California Has Become the First State To Get Over 5% of Its Power From Solar 265
Lucas123 writes: While the rest of the nation's solar power generation hovers around 1%, California clocked in with a record 5% of power coming from utility-grade (1MW or more) solar power sources, according to a report from Mercom Capital Group and the Energy Information Administration. That's three times the next closest state, Arizona. At the same time, 22 states have yet to deploy even one utility-grade solar power plant, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association. Meanwhile, the rest of the world saw a 14% uptick in solar power installations in 2014 for a total of 54.5GW of capacity, and that figure is expected to grow even faster in 2015. While China still leads the world in new solar capacity, Japan and the U.S. come in as a close second and third, respectively. In the U.S. distributed solar and utility-grade solar installations are soaring as the solar investment tax credit (ITC) is set to expire next year. The U.S. is expected to deploy 8.5GW of new solar capacity in 2015, according to Mercom Capital Group.
Nice (Score:2)
so 1% by all the Californians, 1% Google, 1% Apple, 1% Tesla and 1% who ?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
so 1% by all the Californians, 1% Google, 1% Apple, 1% Tesla and 1% who ?
Taking into account that their HQ is in Geneva, I don't think any of California's solar power comes from the world health organization.
That's cool and all... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually... California produces more renewable energy than Portugal. It's just uses more too :)
Wind Power:
Portugal - 3,937 MW
California - 5,829 MW
Solar:
Portugal - Aprox 75 MW
California - 5576 MW
That's roughly 75 X the solar output of Portugal. Sounds like what we need to do in CA is to stop being so power hungry..
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.acore.org/files/pdf... [acore.org]
Investment Tax Credit (Score:4, Informative)
The pace of PV installations in the U.S. is accelerating as the federal government's solar investment tax credit (ITC) is set to expire next year.
We've been through this before. All of the graphs on this page assume last year's growth will continue unabated. But what we're really seeing is a rush to grab as much of the subsidy as possible before the free money goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
Note the collapse in prices: http://www.srectrade.com/srec_... [srectrade.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Once it's gone, maybe we'll all be rich enough to buy solar panels.
A solar panel tax break just raises the damand by, say, $500 of government incentive, plus persuasive incentive margin. That is to say: a $1500 installation that gets a consumer-reaching $500 rebate becomes a $2000 installation, in theory; in reality, the consumer sees a chance to obtain a discount on a $2000 installation, and manufacturers can profit more by raising that installation cost to $2100 because fewer than 20% of custom
Meanwhile, In Iowa (Score:3)
Iowa was getting nearly 30% of their power from wind energy two years ago, already.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but Iowa!
Sorry :-P
Not an April Fools post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know that Texas, home of Big Oil, produces slightly more than 10% of it's power from wind, about 14,098 MW according to wikipedia. They're the nation's leader in wind energy. Florida does solar better than anyone else, and for overall green energy, Washington (via dams, mostly).
In a related tangent, California claims to get almost 5% of their power from wind, though they only produce 5,917 MW from theirs, and have about 10 million more people, so somewhere, something doesn't add up.
My guess is that a lot of these "% power" claims, including the one in the article, come down more to clever accounting than actual, literal green draw.
Re:Not an April Fools post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, California is 49th in per capita energy use [eia.gov], no doubt due in large part to having the largest population in the nation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No doubt due to the fact that in much of CA (the densely populated areas next to the coast) you can survive without an AC or any type of heating. I don't have an AC and have gone numerous winters without turning on the heat. Heating and cooling is 30% of all energy consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt due to the fact that in much of CA (the densely populated areas next to the coast) you can survive without an AC or any type of heating.
With a little more insulation than usual, you can do that pretty much anywhere in the USA. Oddly, California has higher standards for insulation than pretty much anywhere in the USA. We would very much like the rest of you to catch up sometime.
Re: (Score:3)
With a little more insulation than usual, you can do that pretty much anywhere in the USA.
No, you really can't... you think so, but that doesn't make it true.
When it is 10 degrees outside, you must have heat. Insulation reduces the rate of heat loss, it doesn't remove it.
Our heat is provided by natural gas anyway, so not counted in electricity consumption. AC is where that really comes into play.
When it is 100 degrees out for a whole month and it remains 90 degrees even past midnight, you simply must have AC.
Now it is true that better insulation would reduce the overall need, since it would r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not an April Fools post! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever been to Texas?
It's pretty flat. It's really flat in the panhandle (you can see the curvature of the earth, I swear). There's a decent amount of wind available.
Wind makes a lot of sense there. Drive along I20 west of Ft. Worth and you'll see huge stretches of wind turbines.
Thing about Texas - there's a lot of it. Most of the population is in the large cities. The state is largely conservative, so they don't worry so much about environmental regulations or trying to make the world a better place or anything. That means you can put down power plants pretty much anywhere, and hardly anyone will care. Texas doesn't need to import energy. The only reason the wind turbines are there is because they're profitable.
Ever been to California?
California's not exactly the greatest place for wind. Sure, there are flat areas that do get a lot of wind, but that's mostly in the south - which is desert, aka prime solar country. North Cali is is covered in mountains and trees. Not exactly good land for wind turbines.
California is largely progressive, which means they care about the environment and try to make the world a better place - through red tape. That means building power plants in California is a painful, expensive process. It also means they try to push energy efficiency as much as possible, so Californians actually use less electricity than, say, Texans.
California imports a lot of their electricity.
Now, add in the part of the article you apparently missed - ironically, the first line:
California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA's Electric Power Monthly.
The key words here are “more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation.” Considering they import a good chunk of their power, and use less electricity per person than the average Texan, it makes a lot more sense.
Only marginally related: you know why we get so much wind here in Oklahoma? Because Kansas sucks and Texas blows.
Re: (Score:3)
ignore-the-next-group-of-stories-if-you-hate-fun (Score:2)
Or just stay away altogether because more than 15 years of evidence points to a lack of story writing talent making April Fool's Day less than fun on /.
Come on! Get out aah here! Today is 1st April (Score:3)
April Fools! (Score:2)
No wait, seriously?
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Insightful)
5%, in one of the sunniest states there is.
Seriously, guys, that's just pathetic. And that's considered newsworthy?
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US it is newsworthy. "Mined energy source" lobbies are very powerful here.
Recall that Germany, at the same latitude as Maine, USA, had one day where 52% of the electricity was supplied by renewable energy sources.
So, yes, this is embarrassing news that this is news in the US, but at least it's a step in the right direction
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Germany gets 6-7% of its total energy consumption from Solar. It is still pathetic of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering just how far north it is, that's still impressive, if not to you.
Not just north, but also cloudy. But that is not impressive, it is dumb. Reducing CO2 is a global problem. They could have got that much reduction at half the cost if they had subsidized solar panels in Spain and then imported the energy. Or build solar plants in Egypt or Ethiopia, and then sold the carbon credits.
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sunniest or not, the ROI is not very different in most of the states. It is the pathetic ROI that contributes to the pathetic adoption rates. 5% of the total energy use is still commendable though, especially in state that consumes as much energy as California.
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Interesting)
It is worth noting that California is the #2 electricity consuming state in the nation (behind Texas), but has the lowest per capita consumption [ca.gov] in the country, roughly half the average per capita consumption of the entire U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ou can think their relatively mild moderate climate for that,
You can mostly thank our massive population. There are more people living in and around Los Angeles alone than the population of at least half the states in the nation — probably far more if you count illegals correctly, something the census can never possibly accomplish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it funny how trolls will grasp at straws to make a point that isn't really there? In point of fact, California is among the smallest per capita user of energy in the entire United States.
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:4, Informative)
There are complex issues to wide scail deployment.
First is what I think is a short term political problem. Where the energy industry is fighting the change, and lining the pockets of political parties that are willing to make sure things don't change. Technically solar power is more akin to conservative ideals, as it allows the individual to generate their own power without having to handle what big brother says.
Secondly solar requires consumers to buy in. In terms of price even with tax incentives for my home and usage it is about the same price. So there is a hidden cost for me to find a source and deal with the salesmen trying to find a good deal. So it makes it more expensive then current energy. Other forms of energy you don't need a huge buy in. They buy some land, build a plant and the community has power. Just as long there are more people benifitting from it then who are harmed society is happy.
Third trees. Contrarary to the world view of Americans, we like trees a country that is 50th in population density means a lot of us lives in more rural areas, and our homes have a fair amount of tree cover that we do not want to get rid of.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Scail"? Scail. You wrote "scail". That's a fale.
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's all in the (your) mind
Yes renewable energy seems to cost more than conventional fossil but then the last has hidden costs regarding the environment now and in the future.
I'm really curious why you brought up the subject of trees, do you maybe feel we need to cut down trees for large scale PV deployment?
Like yesterday I ordered PV cells covering about half my garage roof and they'll be good for some 125% of my annual consumption and that's at 52 degs. North.
A few hundred square kilometres in some nice deserts (+ a lot of transmission infrastructure) would cover the needs of the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
He brought up trees because many people have trees on their property that they'd have to cut down in order to put solar panels on their roofs.
I'd have to cut down about six or seven trees to uncover the south face of my roof. Since they're on the fenceline, I'd have to coordinate with my neighbor. It wouldn't be cheap - there's only about ten feet between our houses (post-WWII GI Bill neighborhood here, small lots and small houses) so extra care would be needed to keep the trees from damaging the houses.
I
Re: (Score:3)
Yes renewable energy seems to cost more than conventional fossil but then the last has hidden costs regarding the environment now and in the future.
For better or worse, we have decided to not price those future costs into our power bills.
If we did and we taxed carbon directly (not some credit scheme, but just a direct tax on carbon production), then you might well see the uptake on solar and wind shoot through the roof.
Right now, installing solar makes no sense, at least not at the residential home scale. The payback is measured in decades.
Part of the reason for that is the cost of labor to install the panels, grid tie, etc.. The panels themselves ar
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is that states like Florida are making it harder to install solar [tampabay.com]. On top of that, Florida is fighting energy efficiency. Other states are adding fees to solar users at the behest of the utility companies.
I live in California and am getting solar installed later this week though not nearly as big of a system as I'd like due to limitations of my roof. PG&E has some of the most expensive electricity in the country because of our state's corrupt public utilities commission [amslawyers.com]. Average rates are around $0.194/kwh (compared to Santa Clara $0.113/kwh). [siliconvalleypower.com] PG&E has been quietly lowering the thresholds to push people into higher tiers of power as they make their homes more energy efficient. On average I'm paying well over $0.19/kwh so solar makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Boo hoo.
http://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_... [ukpower.co.uk]
0.10p / KWh. (excluding VAT at 5%) = 0.148c / KWh (at current exchange rates). Call it 0.16c in reality, rounding up etc.
And that's just the lowest priced ones (because that's a price comparison site), on average, not including VAT, not including service charges, and tied into long contracts to get that etc.
And we have little solar alternative (the UK isn't great at producing sun, though we do have some).
And of course providers are charging fees for solar users - i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes for efficiency's sake the weather could be better but it's still quite well possible, you do realise these cells will even generate power on cloudy days?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you saying that different wavelengths aren't as obstructed by water vapor?! Unpossible!
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Insightful)
The point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is this:
It's a start.
Exactly (Score:2)
And that start is growing with double-digit percentages. AND, the majority of new power generation projects in the US (and worldwide) is already renewables (solar/wind/etc), so the trend is only going to accelerate.
Naively projecting that 5% solar power forward at 14% growth per year leads to 50% solar power in 18 years and 100% solar power in 23 years. Of course, that's not an accurate model of what will happen -- a better model would be an s-curve, with the maximum currently unknown -- but it does give a
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps then solar detractors will rubber neck at the remarkable progress in the industry. It will be hilarious over the coming decade as the raw economics drive us to abandon domestic resources (coal, gas) in favor of Chinese (or Malaysian) manufactured solar panels. Exporting billions of dollars to China after handing them this giant industry (inevitably one of the world's largest) on a silver platter.
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
Or we could realize that attitude won't keep industry in the US.
Raw economics? (Score:2)
Raw economics is going to drive solar? Really?
This is a subsidy based land rush that will die as soon as the free lunch expires.
And if "raw economics" is driving this, why are California electricity rates so high?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any other technology, besides renewable energy, that makes certain Slashdot readers so darn mad? It's like they would prefer that it just didn't exist.
If you say Apple has 13% of the personal computer market, they're popping corks and doing the peepee dance. If you say a newer technology, solar energy, has reached 5%, while facing enormous geo-political resistance and the enmity of the most powerful corporations in the world, it actually pisses you off for some reason.
I'm curious. What is it abo
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious. What is it about solar energy that spurs such surprising anger among this segment of Slashdot readers? What did solar energy do to you?
My theory is that admitting that solar energy works means admitting that those g_dd_mn hippies were right. After all, hippies are never right, so solar energy cannot work.
Q.E.D.
Replace 'hippies' with 'Al Gore', 'leftards', 'commies', 'alarmists' or a similar label according to taste.
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:4, Informative)
But every single form of energy is subsidized by the government. So why are we singling out solar again?
Do you feel the same way about nuclear?
Re: (Score:3)
But every single form of energy is subsidized by the government. So why are we singling out solar again?
No, it really isn't... this is a common misconception by people who don't really understand this stuff...
The government does allow lots of tax breaks for oil and gas drilling, that is true. But they allow similar breaks for almost any kind of business investment. The ones for oil and gas are a bit more favorable, but they aren't FREE MONEY.
The government is not writing checks out of the general fund to pay people to drill for oil.
The government IS writing checks out of the general fund to pay people to i
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, Maine promises to bring their new solar plant online just as soon as the clouds break.
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the growth rates. The future is very bright.
Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that, but when you say 5%, it sounds rather small.
When taking a look at the actual numbers behind the percentages, it's a bit more dramatic. In 2013, California generated and used 296,628 GWh of energy on their grid, according to this [ca.gov]. If energy usage was flat (not likely) than solar is now generating 14,831.4 GWh of energy in California alone.
That's hardly nothing, and definitely not "whoop de do da."
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, I'm not sure why they're gloating about beating Arizona here. Arizona's largest metro area (Phoenix) receives all (and then some) of its electricity from clean power sources (nuclear and hydro) and even generates such an abundance of power that California actually buys 25% of its electricity from Arizona (and meanwhile California is still unable to meet its own power needs.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
April Fools! Its only 1%.
Actually, it may be closer to that when we are talking about usage and not generation. California is a net importer of electricity. The 5% is the percentage of power generated in California only. It is not 5% of California's total energy usage, which includes a lot of power generated outside the state.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar's impact is greater than just the percentage may lead you to believe.
In many places like CA, TX and the Southwest, it's quite predictable, almost a given in AZ, and the solar daily ramp-up is a good match to the consumption curve.
Also, if you have a lot of rooftop solar that's feeding self-consumption, there's far less stress on the electricity distribution & transmission infrastructure.
TX may have a significant amount of wind turbines but they would have been better off ramping up solar installat
Re: (Score:3)
Coal generation in California is only ~7%. That change your outlook any?
Re: (Score:3)
Just type these five words into a search bar and be wiser: "energy needed to heat water".
Re: (Score:2)
If that half are all as dumb as you they won't be missed. This is meant to be a site for people with at least 1 working braincell.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, thats one of the ironys of the idiocy of current German policy and the whole braindead anti nuclear movement based on knee jerk paranoia and 50 years out of date science.
Re: (Score:3)
First there is no knee yerk reaction. Germany voted anti nuclear 25 years ago. But the later Merkle government reverted that voting. After Fukushima, they reconsidered and reverted back again to the original old plans.
Secondly there is no anti science or new scientific discovery. Germany is drowning in nuclear waste, we have no idea where to put it safely. All existing deposits turned out to be a desaster and need to be closed and cleaned up. Possible future deposits for waste don't exist. And it is unlikel
Re:So Germany is not a state? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you build integral fast reactors? They are capable of consuming the existing way and create power in the process. They also can't melt down even theoretically since a runaway reaction is not possible with them. At least you would generate power cleanly from your EXISTING waste. It is far better to use the waste than bury it and you do less damage in the process.
So far I have not been very impressed with decisions being based on actual science and careful thought in Germany. It has certainly not been my experience with anything regarding GMO where almost every German I have run into is against it period and no discussion is possible. They do want the life saving medical treatments though that are possible with GMO they just don't want them developed here.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we build 'new (insert technology term of the month' ) nuclear reactors, when we already have a clean exit into solar and wind and biomass?
Regarding your idea how any reactor works, sorry, you are simply wrong.
No one is so idiotic and/or braindead to build a industrial production line to be able to craft fuel elements that are 'half full' with fuel and 'half full' with 'waste' (hint: spend fuel rods != waste).
All reactors designed to be able to transmute 'waste' only do that with the waste they ac
Re:So Germany is not a state? (Score:5, Informative)
You're partly wrong.
It was Italy that voted against nuclear in 1986. 2 reactors where working at that time and had to be shut down. In 2011 there was another referendum to reenter the nuclear powe production, but italians confirmed they'd like to remain nuclearless.
East Germany (not todays Germany) shut down in 1990 its last nuclear power plant due to security concerns, and no new reactors were planned or build afterwards.
