Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
A couple months ago I wrote a post called “Bright Green Impossibilities“. In it, I showed the impossibility of converting all global energy to zero-CO2-emission fuels by 2050. But what about a simpler task? A number of US states have committed to converting, not total energy but just electricity, to zero-emission fuels by 2040. How tough can that be?
Let me start by looking at the history of US electrical generation. Figure 1 shows US electrical generation from 1985 to 2019 by fuel source.
Figure 1. US electrical generation by fuel source.
From that, it doesn’t look too hard. After all, you can see that renewables (orange) are increasing.
But when we look at it by percentage of generation by fossil versus zero-emission fuel sources, we find a curious thing:
Figure 2. US Generation by type of fuel, zero-emission and fossil fuels. Zero-emission generation is by wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear.
Doesn’t look so easy now. In fact, if we continue at the rate of change since 2010, it will take 75 years to get to zero-emissions …
But wait, as they say on TV, there’s more. As of 2019, the US was using 4,400 terawatt-hours of electricity per year.
There is also a big push to go to electric vehicles … and that will require more electricity. The current US generating capacity is about 1,000 gigawatts (GW), of which about 675 gigawatts (GW) is fossil-fueled. By 2040, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates we’ll need about 1500 GW of generating capacity. This means we’ll need another 500 GW of new generating capacity to get to 1,500 GW, plus 675 GW more to replace existing fossil capacity. That’s 1,175 GW of new generating capacity needed by 2040.
As Texas has just proven beyond doubt, no matter if we supply part of this with wind or solar, we’ll need 100% backup. Nuclear is not ideal for this, but the new generation of reactors are said to be able to respond quickly enough to balance out the load when wind and solar fail. So either way we’ll need about 1,175 GW of new nuclear power by 2040 … and there are about 975 weeks until 2040.
Now, typically it takes about ten years to find a site, get the permits and licenses, overcome the objections, construct, test, connect to the grid, and commission a new nuclear power plant. Figure 3 shows an overview of that whole process.
Figure 3. Typical nuclear plant timeline, from initial study to final startup. SOURCE.
But we don’t have ten years per nuclear plant. With only 975 weeks until 2040, and the need for 1,175 GW of new CO2-free generating capacity by 2040, we’ll need to create a feasibility study, find and survey a site, obtain the licenses, design, purchase, construct, excavate, install, test, and commission a 1.2-gigawatt nuclear power plant every single week for 975 weeks in a row until 2040.
Anyone who believes that that lovely green fantasy can actually be completed out here in the real world, well, I want some of whatever green stuff they’re smoking.
And bear in mind, that’s just electricity. It doesn’t include the huge amount of fossil fuel used directly by industry, and for transportation, and for space heating …
TL;DR version? 100% CO2-free electricity by 2040? Can’t. Be. Done. Fuggeddaboutit. Not. Possible.
My very best to all,
w.
The Customary: If you are commenting please quote the exact words you are discussing, so we can all be clear on exactly what you are referring to.
An Expected Objection: I suspect some folks will say, “We need another 500 gigawatts of generating capacity even if we don’t go CO2-free … how is that going to be possible?”
It will be possible, albeit difficult, because it is infinitely easier to add another gas-fired generator to an existing generating station than it is to add a new nuclear plant. First, the permitting process is far simpler. Second, the site requirements have obviously already been met because there’s a power plant there already. Third, the infrastructure in the way of power lines, switching stations and the like is already in place, and only needs expansion rather than creation de novo.
This is not to say it will be easy, particularly with the foolishness of the proposed bans on fossil-fueled cars and fossil-heated homes and offices. Those unrealistic goals will make even fossil-fueled expansion of electric generation a huge challenge.
But it will be doable.
re: “A couple months ago I wrote a post called “Bright Green Impossibilities”. In it, I showed the impossibility of converting all global energy to zero-CO2-emission fuels by 2050.”
Could be doable, with a lot of legacy systems still in place, but you’re going to have to overcome some ‘strong biases’ you’ve had ingrained into you since, well, junior high school where they began to teach the basics in QM (Quantum Mechanics) …
People like Robert Park of APS didn’t help the situation either, with his slander and innuendo of one Dr. Randell Mills.
BTW, a validation study of a 275 kW (275,000 Watts) SunCell ™ boiler was released this week. Previous performance before some internal changes were made to the new unit in the previous tests topped out at 150 kW.
I dissected both Mills and the Italian Rossi and his ECat in a chapter of my ebook The Arts of Truth. Both are completely fraudulent scams. In Mills case, his newest, the one you cite, is his THIRD go around. His first for almost 20 years was Blacklight Power. Please stop citing him, as you are obviously either misinformed or unable to understand while Mills theory is impossible. In either case you only embarass yourself? His math is wrong, as APS pointed out long ago. And his one claimed experimental demonstration from 1998 is a fraud. The machine he says he used in his one ‘demonstration’ paper CANNOT do what he says it did. That proof is also in my book.
