California’s future energy pipe dream

I wonder how they’ll manage to put 25,000 offshore wind turbines in place after seeing the long battle (back to 2001 for the first permit) to get Cape Wind in Massachusetts approved with enviros switching sides to protect viewsheds, and it still isn’t built. I can’t see California’s sensitive coastline to go any easier, and never mind the other projects they propose, which will have their own challenges. The biggest failure of the plan seems to be lack of backup power for when the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, and the tides are lower than usual. – Anthony

Stanford study shows how to power California with wind, water and sun (press release via Eurekalert)

New Stanford research outlines the path to a possible future for California in which renewable energy creates a healthier environment, generates jobs and stabilizes energy prices.

By Rob Jordan

A Stanford study outlines how power from facilities such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California’s Mojave Desert can be part of the state’s renewable energy future. (Courtesy of BrightSource Energy)

Imagine a smog-free Los Angeles, where electric cars ply silent freeways, solar panels blanket rooftops and power plants run on heat from beneath the earth, from howling winds and from the blazing desert sun.

A new Stanford study finds that it is technically and economically feasible to convert California’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one powered by clean, renewable energy. Published in Energy, the plan shows the way to a sustainable, inexpensive and reliable energy supply in California that could create tens of thousands of jobs and save billions of dollars in pollution-related health costs.

“If implemented, this plan will eliminate air pollution mortality and global warming emissions from California, stabilize prices and create jobs – there is little downside,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, the study’s lead author and a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering. He is also the director of Stanford’s Atmosphere/Energy Program and a senior fellow with the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Precourt Institute for Energy.

Jacobson’s study outlines a plan to fulfill all of the Golden State’s transportation, electric power, industry, and heating and cooling energy needs with renewable energy by 2050. It calculates the number of new devices and jobs created, land and ocean areas required, and policies needed for infrastructure changes. It also provides new estimates of air pollution mortality and morbidity impacts and costs based on multiple years of air quality data. The plan is analogous to one that Jacobson and other researchers developed for New York state.

The study concludes that, while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases, such as the cost of building renewable energy power plants, these costs would be more than made up for over time by the elimination of fuel costs. The overall switch would reduce California’s end-use power demand by about 44 percent and stabilize energy prices, since fuel costs would be zero, according to the study.

It would also create a net gain, after fossil-fuel and nuclear energy job losses are accounted for, of about 220,000 manufacturing, installation and technology construction and operation jobs. On top of that, the state would reap net earnings from these jobs of about $12 billion annually.

According to the researchers’ calculations, one scenario suggests that all of California’s 2050 power demands could be met with a mix of sources, including:

  • 25,000 onshore 5-megawatt wind turbines
  • 1,200 100-megawatt concentrated solar plants
  • 15 million 5-kilowatt residential rooftop photovoltaic systems
  • 72 100-megawatt geothermal plants
  • 5,000 0.75-megawatt wave devices
  • 3,400 1-megawatt tidal turbines

The study states that if California switched to wind, water and sunlight for renewable energy, air pollution-related deaths would decline by about 12,500 annually and the state would save about $103 billion, or about 4.9 percent of the state’s 2012 gross domestic product, in related health costs every year. The study also estimates that resultant emissions decreases would reduce global climate change costs in 2050 – such as coastal erosion and extreme weather damage – by about $48 billion per year.

“I think the most interesting finding is that the plan will reduce social costs related to air pollution and climate change by about $150 billion per year in 2050, and that these savings will pay for all new energy generation in only seven years,” said study co-author Mark Delucchi of the University of California, Davis.

“The technologies needed for a quick transition to an across-the-board, renewables-based statewide energy system are available today,” said Anthony Ingraffea, a Cornell University engineering professor and study co-author. “Like New York, California has a clear choice to make: Double down on 20th-century fossil fuels or accelerate toward a clean, green energy future.”

Currently, most of California’s energy comes from oil, natural gas, nuclear power and small amounts of coal. Under the plan that Jacobson and his fellow researchers advance, 55.5 percent of the state’s energy for all purposes would come from solar, 35 percent from wind and the remainder from a combination of hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal and wave energy.

All vehicles would run on battery-electric power and/or hydrogen fuel cells. Electricity-powered air- and ground-source heat pumps, geothermal heat, heat exchangers and backup electric resistance heaters would replace natural gas and oil for home heating and air-conditioning. Air- and ground-source heat pump water heaters powered by electricity and solar hot water preheaters would provide hot water for homes. High temperatures for industrial processes would be obtained with electricity and hydrogen combustion.

To ensure grid reliability, the plan outlines several methods to match renewable energy supply with demand and to smooth out the variability of wind, water and sunlight resources. These include a grid management system to shift times of demand to better match with timing of power supply; and “over-sizing” peak generation capacity to minimize times when available power is less than demand. The study refers to a previously published analysis that demonstrated that California could provide a reliable grid with nearly 100 percent clean, renewable energy.

The footprint on the ground for the new energy infrastructure would be about 0.9 percent of California’s land area, mostly for solar power plants. The spacing area between wind turbines, which could be used for multiple purposes, including agriculture and rangeland, is another 2.77 percent.

“I believe that with these plans, the people and political leaders of California and New York can chart a new way forward for our country and for the world,” said study co-author Robert Howarth, a Cornell University professor of ecology and environmental biology.

The study’s authors are developing similar plans for all U.S. states. They took no funding from any interest group, company or government agency for this study.

Rob Jordan is the communications writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

-30-

About these ads

153 thoughts on “California’s future energy pipe dream

  1. After all of the junk that he has published over the years, does anyone outside of academia take Jacobson seriously anymore?

  2. Never fear, tax credit man is here. That happens to be the same answer for ObamaCare subsidy cost overruns and any other hoodwink cost estimate exercise committed to get to Yes.

  3. The land of fruits and nuts getting nuttier by the day.

  4. Okay, then bring CAPERS and CALSTRS all in on the doubling down investment since “there is little downside.”

  5. I fully hope that CA goes forward with this plan as quickly as possible, just add long as I don’t have to help pay for it. We’d just need to make sure that all lines to the outside were disconnected first. It’d be interesting to see what that state would look like after full implementation. Particularly at night, or on rainy days, or during periods of calm winds.

  6. “They took no funding from any interest group, company or government agency for this study.”

    ..because no one would have supported it anyway……

  7. Let the sun shine on California 24 hours a day. As days are longer in summer, even more in summer.

  8. California spends 103$Billion in health care due to current pollution alone? That’s 45% of their entire health care costs (2009). That includes all forms of cancer, diabetes, mental illness, heart disease, car accidents, gunshot wounds and geriatric care. Ludicrous.

    I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who has actually died of pollution recently, besides wrapping their lips around a tailpipe.

  9. Plus, I’d like to see them run a grid with 100% intermittent energy sources. Good luck with that.

  10. “15 million 5-kilowatt residential rooftop photovoltaic systems”

    Um. That’s a 5-kilowatt system on every residence in the state. Seventy-five gigawatts. About half the total installed photovoltaic capacity of the entire planet, right now.

  11. They forgot to factor in the ~500,000 ($103 billion/$200,000 per job) health care jobs lost. There this will result in a net loss of jobs for the state.

    /sarc.

  12. So does anyone know how frequently the three events would concur: wind not blowing, sun not shining, and tides lower than usual (forgot rivers not flowing and reservoirs being empty)? Also there are such technologies as batteries and pumped storage, you know. So, let’s just mock a forward looking energy strategy (with no independent analysis to back the critique), deny health impacts of pollution, and maintain our 19th century business as usual. Another good one, Anthony and followers!

  13. How much were you paid to believe that.

    The other states will pay the crippling costs of failure through Federal taxes given to California.

    You know that California will be deemed to big to be allowed to fail

    But you will still have your fee.

  14. Are you guys SURE you can’t allow swearing, just for one thread? ‘Cause I really want to be HONEST in my opinion of these peo… pers…… indivi……….

  15. The article says “25,000 onshore 5-megawatt wind turbines,” not offshore. Still, carpeting the mountainsides, spoiling the scenery and the rest of the arguments stand.

  16. “These include a grid management system to shift times of demand to better match with timing of power supply; ”

    Sure, I know you’d like to cool your house right now, but you need to wait until 2 am when the wind is going to pick up….

  17. Since one of California’s biggest energy needs is air-con, there should be a lot of scope for powering this from solar. The days when there’s no sunshine in the sunshine state will be days that need less power for air-conditioners.

    This could even be sourced on an individual basis, thus taking a lot of load off the grid.

    Also if there is a major move to electric vehicles the batteries in those vehecles are a form of distributed back up storage.

  18. Notice the cavalier nod to massive capital costs. Since current renewables pay nothing for fuel how is that different than today? They are not competitive with any other technology for electric power generation. Note that the tax credits are only part of the subsidy. Current policy requires that state utility customers take “renewable” power whenever it is available, so it gets a premium. Just building more solar towers does not make up for the fact that night comes and building more wind does not compensate (as it was formerly thought) for local low wind speeds. There are still no good energy storage options. Pumped storage is expensive and limited by geography and others like underground compressed air storage never played out. I work in a power consulting business and I always need to break in new hires out of school of their “green” professorate.

    Real technologies run the world not fantasies.

  19. getting rid of pollution doesn’t stop people from dying. they still die, often some years later, after using up the same or more health resources.

    the classic case is tobacco. smokers actually cost the state less in health care than non-smokers, because the smokers die early. the non-smokers still get cancer and heart disase, but they get it later in life, after they have already had 2 hip transplants, cataract surgery, numerous skin cancers from sun damage, etc, etc.

    then you need to add in the savings in state funded pensions. smokers die early, which saves the state billons in pensions.

  20. I cannot believe this. There is a massive migration of seabirds down the California coast every autumn. The inevitable carnage is unimaginable.

  21. I posted the following earlier on Tips & Notes, but it is more appropriate here. CA says out of one side of its mouth that it wants to remove “carbon” pollution, but in the posting below, CA says out of the other side of its mouth that “carbon” is a substitute for water during the drought:
    Neil Jordan says:
    July 24, 2014 at 9:09 am

    Today’s issue of Department of Water Resources California Water News carries many articles about the latest drought, including an item about water-free laundry:

    http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php/news/california-news/10058-world-s-first-ever-water-free-laundry.html

    The laundry method uses an EPA-designated hazardous material – “carbon” – also known as carbon dioxide.
    [begin quote]
    World’s First Ever Water-Free Laundry
    Created on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 19:18
    Written by Green Liver
    Sacramento, California – In the midst of a drought, wouldn’t a water-free laundry be nice?

    Well, it’s here. With a grant from the Energy Commission, CO2Nexus is wrapping up an experimental project to bring a water-free laundry machine to market. Aramark, a respected Fortune 500 company, is demonstrating the technology in Los Angeles and piloting a process that doesn’t use a drop of water and can cut operational costs by 50 percent.

    The process uses carbon dioxide as a textile cleaner. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and abundant gas that has excellent cleaning properties when converted to a liquid. When the carbon dioxide is returned to a gas, the fabric is clean and dry with minimal recyclable waste. Traditional dry cleaning is a similar process, but uses a petroleum or synthetic solvent and produces some emissions.

    Results at the Aramark laundry, where the carbon dioxide process was used for “clean room” garments, found the process is gentler on fabric than a traditional wash-dry cycle, extending the life of clothing resulting in less shrinkage and wear.

    While the process is designed for specialty garments, at one laundry, it is estimated the annual water savings would be 60 million gallons. That’s equal to the amount of water 850 homes would use in a year.

    The process also uses less energy, cutting utility costs by nearly half.

    Laundry cleaned with the water-free system.

    The Energy Commission funds research and development projects that reduce emissions and save money. Visit our Research & Development page to learn more about the innovative projects we fund as part of our mission to conserve resources and transform the way we use energy.
    [end quote]
    \irony or something

  22. I call BS !
    “The study also estimates that resultant emissions decreases would reduce global climate change costs in 2050 – such as coastal erosion and extreme weather damage – by about $48 billion per year.”

    If CA eliminated all carbon emissions, I don’t know the exact number, but for other cases like (Australia) or Obama coal plant debacle, the predicted (by their own models) temperature reduction is like 0.02 degrees. And how will erosion be reduced if we eliminate hundredths of a degree of warming????
    And we all know the link to extreme weather is bogus, even by IPCC claims.

  23. ….. grid management system to match renewable energy supply with demand and to smooth out the variability of wind, water and sunlight resources … .
    In other words, WE will tell you when you can cook your dinner, and if you don’t want to eat at 3pm or 4.30 am then tough.

  24. 25000 onshore 5 mw turbines!! . . how many 1000’s of birds will be slaughtered? What about the noise and vibration effect on humans and animals alike?

  25. “New Stanford research outlines the path to a possible future for California in which renewable energy creates a healthier environment, generates jobs and stabilizes energy prices.”

    And people made fun of my ancestors for believing in leprechauns! We will find a leprechaun riding a unicorn tossing gold out of a pot to the people in the streets long before we see California power the state 100% with renewables.

    Note: and I have a computer model to prove the above statement.

  26. I’m expecting future PBS TV shows will be titled “This Old Photovoltaic System” , “Victory Windmill” and “Geothermal Theatre”, amongst others.

  27. There is an up side to this. The inevitable battle between Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, The Coastal Commission, and should keep them battling one another for complete control of this ‘plan’ and occupied for many years to come.

  28. Pipe dream is right! We can use the never-to-be-built off-shore wind farm to power the never-to-be-built bullet train.

  29. This is going to hit the high tech sector, heavily dependent on reliable electricity supplies, like a ton of bricks. Another reason I’m looking for employment out of the state.

  30. I propose putting a large number of them right in front of Al Gorge’s condo. I am sure he will sacrifice for the greater good, right?

  31. Next year’s headline: “California’s future energy pipe dream has been cancelled, due to the enviromental movement’s opposition to construction of the pipes”.

  32. Electricity from wave power may be a great notional idea, just not sure how it will work in reality. After pouring $5 million of freshly printed greenbacks into Ocean Power Technologies for a demonstration along the Oregon coast, OPT pulled the plug. Surely they must have known that some portion of the Oregon coast is raked with hurricane force winds every year. As the investing newsletter Seeking Alpha headlined: “Wave Goodbye to this Wave Power Company.”

    http://oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/ocean_power_quits_on_oregon_wa.html

  33. The total challenge is simple, and it’s in these two paragraphs: “The study concludes that, while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases, …, these costs would be more than made up for over time by the elimination of fuel costs. The overall switch would reduce California’s end-use power demand by about 44 percent and stabilize energy prices, since fuel costs would be zero, according to the study.

    It would also create a net gain, … of about 220,000 manufacturing, installation and technology construction and operation jobs. On top of that, the state would reap net earnings from these jobs of about $12 billion annually.

    The claim is that the new energy systems will operate at a net economic profit. The state will get net tax money from economically positive employment.

    The study is claiming to be a business model. Fine. California is the land of venture capitalists. Stanford is at ground zero of Silicon Valley: Investment-Money Land.

    If Mark Jacobson’s plan is economically viable, as he and his co-authors insist it is, then let them recruit the money from tough profit-minded investors. There ought to be no problem getting such money if the pay-off truly is capture of California’s $20 billion electricity market.

    The opportunity is gigantic, right? The technology is in-hand, and it’s all just behind the gates, waiting to run.

    So, then, put up or shut up, study-guys. The empty conference rooms are waiting for you right across Sand Hill Road. Make your presentation. If your business model is viable, investors will invest. The ramp-up will pay for itself. No public funding. No subsidies. No fake profits from the public purse. No parasitic snouts in government troughs.

  34. “The study states that if California switched to wind, water and sunlight for renewable energy, air pollution-related deaths would decline by about 12,500 annually and the state would save about $103 billion, or about 4.9 percent of the state’s 2012 gross domestic product, in related health costs every year.” I always love this sort of statistic. Aside from the fact that ng combined cycle is basically non-polluting, this sort of thing is wrong on its face. Even if it were not, the reality is that 100% of people die sooner or later. The “pollution-related” deaths just become “something-else-related” deaths. In particular, they frequently become deaths from dementia after a long, long time of pretty expensive care. I am an ex-smoker and the best thing I ever did was quit. But, the “system” has not saved beans over me doing so. In fact, it may well have lost a lot. Hanging around till I am 90 is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money. Kicking off in my early 70s would have been a lot, lot, cheaper for them. Bottom line, these studies that show how much you will save with “health care” never account for the amount you will pay for “heath care”, often for somebody with the mind of a sponge.

  35. “These include a grid management system to shift times of demand to better match with timing of power supply” Basically, this take us back to the time before electricity and the internal combustion engine, when your working hours was determined by the sun. A few candles might light your way to bed, but there was not much work going on. A return to the Dark Ages, almost literally.

    Oh, unless it starts to blow a gale in the middle of the night, when you will be roused to rush back to your factory, while the power lasts.

    Or did they just forget to tell us they had also solved the battery storage problem?

  36. Note also that all the necessary kit is manufacured in Calfornia, to create all those envirnomental jobs. Tell that to the Germans, who found their solar and wind industries bankrupted by competition from China.

    So you need a closed economy as well, which does not sound very American to me…

  37. The wave and tidal devices theoretically contribute 3% of the sun and wind. What is the point? Do they really think this is a backup for days when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun isn’t shining?
    The 3% from geothermal is more constant but a drop in the bucket. These fools obviously don’t care about black outs but then there’s always good old coal to fill in the gaping holes.

  38. sfy.co/gb3A

    The solution to climate change
    replacement for fossil fuel powered electrical generation

    D.Baker @silenced_not

    Urgent action required, appears to be the consensus of the most learned climate change advocates!
    The collective wisdom acquired through trial and error test applications of alleged solutions, has been enlightening, and sobering as agenda driven rhetoric failed time after time to deliver a replacement technology for the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities, which are the primary sources.of GHG the alleged culprits inducing global climatic destabilization!

    Most recently 2 documents have corroborated a much maligned document I wrote!
    In My Opinion! lnkd.in/ifM2au@Inc

    * Leaked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the report says that agricultural output may drop by as much as two percent every decade for the rest of this century, compared to what it would have been without the effects of climate change. Demand for food is reportedly expected to rise 14 percent each decade during that time, exacerbating the food supply issue.

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/1/5056260/ipcc-leaked-climate-change-report-warns-severe-food-constraints

    * letter, by Kenneth Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, James E. Hansen of Columbia University and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Adelaide

    “To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power”

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=0

    Unfortunately building conventional nuclear facilities is not realistic due to the costs associated with safety issues.

    This leaves you with one option other than Geo-engineering “A New Nuclear Technology”!
    Geo-engineering is the newest subsidy for the fossil fuel industry and is wrought with unknown risks and dangers and therefore not an option.

    The New Nuclear Technology I propose is as follows:
    Human Excrement + Nuclear Waste = Hydrogen

    disq.us/8en3l0

    lnkd.in/ifM2au@Inc

    http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=938667&type=member&item=5794160567027515392&commentID=5794504904257064960&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_5794504904257064960 … … … … … … … … … …

    You’ve tried everything else first and these have failed adding to the urgency of action required!

    Dennis Baker
    1. – 998 Creston Avenue

    Penticton BC Canada V2A1P9

    dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
    @dennisearlbaker @silenced_not

  39. I think all of this is an excellent idea.

    I think it should be implemented immediately in a pilot project — using the Palo Alto, California area as the pilot study. To make it absolutely realistic (for science purpose, of course), this community and its environs must absolutely be disconnected completely from the electrical grid. I’m sure Stanford University would insist on using their own endowment fund to finance the project, since the cost savings will be so great.

  40. Water on the other hand has the uper hand on the wind mill fraud.
    They should be working hard on the sea for water.
    The Colorado River basin is not going to do the production needed for them, in fact the water production is going down. Then too the growth of the Colorado River basin from the Rockies to the Calif. coast is massive and can not continue.

    Time for these climate brids to fly a flight that will in fact protect them rather than flying a lie line of flight into disaster.

  41. There is another myth about renewables that you rarely hear mention. Myth: put them up once and forget about them (panels or wind) that’s it! Like most man made devices, there is a used by date. Not to mention maintenance. I have only ever seen one wind farm nearly functioning to full capacity. One! Most wind farms, when sufficient wind is blowing, have dormant wind turbines. Most, the majority, not a few! Production down!

  42. My pie-in-the-sky fantasy uses angel farts to power my perpetual motion machine for California, as unicorn farts contribute to runaway global groaning. The angel farts also power the new and improved Magic FA Girdle, which is guaranteed to melt those pounds away even while you stuff yo’ face, because everyone knows it ain’t the fat we need to fear, it’s Blackie Carbon.

    (Back in the 50s, there was a Bardahl commercial featuring Blackie Carbon as the heavy; I can’t find that, so this will have to do; substitute “Blackie Carbon” for “sticky valves”)

  43. I say to California “You first! Let us know how it all works out. Please be disconnected from our grid so when you go down you don’t take us with you. Besides that way you can prove that it really does work.”

  44. When I was a kid, you could get a “water saver” attachment for your washing machine. It was a tank and valves that saved the last rinse water and used it for the first wash water in the next load. Then cities started charging very low prices for water and nobody bothered. Start charging true cost for city water and you will see a lot of ideas like this,

  45. just an ole hillbilly here but it seems to me using thousand year old technology is not “advancing”?

    i can solve the energy problem today….allow the NEW designs of nuclear power plants to be built all over the nation = cheaper cleaner SAFER electricity for all of us.

  46. Why are the experts always several steps removed from the tech expertise needed? A civil engineer (oh I know he has other titles but that’s what he is). No wonder Lew, a psychology professor, is now a climate scientist and the whole show was started by an astronomer and a preacher who became VP of the US.

  47. – Barry says:
    July 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    So does anyone know how frequently the three events would concur: wind not blowing, sun not shining, —
    Every day at night the sun doesn’t shine and calm nights are common.
    Living in region near LA, we have had a modest amount wind over last few days, and that is somewhat unusual, but it also been during the day.

    –and tides lower than usual (forgot rivers not flowing and reservoirs being empty)? —
    Getting energy from tides is generally not good way to get energy. And stored sea water can smell unpleasantly. In terms of tidal height more poleward than Californian generally has more difference in tidal height [and more towards equator as compared to California has less than California]. Or as example Santa Monica with range of about 6 feet:

    http://www.elcamino.edu/faculty/tnoyes/readings/07ar.pdf

    and Seattle, more than 10 feet:

    http://www.dairiki.org/tides/

    Or simply, hydrodams generally have difference of about 100 feet or more, and a dam with only 10 foot difference would be fairly useless [or beavers can manage to make a dam which could have a 10 foot difference- as in, make a pond deeper than 10 feet deep] . So even 10 foot tide difference is not something to be excited about.

    –Also there are such technologies as batteries and pumped storage, you know. —
    And the such things as using a windmill to pump water. Or windmill doesn;t generate electrical power but instead uses the mechanical energy of wind, to use this mechanical energy to pump water.
    And this is more efficient to pump water than using a windmill to generate electrical power, which then would power a electrical water pump. And this is not a new thing.

  48. “Also if there is a major move to electric vehicles the batteries in those vehecles are a form of distributed back up storage.”

    You do realize that people charge up their electric cars so they can… you know… drive places?

    Because I really look forward to coming back to my car to drive somewhere and finding that the power company has drained my battery because there’s no wind or sun. That would be a great way to run a 21st century economy.

  49. I bet I can make a massive contribution to renewable energy in the US with a simple paragraph that includes hydro-electric power in the renewable mix. Stroke of a pen, goals met.

  50. The old native american stories about the LA basin include the brown smog. Unless they are going to put the windmills in reverse to break the natural perma inversion, they will still have smog.

  51. Ask an in-the-know German how Energiewende is going TODAY. They have traveled the furthest down this road… and it isn’t pretty.

  52. I thought I would see how far into the press release I could get before hitting a fact-free misstatement – Bam! – I hit one in the 2nd sentence:
    “Imagine a smog-free Los Angeles, where electric cars ply silent freeways…”
    Since car noise on the freeways is overwhelmingly tire noise, electric cars would make the same noise on freeways – unless they are running much slower than today’s fossil-fueled cars.

    I also notice the article does not mention electric semi-tractors. The author must be aware electric semis are not feasible.

    So, to have electric cars plying silent freeways, semi’s would have to be relegated to surface streets, leaving the freeways to the slow moving or stalled electric cars.

  53. Look at what you get when an anti-nuclear guy tries to design a low emission system.
    25,000 windmills – those poor California birds and bats. They won’t stand a chance.

  54. MarkG says:
    July 24, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    “You do realize that people charge up their electric cars so they can… you know… drive places?

    Because I really look forward to coming back to my car to drive somewhere and finding that the power company has drained my battery because there’s no wind or sun. That would be a great way to run a 21st century economy.”

    You absolutely hit the nail on its head.

    In addition, there is no way a network operator could have any clue how many electric vehicles would be available, on what phase of the line the vehicles will be on, what is the state of charge is the vehicles which are available or would be, how long the vehicles will be available and how reliable is the comms network. From my perspective, absolute no way to ensure network stability if this system were to be depended on. There many technical challenges to be overcome and benefits don’t seem all that apparent. Hell, the best forecast accuracy I could get in LV networks was with 10% – 15% error.

    I am one in a team of researches writing control system and running simulations in this area. Most of us don’t think the tech would be economically viable.

  55. Barry says:
    July 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm
    So does anyone know how frequently the three events would concur: wind not blowing, sun not shining, and tides lower than usual (forgot rivers not flowing and reservoirs being empty)? Also there are such technologies as batteries and pumped storage, you know. So, let’s just mock a forward looking energy strategy (with no independent analysis to back the critique), deny health impacts of pollution, and maintain our 19th century business as usual. Another good one, Anthony and followers!

    I have found that it often gets dark at night; California is currently experiencing a drought so hydroelectric power will be limited; windmills produce way less than plated power, and when the wind is calm or too strong they produce little or no power. I would think that there are several occasions a month when brown out or blackouts could occur. There would certainly be many times when stable dispatchable power was not available when users with requirements for stable power such as hospitals, will need to switch to their own backup generation systems which will no doubt be diesel generators. Users like computer companies and iheavy industry will leave the state to get consistent stable power.
    The whole life costs of this system will be extreme, and it will have insufficient funding for long term maintenance and insufficient power generation to make more windmills so California would continue to parasitize on energy from nearby states with more sensible energy policies,.

  56. Since, to my knowledge, no one errects 5MW wind turbines anywhere except offshore, I assume the “onshore” is a typo and should be “offshore.” Typical onshore are 1.5 and 2.0 MW turbines.

  57. Sciguy54 says:
    July 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    Ask an in-the-know German how Energiewende is going TODAY. They have traveled the furthest down this road… and it isn’t pretty.

    Or ask the former Spanish renewable energy honcho, a disillusioned greenie:

    http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/05/01/Solar-Dreams/

    ===============

    California has already cut its pollution by 75% (say) from what it used to be. That should have reduced health care costs by 75% (or more, actually, if “the dose makes the poison”). If those saving haven’t materialized–and I doubt that they have–then why should savings materialize from further reductions?

  58. You know what will happen if they actually push this to the point the electrical supply is unreliable (either through grid failure or, more likely, through smart meter control over your usage times and amounts)? Most folks will buy whole house generators – which of course are less efficient than the big gas or coal based plants the environmentalists are trying to eliminate – and ultimately result in more CO2..

  59. Two words come to mind “snake oil salesman” OK, three words. This energy solution creates thousands of jobs, ends AGW, extends lives, saves billions in health care costs, and will end your embarrassing halitosis. But …. Will it cure toenail fungus?

  60. Converting a typical home to use a 12 or 24V DC lighting system could see about a 14% cut in electricity usage (and current gen LED lights ARE a lot better than CFLs…and are regularly improving)…and if it caught on, things like 24V TVs/entertainment systems and computers could up that to about a 25% reduction.

    Also, someone mentioned this above in relation to windmills, but using mechanical energy for things like pumping water is a much saner use of windpower than converting it to electricity
    first.

