Maker Pro
Maker Pro

California Regulators Adopt $2.9 Billion Solar Power Plan

H

H. E. Taylor

Jan 1, 1970
0
2006/01/13: ENN: California Regulators Adopt $2.9 Billion Solar Power Plan

The California Public Utilities Commission Thursday approved a $2.9
billion program to make California one of the world's largest producers of solar power.

The "California Solar Initiative," backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, aims to add 3,000
megawatts of solar energy over 11 years through the installation of 1 million rooftop solar energy
systems on homes, businesses, farms, schools and public buildings.

That amount of electricity would be equivalent to about six new power stations.
[...]
<http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9659>


See also:
2006/01/14: SF Gate: State solar power proposal gets OK from regulators
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/13/PUC.TMP&type=printable>

2006/01/14: TruthOut: State Solar Power Proposal Gets OK from Regulators
<http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/011306EB.shtml>


<regards>
-het


--
"We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments
for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising."
-Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, 1687

Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
 
D

Douglas Siebert

Jan 1, 1970
0
Breath-taking! Or maybe Bret-taking.
If done on a small scale, it would provide trivial energy. If done on
a large-enough scale to be meaningful, the global warming alarmists
(and maybe even some sensible people) would be aghast. Ocean
temperature, and ocean temperature gradients, have a big effect on
global climate and on food chains in the ocean. The environmental
extremists' Precautionary Principle forbids it!
Looks like there is no practical large scale alternative to nuclear
power after all.


Even the most simple calculations can show how silly any worries would
be. One ton of cooling capacity is 12000 btu per hour. One btu raises
one cubic foot of water by 1 degree F. So each ton of cooling capacity
raises 12000 cubic feet of water 1 degree F per hour, therefore each
cubic mile of seawater could provide over a half million tons of cooling
capacity per day for a one degree temperature rise (assuming 24 hour
needs for cooling, which is rarely if ever true in California)

So say you had some pipes with some non-toxic fluid in them that held the
heat pumped out of wherever, running in large serpentine loops for maximum
surface area, through parts of the ocean where there are currents to move
the heat away quickly and mix it in with everything else. It would never
be an issue. It sure wouldn't be cheap, and if you went to all that
expense to collect enough heat in one place to make this workable, it
would be better to try to use some of that heat for some useful purpose
(providing process heat for various needs, generating electricity,
whatever) rather than just dumping it so it would never be reasonable to
do it on a really large scale because getting partway there gives you
better alternatives as to what to do with your excess heat.

If you were going to do this for cooling, you could also extract heat
from the oceans, if you had a climate like California's, where for much
of the year and much of the state there is some cooling need and some
heating need on the same day, and there would be even less for alarmists
to be alarmed about. Its not as if the sun isn't going to be many orders
of magnitude in the lead for heat contribution to the world's oceans no
matter what.
 
Breath-taking! Or maybe Bret-taking.
If done on a small scale, it would provide trivial energy. If done on
a large-enough scale to be meaningful, the global warming alarmists
(and maybe even some sensible people) would be aghast. Ocean
temperature, and ocean temperature gradients, have a big effect on
global climate and on food chains in the ocean. The environmental
extremists' Precautionary Principle forbids it!
Looks like there is no practical large scale alternative to nuclear
power after all.

Or a combination of the two...
In the early 70's, there was a plan to put a nuclear reactor at Manchester
California, and run cooling coils out into the Pacific Ocean.
 
K

Karl Johanson

Jan 1, 1970
0
H. E. Taylor said:
2006/01/13: ENN: California Regulators Adopt $2.9 Billion Solar Power
Plan

The California Public Utilities Commission Thursday approved a $2.9
billion program to make California one of the world's largest
producers of solar power.

The "California Solar Initiative," backed by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, aims to add 3,000
megawatts of solar energy over 11 years through the installation of 1
million rooftop solar energy
systems on homes, businesses, farms, schools and public buildings.

That amount of electricity would be equivalent to about six new power
stations.

Well, if you're talking 500 megawatt power plants. And then accounting
for capacity factors, say 20% or so for solar & say 80% for some base
load power plants (specific capacity factors will vary), you have to
divide the number of power plants equivalents by 4 or so.

Karl Johanson
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
T.Keating said:
Err.. no..

