Capacity utilization by energy type in California.

The question of how the capacity utilization in California of the various types of electrical generation plants based on the type of fuel they use. Interestingly enough, the data for determining the capacity utilization is available on the EIA website if one uses two spreadsheets posted there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x66106

The first breaks down California capacity by type:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04ca.xls

We see that California had in 2004 exactly 58,306 MWe of power generating capacity, dominated by natural gas capacity, which provides more than 50% of california electricity. (Natural gas is a fossil fuel with unacceptably high risk associated with it.)

To discover what the full capacity would translate to we can multiply the nameplate power capacity in megawatts by 1,000,000 (to account for the "mega" prefix) and then 365.25 days-year^-1 and by 86400 seconds-day^-1 to find the energy that would be produced, in joules, if they plants continuously produced.

This spreadsheet gives the amount of energy that each type of fuel actually produced in the plants described:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05ca.xls

To find the energy produced in Joules we multiply the number in the fourth column by 3600 sec hour^-1 and then by 1,000,000 (to account for the "mega" prefix). Then we divide the energy produced by the energy that would be produced to get the capacity utilization. Using the percent format in MS excel we get percent. (Note: Since this second spreadsheet does not report dual utilization plants use, this small amount of capacity is dropped from further discussion.)

Here's what we get for the capacity utilization for various type of fuel:

Coal, 65.82%
Petroleum, 36.61%
Natural Gas, 41.41%
Other Gases, 90.40%
Nuclear, 79.85%
Hydroelectric, 38.65%
Other Renewables, 51.95%



"Other gases" is a trivial amount of energy in California and will be ignored in further discussion. For those forms of energy that produce more than 1% of the electricity, the highest use of capacity is nuclear, followed by coal (a relatively minor player in California) followed by non hydro renewables followed by hydroelectric, followed by petroleum.

"NNadir!" you exclaim, "aren't you always telling us that renewable energy is unreliable and that it typically has a capacity load of under 30%? What gives buster?"

"OK," I demure, "Let's look at California's renewable profile:"

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profile/california.html

Here is the pie chart showing how renewable energy is distributed in California:



Note in the last link too, that there is a table giving both capacity and energy production from which we can determine average capacity loading.

Here are the results:

Geothermal 78.11%
MSW/LFG, 76.26%
Other Biomass 79.64%
Solar,   15.62%
Wind, 23.26%
Wood/Wood Waste, 72.21%

(MSW/LFG refers to municipal solid waste/landfill gas, i.e. garbage burning.)

California relies heavily on those forms of renewable energy that are alternatives to coal, specifically geothermal - the largest single renewable player after hydro, and burning biomass. The capacity loading for wind and solar are well below 25%. Thus when someone announces how many "peak" watts of solar or wind he or she has heard about, he or she is engaging in a scam trying to obscure a truth.

I have always said that geothermal energy and biomass burning can displace coal and that solar and wind can't.

The single most reliable form of significant energy in California is nuclear energy.

based in other states. :banghead:

However California has made great strides in having an internally diverse energy structure. It's a shame they rely so much on natural gas, but something can, in the long term, be done about that.

I really do believe that through the use of geothermal energy, solar energy and wind energy (for its peaks) and a healthy dollop of nuclear energy, California could in theory eliminate or at least marginalize fossil fuels. They have an excellent renewable resource base. It would seem that they can 30% of their energy from geothermal. They should stop talking about it and do it.

Where are the resources located?

I know there are some plants in Lassen and Mendo (?) counties, but do you know where else plants could feasibly be built?

There is some difficulty with water.

I wrote a long post about the potential of this area some time ago:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NNadir/1

Mammouth Mountain is a volcano, an active one at that, the ski resort notwithstanding. I'm sure something could be done up there too.

The Geysers power station is one of the most successful geothermal plants in the world.

Nevada seems to be in a good position here as well.

Geothermal 101: http://www.mammothpacific.com/geothermal.html

Of course the Pacific Northwest should be able to realize significant energy from this source as well.

:bounce: