I must have lost my cotton-picking mind or something, going around the world telling people that more than 90% of Swedish electricity is generated by nuclear and hydro, and if they hadn't closed those two reactors, and allowed an exploitation of some of the remaining hydro, it would be more than 95%. However, like you, I'm an optimist: with a little luck, by 2020 it will be up to 95%. As for the other 5 percent, it doesn't really make any difference if it's sun, wind, biomass or buffalo chips, since it's mainly of symbolic value: a play for the gallery.

When it comes to going off oil by 2020, that idea came from the fertile brain of the Swedish energy minister, Ms Sahlin, one of Sweden's celebrity politicians who knows as much about energy as I do about brain surgery. She played an important part in convincing a significant fraction of the television audience that it made sense to enter one of the most parasitical organizations in the world, the EU, just as she has always espoused taking money from hospitals, schools and welfare in Sweden, and sending it to various stone-age countries, as well as Brussels.

As for the future of Malmö, although it has many advantages, by 2020 it may be a Third World city, thanks to Swedish membership in the EU. If this turns out to be the case, it won't be of interest how it satisfies its energy 'needs'! Which brings me to a key question in this 'comment': how could anyone lucky enough to live in Santa Barbara be interested in what happens in Malmö?

It's entirely fair to cite the cost of wind power as I did, even if it does require a functioning grid to back it up. In California, each power source is provided, by the Independent System Operator (grid operator), a "capacity credit." Wind, depending on its location, is granted a capacity credit of about 30-40%, and changes as a three year average of actual past production. This is the same system used for any type of generation, with fossil fuel sources and nuclear receiving, of course, higher capacity credits. The point is: every technology requires the grid to help its value. The largest nuclear plant in the US, Palo Verde, in Arizona, has been down for a week at a time a few times in the past year. At 4 GW for that power plant, can you estimate for me the balancing generation required to offset that massive offline power source?

Also, have you seen the new Utility Wind Integration Group's study on the costs of wind integration in the US? As has been stated by many folks recently, they find that wind power could provide 20% of total US electricity without much additional cost for balancing. The study can be found at: http://www.uwig.org/UWIGWindIntegration052006.pdf.

That was Sithe Energy of NY in a 2002 submission to the OEB discussing why they refuse to construct new gas generation in Ontario.

They had their nose out of joint because even in 2002, with the low prices of that time, their Natural Gas generation couldn't compete with the privatized but majority government sharehold OPG. And Re. "Spending money on a 30 yr old nuclear plant", $3 billion to refurbish 4.5 GW of 30 yr old nucleargeneration is low, and very worthwhile.

http://www.cleanair.web.net/media/nov402.html

If you want to spar with someone, you should come to Stockholm about the time that Fred Singer does a gig on anti-global warming at the Royal Institute of Technology. I'm sure that he will accomodate you.

As for that line in your comment, "Even if she isn't the Einstein of energy, her aspirations and her ability to promote visionary goals are marvelous", this is COMPLETELY wrong, to include the parf about her NOT being the Einstein of energy. In the present Swedish context, Ms Sahlin is both the Einstein and Newton of energy, while the engineers and executives who shake their heads when they hear her sounding off have been relegated to know-nothings.

I also well understand the dynamics of the local politics in California counties like Santa Barbara. The local celebrities and the academics team up with the local environmentalists to push for symbolic gestures by local governments - the working people politely ignore the Limousine Liberals. Remember "nuclear free zones" so popular in the 80's?

What are the specifics? Are the high value, exportable ag products of the north (wine, avocados, etc) to be plowed under to grow switch grass? What will the users of the resultant biofuels use to pay the biofuel growers and producers? Will switch grass be more profitable than, say, a fine Pinot Noir?

Perhaps everyone will drive around in golf carts? Are you to electrify the rail link between Santa Maria and Santa Barbara?

A quick look at the California Energy Commission's queue of future power plants awaiting permitting shows that almost all future electric plants in the state are to be fueled with natural gas. Is Santa Barbara County to be an exporter of wind power? If so, why hasn't profitable development already started?