Solar power is almost an ideal match for peak power reqs in the
Southern US. If the sun gets obscured, local A/C load drops
significantly.

That's a bit of a myth. Unless you angle your PV to the southwest. Peak
demand occurs after 3:00 PM in 'southern' states like Texas and Fla. PV
pointed directly south without a tracker will 'peak' a few hours *before*
electrical load peaks. Just as electrical load is peaking in 'souther US',
PV output is falling off. Search the archives of...

http://currentenergy.lbl.gov/index.html
Without Solar you would have to build 3000 MW of expensive to
operate, peak power generating capacity anyway. So, why not make it
solar and solve several problems at once? I.E. Peak power production,
GW, pollution, maint, fuel costs/delivery, etc.
A secondary advantage of Solar verses conventional plants is that it
produces output whenever there is sun shine. Thus significantly
reducing the power generation/maint & fuel requirements for the
remaining fossil fueled plants.

The national utilization average for coal power plants is just under
50%, mostly because night time power consumption is just a fraction of
daytime usage. (I.E. Their power production not needed.) With large
scale Solar + national HVDC grid deployment we could further reduce
that utilization number down to 10% or less; and perhaps save our
coastal zones from being submerged.

Where do you get the rest of the capacity needed for the dark hours? Even
at 4:00 AM on a hot summer night (say, July 15th, 2004), the load in Texas
(for example) is still about 52% of the peak load at 4:00 PM. So you need
about 50% of your total capacity on-line all night long.

daestrom
 
K

Karl Johanson

Jan 1, 1970
0
T.Keating said:
Err.. no..

Solar power is almost an ideal match for peak power reqs in the
Southern US. If the sun gets obscured, local A/C load drops
significantly.

Err... I was talking about capacity factor, not salability of
electricity at vareous times int he day.

Peak solar flux is around noon. That isn't the peak demand time.

Not to suggest I don't think solar power is cool beans.

Karl Johanson
 
K

Karl Johanson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Douglas Siebert said:
Even the most simple calculations can show how silly any worries would
be. One ton of cooling capacity is 12000 btu per hour. One btu
raises
one cubic foot of water by 1 degree F. So each ton of cooling
capacity
raises 12000 cubic feet of water 1 degree F per hour,

A cubic foot of water weighs close to 10 pounds. A ton of water would be
around 200 cubic feet.

therefore each
 
It seems like a continuation of the existing $2.80 per watt rebate that is
in place now. The limit has been raised for the total number of people
allowed to participate in net metering, selling surplus summertime energy
back to the grid.
That's a bit of a myth. Unless you angle your PV to the southwest. Peak
demand occurs after 3:00 PM in 'southern' states like Texas and Fla. PV
pointed directly south without a tracker will 'peak' a few hours *before*
electrical load peaks. Just as electrical load is peaking in 'souther US',
PV output is falling off. Search the archives of...

That page works, but none of the graph links worked for me.
Where do you get the rest of the capacity needed for the dark hours? Even
at 4:00 AM on a hot summer night (say, July 15th, 2004), the load in Texas
(for example) is still about 52% of the peak load at 4:00 PM. So you need
about 50% of your total capacity on-line all night long.


50% is a substantial reduction. In a state that continues to grow, I also
see it meaning that additional power growth can be met with distributed
solar panels, instead of construction of new power plants and
infrastructure. In essence, my panels supply both my and my neighbor's A/C
demands in the summertime. Less flow long distance, and some capacity for
additional users from the existing power plants. Instead of the plants
being 50% idle at night, they might be 20% idle at night.

energy.ca.gov says that the peak was 16:00 in summer, 18:00 winter.

A very nice graph from a California Air Force Base shows the peak at
exactly noon, so I will ignore that one ;-)

Live data for California:
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
maybe there are archives there somewhere.
Since this is winter, it coincides with the energy.ca.gov chart.

Other states might have different usage trends.

PG&E rates peak from noon to 6 pm. In order to maximize the production
during what PG&E has prescribed as the peak time, I've been told that a
solar panel in Northern California should be set at 225 degree orientation,
26 degree tilt.

According to PVWatts, the annual kWh is lower at 225 than 180, equal in
July, but if PG&E rates turn dollars into a measure of demand load, it is
most effective in the peak periods if it is oriented at 225.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
We learn something new every day around here.