    And something that may seem counter-intuitve, but itsn’t…

    The current distribution system can be rather inefficient, especially with the trend of making larger, more distant from ‘end use’ locations generation plants. Transmission losses increase as function of distance, so a large power plant at a long distance needs to generate MORE electricity than several closer small plants (but the typical ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome is going to make that idea very unlikely) .

  61. “Electricity-powered air- and ground-source heat pumps, geothermal heat, heat exchangers and backup electric resistance heaters would replace natural gas and oil for home heating and air- conditioning.”

    If homes now heated by NG burning furnaces were converted to heat pumps, their heat energy demand would fall upon the electric grid. Likewise, if all fossil fuel burning cars were replaced by electric cars, all energy currently provided by burning fossil fuels in those cars would instead have to be provided by the electric grid.

    Coating the roof of your house with solar panels will not even come close to meeting your house’s heating needs, never mind providing the energy to power your car. (Note that solar panels on your home cannot charge your car’s batteries at night while the car is home – the sun shone on your panels while you were at work. You would need a rack of batteries in your garage.)

    Did this study allow for these extra demands placed on the electric grid? I am pretending that solar heated water will work for January baths, or that people will go back to getting just a spring bath. If that isn’t OK, then we have to add water heating energy to the additional load placed on the electric grid once home owners can’t use NG.

    SR

  62. I am at a loss how they can come up with any numbers without specifying what type of energy storage they are assuming. Clearly, geothermal, tidal, and wave will provide for no more that about 20% of the demand. That means an 80% reliance on wind and solar. Without storage capability, then wind alone must carry the full 80% for greater than 12 hours a day, on average. There would be a massive black-out on every calm night, so storage of excess power during the day is critical. My assumption would be batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. Is this even in the realm of feasibility? I cannot fathom powering 80% of CA by battery on an unusually calm night (or extremely windy nights when wind turbines must be locked down).

    That still leaves a problem when nature doesn’t allow for high solar output. Would the surplus solar power in South and Central California be enough to keep the lights on in northern CA when its solar panels are under a blanket of snow? Just how much stored power would you need to allow for all combinations of bad weather and calm winds, and for how long would you plan for the situation to continue?

    Those questions must be answered by minds greater than mine. I have enough difficulty trying to grasp the impact of much more basic problems, like keeping 15 million rooftop solar panels free of snow, ice, dust, leaves, pollen, bird droppings, etc. if you go to Google Images and do a search using the key words ‘snow’ and ‘solar panels’ you will see what my concern is. How much will I have to pay someone to get on the roof of my house to maintain those panels? I’m sure not going to do it.

  63. As some who worked on wave power, I will state right out the box that 0.75 MW wave energy devices are probably not cost effective. You need devices that are at least 2.5 MW, and that have minimal O&M requirements. This of course doesn’t take into account the regulatory hurdles – and they are legion. This is not to say that it can’t be done, but the state of California needs to give the technology some leeway if it is ever to advance.

    I’m surprised and disappointed that Stanford would publish such a study without examining authoritative studies from groups who have actually worked on the problem.

  64. Power is instantaneous. Energy is an average of power. You can have enough energy and still not have enough power. Like no wind for a few days.

  65. Watched a film called Damnation last night. Bit of a greenie thing but its a democracy and a lot of the people interviewed are quite ordinary folk. Mainly about a lot of 100 year old dams being pulled down but also about a lot of other dams constructed in the US as some sort of pathway to economic nirvana and never mind the environmental impact, waste of capital and cost of having to pull some of the bloody things down ( not all of them, just the ones that produce no net economic benefit).

    So now someone is spruiking the deal of the 21st century and it will require ONLY 0.9% of California’s land area and a FREE SET OF STEAK KNIVES (or TOFU KNIVES for our vegan friends) FOR EVERYONE. (Ring now for our kool ade marinade recipe).

    That is equivalent to a 3 km wide belt or the equivalent of 50 or 60 ( yes FIFTY or SIXTY) 8 lane freeways side by side for the full length of the state. Will anyone notice?

    These people are completely off their heads.

  66. I have run across people who believe wind can replace gas, nuke, oil, just by the concept that the wind is blowing somewhere. Facts and the limits of reality don’t impress them.

  67. ” bruce ryan says:
    July 24, 2014 at 9:03 pm

    I have run across people who believe wind can replace gas, nuke, oil, just by the concept that the wind is blowing somewhere. Facts and the limits of reality don’t impress them.”

    It can…if one were to place all the windmills in the halls of Congress.

  68. Someday I’ll have a conversation with my grandchildren.” You know Junior, I remember when we had these majestic birds that could seemingly glide effortlessly on air…….until they put up those wind turbines. Now you never see them anymore. “

  69. Next-generation nuclear, which should include liquid fluoride thorium reactors, will power all of California and use less than 0.0009% of the land, not require spinning natural gas generator backup, spaghetti distribution lines, would not create eyesores all over the land and coast, and the spoiling of environmentally sensitive fragile deserts and marine sanctuaries. The piddly wave and tide generators, huge in number, small in output, would in all probability need more resources to build and maintain than the value of power produced. This sounds like a Rube Goldberg idea, without the humorous element.

  70. 23 July: Bloomberg: Rodrigo Orihuela: Iberdrola Profit Drops as Spain Renewable Subsidy Cuts Hit
    Iberdrola SA (IBE), Spain’s largest utility, said first-half profit dropped 13 percent after a reduction in renewable-energy subsidies took full effect…
    The Spanish government cut aid for renewable energy companies in July 2013 as Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy tried to shrink the deficit in the electricity system…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-23/iberdrola-net-income-drops-as-spain-renewable-subsidy-cuts-hit.html

    batty or not?

    23 July: UK Herald Express: Killer wind turbines decimating bats claim
    WIND turbines could be killing tens of thousands of bats — by giving them “the bends”…
    And rather than being killed by flying into the blades, new research has claimed that bats suffer from an airborne version of the diver’s condition known as “the bends” when they fly too near wind turbines — making their lungs burst.
    Concerns for the welfare of the creatures has already prompted dozens of challenges to schemes in the Westcountry…
    Now Queen’s University Belfast has unearthed another potential problem, namely that pressure from the turbine blades causes a similar condition as that experienced by divers when the surface too quickly…
    Dr Richard Holland claims that bats suffer from “barotrauma” when the approach the structures which can pop their lungs from inside their bodies.
    He said energy companies should consider turning off turbines when bats are migrating…

    http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Killer-wind-turbines-decimating-bats-claim/story-21747417-detail/story.html

  71. 24 July: Bloomberg: by Bloomberg News: Datang Renewables Estimates Loss as Wind Resources Worsen
    China Datang Corp. Renewable Power Co. (1798), a wind project developer, said it may report a loss in the first half because it was less windy in most regions.
    The company’s total electricity generation declined as a result, the Beijing-based company said today in a regulatory filing in Hong Kong…
    Datang Renewables said July 15 that wind power generation declined 9 percent from a year ago to 5.05 million megawatt-hours as at the end of June.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/datang-renewables-estimates-loss-as-wind-resources-worsen.html

  72. So many falsehoods. 1) There likely will be zero health savings. Perhaps a slight delay to the costs will be happen if the air gets a little cleaner… the people that would be dying at age70 due to pollution will instead be dying of cancer at age 80. Someone who would have died before going to the nursing home, may now live long enough to spend a year or two in the nursing home before croaking. So with regards to health savings… this has ALWAYS just been a red herring, something progressives use because they can magically make a large number appear that they can use to mislead people.
    2) There would not be enough power to power up all of the electric automobiles. They pretty much tried to account for the current electrical generation capacity but if all of the gas powered cars are replaced with electric cars, probably going to need double, if not more, electrical generating capacity.
    3) There will be frequent brownouts/blackouts – and energy rationing during times of most need. Forget about having a cool house on a cloudy summer day or a warm one on a cloudy winter day.
    4) The supposed $103biilion a year savings from health (a possibly delay.. nothing else) and the $48 billion a year from coastal erosion (from abating a 0.02C/century temp rise???) and less severe weather are both actually ZERO savings. In the end, if they get their way, we will just end up with vastly more expensive energy, vastly less reliable energy. Substantially higher prices for everything else as everything takes energy to produce and transport. Practically any living animal that flies will be on the endangered species list within a year or two.

  73. Been here, done that.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/wind-power-gets-bent-out-of-shape-in-wyoming/#comment-589348

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/the-futility-of-wind-power/#comment-598728

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/08/time-to-terminate-big-wind-subsidies/#comment-980433

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/25/new-strategy-for-utilizing-highly-variable-wind-power/#comment-1257094

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/16/the-levelized-cost-of-electric-generation/#comment-1569469

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/16/the-levelized-cost-of-electric-generation/#comment-1569478

    Being a Cal graduate, I was never impressed by Stanford.

    The 33% Renewables Portfolio Standard by 2020 will be expensive if it can be achieved at all. My guess is the projects already completed will be producing much less than their nominal amounts of power. Are they using nameplate capacity in RPS? What is the capacity factor of the renewable technologies? Being generous, maybe 30 to 50% would be reasonable capacity factors. What other costs are associated with the facilities counted toward the RPS goal? Operations and Maintenance will not be cheap. Large volumes of water to clean solar panels will be expensive. Despite the figures shown by the State of California, I’m dubious.

    http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/

  74. Building over 400 GW of wind, solar and geothermal power capacity, as suggested by Jacobsen, is quite a project.

    Germany has only managed built 35 GW of wind and 36 GW of solar this far…..

