California rooftop solar installations surge; renewable energy approaches oil output, reports say

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/07/california-rooftop-solar-surges-and-renewable-energy-approaches-oil-reports-say.html

California rooftop solar installations surge; renewable energy approaches oil output, reports say

July 5, 2011 | 5:33 pm

Renewable sources in the U.S. are starting to produce enough energy to rival oil output, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

Biomass and biofuels along with geothermal, solar, water and wind-power generation were responsible for nearly 12% of the country’s energy production during the first quarter of the year. That’s nearly 6% more than nuclear’s output and 77% of the amount coming from domestic crude oil, the agency said.

Electricity from wind sources is up 40% from the same period last year, according to the agency. Solar output more than doubled.

The boom is especially evident in California, where the rate of installations for rooftop solar energy systems is on a tear, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.

…

[NMDemDist2]

1. off to the Greatest with ya n/t

[Springer9]

2. Those percentages are a bit misleading since renewables,

according to the article, include "water" or Hydroelectric which makes up almost 25% of the nations total power output. Subtract that from the 12% renewable figure and all the other methods pale in comparison at this point.

I have solar on my home that wouldn't make economic sense without the subsidies, but within a few miles of me is a large Intel manufacturing facility and a huge server farm that couldn't exist without a reliable and relatively inexpensive supply of power. That's what the Palo Verde Nuclear plant provides and right now and in the foreseeable future, there aren't enough windmills and solar panels to replace it.

Every bit helps, and progress is being made in little steps, but there is a long way to go.

[kristopher]

3. What rationale is there to exclude hydropower except to make nuclear look good.

Hydropower and other forms of generation based on water (wave current tidal) are renewable resources.

Your claim about the need for baseload power is baseless. It has been shown to be wrong so many times it is absurd to keep repeating it. A distributed grid built entirely around renewable sources of generation is not only possible, but would be superior in reliability to the present grid structure.

[Springer9]

4. The rationale is that pinwheels and solar aren't ready for primetime

Until an efficient and economic way is found to store and distribute solar generated power and to provide backup power for the pinwheels we are going to need what has become conventional sources.

To Wit:

Centrica and other energy companies last week told DECC that, if Britain is to spend £100 billion on building thousands of wind turbines, it will require the building of 17 new gas-fired power stations simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops and the windmills produce even less power than usual.
We will thus be landed in the ludicrous position of having to spend an additional £10 billion on those 17 dedicated power stations, which will be kept running on "spinning reserve", 24 hours a day, just to make up for the fundamental problem of wind turbines. This is that their power continually fluctuates anywhere between full capacity to zero (where it often stood last winter, when national electricity demand was at a peak). So unless back-up power is instantly available to match any shortfall, the lights will go out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8612716/Proof-that-the-Government-is-tilting-at-windmills.html

And not only is the backup idle some of the time, it also has to be idling at an inefficient speed in order to provide instant power when needed. You can't just fire up a power plant in a few minutes, and Intel and the Server Farm can't wait.

[kristopher]

5. Your statement and conclusion are false.

Can you provide a legitimate peer reviewed analysis that supports your claims? I don't think you can because the world's leading specialists all agree that your assertions (part of what is known as "The Baseload myth") are false.

I'd love to see you try, however. So far, the only thing I've ever seen is the claim stating the myth; always with absolutely no empirical data or high level analysis to support it.

Please, show us some proof a bit more authoritative than the Telegraph.

[wtmusic]

6. Natural gas fires up much faster than nuclear

so adding solar/wind/high variability sources inevitably means natgas backup, which inevitably means millions of tons of CO2 spewing into the atmosphere.

Or just tear it all down, build a few more Palo Verdes, and enjoy the beautiful desert scenery.

[kristopher]

7. Germany's Green Economy Strategy - on reshaping energy systems

On September 8, WRI and the German embassy hosted an event featuring Jochen Flasbarth, President of the German Federal Environment Agency, Umweltbundesamt (UBA). The event, moderated by WRI President Jonathan Lash and with respondents Christopher Flavin, President of the Worldwatch Institute, and Ana Unruh-Cohen, deputy staff director for the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, highlighted UBA’s effort to figure out how the country could transform its electricity supply to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.

Germany has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80-85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels. The country’s motivations for this steep reduction are both economic and environmental. While climate change is a driver, the economic benefits from eliminating energy imports from foreign sources, combined with the country’s desires to remain a leader in green manufacturing, as countries like China ramp up their renewable production, encouraged further ambition.

...Flasbarth presented the results of UBA’s research, which focused on the electricity sector. UBA’s analysis was based on three primary assumptions: first, that all regions of the country exploit their best available renewable energy resource potential, second, that there would be an increase in the exchange of electricity between the different regions of the country, and third, that there would be very few imports of energy from other, neighboring countries. Ultimately, the agency found that a carbon-neutral grid could be achieved in Germany under these conditions, even while maintaining its highly industrialized status and without significant changes in consumption patterns and lifestyles. “We went on the safe side, using a conservative estimate, knowing that people will not change dramatically,” Flasbarth said....

...In the scenario presented at WRI, UBA envisions their power supply to be adapted to their geographic circumstances – an energy mix based on solar photovoltaics, wind, biomass, and a large portion of geothermal. In his opening remarks, Jonathan Lash pointed out that Germany is already a leader in clean energy. Even during the recession, investment in German renewable rose 20 percent. Furthermore, by 2009 the country employed over 300,000 people in renewable energy sectors, an 87 percent rise since 2004. At the same time, German business confidence just rose to a 3 year high. In contrast, as Christopher Flavin pointed out, the United States produces slightly lower levels of renewable energy – as a share of its total energy use – than it did in the early 1990s....
http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/09/germanys-green-economy-strategy

We do not need nuclear.

It is really as simple as that.

[Nihil]

8. FYI re UK newspapers and the opinion piece you quoted.

The Telegraph is a right-wing non-tabloid. Guess where the political
allegiances of its opinion-piece writers lie?

The only mainstream UK paper that is less trustworthy than the Telegraph
is the Daily Mail - an ultra-right tabloid that is so rabid that it should
never be used on DU (except as evidence for Poe's Law & variations thereof).

(I don't know the orientation of newspapers in the US so don't expect any
Americans to automatically know which UK papers are worth reading or not
so just thought this might help in the future.)

:hi: