Pathway 2045—Edison’s Roadmap to Energy Hell (1)

Guest post by Rud Istvan,

California WUWT reader Cal B alerted Charles the Moderator to a new document just published by Edison International, the holding company parent for SoCal Edison, the largest electric utility for southern California. Cal B asked if WUWT posters might like to take it on? In his usual charming fashion, CtM got me (after some initial reluctance) to volunteer today over a lunch overlooking South Florida’s Intercoastal Waterway. The key was his sensible solution to my ‘too big a subject’ objection—break it into parts! So this is the first of six parts.

My reasons for agreeing were several.

First, most of the technical difficulty issues buried in Pathway 2045 I previously covered, albeit at posts over at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc and/or in my ebook Blowing Smoke. So there was not a whole lot of new research required.

Second, it is stunning that an electric utility could foist such technical and economic nonsense onto its California customers. One presumes it was forced by coming California requirements imposed by Newsom worse than the crazy 2030 requirements to which SoCalEd already crazily responded in 2017.

Third, as WUWT matures and changes from just the climate science to the climate politics, it is attracting new readers that may not be familiar with long past technical analyses. This is an opportunity to “bundle’” the big ‘Green New Deal’ energy fact picture together again.

This first part provides a ‘30000 foot’ overview of the whole thing. Pathway 2045 to Zero Net Carbon California comprises five separate ‘solution’ parts:

  • 1. Decarbonize electricity
  • 2. Electrify transportation
  • 3. Electrify buildings
  • 4. Use low carbon fuels
  • 5. Sink remaining carbon

Decarbonizing electricity either means renewables or nuclear. SoCalEd does NOT propose nuclear. They propose renewables. That raises ‘only’ three small problems. Renewables are not economically viable without massive subsidies. Renewables are intermittent, requiring additional backup capacity for when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. Renewables provide no grid inertia. Renewables are therefore a proven an economic disaster, as California’s high electricity rates already prove. But SoCalEd doesn’t care—their revenues will rise bigly and their regulated utility returns are ‘rate guaranteed’.

Electrifying transportation (Tesla) also runs into three problems. First, the required grid capacity increment is enormous. Second, vehicles like work pickups or class 8 tractors cannot be electrified, despite Tesla’s imaginary promises to the contrary—all battery, no cargo capacity. Third, there are serious lithium and cobalt resource constraints.

Electrifying buildings beyond what exists today (some HVAC, lighting) has two problems. Existing buildings or their subsystems would essentially have to be torn down/out and replaced, but NOT at SoCalEd cost. Maybe owners will balk at their expensive wishful thinking. Second, places yet more need for Capex to expand grid capacity beyond vehicle electrification, since most commercial buildings do NOT have enough surface exposure for self sustained solar or wind.

Using low carbon fuels should mean nuclear. SoCalEd means more than natural gas fired CCGT in place of coal, a transition already happening for economic reasons. They mean biofuels and hydrogen (e.g. fuel cells), for which they have apparently studied neither the carbon chemistry nor the energy thermodynamics.

Sinking remaining carbon means either forestry or ocean iron fertilization (geoengineering). SoCalEd’s northern California electric utility partner PGE has gone into bankruptcy for causing forest fires that destroyed carbon sinks. And the fires around LA this fall suggest SoCalEd isn’t much better at preserving them. Part 6 will discuss whether the plan might be for SoCalEd ratepayers to pay extra for carbon credits to wherever to plant trees or fertilize barren oceans.