Hmmmm.... A 'zero content' post??

Karl lives in a country that uses the metric system. So our arcane sets of
units don't come very easily to him.

Perhaps you could have dropped the sarcasm and just *told* him that a cubic
foot of fresh water weighs about 62.4 pounds, so one english short ton (2000
pounds) of fresh water would be just 32.1 cubic feet.

daestrom
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
It seems like a continuation of the existing $2.80 per watt rebate that is
in place now. The limit has been raised for the total number of people
allowed to participate in net metering, selling surplus summertime energy
back to the grid.



That page works, but none of the graph links worked for me.

Hmmm.... Just checked it again. Click on Texas and even entered July 15,
2005 and got nice load graphs for those days from the archive. Ca seems to
work as well. Oh well, maybe they were having some problem.
50% is a substantial reduction. In a state that continues to grow, I also
see it meaning that additional power growth can be met with distributed
solar panels, instead of construction of new power plants and
infrastructure.

T Keating suggested that coal supplies just under 50% of all electricity,
'mostly because night time power consumption is just a fraction of daytime
usage'. That's just wrong. The other 50% is provided by other fuel sources
and the daily fluctuations in demand has nothing to do with it.

He further suggested that, "With large scale Solar + national HVDC grid
deployment we could further reduce that utilization number down to 10% or
less; " While building large scale solar will help displace fossil fuels
(at a price), the fuels it will be displacing is oil and natural gas, not
very much coal.

Now, if coal makes up 50% of the total electricity production, and you need
50% of your total capacity running all night long, how is solar going to
reduce coal production??

As the demand continues to grow, so does the demand at 4:00 AM. You aren't
going to provide that increase in demand with solar. So as demand grows,
even if all the *energy* to meet that demand came from solar, it wouldn't
reduce the need for other fuel types at 4:00AM unless you find a way to
store massive amounts of energy.
In essence, my panels supply both my and my neighbor's A/C
demands in the summertime. Less flow long distance, and some capacity for
additional users from the existing power plants. Instead of the plants
being 50% idle at night, they might be 20% idle at night.

But the coal plants are not "50% idle" at night. Most are still running
full out, only a few reduce their output. The reduction in generation in
the evening hours is achieved by shutting down gas and oil burning plants
and switching pumped storage off to get ready for pump mode.
energy.ca.gov says that the peak was 16:00 in summer, 18:00 winter.

A very nice graph from a California Air Force Base shows the peak at
exactly noon, so I will ignore that one ;-)

Live data for California:
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
maybe there are archives there somewhere.
Since this is winter, it coincides with the energy.ca.gov chart.

Other states might have different usage trends.

PG&E rates peak from noon to 6 pm. In order to maximize the production
during what PG&E has prescribed as the peak time, I've been told that a
solar panel in Northern California should be set at 225 degree
orientation,
26 degree tilt.

According to PVWatts, the annual kWh is lower at 225 than 180, equal in
July, but if PG&E rates turn dollars into a measure of demand load, it is
most effective in the peak periods if it is oriented at 225.

The desired orientation depends on the rate schedule you can get for your
generation. Obviously, if you have TOU net-metering, you'd be better off at
the 225 angle. If you just have flat-rate metering, you want to maximize
total energy production.

daestrom
 
In alt.solar.photovoltaic daestrom said:
Hmmm.... Just checked it again. Click on Texas and even entered July 15,

http://currentenergy.lbl.gov/index.html
Ah, click on the state! That works, but the links in the box below each
state don't work. Well, that's interesting, or am I missing something? I
thought California was the energy hog in the country, but it looks like
Texas is cranking some watts today. So is New York, considering that NYC
is separate.
Now, if coal makes up 50% of the total electricity production, and you need
50% of your total capacity running all night long, how is solar going to
reduce coal production??

I don't see how that math works, or that we care. Wasn't there a Monty
Python line like that, just before they dunked the witch?

The other forms of energy are not going to disappear.
As the demand continues to grow, so does the demand at 4:00 AM. You aren't
going to provide that increase in demand with solar. So as demand grows,
even if all the *energy* to meet that demand came from solar, it wouldn't
reduce the need for other fuel types at 4:00AM unless you find a way to
store massive amounts of energy.

