Green New Deal

[Merrill]

I was responding to this:



So if CA had an ounce of intelligence, they would build more solar?
26% is imported electricity generated by coal.
43% is generated in-state by natural gas.

Plenty of opportunity for the supposedly progressive state.

Wouldn't it be nice if people focused on what THEY can do instead of judging others?
Wouldn't it be nice if people focused on what THEIR state could do instead of judging others?

If CA would only lead by example, the rest of the country and world would follow.

Wondering where you got your figures, as of 2017 California use of coal is 4.1% of all power generated.

 

[nwdiver]

I have no idea. Maybe their electricity customers in California would rather pay lower electricity rates than save birds?

Wind is cheaper than coal. The reason is obvious. They're morons.

 

[juliusa]

Wondering where you got your figures, as of 2017 California use of coal is 4.1% of all power generated.

You are correct. While they actually generate almost no electricity from coal, when looking at the sources (including imported electricity) I think still only 4.1% comes from coal.

My 26% coal was based on if California added renewable generation and stopped importing electricity, all the reduction would be in coal since almost all generation that is being replaced in the US is coal.

So if CA currently imports hydro power but replaces that with solar or other renewables, that hydro will be sold elsewhere - replacing coal.

 

[juliusa]

Wind is cheaper than coal. The reason is obvious. They're morons.

I disagree. I think economics are driving the decision, and it would cost more.

Isn't solar cheaper? Why doesn't California just install solar and stop importing electricity? Because they're morons?

 

[S'toon]

Ok - got it. Missread it.

Still have a long way to catch up to Wyoming in renewable energy production per capita. Need to add another 50,000MW - I think you need to add faster than a few thousand MW per year...


Got a reference for that statistic?

Still, how about California kill their own birds instead of asking Wyoming to kill the birds and send the electricity?

When I worked in Wyoming, in the middle of nowhere, we were required to have non specular (shiny) overhead wire for esthetics. I assume thousands of wind mills would also cause some change in the views. In addition we had to have special bird purchases on power poles to prevent eagles from getting fried. If we had any birds die because of our operations it was considered a disaster. I would guess the amount of windmills you are talking about would disrupt the views and kill many more birds and bats than any fossil fuel operations. In addition I found this and was surprised that it states that large wind farms actually increase the temperature in the short run by mixing ground temperatures into the atmosphere. Basically even renewables are not all positive.
Large-scale wind power would require more land and cause more environmental impact than previously thought | Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Wind farms are FAR down on the list of bird killers. You want to save birds? Ban cats.
9 leading causes of bird deaths in Canada | CBC News

Wind turbines kill fewer birds than do cats, cell towers

Wind turbines kill around 300,000 birds annually, house cats around 3,000,000,000

Wind Power Results In Very Few Bird Deaths Overall | CleanTechnica

 

[nwdiver]

I disagree. I think economics are driving the decision, and it would cost more.

Isn't solar cheaper? Why doesn't California just install solar and stop importing electricity? Because they're morons?

No... logistics. You can't build 100GW of solar overnight. Unlike the morons in Wyoming, CA is making forward progress. The morons in Wyoming are sitting back happy to burn their fools fuel...

And... you can't 'disagree' that 2+2 = 4. You can be wrong, but you can't 'disagree'. Solar and wind are cheaper than coal. You're simply wrong.

 

[Unpilot]

I was responding to this:



So if CA had an ounce of intelligence, they would build more solar?
26% is imported electricity generated by coal.
43% is generated in-state by natural gas.

Plenty of opportunity for the supposedly progressive state.

Wouldn't it be nice if people focused on what THEY can do instead of judging others?
Wouldn't it be nice if people focused on what THEIR state could do instead of judging others?

If CA would only lead by example, the rest of the country and world would follow.

So is it 26% or 4.1% imported electricity generated by coal?

 

[nwdiver]

So is it 26% or 4.1% imported electricity generated by coal?

Depends on how many square miles California is

 

[juliusa]

No... logistics. You can't build 100GW of solar overnight.

California has had their head up their for years. Their imports did not rise to 100GW overnight - they simply refused to address it.

And of course, Wyoming can build the wind generation (to export to California) overnight? They would shudder half their coal plants if other states simply produced their own electricity - they would have nowhere to sell it. Didn't you post how little land is needed to provide all the solar necessary - surely every state has enough land to do this.

The morons in Wyoming are sitting back happy to burn their fools fuel...

I guess you have some sort of first hand knowledge - the articles I have seen show them building wind.

 

[juliusa]

So is it 26% or 4.1% imported electricity generated by coal?

As best I can tell, 4.1% of electricity consumed in CA is generated by coal either in CA or outside CA.

If CA replaced the 26% of electricity they import from other states with solar or other renewables, almost all of that would result in reduction of electricity generated by coal. No new coal plants are being built - all new generation is renewables and natural gas. Aging coal plants are being retired and not replaced.

U.S. coal consumption in 2018 expected to be the lowest in 39 years - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Don't worry about coal in the US. Economics is doing a good job of killing it.

 

[nwdiver]

I guess you have some sort of first hand knowledge - the articles I have seen show them building wind.

They've been 'planning'... where is it??? The morons sure aren't in a hurry to add renewables

 

[Unpilot]

As best I can tell, 4.1% of electricity consumed in CA is generated by coal either in CA or outside CA.

If CA replaced the 26% of electricity they import from other states with solar or other renewables, almost all of that would result in reduction of electricity generated by coal. No new coal plants are being built - all new generation is renewables and natural gas. Aging coal plants are being retired and not replaced.

U.S. coal consumption in 2018 expected to be the lowest in 39 years - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Don't worry about coal in the US. Economics is doing a good job of killing it.

Gotcha I asked because a little above you said this: “26% is imported electricity generated by coal.”

 

[Merrill]

You are correct. While they actually generate almost no electricity from coal, when looking at the sources (including imported electricity) I think still only 4.1% comes from coal.

My 26% coal was based on if California added renewable generation and stopped importing electricity, all the reduction would be in coal since almost all generation that is being replaced in the US is coal.

So if CA currently imports hydro power but replaces that with solar or other renewables, that hydro will be sold elsewhere - replacing coal.

This makes no sense, you said 26% of electricity generated is from coal and it is 4.1%. So your statement that 26% coal was based on adding renewable generation and stopped importing electricity all the reduction would be coal so when doing this California could be at 0% coal.

 

[juliusa]

This makes no sense, you said 26% of electricity generated is from coal and it is 4.1%.

Correct. I should have said it better.

If California stopped importing 26% of their electricity, almost all the reduction of that import would be be reduction in coal generation.

Put another way, if California stopped importing electricity tomorrow, that amount of coal plants would shutdown since they are the most expensive to operate.

 

[nwdiver]

If California stopped importing 26% of their electricity, almost all the reduction of that import would be be reduction in coal generation.

That's not how the grid works. The bulk of their imports would be during peak periods which would come from peaking plants or hydro. Coal is used as baseload and would be unable to supply increased generation during these periods. Surplus wind offsetting in-state fools fuel sources also helps lower net emissions.

~14% of imports was from coal. 4% of total generation.

 

[juliusa]

The bulk of their imports would be during peak periods

Solar is generated during the peak consumption period during the day, and will be stored with battery and pump storage to handle the duck curve. The highest periods of import are during the summer cooling months when solar generation is higher.

As soon as California stops importing electricity, the grid will adjust by shutting down coal plants. Any lowering of imports will result in less coal generation.

 

[nwdiver]

As soon as California stops importing electricity, the grid will adjust by shutting down coal plants. Any lowering of imports will result in less coal generation.

..... if CA is importing ~80% of their energy at a time when coal plants are running at 100% then not importing wouldn't effect those coal plants. Again, that's not how the grid works.

 

[juliusa]

Again, that's not how the grid works.

That is how the grid works. It is balanced over the CA, NW, and SW region with a pretty consistent daily flow to CA.

California imports are very steady - perfect for baseload reduction. California imports about a quarter of its electricity on average - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Why are you saying coal cannot be replaced with renewables? If that is the case, we are in big trouble.

 

[nwdiver]

Why are you saying coal cannot be replaced with renewables? If that is the case, we are in big trouble.

.... I'm saying that CA reducing it's imports by 90TWh/yr cannot decrease coal consumption by 90TWh/yr because the power intake during most of the periods when CA needed power exceeded the available output of coal plants. Math. Like I said, the grid doesn't work that way. CA isn't the problem. Wyoming is.

 

[juliusa]

They've been 'planning'... where is it???

Where is 2017 and 2018?