The Devil is in the details, and there are no details here.

Even if the shutdowns were for only one reactor at a time (which isn't clear from the story for the shutdowns prior to this most recent shut down), that's still 1.33 GW going off line for a week at a time. That requires some serious balancing load, no?

Edward, any luck in finding the figures re the costs of balancing such large power outages from nuclear plants???

http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2005/variability.pdf.

Also read the UK's Energy Research Center's recent report finding that the UK could achieve 20% penetration levels while adding insignificant costs to consumers (and minimal balancing generation):

http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/259/953 (scroll to the bottom for a link to the actual report).

Or see UWIG's recent analysis (with APPA and Edison Electric as partners) reaching similar conclusions for the US:

http://www.uwig.org/UWIGWindIntegration052006.pdf.

carefully ignoring the fact that no-one is disputing the likely acceptability of unreliable "new sources" UP TO NEAR THE LIMIT OF AVAILABLE RELIABLE BACKUP already connected. (which limit is currently dropping rapidly due to the "efficiencies" of privatization well below the traditional 20% most areas). The real discussion I and most others are engaged in is "What happens with new wind generation once it begins to exceed eg. 15% of connected kw, eg. generating more than 5% of kwhr sold?" That statement casts wind power in a more rational light when discussing eg. nuclear or dirty coal as options.

I don't know what the situation is today, but before the curse of electric deregulation, this country (and Norway) produced the lowest cost electricity in the world, and it might have been the most reliable. But don't mention this when you meet your colleagues in the Swedish environmental party: better to serve in Hell than rule in Heaven is the future that they aspire to.

I agree with solar hot water. I've long thought this would be an appropriate investment for individual hoeowners. One could use government programs to encourage installation on rental properties too. That will save some natural gas and might make an impact on winter heating loads too, such as they are.

I'll also agree with landfill gas. I took a look as some potential sites in San Luis Obispo County to the north a few years back at the suggestion of a county supervisor and these generally have merit, especially since the EPA required landfill owners to install landfil gas collection systems, and thereby moving some capital expense from generation to regulatory compliance accounts. Your 12 MW sounds generous and is subject to seasonable variations but is a drop in the bucket to total electric demand.

Your claim of 500 MWe of wind power capacity in the county is strange since the wind resouces developed to date have been elsewhere. Also, the California AVERAGE capacity factor for wind is 25% per the EIA but you claim that the new Santa Barbara resources will give you 35%. Why would less rich resources elsewhere in the state have been exploited before those in Santa Barbara? Besides, the only really windy spots I remember were out on Vanderburg AFB and would need substantial transmission upgrades.

You also don't provide a clear boundary, allowing you to import power of your choice from elsewhere and credit it to your project.

Overall, your plan still doesn't add up.

I agree with Prof. Banks - more nuclear power is the answer. While LNG terminal(s) in California are inevitable, the gas should be reserved for uses other than electric generation for which a perfect substitute, new nuclear power, can be provided, given the will.

Re wind in our region, there is an application pending for 120 MW of new wind in our county and rumors of another similarly sized farm application before too long. We've completed our wind power chapter of our Blueprint, working with a team at UC Berkeley, which finds enormous wind power potential in our region - particularly off our coastline, which of course poses many technical and political problems before it can be developed. As to why other areas have been tapped before our region, I'm told by developers that the low-hanging fruit was inland, where development hurdles are much lower. CA coast-dwellers love their views... As for capacity factors, the farm proposed recently projects a relatively good capacity factor, I believe in the 35% range or so.

The capacity factor you quote of 35% would bring hoots of derision in any nuclear power plant operators boardroom. US nuclear plants routinely have capacity factors above 90% average and individual plants are close to 100%. To invest in a plant that runs (at best) only 3.5 days out of 10 average is somewhat comical. Not a very good investment of money or resources in my opinion.

I am not against windmills just the notion that they could supply the power needs of North America without serious damage to the landscape and our natuaral environment. One or two - sure if you can make em pay but tens - hundreds of thousands of them across North America...not going to happen.

Malcolm