Solar and Wind Power Failing in California.

[elektra]

After spending over a $100 billion dollars on Solar, Wind, and Geothermal power plants, California is still suffering a lack of electricity. In this story we hear that blackouts despite the billions spent on Solar and Wind power.

The World's largest Solar Plant just opened in California, does that power not amount to anything? California has 10's of thousands of Wind Turbines, why won't they provide the electricity California needs?

It is obvious, an energy policy dictated by the government and special interest groups will always lead to failure.

California is now a Third World State, unable to provide for our security in peace or war, what if we need to produce weapons from California's Aerospace industry, how can we with not power.

Southern California braces for summer blackouts due to Porter Ranch gas leak

State officials warn that Southern California could face as many as 14 days of scheduled blackouts this summer because of depleted reserves of natural gas caused by the massive leak in Aliso Canyon.

The canyon in the hills above Porter Ranch is a crucial gas storage facility, supplying 17 power plants in the Los Angeles Basin. But the four-month leak that began in October left the facility at one-fifth of its capacity and new injections of gas have been prohibited until all of its wells have passed comprehensive tests.

Officials estimate the storage facility won’t be back on line for months, leaving local power plants without a key source of natural gas.

 

[midcan5]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.... Oh my, oh my, the sky is falling says chicken little, aka USMB whining do nothings. They cry and they cry, their long past relatives of whining did the same, It would occur to anyone with any sense at all that all this crying doesn't solve a single problem except that it gives the pessimists a weird sort of happiness. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Oh my.....

 

[Tehon]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

 

[elektra]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

Actually the renewables are expected to replace fossil fuels. We have spent billions upon billions on renewables.

 

[Tehon]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

Actually the renewables are expected to replace fossil fuels. We have spent billions upon billions on renewables.

When do you think it is anticipated that renewables are going to replace fossils? California has the most strict mandate and calls for 50% by 2030. It seems like you are expecting a bit much in 2016.

Who is we? Who has spent billions upon billions on renewables?

 

[elektra]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

Actually the renewables are expected to replace fossil fuels. We have spent billions upon billions on renewables.

When do you think it is anticipated that renewables are going to replace fossils? California has the most strict mandate and calls for 50% by 2030. It seems like you are expecting a bit much in 2016.

Who is we? Who has spent billions upon billions on renewables?

The state of california and the obama administration.

California passed legislation stating 20% renewables by 2010, then it was 37% this year, and now the goal post has moved again.

Either way, had a 100 billion dollars been spent on nuclear power, or natural gas, we would not have this problem.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

They have been over-sold as "alternatives" to fossil fuel. As you say -- they really are not. They are "supplements" that can't be relied on for carrying the base load.

 

[Tehon]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

They have been over-sold as "alternatives" to fossil fuel. As you say -- they really are not. They are "supplements" that can't be relied on for carrying the base load.

Over sold or misrepresented for political points?

 

[flacaltenn]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

They have been over-sold as "alternatives" to fossil fuel. As you say -- they really are not. They are "supplements" that can't be relied on for carrying the base load.

Over sold or misrepresented for political points?

Both actually. Because it's represented as an either/or alternative to fossil, hydro, nuclear. Most of the proponents of wind power have never looked at the daily production charts of a well-built wind farm. It's NOT a baseline replacement for anything. Can't even be contracted for guaranteed delivery to the grid..

Over - sold as in the wild headlines that "Wind Power Supplies 80% of Nebraska" (for three hours on two days in the same week) -- OR --- "Solar beats Nat Gas" for Municipal Plant bid".. Ain't no equivalency or parity there at all.

Misrepresented? Of course -- because "alternatives" are a proxy for anti-growth, anti-cheap-energy, anti fossil movements. Solar has a role as daytime peaker. Wind has no apparent application on Grid in any large amount.

BUT --- there are plenty of OFF-GRID applications for LARGE uses of these technologies. Like in De-Desalinization plants, Hydrogen Fuel Production, water pumping and storage. Pipeline power, etc....

THOSE are the applications where energy is virtually free and some PRODUCT is produced that doesn't need a reliable real-time baseline, but can work off "averages" of available power..

 

[elektra]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

They have been over-sold as "alternatives" to fossil fuel. As you say -- they really are not. They are "supplements" that can't be relied on for carrying the base load.

Over sold or misrepresented for political points?

Both actually. Because it's represented as an either/or alternative to fossil, hydro, nuclear. Most of the proponents of wind power have never looked at the daily production charts of a well-built wind farm. It's NOT a baseline replacement for anything. Can't even be contracted for guaranteed delivery to the grid..

Over - sold as in the wild headlines that "Wind Power Supplies 80% of Nebraska" (for three hours on two days in the same week) -- OR --- "Solar beats Nat Gas" for Municipal Plant bid".. Ain't no equivalency or parity there at all.

Misrepresented? Of course -- because "alternatives" are a proxy for anti-growth, anti-cheap-energy, anti fossil movements. Solar has a role as daytime peaker. Wind has no apparent application on Grid in any large amount.

BUT --- there are plenty of OFF-GRID applications for LARGE uses of these technologies. Like in De-Desalinization plants, Hydrogen Fuel Production, water pumping and storage. Pipeline power, etc....

THOSE are the applications where energy is virtually free and some PRODUCT is produced that doesn't need a reliable real-time baseline, but can work off "averages" of available power..

Off Grid uses? Hydrogen Fuel Production? How so, from what I understand it takes an extreme amount of power to make Hydrogen.