In sum, this is SoCalEd’s version of the Green New Deal. Pigs cannot fly no matter how much lipstick is put on them. The stock is a strong short. California is a strong short. There are three climate response crash test dummies in the world today: Australia, UK, and California. This new position paper by the largest California electric utility leapfrogs California into first crash dummy place.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

141 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Beta Blocker
November 8, 2019 6:14 pm

Before reading the Southern California Edison white paper, I will repost a comment from August 2019 concerning Vanadium-flow redox batteries:

———————————-
Capital costs, and replacement & disposal costs, have been the big bugaboo with the current generation of grid-scale lithium-ion storage batteries. Vanadium-flow redox batteries are now being promoted as the solution to wind and solar’s intermittency issues. Here is an article from Forbes about the WattJoule V-flow battery.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/08/26/energys-future-battery-and-storage-technologies/#5127b99c44cf

“The latest technology to emerge is the vanadium redox battery, also known as the vanadium-flow battery. And the best one seems to be from WattJoule, especially because their cost is so much lower than other V-flow batteries.”

In announcing their decision to close Diablo Canyon by 2025, PG&E’s management in San Francisco claimed that reaching 70% renewable electricity for California by 2030 is doable. But they didn’t say how exactly that goal could be achieved, only that it could be done.

It would not be unreasonable to demand that PG&E do a hard dollar engineering feasibility study to determine what specific steps must be taken to reach 70% renewable electricity for their customers by 2030, including how much grid-scale battery storage must be purchased and installed.

If the WattJoule V-flow system is the best that will be available throughout the 2020’s, then the 70% by 2030 engineering study should use that system as the cost basis estimating source for California’s grid-scale battery storage requirements.

What if PG&E says no to such a demand? If that is the case, then the California Independent System Operator (ISO) should to be given direction and funding to perform this study.

———————–

Here in the US Northwest, 20 GW of coal fired capacity that currently serves the region will be retiring within the next decade. The region’s politicians want the replacement power to come exclusively from wind and solar backed by batteries.

Our regional power planners know right now that wind and solar can’t get the job done and that if more gas-fired capacity isn’t allowed, then much of the ‘replacement power’ must come from aggressive energy conservation measures.

angech
November 8, 2019 6:32 pm

“Renewables are not economically viable without massive subsidies.”
In short,
“Renewables are not economically viable”.
There are some purposes that renewables are fantastic for.
Number one would be boosting water heating because the heated hot water is a bit like a short term safe battery storage just of heat.
Charging small electronic batteries.
Possibly backing up hydro power by repumping the water up when not needed.
The rest seems to be a total scam.
To feed it into a grid without making the grid unstable is an issue in itself.
Finding a use for it when it is in is another.
There is very little said of how spare energy is disposed of given most of it cannot be stored.
Perhaps a Utility person with more knowledge could comment.
The main stream seems to gloss it over

Brian
November 8, 2019 6:46 pm

“Third, as WUWT matures and changes from just the climate science to the climate politics…”
I’m out of here.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Brian
November 8, 2019 8:12 pm

bye, whimp

Karl
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 10, 2019 5:30 am

This site has to move away from climate science. It has lost the scientific argument. When that happens, it devolves into the politics of the climate.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Brian
November 8, 2019 9:09 pm

I think by “political” he meant analyzing the cost-effectiveness of Green New Deal proposals, which isn’t that big a change.

Deacon
November 8, 2019 6:49 pm

why is no one designing a replaceable battery pack…pull into the charging station, pull out the dead and push in a fully charged battery and drive on…it will look ugly… for a while…
we switch out propane tanks on the grills and forklifts and industrial motor equipment all the time…
i don’t believe in man-made global warming, but the chatter I read seem silly regarding vehicles…design a “slide in/slide out” battery pack and a recharge could take less time than pumping a tank of gas.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Deacon
November 8, 2019 8:44 pm

Propane tanks don’t loose capacity with each fill/discharge. Batteries do. No one will want to make that first swap out on their new EV, when they will give up their new battery for a half-worn-out one.

SR

icisil
Reply to  Deacon
November 9, 2019 5:26 am

Sounds great… on paper… to people who don’t bother with details. Swapping out a half ton battery on vehicles with disparate form factors is in no way comparable to putting a nozzle in a hole and squeezing the trigger to fill up a tank. Have you ever gotten your oil changed in the time it takes to fill your tank? Didn’t think so. Swapping out batteries would be similar if not longer, and more expensive due to specialized manpower or automation needs.

November 8, 2019 7:03 pm

Economics of Nuclear Reactor“-
by Prof. David Ruzic,
Prof of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Start here – WILDLY PROFITABLE (as shown against a gas plant) after 13 years (14 min 55 secs in)

https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY?t=895

Flight Level
November 8, 2019 7:06 pm

Electrified transport: The forces of nature watching lithium battery powered aircraft lining downwind and the thunderstorm says to the downdraft “Hold my beer” …

Roger Knights
November 8, 2019 9:16 pm

I hope WUWT will run a refutation of this UN document. (Or has it done so already?):
Here’s a paragraph by a commenter, M. Clark, on the Seeking Alpha financial site, followed by quotes from the UN paper:

UN Climate Change News, 6 September 2018 – A major report released by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate finds that many people are significantly under-estimating the benefits of cleaner, climate-smart growth. Bold climate action could deliver at least 26 trillion USD in economic benefits through to 2030, compared with business-as-usual.
—————
“Climate action and socio-economic progress are mutually supportive. Yet, despite some encouraging momentum, we are not making progress fast enough. Climate change is running faster than we are.”, said António Guterres during remarks at the launch of the report. https://unfccc.int/news/climate-smart-growth-could-deliver-26-trillion-usd-to-2030-finds-global-commission

Key ref: The 2018 Report of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate
https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/
extracts from summary: https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/executive-summary/

“We are entering a new era of economic growth. This approach can deliver growth that is strong, sustainable, balanced, and inclusive. It is driven by the interaction between rapid technological innovation, sustainable infrastructure investment, and **** increased resource productivity ****.”

This is our ‘use it or lose it’ moment. Investing the US$90 trillion to build the right infrastructure now will deliver a new era of economic growth. […] Getting it wrong, on the other hand, will lock us into a high-polluting, low productivity, and deeply unequal future.

Smarter urban development: Better urban planning and strategic infrastructure investment, *** particularly the expansion of public and non-motorised transport networks ***, can overcome bottlenecks to economic growth – such as congestion and air pollution – for more liveable cities.

A circular industrial economy: From 1970 to 2010, annual global extraction of materials grew from almost 22 to 70 billion tonnes […] Today, 95% of plastic packaging material value—as much as US$120 billion annually—is lost after first use.13 Policies which encourage more circular, efficient use of materials (especially metals, petrochemicals and construction materials) could enhance global economic activity, as well as reduce waste and pollution.

and lastly

But, overall, we are still not making progress fast enough toward a new climate economy. The policy hand-brake is still on. Policy-makers are not taking sufficiently bold action to escape the legacy economic systems. [..] Fossil fuels as a share of final energy consumption remains stubbornly around 80% – roughly the same percentage as at the beginning of the 1990s. […] Mixed policy signals and hedging is slowing the momentum driving the new growth approach. It also triggers market uncertainty and increases stranded asset risk. […] The cost of hedging – taking action, but too slowly and with mixed signals to the market – is rising.

Greg
November 8, 2019 10:00 pm

Nice and concise and to the point. Very digestible and good length for a blog article.

griff
November 9, 2019 1:08 am

Hmmm.. plenty of places where renewables supply large percentages of the power, without bankrupting anyone… and with falling costs and a continued improvement in the tech there is absolutely no reason why southern California shouldn’t easily move to renewable power.

the statements as to why this plan won’t work are just assertions based on faith and political opinion, not technological fact and economics.

Capell Aris
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2019 6:33 am

‘the statements as to why this plan won’t work are just assertions based on faith and political opinion, not technological fact and economics.’

Obviously: a statement made by someone who has made no attempt to scan the literature on renewable generation.

kakatoa
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2019 7:19 am

Giff-

There are some assumptions in the plans to meet CA’s goals-

Some of them are going to be discussed in SF-

“The California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will conduct a joint workshop
to discuss technologies and inputs for technical analysis to inform the joint agency
report required by Senate Bill (SB) 100, the “100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018″ (de
León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018).
Monday, November 18, 2019
9:30 a.m.”

