Comments on: Regulations stalling power plant conversion

By: Hank

Hank — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:03:55 +0000

I am confused, when you speak of overbuilding which production numbers are you using? Renewables usually are given as the theoretical best production, but the historical actual production is no more than 20% to a maximum of 30% of claimed production. Many countries report less than 20%.
That is the European actual history, a complete disaster.

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:07:39 +0000

My Jimmy
It isn’t population loss but overbuilding that was the theme of my article.

Thank you for your comments.

By: jimmydeeoc

jimmydeeoc — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:35:52 +0000

Didn’t intend to rain on the parade, Wayne. Just pointing out that KNBC presented this as “news”, when it’s really a secular trend.

And true of course, that Birth-death + foreign immigration > domestic out-migration.

The cumulative impact on electricity demand and financing is illuminating, as it were =).

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:29:51 +0000

Mr. Jimmy
Net out migration can be offset by the number of births from those who live in California — so population can climb even when there is negative net migration. Most population forecasts now are based on 1% population growth per year. The problem is that the regulated utilities such as Edison and PG&E have to plan on buying power over a 5-year horizon. So their options for future power purchases and plans to build new plants have had to be ramped backwards because of slow growth — not necessarily population loss. California doesn’t need as many new power plants online especially when the Renewable Portfolio Standard of 33% is encroaching on conventional power plant generation. Sure conventional power plants are needed for backup when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow — but that’s an oversimplification too. Wind power is mainly generated at night and solar power from mid afternoon to sundown. In other words, solar power can be used to meet peak load daily and seasonal demands but wind power most often can not. And solar power is more costly than wind power. I spoke off the record with a person who negotiates future power purchases for one of the main regulated electric companies. They told me that the number of industries leaving California is making them cutback future power contracts and delay replacement of existing power plants. But because regulated utilities still have stock holders they can not speak about this situation. It now appears that Edison no longer needs San Onofre generation and that is a big story. Faced with the humongous costs of eliminating “ocean water cooling” it is probably more feasible for Edison to just shutter the plant. But this creates stranded assets — corporate bonds and debts that no longer have a revenue stream of electricity sales to pay them off. As the article stated — WHOOPS!

By: jimmydeeoc

jimmydeeoc — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:54:35 +0000

BTW – next time someone does one of those “Worst 100 People in the World”-type book….it would be a grave error if Mary Nichols’ name doesn’t appear.

By: jimmydeeoc

jimmydeeoc — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:51:45 +0000

1. Wayne: Don’t make the same mistake as the dullards at places like KNBC News did a few days ago when they reported this:

“California’s Population Is Moving Out, Census Report Shows
More people are moving out of the state than into the state”

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Californias-Population-Moving-Out-182914961.html

What they FAILED to mention, of course, is this is anything but “news”. Census Bureau data shows that in only TWO of the past TWENTY years have we NOT had net out-migration.

2. The whole power plant conversion/funding/ISO/etc. saga does induce a fair amount of eye glazing (MEGO). I’m reminded of reading some Amory Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute. There’s a fair amount of hippy-dippy blather, but he does make a good point about our need to decentralize energy sources. Safer and more secure (no widespread black outs, less susceptibility to terror) plus it would make people like ISO go away. Plus he’s a real scientist – a physicist. Would you rather have your energy policy designed by a physicist, or a Mary Nichols uber-bureaucrat?