Capacity Factor of California's Solar Infrastructure 12/24/20 Through 22:10 PST.

[NNadir]

According to the web page of the California Energy Commission, California has installed 11,089.2 MW (peak) of solar energy capacity.

At the CAISO "supply" page, which reports on the power output of all power sources in the state, if one scrolls down to the graphic for so called "renewables" one can see a drop down data button, which records the power output of all forms of so called "renewable energy" in the state, measured in increments of five minutes.

As of 22:10 PST, 12/23/20 (10:10 PM), the average power for all of California's solar facilities was . This suggests a capacity utilization of 8.9%.

The highest solar power output was observed at 3755 MW observed this afternoon (PST) at 13:25 PST (1:35 PM). The lowest output was continuously from 16:55 PST through 17:20 PST (4:55 PM PST through 5:20 PST) , was -47 MW through each 5 minute interval. The standard deviation was actually greater than the mean - reflecting huge variability and unreliability for the 5 minute segments; it was is 1422 MW. (The negative values for the minima refer to the energy losses associated with power flowing to the power lines that service the solar facilities when the sun isn't shining.)

For wind power, the mean was 890 MW, with a high of 1486 MW at 4:15 PST (4:15 AM), a low of 445 at 15:10 PST (3:10 PM PST), with a standard deviation of 314 MW.

The performance of California's so called "renewable energy" infrastructure is shown in the following graphic which, regrettably will not show up in Google Chrome, but will be visible in Microsoft Edge and or Firefox or Android:



California's peak energy demand on 12/24/20 was observed at 17:45 PST (4:45 PM PST) and was 27,632 MW. At this point, solar energy power lines were sucking 44 MW of power out of the grid to the then useless connections to the solar cells lying in the dark, doing nothing.

As I noted a few days ago on the solstice, the single operating nuclear reactor at Diablo Canyon - one unit is shut currently, probably for refueling - has continuously been producing between 1141 and 1144 MW. It is producing the same power today as it was 4 days ago, continuously, with a trivial fluctuation, reliably and predictably. The highest output today was 1145 MW; the lowest 11.41. The standard deviation is 0.9 MW, reflecting high reliability

This means that were both Diablo Canyon units operating, these two reactors could have easily provided all the energy provided by wind power today, with the added bonus of being predictable and reliable, in two small buildings, using only two turbines, and largely without the vast array of wires that crisscross California and need to be shut when the wind is blowing too strongly on dry days, lest they cause another of the huge fires we've seen in the last few years in that State.

As of 22:40 PST, California generating facilities were dumping 8,469 tons per hour of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide directly into the atmosphere. At that time, California was generating 12,858 MW of power using dangerous natural gas. The website emissions page includes the emissions associated with imported electricity.

All of the wind and solar capacity in California will need, more or less, to be replaced by 2040, since the average lifetime for these so called "renewable energy" devices is roughly 20 years.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors came on line in early 1985 (Unit One) and 1986 (Unit 2), 35 years ago. They are being shut, in 2024 and 2025, prematurely and not because they couldn't operate longer thus saving lives, but because of appeals to public ignorance.

In 35 years of nuclear operations, the number of people killed by storage of the boogey man used nuclear fuel, often referred to, with some measure of stupidity as "nuclear waste" at Diablo Canyon has been zero. The number of people who have died from air pollution in California is not zero.

The closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors represents a crime against humanity, inasmuch as it will increase air pollution and worsen climate change. California's power plants dumped over 51,049,896 tons of carbon dioxide into the planetary atmosphere in 2019, and that was a "good year."

These are facts. Facts matter.

I trust that those who are celebrating the Christmas holidays will enjoy a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[Crazyleftie]

1. You have carefully, conveniently and intentially overlooked

the problems associated with storage of high level radioactive waste, for which we have not found a safe, permanent solution, and it is doubtful we will. All of the waste is now stored in ponds or casks at the nuclear plant sites, and present a serious risk, as in terrorist attack(the Indian Point reactor was a potential target of the 9/11 terrorists), earthquakes(Diablo location is very close to several fault lines), or loss of coolant. The result would be catastrophic.

You also did not discuss the catastrophic impact of an actual plant failure in a populated area as well.

You also did not discuss the environmental impact of the uranium mining process.

You also did not discuss the impact of living near a nuclear plant and the higher incidence of cancer (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20662426/).

Facts matter, only if you present ALL of the facts.

[NNadir]

2. I have been studying so called "nuclear waste" for thirty years.

Last edited Fri Dec 25, 2020, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

I consider used nuclear fuel to be one of the most important resources for the future of humanity, given that in general, used thermal reactor fuel contains about 1% plutonium. Much work has been conducted by people called "scientists" and "engineers" to develop a concept called "breed and burn" reactors, the use of which, will allow for the uranium already mined last for multiple centuries, as well as the thorium mined and dumped to obtain lanthanides for the destructive and useless wind industry.

In my journal here, there are references to many scientific papers about the components of nuclear fuel, both fission products and higher actinides and ways in which their value is being ignored because of fear and ignorance associated with people who do not, in general, know anything about radiochemistry, chemistry in general, inorganic nuclear chemistry, materials science, engineering, or for that matter, medicine.

As for disasters, about which anti-nukes carry on about endlessly with grotesque and highly immoral selective attention, I often point to these ethically detestable people this paper, from one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, Lancet.

This points out that while morons sit around worrying about so called "nuclear waste," seven million people die each year from dangerous fossil fuel waste. About 19,000 will die today, Christmas day, from that cause while we all wait, like Godot, for the so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here, and will not come.

Here is the most recent full report from the Global Burden of Disease Report, a survey of all causes of death and disability from environmental and lifestyle risks: Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.

It is open sourced. Even idiots can read it, although in general, they can't grasp what it says. It is interesting that this paper does not show putative radiation deaths.

Another disaster that anti-nukes ignore is the fact that the human body is incapable of controlling internal temperature when it rises above 43C, 108F. People were dropping dead all over the world this year, ignored by the anti-nuke community, because of something called "climate change." The asses who carry on about so called "nuclear waste" are spectacularly disinterested in climate change, which is a real disaster. The coasts of two continents burned out of control in 2020, the seas are acidic and rising, entire ecosystems have been destroyed, not only by diesel trucks hauling wind turbine parts around on access roads ploughed through wilderness, but by heat.

As someone who spends very long hours each week reading scientific papers, I do realize that trashy scientific papers are published, and this is why scientists are aware of retractions. In 30 years of studying the subject, I have come to realize that 100% of the "cancer from nuclear plants" papers fall into this category.

It is not the case the case that nuclear energy needs to be risk free or else other much more dangerous forms of energy, including solar energy, given it's rather dubious chemistry of manufacture, will be allowed to kill people at will. Nuclear energy need not be risk free to be vastly superior to every thing else; it only needs to be vastly superior to everything else.

It is often the case that people who know very few facts, have little conception of ALL the facts, since in general they are intellectually and morally lazy shoot of their mouths, demonstrating their profound ignorance. In more than 30 years of studying the subject - after Chernobyl blew up and set the upper limit on a nuclear disaster, thus converting me from a dumb shit anti-nuke into an educated pronuclear scientist - I have encountered this sort many times, here and elsewhere.

I find them appalling, and it gives me great pleasure to take an opportunity to demonstrate clearly exactly whence these people come.

Have a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

[Crazyleftie]

3. for someone with an apparent scientific background

You make some generalized unsupported generalizations:

"The asses who carry on about so called "nuclear waste" are spectacularly disinterested in climate change, which is a real disaster."
WRONG

"so called "nuclear waste"
WRONG, as you appear to be denying the existence of or at least ignoring this problem
You did not respond to my comments on nuclear waste, other than implying it doesn't exist.


Discussion of a topic using name calling really calls into question the validity of your opinions

"ethically detestable people"
"intellectually and morally lazy shoot of their mouths"
"demonstrating their profound ignorance"

I have been informed on nuclear energy for 40 years, prior to Chernoble, and I find your attitude toward a differing opinion disturbing and exhibiting an attitude of superiority.

[NNadir]

5. There are types who show up here, the energy equivalents of anti-vaxxers, who want to harp at me...

...in response to my pronuclear energy stance, of which I am very proud.

As stated, my journal on this website addresses many aspects of nuclear fuels, for just one example out of hundreds, this one:

Liquid/Liquid Extraction Kinetics for the separation of Americium and Europium.

Now, it happens that there are people who often cite, repeatedly, the retracted paper on the relationship between autism and vaccines, year after year, month after month, day after day. Some I'm sure, have been at it for decades, without learning a shred of science.

There really isn't much interesting or intelligent about engaging these people, any more than there would be much value for a physician, or even Dr. Fauci, engaging the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the subject of vaccines which save human lives. I'm sure he says he "studied" vaccines, but since he has no scientific background, there is no point in addressing him.

Now, I have no problem with people expressing contempt for Robert F. Kennedy, even if he is a political liberal, because his ignorance kills and injures people. At a certain age, one learns that one can be on the left and yet still, be pernicious.

I feel the same way about anti-nukes as many medical professionals feel about Robert F. Kennedy. The ignorance of anti-nukes kills people in the same way antivaxxers kill people. (For the record, my late mother-in-law was one of the last people to have polio, and so my position on vaccines is very similar to that on nuclear energy.)

I have, on this website, an ignore list, consisting of maybe 30 or 40 people who have their heads of their asses about nuclear energy, which I consider to be the last, best hope of humanity. There is no intellectual or moral value for me to engage them. After 50 years of failure, the expenditure of trillions of dollars for no good reason, and no consideration of the fact that humanity abandoned so called "renewable energy" in the 19th and early 20th century for a very good reason, poverty, they still don't get it.

That someone can spend 40 years claiming to "study" nuclear energy and learn absolutely nothing other than to embrace selective attention, hardly surprises me, since I know the type well. It is not my job to educate such people, since they are spectacularly uninterested in education and simply wish to chant pablum.

I will expand my ignore list now to include yet another such person, whose craziness is of no interest to me.

Have a nice life, and again, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[Crazyleftie]

6. wow....

what an attitude...!!

It is sad that someone can't engage in discussion about something that doesn't match his own world view.

what an ubermensch....are you German (no disrespect meant to Germans but just a historical reference) by any chance?

Have a nice life living in your bubble

[Crazyleftie]

4. fyi

A unilateral approach to energy/climate change ie that nuclear power will be mankind's sole savior without considering efficiency and renewables is not going to work.

There are a number of countries leading the way with this, by generating a significant proportion of the energy they use from renewable sources.
Iceland

Iceland is the world's leader in renewable energy generation and produces more electricity per person than any other country on earth. Nearly 100% of their energy comes from renewable sources because of their unique landscape. Iceland generates hydropower and geothermal energy, which produces around 95% of the country's heating.

Iceland’s current power generation totals approximately 19 TWh annually, which makes Iceland the world’s largest electricity generator per capita with 55,000 kWh per person; in comparison, the EU average is 6,000 kWh.
Norway

Norway produces 98% of its energy from renewable sources. Hydropower has been the primary source of the production for some time, but both wind and thermal energy contribute to Norwegian electricity production.
Kenya

Kenya currently produces 70% of energy from renewable sources and aiming to be 100% powered by green energy by 2020.
Uruguay

In the last ten years, Uruguay managed to significantly reduce its carbon footprint without government subsidies and without an increase in consumer costs. This has been achieved through a positive governmental regulatory environment which encourages the public and private sectors to work together. Power cuts, which were a significant issue in the country, were also reduced as a result.

The growth of renewables also attracted energy investment and now accounts for 15% of the country's annual GDP.
Sweden

In 2015 Sweden decided to challenge the world with the ambitious goal to eliminate its use of fossil fuel by 2050. Sweden has increased its investment in solar power, wind power, energy storage, smart grids and clean transport.
Germany

You might not think Germany has the weather to be a solar energy hotspot, however, they are one of the world's leaders in the sector. Currently, renewable energy in Germany provides more electricity than its coal and nuclear output combined.
China

China is among the most prominent investors in renewable energy. They produce around 25% of their total energy from renewable sources, however, they still use huge volumes of energy from non-renewable sources. This has meant that although China is one of the most prominent investors in renewables an increase in the growth of the country resulted in a surge of CO2 emissions in 2018.
UK

In the UK, wind power is the main contributor to renewable energy production. Currently, Scotland able to produce enough renewable energy to power all its homes and businesses without the need for any fossil fuels. The UK now produces more energy from wind farms than it does from coal.
USA

Just 18% of our energy comes from renewable sources, and this could fall further. In the country’s 2020 budget, renewable energy budget fell to $700 million, a significant drop from figures as high as $2.3 billion in previous years.