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

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
112. If nuclear is reliable why are we having this conversation?
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 04:36 PM
Jun 2013

That deals with your snarky comment at the end of your OP. Now let's dispose of the false claims in the OP itself.

Without SONGS, California still has more than enough capacity to meet their needs:

In order to keep the lights on, the ISO needs to have more generation available than consumers are expected to use. This is known as a “reserve margin,” and the California Public Utilities Commission requires the utilities to plan for a 15% cushion. And the state already has more power plants than we need to pass that test. This summer, the ISO expects to easily exceed that margin under normal conditions, and to still avoid rolling blackouts even under extreme conditions (like if a lot of power plants go down unexpectedly at the same time customers’ demand is unusually high).




Source: ISO (Note: SP 26 and NP 26 are roughly Southern and Northern California, respectively)


As you can see the problem presented by the shutdown isn't having enough capacity to meet demand.

So why, in 2012 when SO shut down, did they need to pull 2 retired natgas generators (450MW) out of retirement in nearby Huntington Beach?

Blame it on a grid designed around centralized generation. The gaping hole in the system left by the shutdown of a large centralized source of generation causes a lot of problems besides the loss of ability to meet demand.
...the grid needs the “voltage support” SONGS used to provide.

Since a major part of the Southern California electric grid was built around SONGS, it is a lot harder for the transmission grid to remain stable without the plant operating and providing that voltage support. This all gets very technical fast, but the important thing to know is that there are different ways to provide voltage support (and they don’t all require burning fossil fuels at a power plant). So even though one might expect the state to fill the hole left by SONGS with more dirty power plants, this year the state is taking a better and cleaner approach.



So what happens now?
...(Huntington Beach - k) is instead being converted into “synchronous condensers,” which provide voltage support without onsite emissions. (The synchronous condensers operate like electric motors and use a small amount of energy from the grid in the process.) Other emissions-free efforts to fill the hole left by SONGS include installation of capacitors and upgrades to a local transmission line so that if the line has a problem, only part of it goes down instead of the whole thing.

<snip>

The Public Utilities Commission should continue to build on the great start made this year by requiring utilities to fill the gap with efficient and clean resources by:
making the electric grid more resilient through transmission system upgrades;
adding renewable resources in different geographic regions to take advantage of the different times when they’re available; and
avoiding new generation through more aggressive efforts to help customers:
improve the efficiency of their homes and businesses;
reduce consumption during costly “peak” periods; and
use clean on-site generation like solar panels.