Solar as a peak power source? Not in the winter, when the sun is low in the sky, not on cloudy or rainy days, and to be a significant source of peak power, you would need thousands of square miles of Solar.

Solar and Wind make a chosen few rich, the banks that lend the money, the CEO's who walk away with huge profits and then allow the companies to go bankrupt.

Solar and Wind are a scam, nothing more.

Intermittent power sources that are weak, are useless, that is why they were abandoned years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

They have been over-sold as "alternatives" to fossil fuel. As you say -- they really are not. They are "supplements" that can't be relied on for carrying the base load.

Over sold or misrepresented for political points?

Both actually. Because it's represented as an either/or alternative to fossil, hydro, nuclear. Most of the proponents of wind power have never looked at the daily production charts of a well-built wind farm. It's NOT a baseline replacement for anything. Can't even be contracted for guaranteed delivery to the grid..

Over - sold as in the wild headlines that "Wind Power Supplies 80% of Nebraska" (for three hours on two days in the same week) -- OR --- "Solar beats Nat Gas" for Municipal Plant bid".. Ain't no equivalency or parity there at all.

Misrepresented? Of course -- because "alternatives" are a proxy for anti-growth, anti-cheap-energy, anti fossil movements. Solar has a role as daytime peaker. Wind has no apparent application on Grid in any large amount.

BUT --- there are plenty of OFF-GRID applications for LARGE uses of these technologies. Like in De-Desalinization plants, Hydrogen Fuel Production, water pumping and storage. Pipeline power, etc....

THOSE are the applications where energy is virtually free and some PRODUCT is produced that doesn't need a reliable real-time baseline, but can work off "averages" of available power..

Off Grid uses? Hydrogen Fuel Production? How so, from what I understand it takes an extreme amount of power to make Hydrogen.

Solar as a peak power source? Not in the winter, when the sun is low in the sky, not on cloudy or rainy days, and to be a significant source of peak power, you would need thousands of square miles of Solar.

Solar and Wind make a chosen few rich, the banks that lend the money, the CEO's who walk away with huge profits and then allow the companies to go bankrupt.

Solar and Wind are a scam, nothing more.

Intermittent power sources that are weak, are useless, that is why they were abandoned years ago.

Not true at all. For Desal Plants -- you could use a very sketchy power source to produce a nearly CONSTANT yearly average. Could CONCEPTUALLY do it with wind if the plant design was capable of being interrupted and didn't lose great efficiency for re-starts. And it DOES make the process cheaper.

Same deal for Hydrogen production with wind/solar. What fool WOULDN'T want to make a marketable fuel out of water and FREE power (or cheap hydrocarbons and free power)? It's not OVERLY power intensive. But would affect the profit margins greatly if you had to shell out bucks for the power every month. It does scale appropriately for those OFF-GRID applications because YOU own and are the sole user of the source..

 

[elektra]

Where is the outrage directed at Southern California Gas for not maintaining a healthy pipeline system thereby putting southern Californians in this predicament. The renewables are not intended to replace the current electrical generation system at this point in time, why would anyone expect them to.

They have been over-sold as "alternatives" to fossil fuel. As you say -- they really are not. They are "supplements" that can't be relied on for carrying the base load.

Over sold or misrepresented for political points?

Both actually. Because it's represented as an either/or alternative to fossil, hydro, nuclear. Most of the proponents of wind power have never looked at the daily production charts of a well-built wind farm. It's NOT a baseline replacement for anything. Can't even be contracted for guaranteed delivery to the grid..

Over - sold as in the wild headlines that "Wind Power Supplies 80% of Nebraska" (for three hours on two days in the same week) -- OR --- "Solar beats Nat Gas" for Municipal Plant bid".. Ain't no equivalency or parity there at all.

Misrepresented? Of course -- because "alternatives" are a proxy for anti-growth, anti-cheap-energy, anti fossil movements. Solar has a role as daytime peaker. Wind has no apparent application on Grid in any large amount.

BUT --- there are plenty of OFF-GRID applications for LARGE uses of these technologies. Like in De-Desalinization plants, Hydrogen Fuel Production, water pumping and storage. Pipeline power, etc....

THOSE are the applications where energy is virtually free and some PRODUCT is produced that doesn't need a reliable real-time baseline, but can work off "averages" of available power..

Off Grid uses? Hydrogen Fuel Production? How so, from what I understand it takes an extreme amount of power to make Hydrogen.

Solar as a peak power source? Not in the winter, when the sun is low in the sky, not on cloudy or rainy days, and to be a significant source of peak power, you would need thousands of square miles of Solar.

Solar and Wind make a chosen few rich, the banks that lend the money, the CEO's who walk away with huge profits and then allow the companies to go bankrupt.

Solar and Wind are a scam, nothing more.

Intermittent power sources that are weak, are useless, that is why they were abandoned years ago.

Not true at all. For Desal Plants -- you could use a very sketchy power source to produce a nearly CONSTANT yearly average. Could CONCEPTUALLY do it with wind if the plant design was capable of being interrupted and didn't lose great efficiency for re-starts. And it DOES make the process cheaper.

Same deal for Hydrogen production with wind/solar. What fool WOULDN'T want to make a marketable fuel out of water and FREE power (or cheap hydrocarbons and free power)? It's not OVERLY power intensive. But would affect the profit margins greatly if you had to shell out bucks for the power every month. It does scale appropriately for those OFF-GRID applications because YOU own and are the sole user of the source..

Which process would you use for desal and hydrogen production? From the little I know they are both extremely power hungry.

Using Solar or Wind, the cost would cost more, Solar and Wind are more expensive.