OTOH, LENR based on Widom Larsen theory and the weak force is real. The problem is the energy gain is experimentally only 2. Nogo.
I love it. I do a complete analysis with citations for every number showing that to replace all fossil fuels with zero-emission fuels we’d need to build two, count’em two, 2.1 GW nuclear power plants EVERY FRICKEN’ DAY UNTIL 2050.
And now, some random internet popup without the albondigas to even sign his own name to his words says:
Say what? “Could be doable”? On what planet?
No numbers, no links, no citations, just your flapping lips and we’re supposed to believe you that’s it’s “doable”?
And if we’re going to replace all fossil fuels, just what “legacy systems” are you going to hang on to? Burning dung?
As to the “Suncell”, come back when there are INDEPENDENT tests of the system. Sorry, but I believe a test run by a passionate advocate about as much as I believe a random internet popup … if it can pass that independent test, fine. Until then, I’m suspending judgment.
And even if it does work … we’d still need to build 2.1 gigawatts worth of Suncell boilers EVERY DAY UNTIL 2050. “Doable”, my okole …
w.
“Say what? “Could be doable”? On what planet?”
Perhaps Mars and Venus. I understand that electricity requirements on those planets are quite small.
Do a moon first, then Mars followed with Venus.
Venus needs a market. Venus is good place go to from Mars, and to leave from to Mars.
And then sky cities on Venus. The terminator line is a must see.
Willis
If it weren’t for the likes of _Jim, the name P. T. Barnum wouldn’t be a staple of our vocabulary.
I bothered to go look up Mill’s third fraud reincarnation as ‘Suncells’. Still based on his QM-GUT theory of hydrinos. Still incredibly wrong, still a scam. Got to give him Madoff like fraudulent staying power, tho.
Powering by hydrinos is nonsense. Now, quantinos….
/s
Willis, your use of the Hawaiian “Okole” reminded me of a Bruce Farr designed Transpac winner “Sweet Okole.” The typical Farr transom design “look” explains the name. Rumor has it that “Sweet Okole” is also used to describe a certain portion of the female anatomy.
Okole is on the other side, so female anatomy is not warranted.
I agree with the conclusion–it is not going to happen–but I think the assumption that 10 years is enough time to site, design, study, permit, build, test, and get a final operating license for a nuclear power plant is way too optimistic. Thirty five years ago when I did annual planning forecasts for a major utility, we figured 20 years for a nuclear plant–and that assumed minimal opposition from the public. I think if you could even get far enough along to site something successfully, you would still be 25 years out, at least.
We have been trying to build the Keystone pipeline for 10 years now, and it still isn’t done. A new nuclear plant is much more complicated and controversial. And the plan as outlined by Willis requires lots of nuclear plants.
They killed a few people in Texas and the solution is to have more wind and solar. Well, they will kill more the next time it happens with the same solution.
Look, they killed hundreds of thousands in the USA alone just to try and prove Trump wrong. If Trump would have said HCQ and Ivermectin are no good, they would have been approved in a split second. Backward Canada will not touch them and people are dying, so they want to lock down more.
Have said this here before. Gen 3 nuc taking >10 years is DOA. Voglte 3+4 proves that. The logical answer given fracking gas abundance is CCGT for the next ~40 years. That gives us ~4 decades to explore the many Gen 4 concepts, select a couple, and then build prototypes to chose the best. Then do nuc G4. Not now.
Hopefully, within 40 years people will have woken up to the FACT that increased atmospheric CO2 is not just NOT A PROBLEM, …
….. but is actually HIGHLY DESIRABLE
This is NOT an inability for the Green Left to do the simple maths about forms of energy to generate electricity our modern society needs. While it is obvious that many Liberals can’t do advanced maths (like understand the how phase, voltage and frequency are interrelated on AC electrical grids) and have no critical analytical sk1lls for complex subjects (understanding why GCMs are crap science), but many can do simple math. And as Willis shows, even simple math shows the impossibility of their claims of zero-emission attainability in our electrical generation infrastructure.
If it’s obvious that renewables can NOT power our society, then what is this Renewable Energy scam is about? Power — Not electrical power but political power.
It is about seizing pure, raw political power and placing into the hands of the Marxists intent on taking over America’s (and the Western democracies in general) political and judicial systems that are still somewhat protected by constitutional structures ensuring a democratic republic. They have already succeeded in subduing dissent to a large extent within universities, large media companies, and the science academies. Anyone in those institutions who does do not openly support this Marxist take-over knows they have to remain silent else they also be purged as they’ve seen happen to colleagues who out speak in dissent.
