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.
“Renewable energy sources are generally less susceptible to climate change impacts.”
At first I thought that was the most brain dead, nonsensical thing I’ve ever read. But, a tingling bell has sounded off in my head, and I now recognize the wisdom in that statement. It’s entirely true. Let’s think about this. Let’s say a massive earthquake occurs and 50% of California’s nuclear, natural gas, and hydro plants are utterly destroyed. Voila, a crippling, blackout inducing calamity due to a 50% reduction in electrical generation. Now, let’s throw the solar and wind generators into the mix when this massive earthquake occurs, and let’s assume that 50% of them are wiped out too. But, now the calamitous reduction in electrical generating capacity has only fallen from 50% to 50.0001%: a virtually undetectable difference. You see, since the renewables don’t produce diddly squat in the way of power generation anyway, a disaster visited upon them will have almost no effect. It’s like teaching a rock to think. Since the rock is highly unlikely to tell you what it’s learned you can never fault the rock for forgetting it’s lessons. Since renewables can never cut the grade they can also never fail. True brilliance is at work here.
Hog Wash, ask Joe Bastardi: http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-may-16-2015
The only adjustment the grid needs is the adaption to support a higher electricity demand.
Same goes for the water reserves.
If your population grows three fold maybe it would be a good idea to increase the storage and retention capacity to serve a growing population.
Talking about man made crises….
Stupidity and plain traitors among the central planners is a political problem.
Just kick the morons out.
I completely agree with Big Joe Bastardi. The next two summers with this nice ElNino are going to make for Garden of Eden summers (15 &16). But 2017 and on, watch out for the cold dry bitch that is coming!!
They are wrong, the climate they are expecting is NEVER going to materialize..
Don K says:
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.
The enviro contingent managed to stop the Auburn dam as it neared completion. It would have almost doubled the state’s water storage capacity, and it would have provided cheap electricity. More than $1 billion had been spent on building it. Now it’s just an abandoned structure.
As for dams being ‘nightmares’, that is an opinion. The state needs the water. What do you propose?
California has almost doubled its population, with no new water supplies. Many millions of illegal aliens are in the state, and they all need water. But try to find any enviro group with reasonable suggestions. They are all naysayers, every one of them. And they call us contrarians!
There is enough water in California. If water pricing were used properly, everyone could get a very inexpensive allotment to meet basic needs. Then the price would go up as more water is used, until supply and demand balanced. But as usual, there’s politics. Farmers are pitted against city dwellers, people against minnows. There’s enough water. But they have to use economics. And common sense. The minnows have to take a back seat to peoples’ needs.
db,
I love your work, but your facts are suspect here. At 2.3 million acre feet Auburn Dam would have held only about half of the 4.5 million acre feet capacity of Shasta Dam, the largest in the state. We are dumping way too many acre feet of water down the rivers for the fish, though. Crazy. Every species of anadromous fish currently in the rivers has survived far worse historic droughts. I’m sure that using the water wisely and saving some even for next year is survivable as well.
pbh
You’re suggesting that the water it would have held somehow made its way to the sea. For the most part, I don’t think that’s the case. If it were, the Delta Smelt wouldn’t need salvation, right?
Yes it’s an opinion. Do you think it is incorrect?
Well, you could straighten out California’s water rights laws, but I really think that may not be humanly possible at this point. Too many people “entitled” to more water than there is or can be some years. The lawsuits probably wouldn’t be settled in this century.
I don’t have an answer other than the obvious — if people want to live in a desert — which much of the state is, they probably ought to make proper accommodations — which means stretching water as far as it will go, cisterns, reusing “waste” water for ilandscaping, etc, etc,etc.
But I think the underlying problem — too many people in a region with limited carrying capacity — is solving itself. I was born and raised in SoCal, have lived in many other parts of the country. Frankly, the quality of life is higher in many other regions. Once folks figure that out, I think many of California’s problems will solve themselves. But that doesn’t address the very real problem of getting reliable, reasonably affordable electricity to those who choose to remain there.
Don K,
I personally don’t think another dam is an “environmental nightmare”. Where do we draw the line? Who draws the line? The fact is that we need more water. Dams provide water.
As for the line-drawing, I reject the idea of rearranging civilization for a snail darter minnow. Your mileage may vary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
McComberBoy, you’re right. “Almost” was the wrong word. “Substantially” would have been better. Thanks for pointing it out.
“Many millions of illegal aliens are in the state, and they all need water”
and their pet chihuahuas, don’t forget.
no need to be thrifty with racism, yo.
@gnomish: don’t you think you’ve overused the bogus “racism” pejorative until it is meaningless name-calling? You sound like Al Sharpton …yo.
What is it about illegal that you can’t understand?
Oo-oo-oo … I can answer that!
He does understand ‘illegal’. But he thinks that national sovereignty is an anachronism, as is the Constitution and rule-of-law. So, to him, illegal immigration is a plus because it helps to speed up the dissolution of the evil United States.
“Racism” is just verbal mayonnaise slathered on everything to help force down your throat his otherwise unpalatable logic.
(How did I do?)
+11
max, your master can bark for himself so why don’t you go fetch his slippers? that’s what I think.
i’m interest in db’s logic in attributing california drought to millions of aliens.
does illegality make an alien even thirstier than usual?
Aren’t you being a little ruff?
I fail to see where dbstealey attributed the drought to illegals. You are erecting a strawman. All he did was point out that millions of illegals increase the demand for a resource — water.
Speaking as someone who became a US citizen THE LEGAL WAY, I can’t find racism in his comment with a microscope. There are rules and regulations about who can enter the US. There are millions of people waiting in line, all doing it the proper way. Millions of others ‘cut in line.’ Is that fair? Is that legal? Does a nation not have the right to control its borders without being deemed as racist? What are you seeing that I don’t see?
And gnomish, you are more than welcome to say whether my characterization of your position is correct or incorrect. I even asked you if I got it right.
Pointing out that somebody is in the country illegally is racist?
One thing I’ve learned about leftists, whatever they accuse others of doing or being, they are guilty of themselves.
As someone else said, if you want to know what the Democrats are doing, just check what they are accusing Republicans of.
Big News from the GWPF
UK Energy Minister Announces Law Against Wind Farms, Kick-Start To Shale Revolution
The Sunday Times, 17 May 2015 (excerpt)
Tim Shipman
Local residents will be able to block all future onshore wind farms under new measures to be fast-tracked into law, the new energy secretary has announced. “It will mean no more onshore wind farm subsidies and no more onshore wind farms without local community support.”
Amber Rudd revealed she had “put a rocket” under her officials to “put the local community back in charge” of their own neighbourhoods.
In an interview with The Sunday Times she also said the Tory government would kick-start a shale gas revolution and loosen rules so it could be extracted from under national parks.
No subsidies will be paid to operators of new onshore wind turbines under legislation to be included in the Queen’s speech. The legislation, which Rudd is “hopeful” will be law by the middle of next year, will ensure that consent for new wind farms will have to be given by a local council planning authority, which will be duty-bound to consult residents. Under current planning rules, big onshore wind farms are handled by a central government national infrastructure body that can ignore the wishes of local people.
Rudd said: “It will mean no more onshore wind farm subsidies and no more onshore wind farms without local community support.
“This is really important. I’ve already got my team working on it. That’s going to be one of the first things we’re going to do. I’ve put a rocket under the team to get it done, putting the local community back in charge. We’re looking to do the primary legislation as soon as we can. Local planning authorities combined with no new subsidies will put local people in charge . . . there will be a much more accountable democratic process.”
The 4,000 existing onshore wind turbines produce power for 4m homes. They will remain and 3,000 more with planning permission will be completed, providing power to an extra 3m homes by 2020.
Rudd said she did not personally “think they’re an eyesore at all. I personally quite enjoy seeing them.” But she added: “We can’t have them on a scale in areas where people don’t want them.”
