Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable
Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:30 am
The forum for all aspects of the Nissan Leaf
I agree that the increase in coal use was due to the IMO stupid decision to shut down the nukes early (the decrease in NG usage was due to it being imported and expensive, while the coal was indigenous and cheap), but backup plants have to be manned, and someone (the customers) has to pay for it. Alternatively, they can accept that the electricity will be off fairly regularly for periods that may extend from several days to a week or more, and that's not going to fly. Building interconnects will help, but that only reduces the problem rather than solving it.SageBrush wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:39 pm^^ The German experience is a straw man argument because the causes for keeping the fossils open was mostly related to shuttering the nuclear plants.
You are correct that reserves have maintenance costs but the actual costs are hard to pin down. Mostly what you hear are plant owners trying to guarantee a nice ROI.
It is nothing new about having power plants in reserve. All through the 100% fossil era a whole fleet of plants were kept that had capacity factors in the 5% range.
You’re right about PG&E, but incorrect about California. Non-PG&E customers (PacificCorp) get power purchased from states that generate from coal power.iPlug wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:20 amCalifornia is a much better example than Germany. No coal, lots of renewables, nuclear mostly gone and forecast completely gone in 2025, and becoming less and less reliant on natural gas.
Here is the largest utility in California (PG&E-owned generation and power purchases):
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/p ... ontent.pdf
I've started a thread on the next phase, a harbinger of the future, with what Berkeley is up to.