  75. “The study concludes that, while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases, …, these costs would be more than made up for over time by the elimination of fuel costs. The overall switch would reduce California’s end-use power demand by about 44 percent and stabilize energy prices, since fuel costs would be zero, according to the study.”

    “…fuel costs would be zero…” Nuclear fuel costs approach zero when you look at total costs of power generation. Consumption of nuclear waste will power next-generation reactors, which will actually be a positive instead of a fuel cost. What is this blindness about nuclear power? The nuclear industry is in its infancy. We’ve had wind, solar, water, biomass, for thousands of years, and are still floundering to overcome their obvious deficiencies of low power density, intermittence, and impractical storage. Throwing government subsidies at power generation doesn’t make it less expensive to the consumer when the consumers are also taxpayers; it just takes resources from better uses to and expends them wastefully.

    Your neighbor with solar on his roof bragging about how much he is saving on his electrical bill is getting his savings from your pocket, and in twenty years he will have to replace all of it.

  76. The largest study in renewable energy, production, supply and distribution to end users, is now giving clear results.

    Free renewable energy results in the most expensive unreliable electricity.

    pulling down working paid for dams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  77. Jacobson was the subject of another article here:
    Oh Lord! There Be Idiots at Stanford (WUWT Feb. 17, 2014)

    There was some discussion of his figures from his appendix in his 2009 paper:

    If you take a 5 MW/turbine (nameplate), 25% Capacity factor, and 8760 h/yr, you can get 11 GWhr/yr/turbine. D8 (w/ losses) is estimating 17 to 11 GWhr/yr/turbine. A little high for my taste, but not obviously wrong.

    But at $0.057/kwh, that 11 GWhr/yr/turbine generates $0.624 million/yr/turbine. So capital accounting payout, no discounting, sans maintenance, is 16 years.
    He lists only an energy payback time of 0.14-0.36 years at D16.

    And from Phil

    On page 2, under Wind Turbine Characteristics, they list the following as the numbers used to get their answers:

    Turbine Capacity Factor: 42.46% (low case) 29.41% (high case)
    Lifetime of wind turbine (yr): 30

    Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, … ROTFL, etc.

    I calculated the actual capacity factor for wind from the German 2013 Solar and Wind report as 16.57%.

    and many other comments.

  78. “Build it and they will come”. (Though many more will leave.) I really want to see how it all turns out. Be the “bleeding” edge so the rest of us can learn from California’s mistakes and use the leading edge technology that follows.

  79. Earlier post “Power is instantaneous. Energy is an average of power. ”
    No, Energy is the integral of power with respect to time. You pay for kilowatt-hours; about 50 cents per kilowatt-hour tier 3 daytime PGE rate.during the summer, less expensive at night and lower tiers. 600 kw-hr monthly usage costs me about $150.
    The average power cost is about 25 cents per kilowatt-hour.
    I’m continually getting cold calls from solar installation salesmen saying the government would help pay for their installation, but we’ve got hundreds of big trees and only a few hours of direct sunlight at any particular place in the summer–and that’s when the fog is not here.

  80. Other comments have covered the main problems:
    >Economically unsound.
    The longer lived will not save the state money, the manufacturing jobs will be in the far east, not attracting interest from investment banks.
    >Technically unworkable.
    Wave power isn’t available, battery storage isn’t available, wind and solar are unreliable and will need replacing before the pay off date.
    >Environmentally disastrous.
    Those wind farms will devastate the birds and the bats and all the wildlife that relies on their propagation

    But the article does tell us one thing of note:
    Air Pollution is now being used as the motivator for Green Energy.
    AGW is no longer the prime argument.
    Who says the science argument is not worth winning? The politics is following.

  81. To ensure grid reliability, the plan outlines several methods to match renewable energy supply with demand and to smooth out the variability of wind, water and sunlight resources. These include a grid management system to shift times of demand to better match with timing of power supply; and “over-sizing” peak generation capacity to minimize times when available power

    In other words rolling brown-outs to suit ‘supply ‘ not need , now I am sure business will not mind that at all , of course if they did some of these mythic jobs may never be created and quite a few others lost.

  82. The latest example of how propaganda works.

    Even supposing a smog free LA is attainable using all-electricity, it’d likely be cheaper to run transmission cables from Japan’s nuclear power plants than their proposed solution. And, for example, drilling through all that fractured rock under Southern California will keep engineers in business designing earthquake proof bore holes, etc.

  83. Has some hedge fund got to get out of some contracts or go bust or something??

    I thought you guys were supposed to live in the ‘greatest democracy in the world’?? Sounds more like the greatest idiocracy………

  84. Environmentalists support wind, until someone tries to build a turbine.
    Environmentalists support solar, until someone tries to build a solar field.
    Environmentalists support hydro, until someone tries to build a dam.

  85. “where electric cars ply silent freeways”
    When going 60 mph, no car is silent. Even with modern cars, the noisiest things are the tires.

  86. These guys actually believe that once they are built, renewable energy sources will run completely cost free.
    Maintenance, even when you aren’t replacing parts costs money, because people want to get paid.
    Then there is the constant replacing of broken and worn out parts.

  87. I love the way they casually mention that they will assure the reliability of the grid by creating systems that will match the load to the available power.
    In other words, when they don’t have enough power, you get to sit in the dark, without AC, until the wind starts blowing again.

  88. Greg Goodman says:
    July 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Since one of California’s biggest energy needs is air-con, there should be a lot of scope for powering this from solar. The days when there’s no sunshine in the sunshine state will be days that need less power for air-conditioners.

    Also if there is a major move to electric vehicles the batteries in those vehecles are a form of distributed back up storage.
    ————–
    Actually, the biggest user of electrical power is office and industrial.
    Secondly, what about winter. When the sun isn’t shinning is when the heat pumps are most needed.
    Finally, the batteries in electric cars could only be used as distributed back up if you had some way of getting the power out of the batteries and back into the grid.

    Sheesh

  89. “cedarhill says:
    July 25, 2014 at 3:57 am

    The latest example of how propaganda works.

    Even supposing a smog free LA is attainable using all-electricity…”

    To make a smog free LA, you’d need to use a few nukes to remove some mountains, so the wind patterns in the area were changed…there’s not enough electricity generated in the US to do that.

  90. mjc says:
    July 24, 2014 at 7:08 pm
    —–
    Lighting only accounts for about 5% of energy usage. Office and industrial switched to fluorescent decades ago, and homes started converting to CFL years ago.
    I’d love to see the source of your claim that converting to 24VDC would save energy.
    Regardless, even if everyone of your claims was accurate, your still talking about less than 1% total savings.

  91. How many elderly people are going to die sitting in an unairconditioned house waiting for the wind to start blowing again?

  92. Applying major pressure by EPA on the energy producers that supply California from adjacent states at the same time California imposes its own Stanford-based policy misstep would define the next economic and budget disaster for the state and the region.

  93. I remember a few years back, the CA air quality district was going after bakeries, trying to get them to put catalytic converters on their ovens, because of hydrocarbons that resulted from baking.
    The only way you will ever get a smog free LA, is to first get rid of all the people.

  94. Utopian nonsense. Aside from all the other environmental impacts the water usage of solar thermal and geothermal is hard to justify in the EIS process. Already these projects are bogging down on the water component. Close cycle cooling effectively cures the water usage problem but now the generated power is TOO expensive for investors to get behind, even with Moonbeam banging the drum.

    I live 30 miles south of the Coso geothermal facility. This is a 20 year old Navy/private pilot plant. It had water usage issues from the start, On some cool winter mornings there are large steam plumes rising thousands of feet above the mountains. Those water vapor plumes from the cooling towers are there 24/7 but in the dry Mojave environment are only visible on occasion as steam.

  95. To all those advocating nuclear power, the truth about nuclear power is that it is far too expensive (in any form), unsafe in any form, and leaves long-lasting toxic residue for future generations to deal with.

    For just a few truths about nuclear power: it has achieved only 11 – 12 percent of all electrical generation worldwide after 50 years of heroic efforts, no nuclear plants are installed on medium-sized islands where power is generated by oil or diesel at 25 to 30 cents per kWh, and no country has followed France’s example of 85 percent nuclear power on the grid. Also, on safety, a near-miss meltdown occurs approximately every three weeks in the US fleet of 100 reactors.

    The thirty articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series on SLB emphasizes the economic and safety aspects by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards,

    (Six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed,

    (Eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete, (fourteen), projects are cancelled due to unfavorable economics, reactor vendors are desperate for sales, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base, (fifteen) safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance,

    (Sixteen) many, many near-misses occur each year in nuclear power, approximately one every 3 weeks, (seventeen) safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel, (eighteen) safety hazards of spent fuel reprocessing, (nineteen) health effects on people and other living things, (twenty) nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, (twenty-one) nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, (twenty-two) nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima, (twenty-three) near-disaster at San Onofre, (twenty-four) the looming disaster at St. Lucie,

    (Twenty-five) the inherently unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act, and (twenty-six) the serious public impacts of large-scale population evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or “extraordinary nuclear occurrence” in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act. Additional articles include (twenty-seven) the future of nuclear fusion, (twenty-eight) future of thorium reactors, (twenty-nine) future of high-temperature gas nuclear reactors, and (thirty), a concluding chapter with a world-wide economic analysis of nuclear reactors and why countries build them.

