9 replies to this topic

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Despite all the sunshine in my state, solar still makes up only a small fraction of energy production.  That will be changing over the next decade.

Guidelines were set by the state in 2002.  By 2020, all energy producing companies in California will have to make solar energy 33% of all their alternative energy production.

I'm always giving PG&E a bad time because of the fiasco in San Bruno and the aftermath.  But, they are working hard to meet solar energy goals.  It appears they are ahead of schedule.  By 2020, solar will make up 40% of all their alternative energy production.

It's interesting because the 33% is expected to be an easy goal for all the companies to meet.  Because of that, state legislators are now thinking of raising the goal to 40% by 2020.

California isn't the only state that is amping up solar construction.  According to the article...

"Several massive solar power plants are under construction and scheduled to come online between 2012 and 2015. Arizona-based First Solar is building several photovoltaic plants across the Southwest, and some out-of-state solar projects will feed electricity into California's grid. The 290-megawatt Agua Caliente plant in Yuma County, Ariz., will provide electricity for PG&E. More than 200 megawatts are already connected to the grid, and the full plant should be finished in 2014."

I think solar is a good fit for California especially in the valleys and down south.  Those areas have very short Winters.  Fog may be a problem but some areas see very little of it.

http://business-news...tfolio-2020-0/1

[still learning]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 25 July 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Guidelines were set by the state in 2002.  By 2020, all energy producing companies in California will have to make solar energy 33% of all their alternative energy production.

http://business-news...tfolio-2020-0/1

Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, but the article you linked to says:
"California's aggressive "Renewable Portfolio Standard" law requires utilities to purchase 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Bioenergy, geothermal, solar, wind, wave and tidal power and small hydroelectric dams -- which cause less harm to the environment than large hydro dams -- all count toward meeting the law."

But the linked article doesn't have it strictly right either.  According to the California Energy Commission, should be " requiring that 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources..... regulations to achieve the goal of 33 percent renewables by 2020."  http://www.energy.ca...olio/index.html

As I understand it, by 2020, 33% of all retail electricity sales in California is to come from what are usually called "alternative" energy sources.  Large hydroelectric and nuclear don't count as part of that 33%, but do count as part of the 100%.  What the mix is of wind and solar and other isn't specified.
Since PG&E and the other big utilities still own non-fossil generating capacity (nuclear and large hydro), making the 33% sales instead of purchases actually makes the renewables standard more stringent, 33% of a "bigger pie."

Historically large hydro and nuclear have each supplied about 15% of electricity  http://energyalmanac...gy_sources.html so if conservation programs continue to be reasonably successful in keeping total electric growth low, then 15 and 15 and 33 leave just 37% to be filled by fossil fuels in 2020.
Not bad.
Still a ways to go though to get down to the 5% fossil goal by 2050.

[Mustaxina]

Do you have a reasonably accurate insolation map of California? I've been looking for one, but all I've found are maps made either by solar power companies or by anti-solar think tanks, both of which have vested interests. Just like Western Europe is wind power paradise, I imagine places like California have huge solar potential. According to the Wikipedia article "Solar power in California", it looks like photovoltaics are undergoing quasi-exponential growth and the state already has an installed PV capacity of more than 2,000 MWp. I don't know what the exact MWp to MW ratio is, but it looks very impressive to me.

[still learning]

Mustaxina, on 26 July 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Do you have a reasonably accurate insolation map of California?

Maybe here: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html  (not plain insolation)
Maybe here: http://www.energy.ca...-2005-072-D.PDF (older)

The MWp is just megawatts peak.  Noontime in summer.  What we'd really like to know is megawatt-hours, the energy produced, not the power level.  Energy is what's on your electric bill.

[MyDigitalpoint]

California is one of the states that has the best condition to produce more solar energy compared to others, so I'm glad to hear about solar advances made up here.

[Mustaxina]

still learning, on 26 July 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

The MWp is just megawatts peak.  Noontime in summer.  What we'd really like to know is megawatt-hours, the energy produced, not the power level.  Energy is what's on your electric bill.

Interesting. Judging from these insolation maps you provided, Arizona and New Mexico also have massive solar power potential, yet for some reason, you only hear about California. Is this because they're not exploiting their potential, or is it simply that they do but don't know how to publicise it properly? If it is the former, then it's a great pity that such a great source of energy is going untapped in these two states, and if it is the latter, then one wonders why they fail to promote solar power as well as California does. Maybe it has something to do with politics, Arizona at least seems to be a conservative state.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

still learning, I am trying to grasp what you are saying as a opposed to what the article says.  Am I wrong in that PG&E plans to have 40% of its alternative energy portfolio come from solar by 2020, or, am I reading that wrong?

Mustaxina, I have to admit that since I'm from California I tend to have better access to articles that deal with what's going on in my state.  However, when it comes to alternative energy, Montana is really the only other state that I know of that publicizes the fact that they are in the alternative energy game.  Governor Schweitzer goes on the radio and does interviews to pump up Montana's growth in the wind energy market.  I wonder if some states with Republican governors and legislatures are afraid to promote the fact that they have a bustling alternative energy industry because it contradicts the national party platform (which is to push oil, coal, and nuclear energy).

[still learning]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 29 July 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

still learning, I am trying to grasp what you are saying as a opposed to what the article says.  Am I wrong in that PG&E plans to have 40% of its alternative energy portfolio come from solar by 2020, or, am I reading that wrong?

That part is right.

There is a renewable energy requirement in California, is 20% of electricity sold now, rises to 33% in 2020.  It doesn't require any particular fraction be solar or wind or anything else, just gotta be renewables.  As the article you linked to says, right now it's mostly wind but solar is increasing fast.


Quoting your 25 July "By 2020, all energy producing companies in California will have to make solar energy 33% of all their alternative energy production."

That part isn't right.

[still learning]

Mustaxina, on 29 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

..... Arizona and New Mexico also ... solar power potential, yet for some reason, you only hear about California. Is this because they're not exploiting their potential, or is it simply that they do but don't know how to publicise it properly..... Maybe it has something to do with politics.....

Part of it is just size and the publicity associated:
California's population is about 37 million, Arizona's 6.5 million and New Mexico's 2 million.
Not just size though, politics too.
California's renewable energy standard, currently 20% (we also get about 15% each from hydroelectric and nuclear) is relatively ambitious, but other states are coming along, including Arizona and New Mexico, see http://en.wikipedia....tfolio_Standard

[Mustaxina]

still learning, on 29 July 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

Part of it is just size and the publicity associated:
California's population is about 37 million, Arizona's 6.5 million and New Mexico's 2 million.
Not just size though, politics too.
California's renewable energy standard, currently 20% (we also get about 15% each from hydroelectric and nuclear) is relatively ambitious, but other states are coming along, including Arizona and New Mexico, see http://en.wikipedia....tfolio_Standard

I think demographically small states/countries should also try to develop their renewable energy sources to the greatest extent possible, because they can then sell the energy to other states/countries to boost the economy. Actually, this has been suggested by some to help solve Greece's economic crisis. Greece is sometimes mocked for having an economy based on "olives and ouzo", but this is not true. Greece has massive solar power potential, enough to meet its own needs and then more. Imagine how the Greek economy would improve if suddenly it didn't need to import fossil fuels for electricity and it could export renewable energy to its neighbouring countries. All of a sudden, the country's economic situation wouldn't be anywhere near as precarious as now.