For more information:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/event/workshop/2019-11/sb-100-technical-workshop

Russ R.
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2019 7:55 am

Totally ignoring the reality of their situation.
Energy density is the key problem that “renewable” cannot overcome. Fossil fuels are renewable energy from thousands of years, converted to chemical forms. It can be released with great power, without devoting huge resources to:
– to capture current low density energy
-convert it to a usable form
-transport it to where it is needed
-AND store it for use when it is needed and the low energy source is a non-energy source.

If food and drinking water cost 10x what they currently do it would not bankrupt the majority of the developed world. We would sacrifice less important things and devote more of our resources to those important factors. But by sacrificing we would all have to do more, and get less for our efforts.
Some of the things that we would have to sacrifice are things that keep people alive in earthquakes, fire storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, and other severe natural occurrences.
Lives would be lost, because we chose the wrong path in providing basic necessities for our lives. Thankfully the free market provides for us the most efficient methods, if we let the combined intelligence of the consumers and suppliers “subsidize the good, and not support the wasteful.”

Bureaucracies cannot do this as well, and no matter how good their intentions are, they never will be able to process the needs and incentives of the masses, the way those masses can. And in the case of humans “good intentions” are always biased to “what is good for me and my tribe”.
Which always translates to reward my group, by taking from those outside my supporters. Taking resources from those that created the value of those resource, and giving it to me and mine, because we are more incentivized by a “system of political power” to take, than to earn.
The genius of elections is the opportunity to change the current thief in charge, for one that will increase his support by making things a little better for more people. Which usually requires the thief to take less of the money that will now be to expand operations, hire more people, and improve the lives of those that produce goods and services that customers are willing to pay for, to make their lives better.
CA seems to reject that notion and is moving in the opposite direction.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2019 2:39 pm

griff,
2 questions…(I’ll ask the first now and await a reply (if one ever comes) prior to wording and asking the second)
1) Given that 97% of Climate scientists agree, what percentage of the population at large feels similar?

CC is bad
CC will be apocalyptic
CC needs to be tacked in less than 12 years.
Immediate transformation of society is required.

knr
November 9, 2019 1:10 am

The thing to remember is the object is not to replace current energy production levels with a ‘green’ supply , but to have supply limited to such an extent that massive usage reductions are required to match the possible supply.
Hence de-industrialization which forms part of the ‘return to Eden’ ideology of the greens.

For example they know EV cannot do the job , but that is the point with EV or nothing that means very few people get to have a car in the first place.

Heribert Hofer
November 9, 2019 10:18 am

Lithium batteries can not be completely recycled. It is an ecologic desaster.

Patrick MJD
November 11, 2019 3:11 am

Griff, the gift that keeps giving!

Johann Wundersamer
November 21, 2019 4:42 am

“This first part provides a ‘30000 foot’ overview of the whole thing. Pathway 2045 to Zero Net Carbon California comprises five separate ‘solution’ parts:

1. Decarbonize electricity
2. Electrify transportation

“Electrifying transportation (Tesla) also runs into three problems. First, the required grid capacity increment is enormous. Second, vehicles like work pickups or class 8 tractors cannot be electrified, despite Tesla’s imaginary promises to the contrary—all battery, no cargo capacity.”

– and then there’s the Firefighters electro mobilising helicopters dilemma : huge waterbags / big batteries | vice versa

How Helicopters Fight Wildfires in California | https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+fighters+helicopter+California+forest+fires&oq=fire+fighters+helicopter+California+forest+fires+&aqs=chrome.

Johann Wundersamer
November 21, 2019 4:47 am

There are three climate response crash test dummies in the world today: Australia, UK, and California –> There are five climate response crash test dummies in the world today: Australia, UK, California, Denmark and Germany.