Information courtesy of the wonderful folks at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dwang/replacing_songs.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Natural gas would be a good solution. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #1
Yeah. Because we have barely scratched the surface of conservation efforts, which kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #12
Really? hunter Jun 2013 #43
Your ignorance is showing. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #44
Yeah, and my feet are too big. hunter Jun 2013 #49
I don't know if I would associate 'reliable base load' and San Onofre... AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #2
It was built too close to ignorant antinukes wtmusic Jun 2013 #3
And how much of a hole in the grid when a few wind turbines overspeed and break? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #4
Not much of a hole. FBaggins Jun 2013 #6
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
Heh. wtmusic Jun 2013 #17
Bet it didn't stop blowing for an entire year and a half........ kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #19
So this is a freak occurence, is it? wtmusic Jun 2013 #20
All it takes is a little intense heat in California and the winds begin to blow CreekDog Jun 2013 #62
Ah, the electrical load in Southern California is unbearably high in February CreekDog Jun 2013 #63
Of course you don't hear about it - natural gas kicks in to take its place. wtmusic Jun 2013 #11
The more distributed turbines you have AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #13
That's the myth the wind industry is trying to sell, anyway. wtmusic Jun 2013 #18
the irony is that you want us to think of wind and solar as some scheming "industry" CreekDog Jun 2013 #89
Then you haven't been paying attention FBaggins Jun 2013 #14
Oh, really. Just what were those "enormous consequences"? wtmusic Jun 2013 #25
In this case AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #28
2x in 30 years? Not bad. wtmusic Jun 2013 #32
Nuclear reactors are not carbon free. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #34
They use much less carbon than wind wtmusic Jun 2013 #35
'Less' but not 'free'. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #37
"wind turbines are far less carbon intensive than the nuclear fuel cycle" WRONG wtmusic Jun 2013 #39
Whatever. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #41
By the way AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #42
And yet wind is 9.7% of the state's total capacity NickB79 Jun 2013 #57
And that wind capacity is growing fast. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #60
How many lines are coming in from Wyoming? XemaSab Jun 2013 #58
None to my knowledge. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #59
8.2% in 2011 kristopher Jun 2013 #64
8.2% + 13.8% = hella XemaSab Jun 2013 #66
No, it's 8.2%. Your assumption about the 13.8% is unwarranted. kristopher Jun 2013 #67
California has the highest geothermal production capacity in the nation. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #75
Not 100% carbon free.. PamW Jun 2013 #101
Disagree. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #109
You have a reading comprehension problem? PamW Jun 2013 #113
Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #114
It was out for a year in 1980 AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #21
you said "ignorant antinukes" CreekDog Jun 2013 #88
What was bad about where it was built? FBaggins Jun 2013 #5
Really? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #8
Nonsense wtmusic Jun 2013 #16
The 1995 Hanshin quake in Kobe was a strike-slip and even though only a 7.2, produced AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #24
I noticed you didn't read the link I provided. wtmusic Jun 2013 #27
30 feet is a joke. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #29
Are you a seismologist? wtmusic Jun 2013 #33
Appeal to authority! AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #36
No, appeal to someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about. wtmusic Jun 2013 #38
It's called english. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #40
Engineers can engineer for the forces. PamW Jun 2013 #103
Is the door designed not to slam shut on you? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #108
Where are they? FBaggins Jun 2013 #104
Arnie is an IDIOT!!! PamW Jun 2013 #105
I tend to agree WRT Gunderson. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #107
Yes, really. FBaggins Jun 2013 #23
Tsunami don't just come from your front yard. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #26
It could get hit by an asteroid too. wtmusic Jun 2013 #30
The Fukushima Dai-ichi sea wall was considered adequate by some, until it wasn't. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #31
The damage done by the tsunami itself was far worse than the nuclear accident. hunter Jun 2013 #46
How many of the tsunami/quake dead are dead because AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #48
I've worked in labs with radioactive stuff. hunter Jun 2013 #52
Well, they didn't, apparently. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #56
Hardly any (if any at all) FBaggins Jun 2013 #54
I'm not sure that I see your point. FBaggins Jun 2013 #45
The sea wall isn't 30 feet. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #47
I didn't say that it was. FBaggins Jun 2013 #50
But you did say AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #51
I did say that... and I was right. FBaggins Jun 2013 #53
You can't say "and I was right" if what you said is technically wrong. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #55
Except that it wasn't "technically wrong" FBaggins Jun 2013 #69
There have been, and there is risk of tsunami much taller than 14' hitting the west coast. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #71
And that was in the analysis FBaggins Jun 2013 #73
I looked it up for you FBaggins Jun 2013 #70
so you're saying the coast of California is not at a tsunami risk? CreekDog Jun 2013 #65
Yes... that's what I'm saying. FBaggins Jun 2013 #68
turns out you're wrong, Tsunamis are a risk CreekDog Sep 2013 #117
Did you even read what you posted? FBaggins Sep 2013 #118
Interject some science.. PamW Jun 2013 #72
incorrect, there are subduction zones off California CreekDog Jun 2013 #74
Not really. FBaggins Jun 2013 #76
PamW said there weren't subduction zones off the coast of California FALSE CreekDog Jun 2013 #77
No she didn't FBaggins Jun 2013 #78
She did say it. Or are you telling me what "she meant to say" CreekDog Jun 2013 #79
You're playing childish games. FBaggins Jun 2013 #80
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
And that's why Mexico is at a higher risk of tsunami FBaggins Jun 2013 #85
CreekDog can NOT READ!!! PamW Jun 2013 #98
So the biggest and closest faults being strike-slip AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #110
Simplistic Analysis PamW Jun 2013 #99
WTF? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #111
The engine has INERTIA!!! PamW Jun 2013 #115
I don't think Yosemite has any volcanic risk indie9197 Jun 2013 #86
Yeah... it's Yellowstone. FBaggins Jun 2013 #87
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
There is a range of devastating tsunami below the threshold of AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #93
Again... sure FBaggins Jun 2013 #94
On the 31st of last month there was a 5.3 at 6.474°S 122.120°W AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #95
You understand logarithms, right? FBaggins Jun 2013 #96
A 5.3 at 10km under your ass would get your attention. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #97
Not necessarily PamW Jun 2013 #100
That you missed it doesn't mean it's imperceptible to humans. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #106
Oh, my - somebody just outed himself: kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #9
What are you saying about wtmusic and NNadir? CreekDog Jun 2013 #116
No great loss. We made it through last summer just fine without it. kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #15
You think buying out-of-state coal fired power is "just fine", do you? wtmusic Jun 2013 #22
you're blaming Greenpeace supporters for the shutdown of San Onofre? did they f--- up the plant? CreekDog Jun 2013 #61
Correct!! PamW Jun 2013 #102
Hey wtmusic, San Onofre is not "reliable baseload" when it's been off for 1.5 years CreekDog Jun 2013 #90
If nuclear is reliable why are we having this conversation? kristopher Jun 2013 #112
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»San Onofre shutdown will ...»Reply #112