conservation policy, any home remodel now 50% of the electrical load, and 50% of energy efficient products has to be used in that remodel, from your insulation, to LED lighting, and buying $30 digital lutron switches for LED/fluorescent lighting.These switches even reduce load from a standard halogen. That's how lame title 24 is to save maybe $1.00 annualized per year from your home, you spend $1000 more in that remodel than need to be efficient in your own pocket..

I can assure you late spring until late august(why they call it HOT august nights) those heat pumps/ AC compressors are going to be working over time. Solar wont make a dent for every residential home that uses between a 30~40amp load just for the compressors, thats not even accounting for every one that does own that electric car on a 25~50amp load, or a fridge on its standard 20amp load, or a standard 1100watt microwave under 15 minutes of 20 amp load. Just the homes I install solar too, that consume demands of greater than 30~40 amps, consume loads faster, than a 30~40amp incoming solar load.

Not to mention California's LARGEST nuclear power plant was closed down last year. So when the article says 18% of total demand "DURING RECORD OUTPUT" no doubt about that, a 10gWh nuclear plant in California was shut down so now the solar numbers look more inflated. The article should of clued into the changes, and generating causes and effects that showed that percentage.

Solar is not the answer...

Geo Thermal to get people off ridiculous heat pumps and compressors is the answer.

Seriously there are new engineered techniques that you don't even need to buy a conventional fridge any more. There are refrigerant methods from Geo thermal you could centralize your entire home with for refridgeration and heating and cooling.

There are new techniques in harvesting algae according NREL that will not only produce bio diesel mass, but methane gasses! We are better off shifting into the technical advances of bio-diesel for renewable generation more so than what solar can do.

At the end of the day, I've lived here far to long in California, to believe an article published in New York by Rueters.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

jaggedben wrote: »

Wait .... How did shutting down a nuclear plant reduce electricity demand?

The output number based on the generating plants available is less, so the article is actually misconstruing the data.

The data is relayed only on the plants producing power, which those plants actually have to generate higher to their capacities, to compensate for the loss of a generating facility.

If you want to really see record numbers in output look back to the late 1990's. The whole title 24 was developed to reduce consumption to bring california back to 1996 consumption numbers. Mentioning record output is loosely based on the production that is generated only by generated facilitation, that's all it is, that's why the numbers are a joke. California produced a greater surplus of power in the early 2000's than it does now. The majority of our power is actually leased by oregon and Arizona, typically why our kWh rates are higher because of the importation of that power.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Cariboocoot wrote: »

So basically you think solar power is not viable?
Yet you're willing to allow solar installs to add to your income.
There's a word for that.

Yeah just like I live in the liberal state of California and I'm conservative..

Solar is a piece of the pie its not the answer to all of our problems. What I mean by that is not being dependent solely on solar, or we end up spending to much time in one technology. Apparently Nano technology solar cells is suppose to save all of our problems, but in the early 90's we proved Nano technology doesn't do everything it is suppose to do, with this nano tech cells will be 80% conversion efficient rather than 25% conversion efficient. We are some what getting there when you look at the process of how thin film is made, but not quite nano yet.


If we cannot break 25% conversion efficient in this atmosphere solar will technically hit a road block because power VS real estate is the only thing really holding the technology back. Population density is such a large scale that solar is not going to be our savor, because society has this condition to consume faster than we can conserve.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Lee Dodge wrote: »

These nitric oxide emissions are a significant enough problem that diesel engines built since 2010 are required to meet stringent emissions regulations that typically require NOx aftertreatment.

You may consider nitric oxide to be "the mythical dragon," but most scientists consider nitric oxide emissions to be due to the super-extended Zeldovich mechanism, plus a contribution from Charlie Fennimore's prompt NO mechanism.

As you pointed out that's an issue with diesel engines built since 2010, and a catalytic converter is required for that treatment.
Any fuel used on the market requires a cataylist to diffuse or buffer the condition of combustion cycles, and to recycle those emissions for a better burn off.

Unleaded vehicles and even ethanol vehicles require a catylitic converter, what would make any form of the combustion process whether it is diesel or bio diesel any different.

Per its energy density it emits much less than ethanol or unleaded gasoline, so you get more energy than the nitric oxide waste it emits. So its fractions smaller in nitric oxide than the power of what ethanol emits as a similar bi product.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

I doubt land availability is the bottleneck to solar. There is lots of land available on which to install solar that would increase the land productivity. My 6.5kw system is installed on a wetland, near 0 impact on the ecological functioning of the wetland and estimated 10,000kwh production of electricity, worth over $1000/year, which +/- is the per acre price at which wetland sells around here. Wetland is only one type of land that can be made more productive with solar and still preserve the function of the land, a win-win deal.