The plants that can operate at 4am could be used to capacity. The
additional plants needed for daytime demand wouldn't need to be built.
But the coal plants are not "50% idle" at night. Most are still running
full out, only a few reduce their output. The reduction in generation in
the evening hours is achieved by shutting down gas and oil burning plants
and switching pumped storage off to get ready for pump mode.

Why do you think they shut off gas and oil at night? They could run. That
isn't a matter of coal verses other fuels, per se. It is because coal is
the cheapest. The more expensive fuels are only used during the day. So
solar cuts the use of the most expensive fuels. There may be other
runup-rundown issues with regards to coal plants. I don't know. I don't
think there are any in California.

The nearest power plant to me pours 11 million gallons of treated sewage
from Santa Rosa down a well every day, where it is heated to steam and
spins steam turbines.
The desired orientation depends on the rate schedule you can get for your
generation. Obviously, if you have TOU net-metering, you'd be better off
at the 225 angle. If you just have flat-rate metering, you want to
maximize total energy production.

Certainly. macslab even refers to different orientations for particular
needs, like morning agricultural water pumping. Whatever fits the need.

The ratio between peak and off peak is so high that it makes time of day
beneficial for someone pumping solar energy onto the grid. In the summer,
it's $0.08 verses $0.29. If I had a wind generator, or a small Mr. Fusion
unit in the garage, I might want flat rate, so I could pump higher cost
energy throughout the day and night.

http://www.macslab.com/optsolarpge.html says the optimum is 217 at 31 tilt,
so my house, which just happens to be at 214 and 26 roof angle, is a pretty
good fit for PG&E time of day metering.
 
K

Karl Johanson

Jan 1, 1970
0
A cubic foot of water weighs close to 10 pounds.

I've been using metreic too long. It's an Imperial gallon which weighs
around 10 pounds.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
http://currentenergy.lbl.gov/index.html
Ah, click on the state! That works, but the links in the box below each
state don't work. Well, that's interesting, or am I missing something?

Once you get to a region's graph, up near the top is three 'empty' boxes.
Click by each one for a drop down to enter a date (older than today), then
click the little button next to your selected date to retrieve the
historical data for that day. I just picked July 15, 2005 as a guess for
some 'normal' summer day.
I
thought California was the energy hog in the country, but it looks like
Texas is cranking some watts today. So is New York, considering that NYC
is separate.


I don't see how that math works, or that we care. Wasn't there a Monty
Python line like that, just before they dunked the witch?

The other forms of energy are not going to disappear.

And that was my whole point. Massive increases in solar production is not
going to shutdown very many coal plants (although it might curtail a lot of
NG and oil plants).
The plants that can operate at 4am could be used to capacity.

Most baseload coal plants *are* used to capacity at 4am. And that is one of
the points I'm trying to make. The baseload plants run 24/7 just to meet
the 'base' load (hence the name). As you point out, they are the cheapest
as far as fuel costs go. Massive solar could reduce the amount of peak load
plants running on a good day, but would not have any affect on the operating
schedule for 'base load' units such as coal and nuclear.
The
additional plants needed for daytime demand wouldn't need to be built.

Well, they may not need to *operate* as often, but they still need to exist
/ be built. Unless you're willing to go with blackouts and work stoppages
on cloudy days, some form of 'backup' is still needed. But this is a
separate issue.

And if you need to build some capacity to act as 'backup' for when the 'sun
don't shine', you run into some interesting economics for such a plant. You
want a very low capital investment, even if the fuel costs are high.
Because it won't operate often, you don't want a lot of high fixed costs,
even if you have to tolerate high per MWH marginal costs.
Why do you think they shut off gas and oil at night? They could run.
That
isn't a matter of coal verses other fuels, per se. It is because coal is
the cheapest. The more expensive fuels are only used during the day.

Exactly so. And since coal, hydro and nuclear are cheapest, they are run
throughout the night and gas/oil are shutdown. So massive solar will reduce
gas/oil use (which is certainly a good thing), but will do little to curtail
coal. T.Keating was arguing that massive solar and HVDC would reduce *coal*
plant operation. It won't. (it *will* reduce oil/gas, and that's still a
good thing).
So
solar cuts the use of the most expensive fuels. There may be other
runup-rundown issues with regards to coal plants. I don't know. I don't
think there are any in California.