    The TANP series starts at:

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-one.html

  96. ” MarkW says:
    July 25, 2014 at 6:01 am

    mjc says:
    July 24, 2014 at 7:08 pm
    —–
    Lighting only accounts for about 5% of energy usage. Office and industrial switched to fluorescent decades ago, and homes started converting to CFL years ago.
    I’d love to see the source of your claim that converting to 24VDC would save energy.
    Regardless, even if everyone of your claims was accurate, your still talking about less than 1% total savings.”

    That’s on a home use/personal level. Overall, no it won’t save that much. And the home use for lighting, alone is, about 14% (according to most electric companies, as that was the easiest ‘source’). And adding in other things like TVs and computers will bump that up considerably…and they are also things that can be run directly on 12-24V DC (they actually are, it’s just converted from 120 AC…which induces a loss).

    And yes on saving energy…eliminating, at least on a personal level, if enough do it. But that is conditional, right? (Although if it were part of the zoning code, since CA loves zoning, then it becomes less conditional)

    And a 12 or 24V DC system just for lighting is pretty easy to set up (for new construction), maintain and a lot more efficient (no conversion to AC needed). The big problem, and why I haven’t actually implemented such a system is ‘old construction’…retrofitting such a system in an already built house is a major expense/headache. I was really wishing I had done it, though, back in 2012…between the big derechio in June and Sandy, I was without power for close to 3.5 weeks.

    Industrial does skew things away from home use, so it won’t see the big gains, unless there is some done industrially. But, for industrial, localized generation is probably the biggest help…a small, on site generation plant (be it natural gas, minireactor, whatever) at large industrial complexes relieves some of the burden on the ‘grid’, can be ‘cleaner’ and so on.

    The idea is not to try to do it all with one thing, but blend a bunch and make it actually practical to implement…a 12-24V system for lighting still gives a ‘regular’ service for other things, but cuts back the amount needed. Also with a bit more planning and ‘design’ A/C, even CA, requirements can be reduced…plus there’s other benefits for CA by going with more ‘sane’ landscaping for houses…and that’s less water needed for all those lawns.

    As to source material, I’d have to dig it all back out…most of it is on a hard drive awaiting recovery (no, it’s not suffering a Lerner-ism, I just haven’t bothered to move the stuff over, yet…it mostly works, just won’t boot any longer…the damaged sectors are in the boot area). I’ve spent 3 yrs researching to try and get my home ‘independent’ of the local grid…because even without major incidents, it really sucks (we get a 5min to 1 hr ‘blip’ at least once per month and a 4 to 24 hr outage at least 3 times per year).

  97. MarkW,

    The reason to switch to 24V LED lighting is mostly on capital costs. Copper, fixtures and labour to install 10 120V pot lights can be $1000, while running some 24V lamp cord and some plastic LED ‘fixtures’ can be done for $100. The electric code will have to change for this, but that’s coming.

  98. What they’ve actually outlined is a path to bankruptcy of the state, lowered living standards and higher rates of poverty, and higher mortality rates among the ever-swelling ranks of the poor.
    But yeah, no down-side to speak of, if that is the ultimate goal.

  99. What I envision is a Los Angeles with no industry and no jobs, but a huge number of angry unemployed people subsisting from public benefits, something of a cross between 3rd century Rome and modern day Mexico City.

    and I also envision a Texas with 5 times the economic output of California, with all of the industry, all of companies, all of the headquarters, and a big chunk of the productive people who used to live in the once “golden state”. (Some will have moved up to Oregon, Washington, and Idaho)

  100. “If implemented, this plan will eliminate air pollution mortality and global warming emissions from California, stabilize prices and create jobs – there is little downside,”

    Isn’t California basically broke with ruinous pension commitments in virtually every municipality mercilessly pushing them to the brink of bankruptcy? You’d think they’d have learned the lesson of affordability and budgets at this point.

    Whatever, I’m holidaying in the Centauri system this year, once I pull my new warp-drive out of my butt.

  101. One of the major problems with green energy sources is they require 100% redundancy because you can’t ramp them up when demand increases. No wind to spin your windmills? You need a backup power plant (or implementation of rolling blackouts) and the only power plants that can be quickly turned on or off are fossil-fuel powered or hydro. Nuclear plants can’t be turned on or off quickly. Nuclear, which greens by-and-large want to outlaw, can provide baseline power, but not stand-by power for times of high demand.

    No sun? No solar. Cloudy day? Reduce solar power generation. Winter time, same thing, except not only are the days shorter but are often quite cloudy. In some parts of the country, the potential for solar power is near zero during many days in the winter.

  102. “The overall switch would reduce California’s end-use power demand by about 44″

    Deliciously Orwellian. They will cut supply 44 percent, and say demand was cut 44 percent.

    Many California Greens will go along with the plan, and accept power outages. Sitting in their dark, hot house, they will feel good about helping Gaia. Saving Gaia is more important than their little, miserable lives.

  103. The only fossil fuel power source that can be ramped up and down quickly is gas turbine. All the others take hours to days.

  104. “These include a grid management system to shift times of demand to better match with timing of power supply; and “over-sizing” peak generation capacity to minimize times when available power is less than demand.”

    In the UK they have started the compulsory rollout of ‘smart’ meters, which will allow for ‘smart’ charging.

    So if you want to eat and wash at your normal times, just pay double or triple the price per unit.

    Simples!

  105. California does not currently generate enough electricity in the summer to handle demand. They rely on electricity generated out-of-state to meet peak demand. If California was serious, they would not allow importation of electricity generated out-of-state by non-compliant sources.

  106. Another promise of job creation from clean energy. Where have we seen that before?

  107. Are there any ocean based wind turbines that have been running for awhile? I would be concerned about them rusting, corroding in the humid, salt air and worried that they would leak lubricating oil into the ocean. The bearings would have to be sealed pretty damn well to keep out the moisture and salt. Moving parts don’t do well with corrosion.

  108. Steve Reddish says:
    July 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm
    “Imagine a smog-free Los Angeles, where electric cars ply silent freeways…”
    Since car noise on the freeways is overwhelmingly tire noise, electric cars would make the same noise on freeways

    Wrong my friend they will be hover cars. Don’t scoff they were invented in Hollywood during 1976. These are not the tires you are looking for.

  109. Unmentionable says:
    July 25, 2014 at 9:57 am
    Steve Reddish says:
    July 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm
    “Imagine a smog-free Los Angeles, where electric cars ply silent freeways…”
    Since car noise on the freeways is overwhelmingly tire noise, electric cars would make the same noise on freeways

    Wrong my friend they will be hover cars. Don’t scoff they were invented in Hollywood during 1976. These are not the tires you are looking for.
    *******
    No, wrong on all accounts. the silence will require legislation to add noisemakers to warn Bambi and friends of oncoming traffic. The din from high-frequency warning devices (harmonics of which will be very audible to humans) will be positively deafening. and therefore require yet another round of solutions. And grants to research them.

  110. Barry says:
    July 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm
    So does anyone know how frequently the three events would concur: wind not blowing, sun not shining, and tides lower than usual (forgot rivers not flowing and reservoirs being empty)? Also there are such technologies as batteries and pumped storage, you know. So, let’s just mock a forward looking energy strategy (with no independent analysis to back the critique), deny health impacts of pollution, and maintain our 19th century business as usual. Another good one, Anthony and followers!

    Barry, Barry, Barry.

    Are you saying we can simply build enough solar to power the state when tides are low and the wind isn’t blowing? Build enough wind turbines to power the state when it’s dark and the tides are low? Build enough tide power to supply the state when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining? And finally, build backup gas and coal plants for when all three of the above aren’t working?

    Wishful thinking isn’t an energy strategy.

  111. M Courtney says: July 25, 2014 at 1:14 am:
    But the article does tell us one thing of note:
    Air Pollution is now being used as the motivator for Green Energy.
    AGW is no longer the prime argument.
    Who says the science argument is not worth winning? The politics is following.

    They are morphing the debate, basically saying it doesn’t matter if CO2 causes warming ( though they will still argue that it does), getting rid of the terrible CO2 pollution we are creating is still necessary. If they can’t convince convince us of GW, they’ll try convincing enough people that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, and continue pushing ruinous policies on us. Avoiding GW will be a secondary, but important, byproduct of ending CO2 pollution in their arguments.

    Some of you might be happy if they concede that CO2 may not cause cAGW, but what good is that if they still get their way of devestating our way of life?

  112. “The study concludes that, while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases”

    “May” result. And the sun might come up tomorrow.

    It feels like it’s free when you are spending Other People’s Money.

  113. If you like your current (grid) you can keep your (grid). Now where have I heard that line before?

  114. Dr Ken Pollock at 3:04 PM has come nearer to what I see as the real issue – That it is the control of when the power is used. It is the changing of when people will or would be able to consume the power in attempts to keep the grid balanced. Due to the fact that the proposed green sources feeding this new grid provide the power in a relatively uncontrolled way – that is only when the sun, wind, tides, or whichever source producing the power is shining, blowing, moving, or otherwise turning a turbine. Intermittent power in, would by necessity require intermittent power out (usage) to maintain balance – in the absence of reliable back-up to balance spike demand. How to do this? Enter that old venerable approach – Smart Grid. Coupled with public ridicule, and artificially making power more expensive when the masters do not want you to use it – viola! A balanced green grid. Hearts and minds if not outright top-down control. Bye-bye, freedom of choice – all for Gaia, you know. This one says “No Thanks” to that paradigm.

