Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)64. 8.2% in 2011
Total System Power for 2011: Changes from 2010
In 2011, Total System Power for California was marginally higher by half of a percent from 2010. The two primary reasons are the ongoing recession and continued mild temperatures. The effects of the recession resulted in a peak demand that was 5 percent less than the forecast. As for temperatures, they were lower than normal during the spring, near normal temperatures during the summer, and above normal temperatures during both the fall and winter.1 By design, California's electric generation system delivers electricity quickly to match peak air conditioning load conditions in the summer.
In-state generation declined by 2.4 percent in 2011 however net imports from the Northwest and Southwest combined made up for the difference. In particular, energy imports from the Northwest in 2011 increased by 42.7 percent due primarily to an increase in hydroelectric generation resulting from higher precipitation in the Northwest. Between March and May 2011, Oregon and Washington experienced their wettest periods in the last 116 and 117 years respectively.2
With the conversion of Mt. Poso Cogeneration coal facility to a biomass plant complete, the in-state coal category showed a slight decline from 2010. Mt. Poso Cogeneration is about 10 miles north of Bakersfield.
Large hydroelectric generation, a category based on nameplate capacity of 30 megawatts (MW) and larger, showed a significant increase of 24.8% for in-state generation. This coincides with California experiencing one of its wettest years. After three relatively dry years, statewide precipitation during the 2010 Water Year (ending September 30, 2010) was 105% of average. Precipitation during the 2011 Water Year (ending September 30, 2011) was 135% of average, and runoff was 146% of average. Though January 2011 was remarkably dry, the months of March and May were extremely wet with peak snowmelt in early July. As a result, in-state hydroelectric generation in 2011 was 127% of average compared to 101% in 2010.
Generally, when snowmelt and runoff is plentiful, California's hydroelectricity is less expensive to purchase than electricity generated by plants using natural gas-fired generation. Therefore, usage of natural gas-fired generation is reduced ("displaced"
. This is especially so during the spring and fall months and during off-peak summer hours (afternoon and early evening hours). Wind generation increased in 2011 reflecting the continued siting of new wind projects in the state. Solar also saw some increase as commercial-scale systems came online in 2011.
Reporting requirements for Total System Power are limited to projects rated at 1MW and larger. Because most solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on residential households and businesses are less than 1 MW, data on them is not collected. As more installations of solar PV and other "behind the meter" distributed generation technologies take place, consumption of power delivered by utilities will continue to decrease. Whether to exclude these smaller systems from the Total System Power summary may need addressing in future, if the aggregate capacity and energy of such small systems becomes a significant portion of the state's generation mixture.
1 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/13
2 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/13

In 2011, Total System Power for California was marginally higher by half of a percent from 2010. The two primary reasons are the ongoing recession and continued mild temperatures. The effects of the recession resulted in a peak demand that was 5 percent less than the forecast. As for temperatures, they were lower than normal during the spring, near normal temperatures during the summer, and above normal temperatures during both the fall and winter.1 By design, California's electric generation system delivers electricity quickly to match peak air conditioning load conditions in the summer.
In-state generation declined by 2.4 percent in 2011 however net imports from the Northwest and Southwest combined made up for the difference. In particular, energy imports from the Northwest in 2011 increased by 42.7 percent due primarily to an increase in hydroelectric generation resulting from higher precipitation in the Northwest. Between March and May 2011, Oregon and Washington experienced their wettest periods in the last 116 and 117 years respectively.2
With the conversion of Mt. Poso Cogeneration coal facility to a biomass plant complete, the in-state coal category showed a slight decline from 2010. Mt. Poso Cogeneration is about 10 miles north of Bakersfield.
Large hydroelectric generation, a category based on nameplate capacity of 30 megawatts (MW) and larger, showed a significant increase of 24.8% for in-state generation. This coincides with California experiencing one of its wettest years. After three relatively dry years, statewide precipitation during the 2010 Water Year (ending September 30, 2010) was 105% of average. Precipitation during the 2011 Water Year (ending September 30, 2011) was 135% of average, and runoff was 146% of average. Though January 2011 was remarkably dry, the months of March and May were extremely wet with peak snowmelt in early July. As a result, in-state hydroelectric generation in 2011 was 127% of average compared to 101% in 2010.
Generally, when snowmelt and runoff is plentiful, California's hydroelectricity is less expensive to purchase than electricity generated by plants using natural gas-fired generation. Therefore, usage of natural gas-fired generation is reduced ("displaced"
Reporting requirements for Total System Power are limited to projects rated at 1MW and larger. Because most solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on residential households and businesses are less than 1 MW, data on them is not collected. As more installations of solar PV and other "behind the meter" distributed generation technologies take place, consumption of power delivered by utilities will continue to decrease. Whether to exclude these smaller systems from the Total System Power summary may need addressing in future, if the aggregate capacity and energy of such small systems becomes a significant portion of the state's generation mixture.
1 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/13
2 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/13

More at http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
See also
Los Angeles Bans Coal Power
Coal Free by 2025
By Jon Carter
Friday, March 22nd, 2013
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/los-angeles-bans-coal-power/3209
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yeah. Because we have barely scratched the surface of conservation efforts, which
kestrel91316
Jun 2013
#12
I don't know if I would associate 'reliable base load' and San Onofre...
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#2
And how much of a hole in the grid when a few wind turbines overspeed and break?
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#4
I don't think I've ever heard of doldrums affecting an entire state grid.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#7
Hell, I don't think the wind EVER dies down in the Tehachapi Pass or out in the desert........
kestrel91316
Jun 2013
#10
All it takes is a little intense heat in California and the winds begin to blow
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#62
the irony is that you want us to think of wind and solar as some scheming "industry"
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#89
"wind turbines are far less carbon intensive than the nuclear fuel cycle" WRONG
wtmusic
Jun 2013
#39
California has the highest geothermal production capacity in the nation.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#75
The 1995 Hanshin quake in Kobe was a strike-slip and even though only a 7.2, produced
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#24
The Fukushima Dai-ichi sea wall was considered adequate by some, until it wasn't.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#31
There have been, and there is risk of tsunami much taller than 14' hitting the west coast.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#71
Actually, you and PamW are all arguing peculiarly similar things, which are misleading
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#81
They're similar points (since they both correct the same error)... but they aren't 1 or 2
FBaggins
Jun 2013
#82
The simple fact is PamW said specifically that there aren't subduction zones off California --false
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#83
Actually, I pointed out far upthread that the Cocos/Pacific plate fault can produce these tsunami.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#84
Our understanding of how faults and quakes work in the Pacific is evolving to this day.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#91
Certainly... but that returns us to the Yellowstone example and the first point
FBaggins
Jun 2013
#92
you're blaming Greenpeace supporters for the shutdown of San Onofre? did they f--- up the plant?
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#61
Hey wtmusic, San Onofre is not "reliable baseload" when it's been off for 1.5 years
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#90