See below. Coal apparently makes up just 1% of the electricity used in CA.
51.6% comes from natural gas, 17.5% from hydro, 15.5% from nuc, and 12.4%
from renewables.
The nearest power plant to me pours 11 million gallons of treated sewage
from Santa Rosa down a well every day, where it is heated to steam and
spins steam turbines.

On the one hand, that sounds impressive. But how much energy is it really?
250 MW capacity? Running 24 hours that would be 4800 MW-hours, or 2190
MW-hours per year if run continously. Also sounds impressive, until you
start looking at California's electricity generation from various sources.

(just for comparison, 11e6 gallons per day, means steam generation at about
3.8e6 lbm/hour. A large nuc has a steam production rate of 11.0e6 lbm/hour
with an output of 850MW)

How is the plant's operating record? Most geothermal plants that I've heard
of have had problems with dissolved minerals and keeping the plant
operating. Maybe these folks have that solved?

Check some of the public info. Sometimes they will 'brag' to the public
about how the plant is XXX MW, capable of supplying YYYY homes. And 'last
year they produced ZZZZZZ MW-hours of energy'. But do the math of
zzzzzz/xxx = number of hours operating and compare that with the number of
hours in a year to see just how good a 'track record' they're having.

Some information about electricity production levels, by state:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state.xls
Under 2004 for CA.....

Coal 2244355 MWH 1.15%
Petroleum 2265917 MWH 1.16%
Nat. Gas 100455422 MWH 51.57% (so *that's* why my gas bill is so high ;-)
Other gas 1862250 MWH 0.96%
Nuclear 30266887 MWH 15.54%
Hydro 34140929 MWH 17.53%
Other Renewables 24174445 MWH 12.41%
Pumped Storage -816831 MWH -0.42%
'Other' 185980 MWH 0.10%
Total 194780355 MWH 100%

daestrom
 
Once you get to a region's graph, up near the top is three 'empty' boxes.

Yep. Got that. The other links are broken, but the state works.
My surprise was California compared to some other states.
And that was my whole point. Massive increases in solar production is not
going to shutdown very many coal plants.

That seems to be your goal. It's not mine.
And if you need to build some capacity to act as 'backup' for when the 'sun
don't shine', you run into some interesting economics for such a plant.
You want a very low capital investment, even if the fuel costs are high.

The peak usage periods are when the sun is shining. At least in
California, cloudy weather isn't high A/C demand time.

I don't expect Solar to pick up the other 50%. I expect it to alleviate
some new building of power plants.
T.Keating was arguing that massive solar and HVDC would reduce *coal*

Okay, I can see that isn't right. solar would eliminate the most expensive
alternatives, not coal, which is the cheapest... environmental concerns
notwithstanding.
See below. Coal apparently makes up just 1% of the electricity used in CA.
51.6% comes from natural gas, 17.5% from hydro, 15.5% from nuc, and 12.4%
from renewables.

That's what I thought. I'm surprised there's even 1%. I wonder where
it's located. We have a few closed nuclear power plants.
On the one hand, that sounds impressive. But how much energy is it really?
250 MW capacity? Running 24 hours that would be 4800 MW-hours, or 2190
MW-hours per year if run continously. Also sounds impressive, until you
start looking at California's electricity generation from various sources.

http://www.calpine.com/power/plants.asp
ignore the bankruptcy proceedings ;-)
I think there are 19 geothermal plants near "The Geysers". It looks like
they are 60-70MW each. There are several listings there for Lake County
and Sonoma County. The region straddles the county line.
Nat. Gas 100455422 MWH 51.57% (so *that's* why my gas bill is so high ;-)

That's what I want to knock out with my solar. You can keep your coal!
Hydro 34140929 MWH 17.53%

Some folks want to remove certain dams ;-(
There's one river near Orroville where there is a small hydro plant every
couple of miles. They keep reusing the same water, more power. ;-)
Other Renewables 24174445 MWH 12.41%

In the early 40's that would have included "rock power". Maybe that's not
a renewable, though. Kaiser was excavating for Lake Shasta Dam, and put
generators on the conveyor belt instead of the brakes that had been used,
to move the rock downhill. They generated all the power used for the
cement plant, if I recall the myth correctly. I haven't been able to find
an online reference, and the dam doesn't give tours any more.
 
Top