  115. more soylent green! says:
    July 25, 2014 at 10:48 am (sarcastically criticizing)

    Barry says:
    July 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    So does anyone know how frequently the three events would concur: wind not blowing, sun not shining, and tides lower than usual (forgot rivers not flowing and reservoirs being empty)? Also there are such technologies as batteries and pumped storage, you know. So, let’s just mock a forward looking energy strategy (with no independent analysis to back the critique), deny health impacts of pollution, and maintain our 19th century business as usual. Another good one, Anthony and followers!

    Well, let’s see here. Maybe we “can” come up with some times and frequencies.

    1. Solar energy is available only 6 hours each day – between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM each average day of the year. No more. So, 3/4 of the time (15:00 each afternoon through 09:00 the next morning), solar energy is NOT available in California. We can quibble about winter time and summer time solar durations if you wish. We can also quibble about the north-south distribution of solar energy up and down CA if you wish.

    2. We MUST however, discuss seriously the effect California’s Mediterranean climate has on the weather across California in general, and the energy production along the coast (near-constant heavy dark clouds), the coastal mountains (near-zero half the year, near continuous half the year), the Central Valley (irregular but heavy clouds all year round, 3/4 rainy/stormy days in the winter (October-April) and full-desert (no rain at all) from April through October). The Sierra Mountains? Heavy, snow-laden clouds 50% of the year, regular summer cloud cover. Fortunately, the snow-bound Sierras are neither heavily populated (very low population density) nor heavy energy demand regions. What MASSIVE power AND water supplies are available have already been turned (against massive Eco-fananatic extremist protests!) into the water and energy suppliers of the rest of the state. No Hetch Hechy water? No San Francisco water, no San Jose water, no Silicon Valley water, much less California power. No Shasta water or power? No Sacramento water and much less Central Valley power.

    Thus, 50% of those 25% of the hours that the sun DOES shine high enough to potentially generate power on the ground in California, the sun is blocked by either full or intermittent cloud cover. Oopsie! No solar power 87.5% of the time. Looking at it differently, you need to install 7 times the area of solar panels to generate enough of the power that you DON’T get 7/8 of the time to “average” one day’s average power.

    3. Storage for the excessive 7x power being generated 1/8 of the time? None at present. Nothing coming in the realistic future. Nothing coming even in an optimistic future. But that reality won’t stop the Eco-fanatic’s and Eco-politcians living in a dream world of smoky back rooms and self-serving media liars and publicists.

    5. Tides? Well, I LIKE the idea of generating power from tidal propellers anchored underwater in San Francisco’s deep channels at the Golden Gate. Don’t think the Eco-fanatics will ever permit them, but the idea is worthwhile pursuing. But nobody ever discusses workable 24-hour-per-day power generation. THAT idea is not “popular” and so it will never happen.

    Short (vertical-propelled) tide and small wave generators? Open ocean semi-thermal exotic cycles using millions of gallons of highly poisonous highly-volatile liquids at sea in un-manned remote buoys running without repair or supervision or daily maintenance? Sure!

    Those are politically corrupt (er, politically correct) and will get funded. Useless, but they have regularly been promoted and “studied” by the university funding political machinery. Unfortunately, they are also VERY VERY small energy producers requiring very wide area installations across very, very expensive ocean-anchored distances in surprisingly deep waters. Ain’t gonna happen in the real world where ocean-anchored systems are very expensive, very hard to maintain, and very, very hard to run cables back to the seashore. Which is NOT going to receive permits to drag and install very, very expensive cables and overhead wires across dunes, beaches, mountains, Eco-restrained valleys and hill-sides, and wilderness preserves. One recent West Virginia-Pennsylvania-Virginia 200 mile powerline required over 12 YEARS of permitting just to get approval to cross the mountains to improve reliability in the east coast. Now, try to convince Californians to approve a power line and transformer station on the beaches just south or north of San Francisco? They are still trying to blow up the Hetch Hechy dam laid in the 1910-1920’s just so they can look at the muddy rock-stained nude walls of a remote canyon in the Sierra mountains covered 80 years ago!

    Tidal power – even in the Golden Gate channels draining the vast SF Bay – is either dead zero as water level stops changing each ~12 hour lunar min-max period, or decreases significantly if river assisted as at the Golden Gate. Tidal power REQUIRES a changing height of water to create the potential energy used => No power 50% of the time. Admittedly, the 50% of no-power from tides will be predictable – MUCH better than solar’s and wind’s irregular production rates! – but still, 50% of the time – tidal power is producing “nothing” while solar is producing “nothing” 75% of the time.

    Wow. Let’s be sure to turn off Silicon Valley regularly so the rest of the state can turn on its lights.

    How much more detail is needed? Want to discuss air conditioning? Manufacturing? Farming? Water use? Water supplies? Snow storage and flood control? Shipping and China shipping receipts into the rest of the US? Intermodel transportation from the CA ports?

    Health aspects of “pollution”? Hmmmn. The La Brea Tar pits have been draining asphalt and tar residues into the LA water supplies for …. 20,000 years now? The mid-ocean oil pools underwater off of Long Beach have been draining oil into the sea for 20,000,000 years now? (Less now actually, since we have been able to reduce the underground oil pressures and reducing the oil seepage! )

    Are our sewage treatment and water cleansing and water purification NOT getting millions of of people MORE water, cleaner water at lower prices than ever in history? Better pharmaceuticals and medicines and hospitals due to more reliable power than wind or solar? Yes: LA air needed improvement. But lives even under polluted skies were longer than under no power and no transportation but oxen and horses and no lights and bad heating and no air conditioning and no screens and no sewage treatment! (But lots and lots of free BS on the streets! Well – maybe the last is even more pronounced today. )

  116. What I love about green energy is once you create a wind farm or solar farm or free-range unicorn-fart harvesting farm, nothing ever needs maintenance or repair. Nope, everything is free forever after.

  117. About 37.4% of the total power from this architecture comes from wind turbines, 35.9% from concentrated solar plants, and 22.4% from rooftop PV solar cells. Geothermal, waves, and tidal power add up to 4.3% and are so insignificant to the whole that they could be eliminated within the accuracy of this whole calculation. (The fact that they were included at all, to no practical effect, makes one wonder about the thinking of the architect.) The variability of the wind component alone would require comparable “spinning” reserve power. The rest of it is available (at best) on a diurnal cycle. Imagine nearly 60% of your electrical power being unavailable during evening, night, and morning. A perfect emulation of North Korea.

    Did anyone estimate the tons and tons of aluminum and copper that would be required to wire all this into a connected system? Or the heavy metals needed to supply all the load-leveling battery systems—and their systematic consumption over time, because every battery technology has a limitation on charge-discharge efficiency as a function of the number of charge-discharge cycles?

  118. So there would be an initial increase in cost due to building the systems, but the benefits! Yes, you can replace the windmills and solar panels every 25 years of so and you can use all that excess water they have over there washing off the solar collectors so as to keep them functioning somewhere near full capacity. As for the windmills, well, there are those times that the wind doesn’t blow hard enough, and then there those when it blows too hard. But batteries that will need replacing every few years can collect and hold the energy not used to recharge the cars and run the air conditioners or pumping water up hill to power hydrogeneration in Calitopia. And of course I am sure there was certainly no impact on the environment and the habitats of all those species that Calitopia conservationists wish to protect with all those shiny rooftops, bird choppers spinning in the breeze, those lake looking structures in the desert that specialize in frying migrant birds, and bobbing wave generators. Why is it these “visionaries” never look beyond their visions at the consequences of their changes?

  119. LA is subject to temperature inversion layers, which is the biggest reason they tend to get smog. But that is LA’s problem, and certainly no reason to change the energy systems of the entire state, nor indeed the nation. They are using a common Warmunist trick of conflating actual pollution, which has for the most part been dealt with (although more could probably be done in smog-prone areas like LA) with their Warmist doctrine.

  120. Greg Goodman says:
    July 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Since one of California’s biggest energy needs is air-con, there should be a lot of scope for powering this from solar. The days when there’s no sunshine in the sunshine state will be days that need less power for air-conditioners.

    This could even be sourced on an individual basis, thus taking a lot of load off the grid.

    Also if there is a major move to electric vehicles the batteries in those vehecles are a form of distributed back up storage.
    =======================================================================
    Right, because electric vehicles work really well when their batteries are discharged.

  121. I see Sowell is flat out laying again about nuclear power. “Near miss meltdown every 3wks.” That’s rich. He’s ready to start writing for the IPCC.

  122. dennisearlbaker says:
    July 25, 2014 at 4:00 pm
    The New Nuclear Technology I propose is as follows:
    Human Excrement + Nuclear Waste = Hydrogen

    Wow. I hope Canada’s health care system covers mental health.

  123. RACookPE1978 says:
    July 25, 2014 at 12:41 pm
    5. … Don’t think the Eco-fanatics will ever permit them, but the idea is worthwhile pursuing. But nobody ever discusses workable 24-hour-per-day power generation. THAT idea is not “popular” and so it will never happen.

    They do discuss it but only in the context of projects which are wildly uneconomic and won’t be funded. But they really only wanted a cut of the consultancy funds for such proposals anyway. Current leftist state-funded media won’t even discuss the crippling economics of the more hair-brained schemes (Hot Rocks for instance). Instead they keep dangling them out there like they are a credible option, spreadsheets and studies not withstanding.

