From: Arizona State University
TEMPE, Arizona — Electricity generation and distribution infrastructure in the Western United States must be “climate-proofed” to diminish the risk of future power shortages, according to research by two Arizona State University engineers.
Expected increases in extreme heat and drought events will bring changes in precipitation, air and water temperatures, air density and humidity, write Matthew Bartos and Mikhail Chester in the current issue of the research journal Nature Climate Change.
The authors say the changing conditions could significantly constrain the energy generation capacity of power plants – unless steps are taken to upgrade systems and technologies to withstand the impacts of a generally hotter and drier climate.
Bartos is a research scientist and Chester is an assistant professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, one ASU’s Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering. Chester also has an appointment in the School of Sustainability in ASU’s Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability.
In their article “Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the Western United States,” they report that power stations are particularly vulnerable to adverse climatic conditions predicted to occur within the next half-century.
“In their development plans, power providers are not taking into account climate change impacts,” Bartos said. “They are likely overestimating their ability to meet future electricity needs.”
The West is expected to see greater energy demand due to population growth and higher temperatures. Bartos and Chester say power plants must strengthen transmission capacity and enact conservation strategies if they are to remain capable of reliably supplying power to the region as conditions change.
Power providers also should invest in more resilient renewable energy sources and consider local climatic constraints when selecting sites for new generation facilities, the authors said.
“Diverse arrays of energy-generation technologies are used by the West’s power grid. We are looking at five technologies, hydroelectric, steam, wind and combustion turbines, and photovoltiacs,” Chester said.
“We’re finding that some power generation technologies can be more climate-resilient than others. Renewable energy sources are generally less susceptible to climate change impacts. So more use of renewable sources may contribute to a better climate-proofed power infrastructure,” he said.
###
The research conducted by Bartos and Chester in this area has been supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation’s Water, Sustainability and Climate program.
Nature Climate Change is a monthly journal dedicated to publishing the most significant and cutting-edge research in the science of climate change, its impacts and wider implications for the economy, society and public policy.
Link to journal article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2648
Now consider these threats from environmentalism to the power grid in California:
1. No new nuclear, and environmentalism has lobbied to close existing nuclear plants, such as Rancho Seco
2. No new coal plants, and no purchase of coal-based electricty from out of state.
3. No new hydroelectric plants- period. Plus there is lobbying to destroy existing dams because of fish habitat concerns.
4. No fracking allowed – a smart move would be to increase natural gas production so that “peaker plants” could balance electric grid loads. But, California environmentalists aren’t smart.
5. Environmentalism lobbies for wind and solar, but these fragile and miniscule impact technologies can’t help the grid maintain stability, since by definition, these technologies are at the whims of nature. A cloudy day with no wind in California can’t provide much load balancing.
6. The fixation on carbon-free energy has led to much higher electricity prices, 43.5 percent above the national average in December 2014 according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency.
You can read more about California’s environmental folly here in this excellent piece in the Orange County Register:
At the mercy of the climate jihadists
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But the biggest threat to the grid is Al Gorge’s reverse rotating hurricanes.
The biggest threat to the grid is government meddling with the supply of coal, oil and gas which provide most of the power to go on that grid.
Actually, if you just take your first nine words and leave out words four, five and six, you have a summary of the situation in all areas.
The biggest risk to the California grid is the California Dimocrat Government as evidenced by Gov. Gray (out) Davis. He learned that rugular blackout result in a successful recall election… but the lesson seems to wear off after a few years…
Still have the generator I bought then and ready for independent non grid ops when needed. Recall petition ready too…
The Energy Policy Act of 2004 has a section called Energy Corridors. It will allow buried, hybrid ROW’s for that purpose.
1. Rancho Seco was closed because SMUD is a municipality and the city of Sacramento held a referendum and the VOTERS closed it down. They had just gone operational and it was speculated that SMUD would go bankrupt, they did not and Sacramento enjoys some of the lowest electricity costs in the nation.
2. Coal is purchased from out of state all the time, No new coal plants seems to be a California trend, a national trend, and, yes, even a global trend. Fracking is really hitting coal in the teeth.