She added: “We can’t aim for having the perfect green community while irritating and upsetting local communities.”
Rudd was a beneficiary of the departure from the government of the Liberal Democrats, who used to run her department. She said the main difference now that there was a Conservative majority would be to press ahead with shale gas extraction.
Rudd said that while her predecessor, Ed Davey, “was committed to shale”, he “struggled to bring some members of his party with him. Quite a number of them appeared to be completely anti-shale. With a Conservative majority I believe we’ll be able to deliver shale, as we’ve always wanted to do, in a safe but beneficial way.”
Full story (subscription required)
The 43.5 % above the national average is a lot, but its actually far more.
If one removes California and a few other states (or even just Ca) then its more like double the average of the rest of the country. And rising fast.
It is very close right now to the diesel limit – the point at which its cheaper to just run a genset in the yard. If yu have natural gas and a need for heat (say a pool, etc) – its already past. Its cheaper to burn fossil fuel than to plugin in to the California grid.
A fool and his/her electricity are soon parted.
I prefer to be in charge.
After reading this:
I said to myself these guys can’t be electrical engineers. I was right Bartos and Chester are civil engineers.
KCET News, May 1, 2013
“Uh Oh: Valley Fever Outbreak Linked to Solar Development”
Workers at a solar development became infected with Valley fever which is a lung infection caused by soil fungus spores. A causal link has been established. The CDC keeps track of this disease.
This disease affects five southwestern states that have arid or semi-arid climates. When the desert flora is removed to install wind and solar facilities these fungus spores can then be picked by the wind.
Visitors and residents have been warned about this increasing danger. Cats and dogs can also become infected.
What will be the ultimate human cost for installing renewable energy in the southwestern desert areas? Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done.
There is more information on this situation online.
http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewire/solar/solar-development-linked-to-valley-fever-outbreak.html
http://www.hdmagazine.it/wp-content/uploads/Failed-plan-to-electrocute-Godzilla.jpg
Max,
I saw that guy last time I flew into LA:
http://americandigest.org/Almost%20missed%20my%20flight%20-%20Imgur.jpg
sadly, Mr ‘zilla left it fully intact. Hollywood Hills followed by Santa Barbara in flames would have been a good start.
the average household electric bill in California is $90.19
The cost of energy to the householder arises by 2 actions. Raising of prices and reduction of use. It is therefore not a good indicator of an efficient system.
What a daydreamer. No solar radiation during half of the day. Wind is unpredictable. Wind turbines work under special conditions only. They KILL birds. They are heavily subsidized. No reasonable storage for harvested energy when available in abundance. Fossile fuelled back-up systems necessary in any case.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, did that man have a clown for breakfast?
I forgot to mention that it is much more important to
harden the power grid against the fatal influence of magnetic storms
resulting from solar winds. Such an incident might cause blackouts on all continents and it will take, worst case, years to recover from that. So, gentlemen, go and get the solution for the real problems. You are currently delivering non-solutions to a non-problem!
The massive Green lobby wants to put the same constrains on South Asia, Africa and South America as on California; no nuclear, no hydro, no coal, no fracking just wind and solar. They basically want to keep us in the dark ages with unreliable energy supply. Their promised huge Western- Japanese funds are not showing up but that obviously doesn´t bother them as it doesn´t affect them. Even a fail as Socialists.
They never take NO for an answer! Too much money to be made from installing renewable projects all down through the “food chain” that has been created.
“Expected increases in extreme heat and drought events”
Waiting for Godot.
… or rather, Waiting for Godhot.
Isn’t it funny how the very things Warmunists loudly claim to be concerned with – the environment, poor people, jobs, etc., and now, the electric grid, are the very same things that their policies actually threaten.
Excellent article Mr. Kotrin in the Orange County Register.
California’s CO2 emissions reduction program is a fiasco which is costing the states citizens billions of dollars in cap and trade taxes, renewable energy subsidizes, higher electricity costs and massive and costly regulations placed upon all businesses.
California’s CO2 emissions are trivial on a global scale and the costly and badly misguided initiatives here to reduce the states already insignificant CO2 emissions are simply ignored by the rest of the world.
This reality is clearly demonstrated by the links to articles listed below which address the global picture of huge future energy growth demand, the undeniable role coal fuel plays and will continue to play in energy supply and the clearly articulated position of China and India that they will not agree to any binding future CO2 emissions reductions and in fact will significantly increase future CO2 emissions.
http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-global-energy-demand-to-increase-by-40/
http://www.thegwpf.com/global-coal-demand-to-rise-for-years-to-come/
http://rbth.com/business/2014/09/29/russia_china_agree_to_develop_siberian_c
oal_40187.html
http://www.thegwpf.com/as-u-s-shutters-coal-plants-china-and-japan-are-build
ing-them/
http://www.thegwpf.com/india-to-open-40-50-new-coal-mines-in-next-18-months/
http://www.thegwpf.com/india-wont-sign-any-legally-binding-climate-agreement
/
http://www.thegwpf.com/india-china-agree-that-un-climate-agreement-will-mean
-business-as-usual/
Governor Brown’s preoccupation with his ideological make believe world of CO2 emissions reductions is wasting vast state resources on efforts that will produce nothing of value here or globally. These critical and limited resources should instead be used to address genuine and significant problems in the state including water supply issues, out of control educational costs, statewide infrastructure decay, limited medical services, etc.
We are paying a very high price in California to indulge the ridiculous and selfish beliefs of Governor Brown which are in fact completely disconnected from real world reality.
But wait a minute! I just read in Jai Mitchell’s post that there is a $40 billion surplus, so there is PLENTY of money for those problems! There is a $40 billion surplus right? Sort of Like Bill Clinton’s surplus where you move 400 billion off budget and out into contracting, thus there is a surplus in the budget, though a deficit in spending.
Someone should answer Jai Mitchell’s recent comment near the top of the thread.
Done. Anyone else is free to add their thoughts.
“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.”
Does he live in Colorado and has smoked too much?
Most renewables if not all, are dependent on weather, except geothermal, and even that is dependent of cooling water. For every kWh of elektricity, you need to evaporate a gallon of water.
That is one of the constraints for solar plants in desserts, even with enough sunshine.
Gasturbines might be the only ones not dependent on climate/weather.
This is called an advanced defense mechanism. Since warmist policies are bound to kill the electrical grid, they need to set the groundwork for their alibi – read ‘someone to blame’ – in advance. Ergo: Climate Change did it.
It’s the sort of thing criminals do.
California is well on it’s way to becoming an elite Environmental Disneyland… a nice place to visit but who in their right mind wants to live or work there?
George E Smith (I think) said –
“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.”
The chances are if you look into who paid for the canals and sluiceways that bring the Colorado River water to California, you will find that the bulk of the money not put up the federal government was put up by the agricultural industry, just like it was here in Arizona. Then people move to the cities that didn’t help fund the project and complain when any water is given to agriculture, figuring it should be theirs to grow grass and ornamental fruit trees with instead. Pretty standard procedure really – see yourself as the one that should have the resource, not necessarily the ones that paid for it.
They sell “sustainable power” without saying who has to pay the bill or what it will cost in real life ….but it sounds good.
Why does this bring to mind “The Pied Piper”? Maybe the rats in the story? Maybe people didn’t realize what the risk really was? “Sustainable Energy” is a pipe dream that only looks good depending on what you (or your parents) have put in the pipe?
Time to clear the air and get rid of the smoke and mirrors!
(Maybe those who live in a desert area and complain about not having enough water should move to New Orleans. The next time it floods they can still blame it on “Climate Change”…or Bush.)
The biggest threat to the electricity grid comes from government policy to shut down fossil fuel energy power stations that produce cheap, efficient, effective, regular and reliable electricity in favour of having renewable energy technology responsible for costly, inefficient, ineffective, irregular and unreliable electricity