    The state media and green wingnuts have done the same trick (keep it dangling out there) with the false claim that observable sea-level rise in Kiribati confirmed global warming, when they know perfectly well that it’s due to geodetically measured regional oceanic crustal subsidence combined with seasonal winds and SST thermal expansion. The Islanders of course knew that all along, but because they wanted someone else’s money, they bleated on like it was the end of their world and played up the idea of massive compensation and UN responses, and evacuation to Australia at someone else’s expense. The ABC, SBS and Kiribati have gone quiet on the scam recently but I’m not convinced any of them have given up on their myth making yet. More likely they fear Abbot might finally call them out and tell them to get stuffed. Better to wait until a hard-left govt appears again before pressing on that button, the facts are optional for the objective professional journalists at the ABC.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/

    http://ict.sopac.org/VirLib/TR0167.pdf

    keeping the nonsense dangling out there is part of the game.

  124. kenw says:
    July 25, 2014 at 10:16 am
    Unmentionable says:
    July 25, 2014 at 9:57 am
    Steve Reddish says:
    July 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm
    *******
    No, wrong on all accounts. the silence will require legislation to add noisemakers to warn Bambi and friends of oncoming traffic. The din from high-frequency warning devices (harmonics of which will be very audible to humans) will be positively deafening. and therefore require yet another round of solutions. And grants to research them.

    “… I … I feel a great disturbance in the Farce … as if millions of taxpayers cried out in terror … then were suddenly silenced. …”

  125. Unmentionable says at July 26, 2014 at 3:40 am …

    Yup, that wins. The thread has an unbeatable winner.

    Richard

  126. They say,

    The study’s authors are developing similar plans for all U.S. states. They took no funding from any interest group, company or government agency for this study.

    but my brain hears “This is an obsessive-compulsive disorder focus with us and our product has been informally reviewed by our crony-peers of the same obsessive-compulsive disorder focus”.
    My state (Michigan) the watermellons tried to push through a mandate for amend the state constitution to include a renewable energy mandate of 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources like wind, solar, and biomass power by 2025; Since 2008, Michigan law requires that 10 percent of the state’s electricity be generated from renewable energy sources by 2015 and has been in effect since 2008. This effort failed by a 62 percent margin, the mix we have is proving effective, a modest and achievable “renewable” goal, located in areas that are both conducive to wind generation and the local population actually wants the turbines in their area. 10 % works, 25% doesn’t.

  127. Greg Goodman July 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm:

    Since one of California’s biggest energy needs is air-con, there should be a lot of scope for powering this from solar. The days when there’s no sunshine in the sunshine state will be days that need less power for air-conditioners.
    ***
    Also if there is a major move to electric vehicles the batteries in those vehecles [sic] are a form of distributed back up storage.

    If you look at the the charts of actual solar production and of electricity use,

    http://www.caiso.com/Pages/ISOToday.aspx

    you will discover that production peaks at noon and drops off quickly after 3pm, in the summer, while use peaks at 5 pm. The gap must be bridged by storage or by other means of production.

    Several people have pointed out how silly the second idea is. You can use them for back up, or you can drive them, but they can’t be in two places at once.

    Sciguy54 July 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm:
    “Ask an in-the-know German how Energiewende is going TODAY. ”

    An excellent article from Der Speigle the leading German newsmagazine:

    “Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good”
    By SPIEGEL Staff 09/04/2013 07:15 PM

    “Germany’s agressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

    And from the British Financial Newspaper Financial Times:

    “Germany’s energy policy is expensive, harmful and short-sighted” By Bjorn Lomborg

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9d6ba56a-a633-11e3-8a2a-00144feab7de.html

    “Berlin is failing the poor while protecting neither security nor the climate, writes Bjorn Lomborg”

    “Germans told of billions lost to trade due to energy policy” By Jeevan Vasagar in Berlin
    February 26, 2014 11:03 pm

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/352dfaf4-9efc-11e3-8663-00144feab7de.html

    • RE : sixth mass-extinction event ” Or Not “‏
      I disagree with exclusionists: that the discussion regarding climate is best left to University accredited climatologists..I have to disagree because I’m a Canadian Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, not an University accredited climatologist.A Climatologist interprets vast amounts of data to form an educated and informed picture of Weather.That does not guaranty the Climatologist has sufficient life exposures to energy generation or utilization to form an educated and informed picture, with the exception of projecting emissions impacts of proposed alternatives to Fossil Fuels, on the climate.I recall the Wright Brothers were Bicycle Technicians.not University Accredited Aeronautical Engineers.You can Teach a Monkey how to ride a bike, but you can’t teach a Monkey to fix a bike. These life experiences and exposures were Transferable Skills and Technology enabling humans to fly. The fact is that we as humans all share the same fate, should we come up short on expedited CO2 reductions, regardless of nationality, race, religion,gender,age, color, height ,weight,education political affiliation, sexual preference,language,or any-other terminology applicable to, sub-divide the species.Deniers and acceptance fatalists often reiterate the misinformation that the worst case scenario is human extinction, the Earth will go on without us, as she had in the past.Again Insufficient life exposures to form an educated ,in formed picture. All Life Ends.Humans and the Planet Earth are in a state of Mutually Assured Destruction, she needs us as much as we need her. Without Humans to maintain the Infrastructure containment and storage of the vast volumes of Chemicals and Weapon stockpiles and chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, medicines, gasses and oils.These toxic substances and compounds will eventual escape from containment and storage facilities combining into who knows what super-toxin contaminating earth, water and air, terminating all life.The solution to climate changereplacement for fossil fuel powered electrical generationD..Baker @silenced_notUrgent action required, appears to be the consensus of the most learned climate change advocates! The collective wisdom acquired through trial and error test applications of alleged solutions, has been enlightening, and sobering as agenda driven rhetoric failed time after time to deliver a replacement technology for the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities, which are the primary sources.of GHG the alleged culprits inducing global climatic destabilization!Most recently 2 documents have corroborated a much maligned document I wrote! In My Opinion! lnkd.in/ifM2au@Inc* Leaked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the report says that agricultural output may drop by as much as two percent every decade for the rest of this century, compared to what it would have been without the effects of climate change. Demand for food is reportedly expected to rise 14 percent each decade during that time, exacerbating the food supply issue.http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/1/5056260/ipcc-leaked-climate-change-report-warns-severe-food-constraints* letter, by Kenneth Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, James E. Hansen of Columbia University and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Adelaide”To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power” http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=0Unfortunately building conventional nuclear facilities is not realistic due to the costs associated with safety issues.This leaves you with one option other than Geo-engineering “A New Nuclear Technology”! Geo-engineering is the newest subsidy for the fossil fuel industry and is wrought with unknown risks and dangers and therefore not an option.The New Nuclear Technology I propose is as follows: Human Excrement + Nuclear Waste = Hydrogendisq.us/8en3l0lnkd.in/ifM2au@Inchttp://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=938667&type=member&item=5794160567027515392&commentID=5794504904257064960&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_5794504904257064960 … … … … … … … … … …You’ve tried everything else first and these have failed adding to the urgency of action required!Dennis Baker 1. – 998 Creston AvenuePenticton BC Canada V2A1P9 dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com @dennisearlbaker @silenced_not

      Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 02:43:11 +0000
      To: dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com

  128. Well, when Governor Gray (out) Davis (Dem) was last screwing up the Grid in California we had lots of rolling blackouts and I ended up owning 2 generators. (Sold one when he was recalled and power stabilized). With the return of Governor Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown (Dem), electricity rates rocketed up some more ( 19 ¢ / kw-hr base, headed to $1/2 ‘soon’ in filings; peak just under $1 / kw-hr in places with high AC needs). So I live in Florida now… 7 ¢ power, always available….

    Oh, and while Apple owned a massive data center in the north S.F. Bay Area, they put their ‘cloud’ facilities on the East Coast rather than deal with California and power issues. I was doing a LOT of “site shutdowns” as folks packed up companies and moved to cheaper places. Electric power cost and stability is a major issue to computer data centers. They can kiss them off (and all the jobs related to them). Chip fab too (though they already chased most of it away already).

    Oh, and it became cheaper to use a kerosene stove on the patio than my All Electric Kitchen…

    This is just more of the same insanity. Glad to be watching it from a distance.

    Probably ought to mention that in the North Central Valley, it can be cold, dank, and foggy for weeks on end. “Tule Fog”. Everything from Chico to Fresno can be under a cloud / fog layer for weeks to months. Then there is the summer coastal fog cycle in places like San Francisco…

    So the place with decent sun is in the lower 1/3 of the State. Not going to help N. California under the fog in November… When it’s foggy, there’s little to no wind either. The wind farms they already have fill the best spots already, and they are often idle for many days in a row. Other sites will be worse. The best Geothermal is also already exploited. It works well, but drops off over time as the deep steam cools. Oh, and the notion of replacing all the water heaters with heat pumps is a farce. Exactly where will all the second, third, and fourth floor apartments get their dirt? Land is already scarce, and digging up formal landscaping is not cheap.

    California gets a load of power from the nuclear facilities at Palo Verde, Arizona, and via the Pacific DC Intertie from Washington State. They need to recognize that fact… The most valuable land in the state is the land with a coastal view. Nobody is going to let that be covered with windmills and tide machines. It was hard enough getting a nuke plant built in a modestly screened canyon. There is a fair amount of natural gas in State, and what would power the place is a mix of gas and nuclear. Everything else is a pipe dream or a political show.

  129. One way to reduce energy demand, reduce human emissions, lower CO2 emissions, raise the average IQ of the human race, save on health care, reduce unfunded pension liabilities, provide more food for starving humanity, yadda, yadda, ​​ etc. etc. is … to cook and eat a greenie demagogue wherever found…

    /sarc

Comments are closed.