3. California’s hydroelectric energy generation potential was pretty much tapped out in the 1960s.
4. Fracking continues in the state every day.
5. California is a very big state the Cal ISO provides the daily renewable generation resource (only showing utility tied renewables, rooftop solar is not included. See: http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html Rooftop solar generates as much as utility scale solar in the state and daily peak generation is about 11 GW, or about the amount of 4 nuclear power plants operating at peak. 80% of this solar capacity has been added since 2012.
6. The national average is 12.12, California is 16.19 that is 33% more, however because of California’s higher attention to residential energy efficiency, the average household electric bill in California is $90.19 while the national average is $110.20 or a 22% increase per month and equaling an extra $120.00 a year saved compared to the national average. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pd
in addition, we have over 1 million paying jobs in the state working on renewable energy projects and conservation efforts. people are saving money and spending it in their own hometowns. California had 8 billion dollars in unexpected revenue last quarter and is looking at a budget surplus of up to 40 billion dollars. http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_28056793/californias-budget-surplus-soars-new-heights-schools-benefit He is funding tax breaks for low-income families
And how is Kansas doing, you may ask???
oh, well, not so good, http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article21335124.html
The legislature is passing a law that will cap the income level that goes untaxed for business owners, Yes, in Kansas. Life is tough when a small state like Kansas with a 6.5 billion dollar budget and a 765 million dollar budget deficit. (that’s 11.8% of the total budget in case you wanted the maths) http://www.kansasbudget.com/
jai mitchell cut ‘n’ pasted his talking points from somewhere, but it’s so easy to see they were carefully cherry-picked, and tell only part of the story:
1. Yes, Rancho Seco was closed down. But only after multiple referendums. Just like when the EU didn’t get the Irish vote to join, they try, try again until finally a referendumb sqeaked by. If multiple attempts isn’t a dishonest flouting of the rteferendum process, what is?
2. Fracking is really hitting coal in the teeth. That is a complete non sequitur. If fracking can compete with coal power, what’s the problem? mitchell throws in ‘fracking’ because to him, it’s evil.
3. hydroelectric energy generation potential was pretty much tapped out Again, that makes zero sense. Hydro power provides cheap electricity, so how can it be “tapped out”? Furthermore, the enviro mob stopped the big Auburn dam project, after $1 billion had been spent on it. Maybe that saved some minnows, but the dam would have substantially increased the state’s water storage capacity. Now there is a drought. If jai mitchell thinks he’s going to get support for his lunatic enviro-caused problems, he’s in the wrong place. Environmentalism is a major cause of the state’s current water problems.
4. Fracking continues in the state every day. Good. There is no downside to fracking. It provides cheaper energy, and it bothers the enviro-whacko nutcases. What’s not to like?
5. Rooftop solar generates as much as utility scale solar in the state and daily peak generation is about 11 GW, or about the amount of 4 nuclear power plants operating at peak. That sounds like solar generates the same power as 4 nulear plants. If jai mitchell was selling a product he would get sued for false advertising. But in reality, solar provides less than 1% of the state’s electricity. It wouldn’t even be around except for massive taxpayer-funded subsidies.
6. The same misinformation from jai mitchell. This site compares California with other states. California has VERY expensive electricity.
As usual, jai mitchell is a fountain of misinformation and half-truths. Any California utility payer knows what he’s shoveling sounds like pink unicorns and fairy tales. But it sure isn’t the truth. His kind are the problem, not the solution.
1. Rancho was shutdown due to operations and maintenance failures for 75% of its first 18 months of operations and electricity rates were going up in Sacramento because of it, that is why they shut it down.
2. fracking on a global scale is causing an oversupply of natural gas the price of natural gas is going down it is close to or below coal’s costs in many regions and is projected to stay that way for many years, that is why fracking is kicking coal in the teeth.
3. there is less total hydro generation potential left undeveloped in California than solar is generating, on an annual basis in 2014. The reason hydro is tapped out is because the hundreds of little and medium streams that are left would cost too much to build generation for the amount of electricity that they would generate, making them not cost effective.
4. At daily peak power generations, solar in the state produces the same amount of electricity as 4 nuclear powers would for those same hours of operations, in addition, since solar is distributed, there is direct at-site usage and the wasted line loss of 7-10% is also saved. This is only for those peak hours which I stated previously.
5. I referenced the U.S. Energy Information Agency with their authoritative data, claiming that the EIA is not publishing the correct data falls right in line with your assertions that I was not generating my own material and hints of a bent toward conspiracy theories by DBStealey.
jai mitchell again, by the numbers:
1. Jai mitchell evades the fact that Rancho Seco was finally shut down after multiple referendumb votes. When the first vote kept it open, as usual the ethics-challenged enviro squad kept trying. They got more money and plenty of air time on the media. Eventually one of their referendumb votes passed, and the state lost an important power source. Funny how there’s never another referendum vote after they get their way, isn’t it?
2. jai mitchell is complaining here because people have an alternate source of cheap energy that competes with cheap coal. Only in the crazed mind of an enviro is that something bad…
3. …there is less total hydro generation potential left undeveloped in California than solar is generating…
What does that even mean? Is mitchell claiming that if enough solar panels cover the deserts and parking lots, it will equal hydro power? As if that will ever happen. mitchell also ignores the inconvenient question of the Auburn dam’s lost power generation. As usual.
4. At daily peak power generations, solar in the state produces the same amount of electricity as 4 nuclear powers would…
mitchell is nuts.
5. It does not surprise me that since jai mitchell can’t refute the counter points to his enviro-nonsense, his argument devolves into labeling me a conspiracy theorist.
Here’s a proposal: Since jai mitchell is so big on referendum voting, I would love to have a vote of the state’s citizens for building more hydroelectric power plants. The enviro crowd can use the same arguments they used to finally shut down the Auburn dam, and see how that works.
We need more water storage, and we need cheap electricity. How about we leave it up to the voters? Or does the unelected enviro contingent think they know better?
3. It means that if you developed ALL of the potential hydro generation sources,, you know the ones that are not cost effective, then that additional power generation would STILL be less than what California generates by solar power between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00PM on most days.
5. During these hours the average total solar power generation in California is 44GWh of electrical power generation, in addition, about 1/2 of this is distributed generation and does not experience significant line losses so the equivalent grid-scale generation is 45.8 GWh over 4 hours every day, This averages to 11.5 GW of generation capacity
The average nuclear power plant produces about 1 GW of generation capacity so, during those peak hours the u.s. solar power generation is actually about 11.5 operating nuclear power plant equivalents.
California solar generation current 5,600 MW Utility + ~5,400MW rooftop solar
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
Average U.S. Nuclear power plant size
https://gigaom.com/2010/02/19/nuclear-power-by-the-numbers/
jai mitchell, you keep trying. That’s gotta leave a mark.
OK, then:
3. … if you developed ALL of the potential hydro generation sources,, you know the ones that are not cost effective, then that additional power generation would STILL be less than what California generates by solar power…
As I explained, that’s nuts.
4. …the u.s. solar power generation is actually about 11.5 operating nuclear power plant equivalents.
Nutso.
Look, I’m sorry about answering the numbers-challenged like that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are claiming that current solar power generation in California is greater than “ALL” existing and potential hydroelectric power sources and nuclear plants??
That’s just crazy talk.
What exactly is a hybrid ROW? A hybrid rest of the world? Rotten old wind? Real old women? Replacement other world? Regulated ownership wonder? Regular old winds? Rind on water?
More attention should be paid instead to the effects of extreme solar activity.
+100
SC24 will be on down-slope soon, nothing much can be done for next couple of years, in case there is a ‘brutal ‘ CMEs (since they are more frequent in the second half), but this cycle isn’t meant to be the violent one anyway (see graph below).
ODD coincidences of EVEN cycles
1859 Carrington Event was at the top of SC10 (SSN=106), the even cycle, of course.
Notable (but strongly disputed) statement from the NASA’s press release:
Raeder explains: “We’re entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It’s the perfect sequence for a really big event.”
Raeder jumped the gun there, since it appears that only the every third even cycle forces strong shudders, or that is just another odd coincidence.
According to this, such ‘odd coincidence’ is due around peak time of SC26 (perhaps somewhere towards late 2030s) if SC26 happens at all.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOa1.gif
so advice to US West’s Power grid could be: just carry on as usual, for now that is, and leave it to next generation of the management to worry about it.
Raeder explains: “We’re entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north.
I keep repeating that nonsense. I have shown you that the claim does not hold., but , as usual, you don’t learn.
Hi doc
You might like to make a small correction to your first sentence (….. that’s ….)
The end of the next one ‘you don’t learn’ is spot on. Learning is for youngsters, understanding comes from DIY. I find something of interest, get the data, put it through the Vuk’s ‘mangle’ and see what ELSE might be concealed in there.
The problem is that you don’t say that it is all for entertainment and that there is no science in it.
Vuk,
My birth month is early March. Can you put that through Vuk’s ‘mangle’ and see what might be concealed from me? Does the alignment of various planets affect that as well?
What is that branch of “study” called again?
Joelobryan;
Astronomy = Naming of stars
Astrology = Studying stars
🙂
Vuk, I’m curious as to what tectonic data (pulses) you used in your graphic.
The problem for science is it makes no a priori predictions. Everything is post hoc.
About the data:
Anyone can do it, just needs lot of time and effort, nothing clever about that.
I tend to think it is something to do with postglacial isostatic rebound.
Fairbridge (?) came to similar conclusion but I couldn’t find his article, anyone has a link?
Graph shows amplitude (output of a high pass filter) of number of pulses at relatively regular occurrence, separated by 48, 66, 67, 53 and 63, giving an average period of 59.4 years. Although the well-known 60 year period evidently is not present, the average value of nearly 60 years is noteworthy. To exclude filter’s end effect, end is truncated by 20 years.
As I said in the original post you could consider it to be:
a) – coincidence or
b) – cause and consequence serious of events
c) – I made up whole thing
to find out which one is true following is required
a) – statistical assessment of probability (I am not good with statistics)
b) – solid scientifically validated proof ( I can not do that)
c) – well it could be possible but I don’t think I am that clever either.
If any of the experts think I could assemble such numbers, I am sure there are methods to find some pattern which would indicate data maladjustment, not so rare these days, here is link to the numbers
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FOAD.txt
@ur momisugly joelobryan
Hi Mr Bryan
I am absolutely certain that your date of birth, was the greatest event of your life, and I wish you many happy returns!
Many cranks of the past and present age have turned to insulting the name of science of astronomers (astro-nomy relates just to naming stars), it is just not fair, don’t you marvel at Hubble telescope images, the pinnacle of the astrology or you wish the astro-science.
I came across this reference:
Claude Hillaire-Marcel and Rhodes W. Fairbridge
“Ages were obtained from corrected radiocarbon analyses of shells and from application of a newly discovered 45-yr cycle in beach building that is presumed to be related to the “double Hale” solar cycle. Thus, we deduced a record of climatic storminess.”
That’s the most sensible thing I’ve heard you say yet.
Obviously there are some that really believe that the impact of very significant long term investment decisions can be reversed with the blink of an eye. One would suspect that without equivalent on-line conventional capacity being available Ca is about to enter the black-out zone aka experiencing the no-water zone thanks to ill-informed choices made a few decades ago. Unfortunately, if Ca is the bread basket of the US as some would suggest, then we will all suffer thanks to their “moon beam politics”.
‘ … if Ca is the bread basket of the US as some would suggest …’
Maybe not …
http://www.beachcalifornia.com/california-food-facts.html
‘Nationally, products exclusively grown (99% or more) in California include almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and walnuts.
From 70 to 80% of all ripe olives are grown in California.
California is the nation’s leading producer of strawberries’
it is the #1 dairy state. So, if push come to shove, one or more almighty cattle drives Eastward and all that’s left is some minor fruits and nuts.
I will miss pistachios and I’ll have to get used to olive less Martinis but that’s it.
There’s a large number of States that could look forward to expanded Agribusiness I’d say.’
