Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!washoe.Berkeley.EDU!kring
From: kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Electric Dreams
Message-ID: <28115@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 24 Sep 90 17:13:19 GMT
References: <38772@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Sep20.231021.5512@amd.com> <38776@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Sep22.233344.14509@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring)
Lines: 21

In article <1990Sep22.233344.14509@zoo.toronto.edu>,
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> 
|> Note, however, that if lots of people start doing this, PG&E's rates will
|> rise.  Most people will rely on solar-derived power only when it's sunny,
|> because storage systems are clumsy and costly.  That means PG&E still has
|> to be able to carry the full load in bad weather, but will see less
|> revenue in good weather to help pay for the equipment.

Actually, PG&E's demand peaks occur on hot summer days due to air-conditioning
demands. ( An easy mistake for somebody from Toronto to make :-)).  This 
is precisely when solar energy and the windmills at Altamont pass are 
the most productive.  So it is not clear what effect solar energy would have
on PG&E's costs, and random speculation on the net is probably going to be
incorrect.

Does anybody have any *real* information about what it would cost PG&E
or So. Ca. Edison to adopt solar and wind energy to offset peak summer demands?

Chuck Kring
kring@ic.Berkeley.EDU