3 ms·

The article is referring to why CA might want to go nuclear, not why neighboring states might want to do so. My points reflect that specifically. Also, power

The article is referring to why CA might want to go nuclear, not why neighboring states might want to do so. My points reflect that specifically. Also, power transmission across 500+ miles to get it from a neighboring state with nuclear-suitable sites is not insignificant (typically in the range of 1-2% per 100mi). What data are you basing your second point off of? All the stats I've ever seen are using electricity sales to estimate their per-capita numbers. For example, [1]. Rooftop solar would be accounted for only as a general dip in sales, not as a specific reduction in per-capita consumption if that makes sense (we might be saying the same thing). This quote from [1] is relevant here: "Rapid growth in the adoption of small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in states such as Hawaii and California has contributed to the recent decline in some states’ retail electricity sales. Small-scale solar PV systems, often installed on residential rooftops, offset the amount of electricity that consumers need to buy from the electric grid. In 2016, residential distributed PV generation was equivalent to 15% of electricity consumption in the residential sector in Hawaii, 6% in California, and 3% in Arizona." That 6% number for CA has grown in the last 3 years as well and continues to do so. It's a bigger offset than most people think. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212

rconti 7y ago
Right, but you said "Large chunks of California where power is actually needed are essentially deserts.." My point was that power can be shipped, in-state, just as easily (more easily?) than it can be shipped from out of state. Here's a source that discusses maximum power demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California I'm not sure to what extent solar offsets this, but it's worth noting that it was in 2006, before solar was nearly as popular as it is now. Your source discusses power sales, where, I think you're right, rooftop generation would be netted out. In realtime demand, I think the only cancellation would be the realtime net of production vs consumption. The all-time peak of around 2pm would be a time with lots of solar generation, to your point, so solar during peak times would cancel out some observed demand. Also it sounds like they did a lot of work to time-shift power usage, rather than outright decrease it.

rconti 7y ago

Right, but you said "Large chunks of California where power is actually needed are essentially deserts.." My point was that power can be shipped, in-state, just as easily (more easily?) than it can be shipped from out of state. Here's a source that discusses maximum power demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California I'm not sure to what extent solar offsets this, but it's worth noting that it was in 2006, before solar was nearly as popular as it is now. Your source discusses power sales, where, I think you're right, rooftop generation would be netted out. In realtime demand, I think the only cancellation would be the realtime net of production vs consumption. The all-time peak of around 2pm would be a time with lots of solar generation, to your point, so solar during peak times would cancel out some observed demand. Also it sounds like they did a lot of work to time-shift power usage, rather than outright decrease it.