Last I heard, they’re still dumping thousands of acre feet of fresh water to protect the Delta Smelt. And claiming a water shortage. I “smelt” a rat.
The only place any water dumping is going on is into the canal that pumps it down an evaporating canal path to the desert golf courses in southern California.
The Delta smelt actually lives where there IS water; not in some place where water is being pumped to.
It is the people who live in the desert communities of soCal, who have made a free choice to live in a place that historically has not had water to support the lives of those who chose to live there.
Yes maybe they were sold a bill of goods; but why blame their problem on a fish, which has no part in their problem.
You might want to ask the people who live in northern California if it is ok with them to have their water taken away to fight a losing battle with those who have no common sense.
And no I have never laid eyes on a delta smelt; but I suspect that they might provide food for other fishes that are part of another important California industry; its fisheries, which are far more valuable than so. Cal desert golf courses.
As for California being America’s food basket (maybe it is); the agricultural industry in California as far as crop growing is only 2% of the State’s gross National product; yet The governor has allotted 80% of all the water in the state to that 2% industry.
But it is illegal for a restaurant to give a customer a glass of water to drink, unless (s)he specifically asks for it. And he enforces his tyrannical dictates by threatening $10,000 per day fines, for those who don’t kowtow to his wishes.
Blaming California drought on a delta smelt is on a par with blaming CO2 for climate change.
Just my opinion of course.
And no; my front lawn has still not received any water this year other than what falls directly on it from the sky, where it went to positively feedback CO2 initiated global warming.
The far-left extremists are all about deindustrialization and the destruction of as much technical industrial knowledge as possible. This is not a new phenomena. During the 60s the far-left talked about, among other things, “killing all the engineers” to force deindustrialization and the destruction of modern society. The far-left nuts today are the same as then. The only rational response is to resist them at all hazard, because their ultimate success would result in a new dark age of poverty, starvation and mass depopulation.
> The far-left extremists are all about deindustrialization and the destruction of as much technical industrial knowledge as possible.
Well – sure – and if there’s an app for tracking that deindustrialization all the better… that way Geology and History deniers can keep track of how much CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere… instantly… on their exotic material electronics powered by highly corrosive chemistry all encased in a petroleum based package that emits high frequency EMF at less than 2 feet from their cerebral cortex… I wonder if any of them understand the irony? Bet not.
like 99.9% of these studies they never address the actual likelihood of serious global warming. Only the effects that COULD happen if it occurs. So conveniently, when the whole AGW scam falls apart they can’t be blamed for anything.
This is what led me to the conclusions that AGW was nothing but a scam. Lots of cool pics and videos about the possible consequences of AGW but almost nothing about the lack of data proving it.
In California, the fruit and nut state, the environmentalist and preparing a ballot initiative to drain the Hetch Hetchy reservoir — the source of most of the drinking water for the SF bay area. They state that there are many sustainable alternatives and that we don’t need the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. But if you dig deeper, their “sustainable” alternatives are things like rain water barrels on people’s houses. At some point, we will need to put Homo Sapiens on the endanger species list, otherwise, we will all surely perish at the hands of environmentalist extremists.
I hope they do drain Hetch Hetchy. Don’t remove the dam though. Let the Bay area extremists pretend to try to be sustainable. It wouldn’t be long before they beg to fill the reservoir again.
They make it up as they go along
It is probably illegal in California to capture the water that lands on the roof of your house or other places in your yard, for your own use. The water thieves claim that it has to fall on the ground, just like it always has done, and only the government can supply water to humans and other animals, or plants.
So, we waste our time fretting about the weather’s impact on the infrastructure and ignore the need to protect it against geomagnetic (Carrington) storms. I guess that’s typical.
So how are renewable energy sources like hydroelectric, wind, and solar more climate-resilient and “less susceptible to climate change impacts”? How are they more “climate-proofed” than coal or other fossil fuels? Wouldn’t a drought have a big impact on hydroelectric power? Wouldn’t excessive rain and cloudiness impact solar? You would have to have quite an imagination to believe that the impacts of a little extra CO2 outweigh the unreliable properties of renewable energy sources available today.
Nuclear reactors are very sensative to 0.01C temp variations. Coal fires can barely breath with all the CO2 in the air. Hydro will be useless as we must let reserves out to save the guppies.
Winnipeg Boy – spot on. Those coal and natural gas burners are at the whim of the least bit of weather. But solar PV, those things work day and night!
I had the same thoughts as I read the above posted article by AW. I thought, “They have got everything backwards.”
Think about it, it’s how they Progressive-enviros need to invert everything to justify their lies.
There is much talk lately about Lake Mead water levels hitting dead-pool level where Hoover dam power generation is longer possible, due to the on-going Western Rockie’s lack of snowfall. That’s just up the road from ASU. So they have to realize that from that perspective, their proposal is idiotic.
But then I realized what they are really trying to say, but in a cryptic way.
I think what they are saying is that when human-decided (arbitrary) Climate Change-related CO2 emission caps are enforced (if they are enforced), then lower carbon renewables will be less impacted..
Orange County is discussing the issue of using reverse osmosis of ocean water and making their own drinking water.
In other words they are joining the 20th Century.
They built one of those in Tampa a few decades ago.
Never did get the thing to work.
The south-western US is a fierce desert and large-scale human habitation has only been possible because of air-conditioning which is run primary with electricity. Government meddling in the provision of this resource at market rates is precipitating a self-imposed crisis.
The absence of water in that south western desert would warn most sane people to not try to live there.
Antarctica has oodles of water; but it has its own reasons why sane people should not try to live there.
There’s an old cowboy song about a scrawny dog that is just sitting and howling up a storm.
The reason it is howlin’ is because it is sitting on a thorn; and it’s too darn lazy to move.
“Expected increases in extreme heat and drought events will bring changes in precipitation, air and water temperatures, air density and humidity, write Matthew Bartos and Mikhail Chester in the current issue of the research journal Nature Climate Change.”
So they ae “expecting” this based upon what? AGW Models who have yet to make a single skillful pediction?
Yeah, the AGW models that show warming will consist primarily of warmer nights, not hotter days. The daily high is resistant to moving towards higher figures, since it’s already strongly opposed by T⁴ heat losses. The daily low, not as much. This whole paper is based on woo-woo science.
They are in Arizona…and Katharine Hayhoe said so……..
Lot’s of silliness all round if you ask me.
1. There is not one single reason to believe that climate change will result in significantly drier or warmer weather in the Southwest. On the other hand, it quite possible that the last century or two hasn’t shown us the driest and hottest weather that could afflict the Southwest. So perhaps the authors are correct even if for the wrong reasons.
2. There won’t be any significant new hydro in California for the simple reason that there is pretty much nothing left to dam. And btw, the environmentalists are right that large hydro dams are environmental nightmares. Curious that they have only recently noticed it. (The same is probably true of tidal power BTW).
3. After Fukushima, no one is going to build a nuclear power plant of current design in California. The place is a maze of active and possibly active earthquake faults. At the moment we can’t even map them all. Some folks here may think that’s silly. It is nonetheless reality. Go off and design a nuclear plant that Tepco or Entergy couldn’t turn into a disaster and maybe you’re at the start of a two decade licensing procedure. I’m pretty much pro-nuclear btw, but The US “leadership” in both political parties has failed to design and proof a reactor that is suitable for tectonically active regions much less for management by fools. I personally think that such a design is a must for nuclear power anywhere along the Pacific Rim of Fire.
4. Likewise, given evidence that fracking can trigger earthquakes it’s quite unlikely that anyone will attempt hydraulic fracturing anywhere in California. They’d eventually be sued for every broken wineglass and cracked doorstep within 1000km of the well. (Some of the lawsuits might actually have merit).
5. There’s essentially no coal in California, and it’s probably cheaper to import natural gas than coal. In any case, the state’s topography and the prevailing Westerly winds pretty much rule out coal burning in most of the state. No new coal powered plants won;t likely be an issue there. They can’t buy coal generated electricity?. If/when the choice comes down to coal generated juice or no juice, I’ll bet on coal
6. And finally, for some reason, the California energy plan reminds me of nothing so much as the Bush administration “Plan” for the reconstruction of Iraq. (“pasting feathers together hoping for a duck”). The product of impractical ideologues batting ideas around. I suppose that there is some small chance that it might work and an equally small chance that it may be rescued by some cheap, effective method of matching intermittent power sources (wind/solar) to mismatched loads. Other than that, it looks to me like a recipe for expensive and probably unreliable electric power.
