"California has an aggressive "California has an aggressive Renewables Portfolio Standard that will require utilities to use renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal to generate 50% of the state’s electricity by 2030." I have read that utilities can get around this rule by purchasing non-renewable electricity from OR, NV, AZ etc, which is not counted towards the 50% renewables total.
Posted: 06:11 pm on May 31st 2018
Very interesting article. Very interesting article. Lot's of ideas I'd never heard of. Only 5 years ago my wife and I designed and built our house here in El Segundo (next to LAX). We wanted to install a large tank next to the house to collect rain water from our metal roof (to irrigate landscaping). No way, not allowed (contamination worries). How quickly things have changed. Now it is required. We are planning a move to Paso Robles in a few months time. A place which is suffering a severe water shortage and dropping levels of the ground water table. A lot of it seems to be due to the large expansion of vineyards in the area, as it was found to be a very ideal climate for wine production. Since most water used to irrigate crops ends up evaporating out of leaves, I'm not sure how you can improve that situation. But certainly the residential population has much scope for improvement. Still lots of green lawns and hotels with high flow everything (showers, toilets etc). My wife (who is an artist, not an engineer) is always saying they should build a pipeline from the Mississippi, where it always floods, to LA, where we could use the water. She says they pump oil all over the country, why not water? I'm never sure how to respond, since if the price of water ever got close to the price of oil, the idea would seem to have merit.
Posted: 06:10 pm on June 5th 2018
Reply to Martin Since oil costs about $2 a gallon, the cost of water would have to rise by a factor of 340 before you could apply the economics of oil transportation to an analysis of the economics of water transportation. Good info. I will pass that along to the wife!
Posted: 01:35 pm on June 6th 2018
Degradation due to UV? I rarely see (have never seen) any article mention the degradation in PV output over time due to exposure to UV. On the satellites I used to design in a prior life, 12-14 years was about it. After this you would hit the "knee" of the output vs. time curve and total output would start to fall quite quickly. Now of course space has no atmospheric attenuation of solar energy, so things on earth won't be as bad. But it surprises me how many folks have no idea that solar panels do have a limited lifespan.
Posted: 11:16 pm on June 21st 2018