In 2000 Germany (now united) decided to gradually reduce the use of nuclear power, and thus in 2003 the first power plant went offline. Others followed in subsequent years. In 2010 they decided to slow down the decommissionment and let the reactors live a few more years. In 2011, after the Fukushima tragedy, Germany decided to shut the reactors as soon as possible. 8 reactors were then shut down immediately, and the rest will be shut down in steps till 2022.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe, not really wrong, I just simplified. Was the 'SchrÃder + Greens' government 2000? Thought it was longer ago.
Thanx for your clarification, I hope you get some 'informative' mods.
Re: (Score:2)
But there are several proposed sites that look really good if it wasn't for the usual NIMBY crowd (kraut?)
Re: (Score:2)
"Germany is drowning in nuclear waste, we have no idea where to put it safely."
Reprocess it! Oh wait, the hippies don't like that either.
"However if your sim city knowledge is so superior,"
Pardon?
"just wondering why you promote them."
Are you talking to yourself?
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair: the radiation released by a nuclear power plant in normal operation mode isn't a problem.
It's the failure modes that are problematic.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's the failure modes that are problematic.
They're also astonishingly rare. Of all the major accidents, we have:
Chernobyl: a crazy design with a strongly positive void coefficient. No one else has ever made such designs, even before Chernobyl because it was always known to be dangerous.
Fukishima: Germany is just not prone to natural disasters on that scale. It's geologically stable and free from hurricanes and tornadoes.
Three Mile Island: an excellent design from a fail safe point of view because despite a
Re:So Germany is not a state? (Score:5, Insightful)
When discussing Chernobyl, one must always keep in mind the proximate cause of the incident.
Specifically, the version of the NRC decided it needed to know how much energy they could extract from a meltdown in progress to deal with the meltdown. Perfectly reasonable notion - it makes a meltdown easier to deal with if you don't have to rely on dozen/hundreds of (relatively) small emergency generators for lights, pumps, etc.
So, they picked an out-of-the-way reactor, and pushed it as far toward a meltdown condition as they considered safe to do, and started measuring the energy output of the plant in that mode.
Unfortunately, they were wrong about how "far toward a meltdown" was "safe to do"....
So, the largest nuclear disaster in history happened because someone made a goof while trying a Real World (tm) SIMULATION of the largest nuclear disaster in history....
Re: (Score:3)
Three Mile Island was the most fantastic design ever. A catastrophic failure leads to absolutely no negative consequences except for that of a nasty red mark on the balance sheet.
Re: (Score:2)
Mixed: in some senses the design of the control room was poor and a better design would probably have prevented the meltdown. But the layers and layers and layers of failsafing, was brilliant. I think the final layer was that in the event of a meltdown, the core was designed to melt through part of the reactor thereby diluting itself to the point of noncriticality then spread out on a big chunk of concrete to cool off.
Re: (Score:3)
Getting a core non-critical is the _easy_ part. Change of core geometry, loss of moderator, pretty much anything will take the core non-critical. The cooling down part is what is tricky. You don't just have a big chuck of material at some temperature that simply need cooling, the core will continue to generate gigawatts of heat due to the decay of short-lived isotopes for several days/weeks after it has been rendered non-critical. Simply dumping nuclear lava on a concrete floor will not work. You have to sp
Re: (Score:2)
The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi clearly demonstrated that containment buildings are all but worthless.
Well no because the containment building at TMI demonstrated that they can work. That underwent full meltdown, but the containment building kept all but a very small amount of radation within.
I was wron about concrete: it was a steel vessle designed to act as a heat sink after dilution and it worked perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, Germany is not replacing nuclear power with coal but with wind and solar.
Everyone knows that, I really wonder why you don't.
Secondly, german coal plants filter exhaust. They basically exhaust cleaner air than they 'breath in', besides CO2.
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s. Which is debunked since decades, everyone participating in discussions like this: should know that.
But thanx for harassing Germany :) ... hint: Hitler died 1945 ... G
Re: (Score:2)
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s. Which is debunked since decades, everyone participating in discussions like this: should know that.
In Germany, maybe not. In the USA and China, they certainly do.
No such thing as clean coal (Score:2)
First of all, Germany is not replacing nuclear power with coal but with wind and solar.
Germany has targeted closing all their nuclear plants by 2022, a mere 7 years from now. Nuclear accounts for something like 17-19% of power in Germany. Do you honestly think they are going to install that much renewable capacity AND solve the baseload problem in 7 years without fossil fuels playing a role to get them there? They aren't going to use coal but they are going to use more natural gas" [wikipedia.org] which isn't exactly something to be thrilled about. It's cleaner but not by much.
Secondly, german coal plants filter exhaust.
So do plants in most develo
Re: (Score:3)
There is no base load problem. 30% of base load and on good days 100% of it already comes from wind. :)
Your problem is: you don't know what base load actually means/is
Base load in Germany is around 40% in summer and in winter about 45% of 'peak load'. 'Base load' is the amount of 'load' you feed into the grid, regardless of demand. That means the 'base load' plants are not dispatched, they just run at a close to max output. It does not matter if your midrange and peaker plants shape their load around fixed
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the idea that EVERY kind of coal is radioactive contaminated is bullshit.
Right, just the majority of available coal. We've used up the most convenient deposits of it, just like everything else.
And if you collect it an deposit it somewhere it is not more radioactive then the highest yielding uranium ores.
Which suggests the question, is that actually that wonderful? Also, whether it's being collected. Maybe in Germany. Not in the USA or China, though.
The highest contaminated fly ash is 'just ad the edge' that it would be commercially viable to
...make poisonous drywall out of it, as they have done in China?
You can google for the amount of 'dust' (mercury etc.) that is emitted by a german plant. It is in the range of a few kg per year.
Assuming you believe those figures.
Re: (Score:3)
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s.
Really? [world-nuclear.org] Skip down to table 2 - German coal may not contain a large amount of Uranium, but it does have Radon, Thorium, and Potassium. Please read this post [slashdot.org] that I wrote using the data from table 2 for US coal.
I seriously doubt there's no U-238 in German coal if there is Ra-226 since they're related via the decay chain, and Table 3 disputes the lack of U in German coal - the ash and slag contain up to 411 Bq/kg of Ura
Re: (Score:2)
There is a different between 'emitting' which implies uncontrolled distribution and spreading VERSUS 'producing' and collecting and capturing and depositing it.
German coal is btw irrelevant, 90% of the coal we burn is imported :) the few coal mines (hard/black coal) we still have are highly subsidized tokens ... that is all. Most coal we burn comes from russia and china and a bit from south america, I guess even the USA export coal to us.
Of course we also still burn brown coal (lignite?)
Is it noticeable? Ce
Re: (Score:2)
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s. Which is debunked since decades, everyone participating in discussions like this: should know that.
Really?: http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's just that little issue of you guys voting for parties that like to spend without first finding the income to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
But what kind of fire? Coal furnace? We're talking about energy generation here...
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. What is needed is more investment in solar capacity in the south, and investment in the power grid in the north (and nationally). There is no reason the North should not be buying a majority of it's power cheaper from the south, where it is plentiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They seem to be implying that is a bad thing, I don't know what the distribution of those states are but it wouldn't be very smart for Northern states to build a utility grade solar plant even if they wanted to.
Germany gets more power from solar than California (as a percentage), and they're about the same latitude as most northern US states. In fact, I think their northern border is much farther north than all US states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Good eating! (Score:3, Funny)
It's [solar energy] going to be enough for those who will remain after the Generational Purge. The One Percenters will find those figures quite satisfactory, since the plans for California is to turn it into a state-size vacation area anyway.
Suicide carried off many. Drink and the devil took care of the rest.
~Robert Louis Stevenson
Sorry Bob, the devil is looking elsewhere to fill quota, and even good drink will be scarce during the Generational Purge due to a loss of the 'Just In Time' food supply chain [modernsurvivalblog.com]. Modern cannibals will find scarcely a week's worth of cans on the grocery shelf and perhaps another few weeks in distribution centers, but this will serve only to swell the ranks of the migrant Cannibal Armies that will actually conduct the Pu
Re:Good eating! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, LeVar Burton! What's the next book on today's Reading Rainbow?
Re: (Score:2)
Desalinization requires a LOT of power. So, maybe they are focusing on it, but they're taking care of prerequisites first.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Desalination, even the energy-hog reverse osmosis process we use now, would be an ideal application for the fluctuating power output of renewables. Because the fluctuations don't matter in that application, desalination would put a lot of wind and solar power to work without waiting for Smart Grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
California practically doesn't use coal power at all. Less than 8% of their generation in 2013 was from coal [ca.gov], and only 4.3% of that less than 8% actually is generated in the State of California - the rest comes from the Boardman coal generating station in Oregon, or from other states in the southwest.
Take you're "man of the people" act and try somewhere else, preferably where Google (and facts) don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they take into account the fact that the sun isn't shining all day, every day and that we are using electricity non stop?
No, of course not. When you need a statistic for political purposes, you use the peak, not the average.