A raw power that enables them to suppress opposition, Venezuela-style, Chinese Communist Party-style, Russia’s dictator Putin-style suppression of any and all opposition to their rule. One party rule in all cases, a top-down authoritarian power structure.
The wind and solar renewable energy scam, as we all know here at WUWT, comes out of the Climate Change scam as a Trojan Horse. The Climate Change junk claims are all based on layers of lies, of junk pseudoscience computer models, of garbage paleo-temperature reconstructions, and of adulterated modern-era surface station and SST observational data sets. Lies built upon lies, until the layers become so deep it’s an onion trying to peel them back just to find the next layer of lies.
In the US at least, it’s now about having enough power the Left can:
So the renewable energy scam is indeed about power, just not electrical. Absolute political power at the national level the Left sees now within their grasp as the Climate Scam, the take-over of media, the control of academic and science institutions, the thin but crucial control of the WH and Congress all appear to them to be converging to that totalitarian goal of one party rule.
We must stop them.
Amen, Brother Joel!
The cracks are growing in the Progressive edifice, and more people are realizing the Emperor is really buck naked! Now is not the time for anyone to despair or surrender; the religious nuts on the other side are not offering quarter and intend to slaughter prisoners and the wounded!
You may not have asked to be involved in a fight to the death; but we’re in one now, so act accordingly!
Thanks, Willis, for spelling it out so clearly that even idiot alarmists can understand; not that they’ll take the time and energy to engage their brain! It seems like many have worn or busted synchros; difficult to get the gears to mesh unless speed and RPM are just right!
A thousand up-ticks!
“…commission a 1.2-gigawatt nuclear power plant every single week…” I think you mean megawatt.
And note that current nuclear power stations are not good for load following because they are designed for constant power output. There are many many nuclear power plants driving ships of many nations that can and do change power as fast as the throttleman can spin the throttle, because they are designed that way. It’s all in the engineering.
Oops, 1.2 gigawatt is correct. Sorry.
Here is an article(with a little Texas humor) which I sent to Forbes and Bloomberg in 2020 in response to an article they wrote in 2020 about the Texas grid.
I have updated it to fit Biden’s time frame. I have sent to some Congressmen and the Dallas Morning News. As you can see it is impossible to meet the “transition from fossil fuel” schedule that Biden has presented.
Howdy from Texas
Just had to write you from Texas on the matter of transitioning from fossil fuels for electricity by 2035.
There are a lot of climate hustlers including Biden who think this is a great idea. In Texas we have rustlers, same as hustlers.
I wrote this and hoped it would tickle your journalistic bone or give you a Chris Matthews thrill up your leg.
You might be inspired to follow this. Bet you won’t see this paper napkin math in the news. Let’s see how we get to fossil fuel free for electricity by 2035.
Assume we plan in 2021 of what, where, and how to build the fossil free energy sources. Then we start building from Jan 2, 2022 to Dec 31,2034.
This includes Sundays too. Hell, in Texas we don’t sell beer until after noon on Sunday. That gives us 4745 days. I didn’t include leap days. I don’t want some gal proposing to me.
The US used 4.1×10^12 kWh for electricity in 2019. This is a big number even for us Texans! 63% is from fossil fuels.
This leaves 2.6×10^12 kWh for fossil fuels (Data is from government sources). Now let us assume we don’t have population or energy growth for all those years. Energy needs stay the same for 13 years.
If we want those big old whirly bird killing machines, let start with a big one. The biggest I could find was a 10 mega-watt one. If the wind blew only 25%(good number from wind farm data) of the time it would generate about 2×10^7 kWh in a year. You would need about 120 thousand of them to meet total demand.
You would need to build 25 per day and every day until 2035. That assumes no maintenance, no breakdowns, etc.
If you build any in Texas (hope you don’t) you can’t have hurricanes from the south, tornadoes from the west, or hail storms from the north. Have you seen or been in a tornado? I have, really tears the sh!t out of things.
How about solar panels? Using the typical power density at high noon (of course not counting night time, also best time to go boot scooting in Texas) you would need to cover an area of Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
Oh yeah tell the birds to stay away or don’t have any snow storms or any clouds.
Nuke power is not a topic the climate alarmists want to talk about. But if you did, try the largest nuke plant in the US is about 3 GW plant.
You would need to build one of those about every 49 days. Hope one of those don’t Chernobyl on us and leave a huge fire hole. Probably some Texan would make a BBQ pit out it.
Well you can see where this is headed, paper napkin math with a TI calculator says we can’t get there.
As AOC people said this isn’t about climate change, it’s about going socialist. (Go to Venezuela for a year and stay the hell of Texas).So, the next time someone says they are going fossil free, ask what and how they are to build it.
Then ask the big ONE, ask them to do it without fossil energy sources.
The usual answer is we will just cut back. Tell them to go first and do without AC and their latte and their jet travel (how about going covered wagon)
Instead of talking about paper napkin ideas we should debate the facts. How about a head to head 2-hour debate on national TV with experts from both sides?