Last time we had blackouts and brownouts part of the “fix” was gas turbines close to demand and some giant fuel cell in Santa Clara IIRC. That, and buying loads of out of State power from Arizona and Texas… and Enron… So just build the nukes there…
If having an earthquake within 100 miles of a fracking site is “evidence”, then there is evidence that fracking causes earthquakes.
The bigger threat is from Russian teams ordered to test the grid choke points in the U.S. with high powered rifles. See sniper attack on Metcalf transmission substation serving Silicon Valley. That was related to the internet hacking assaults in DC. Putin sends subtle notes that get ignored in the all the AGW noise.
more cr.p
Author of the linked story “At the mercy of the climate jihadist” got one glaring fact wrong. Oregon’s governor is no longer embroiled in a green scandal, he had to step down because of that scandal.
ASU has a School of Sustainability. You’ve got to be kidding me. More nonsense from the progressive academic Tower of Babel.
Hopefully the original is better and the excerpt added some dubious misunderstandings. One can only speculate that if the humidity and precipitation in Arizona increase to levels that match say the southeastern US, perhaps Arizona will see similar effects. What do they think that is?????? Facilities last a long time in the southeast US. There is some extra corrosion in high humidity salty coastal areas, but that would not seem to translate to a high humidity rainy Southwest. I can’t imagine why on the whole it would not impact solar arrays and wind facilities more than traditional lines, transformers and plants. I await any evidence for the concerns expressed above.
Or maybe I’m wrong and they are worrying about lower humidity and precipitation. That seems even sillier.
Bartos is a research scientist and Chester is an assistant professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering
Maybe they need to get on their bikes and start pedaling.
Or stop exhaling CO2 and it would be a better world.
I recall articles here on WUWT, where climate models have predicted global warming will lead to a wetter and less windy climate. How exactly does that make renewables more resilient than hydrocarbons?
Stop thinking logically. To understand their rationale, one must start thinking like an irrational climate change believer if you want to understand their wacky proposals, and how they make sense to other CAGW believers.
What they said:
“Renewable energy sources are generally less susceptible to climate change impacts.”
What they really mean to say:
“Renewable energy sources are generally less susceptible to proposed wacky, arbitrary climate change-related CO2-reduction impacts.”
Or perhaps they’re really saying: “Renewable energy sources are such crap, they can’t get much crappier.”
I think that’s an axiom that follows from the original postulate.
This looks like a back door effort to make the dramatic upgrades to the grid to accommodate the unreliable solar and wind energy and blame climate change.
I would say it is a very weak,feeble attempt.
@ur momisugly Don K……
Why are you still living in that scewed up state?
Up to me I would turn off all the power plants that do not use solar or hydro or wind and see how the local Starbucks does.
Gums sends…
Left decades ago. Too damn many people and taxation policies that make housing prices unaffordable while causing taxes/fees other than property tax to rise to absurd levels.
Besides, I kind of like snow.
Faux scientists with their faux science showing faux concern for the future of the electric grid. How refreshing.
This was reported earlier on Zero Hedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-18/more-buffett-hypocrisy-eco-friendly-billionaire-seeks-squash-nevada-rooftop-solar
============
I wrote this for The Daily Bail awhile back and it included Buffett and his eco-investments with related technical info.
http://dailybail.com/home/why-wind-power-wont-work.html
They want to strengthen the grid and do a modest build-out ot accomodate future growth. OK, I will go along with that, with one additional requirement. At the same time, the grid gets hardened against EMP attack. Note that EMP hardening also works against CMEs and Carrington events.
We could do the right thing by doing what the Greenies say they want, and at the same time throw the hidden Greenie agenda overboard. What FUN.
Yikes: the ENSO meter just bumped up again.