5 ms·
The damn that was removed generated 27MW. California has nearly 40,000MW of solar power. Los Angeles alone has 650MW of solar.
by ip26 3y ago
The damn that was removed generated 27MW. California has nearly 40,000MW of solar power. Los Angeles alone has 650MW of solar.
- idiotsecant 3y agoHow many MW did those panels make at night when the river was still flowing? It's silly to simply compare nominal power outputs. Different generation sources have different characteristics. If you support removing hydro you better support constructing battery storage with you wallet because just adding more solar panels does not fill the same niche
- OJFord 3y agoIf GP's numbers are correct I don't think I even need a napkin to say solar + battery is more cost effective.
- idiotsecant 3y agoIf this was true we wouldn't have any dams, the market would see to it pretty quickly. It's not, at least not yet.
- OJFord 3y agoWe wouldn't have any new dams, or do significant work on them, maybe. However there's one approved for Scotland (Coire Glas) to do 30GWh of storage, generating 1.5GW. UK wide total storage capacity currently 24GWh apparently, so it absolutely competes. Maybe this one just wasn't cost effective to modernise/repair, the geography would never allow much, or cheaper to start from scratch, or something.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> How many MW did those panels make at night when the river was still flowing? Probably similar to the dam’s output during some of California’s multi-year severe drought. Hydro can be variable too.
- verve_rat 3y agoBut crucially, probably decoupled in their variability.
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoThey make bigger diesel generators than that. There’s cogen systems that are bigger. 27MW is, in the context of American or even Californian power, roughly 0