Oh wait! The Heartland Institute held such a debate and the climate hustlers didn’t even show up. In Texas, it’s time to “get the rope”. As we say in Texas the climate hustlers would have their hat handed to them.
A third grader could do this math with a TI calculator but just some thoughts from an electrical engineer with 50+ years’ experience.
Happy trails and reaching for a Lone Star cold one and some ribs from the pit.
Who should I believe: a veteran electrical engineer or AOC? Hmm…difficult
Not being a pessimist but SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS are grown on thermally purified silicon. Currently the largest production of silicon is China using very dirty bituminous coal as energy source. During the life of the solar cell the indium coating degrades at a rate proportional to the solar exposure. Vast majority of commercially available PV cells do not offset the initial pollution caused by their creation during their serviceable life times. Manufacturers will use the extreme maximum as their expected life but the service life is usually less than 70% of that. So if you compare the use of liquidized bed coal reactors to solar PV use the total carbon conversion to CO2 for the amount of energy produced is in favor of coal. The added benefit of adding nitrogen to a liquidized bed reactor produces a bio-available nitrogen source called potash that increases crop yield and food supply globally. When low temperature thermal scavenging devices are employed like thermo acoustic generators to the coal effluent the net energy is near 70% of available energy present in the fuel source. Typical bituminous coal fired silicon forges are limited by carnot number to about 11% of available energy. By locating large industry nearby coal resource and electrical generation further efficiencies can be gained reducing overall cost of energy and increasing human potential. The False economy of Green is actually just the intent of the originators of the Green Party Ala communist party.
Thanks David.
Nice description of the fraud of silicon solar PV panels being called Green.
The EIA forecast either excludes economic growth or EV usage. If the economy grows 2.5% real it will be 60% larger in 2040. That’s at a minimum and increase in electric power requirements. Anything less than 2.5% real and say goodbye to your government job.
Additionally, as fossil fuel is phased out so too are all of the other products we get from hydrocarbons…lubricants, solvents, adhesives, light-weight plastics to make all of those EVs, detergents…its a long list. Not certain how you refine fewer hydrocarbons to gain all of the by-products in a growing economy, and without creating large amounts of refinery waste. Have the chemEs figured this out? I don’t know the answer.
2040…? Could do it with SMR’s, I reckon. 1 GW molten salt fast reactor is a pretty simple machine. “Only thing” stopping it – well, y’all already know …
This thorough analysis of the situation by Willis Eschenbach shows clearly that not only is the idea of electricity (let alone all industry) going ‘green’, totally impossible but falls into the ‘not-even-worth-talking-about‘ category.
One other design, manufacture, and installation project is the distribution network. Replacing existing FF power plants won’t require much assuming the RE generators are sited where simple connections can be made to current power plant connections (not likely). But adding distribution network hardware such as cable, transformers, switching equipment, local drops, and residential circuit breaker boxes to support the transformation to all EV’s won’t be an easy task. Check out how many amps a high capacity charger takes, then double it for a two car family. We’re already behind the eightball in the design and procurement of all this. We’re behind the eightball in the training of qualified electrical workers.
No way this can be done by 2030 let alone 2050!
Building 1200gw of renewables means spreading far and wide which means massive increase of transmission interconnects
And of course, the insane don’t like nuclear so really we are talking about 3500gw
At minimum
May as well wish for Thanos to come take care of the problem, it’s actually more likely
Except of course when you generate solar right on your own roof or in your own factory?
With the help of massive subsides, hey griff-leftard.
Get everyone else to pay for it..
Massively destabilizing the grid with thousands or millions of infeed sources.
Don’t forget the important part Griff
Oh, and the factory can only run at full production from 10-2pm and only on a sunny day.
Corky wonders, why on earth use carbon-free nuclear to balance wind? If you’ve got nuclear, why have wind at all???
One thing that seems to me is that the general opinion is that renewables are an option to replace fossil fuel generation when the truth is they are not.
They are technically inferior because they cannot support grid frequency (They are asynchronous), Frequency is the single most important parameter of a grid and the more renewable generation the harder it is for the synchronous generators to keep the frequency within limits. The other technical factor which brings stability to a grid is the inertia of rotating mass, i.e. the flywheel effect which large generators have, again wind and solar do not have this valuable characteristic.
It makes me laugh seeing You Tube videos advocating flywheels to store energy when real generators already have this inbuilt feature.
If you replace fossil fuel generation entirely with renewables you would not have any power, the grid will trip. And you cannot restart it using wind and solar, it just is not possible within an acceptable time frame.
Of course grid frequency is supported when you bring in renewable systems. The UK has invested massively to support its renewables roll out.
and here’s a useful background article
Solving the Renewable Energy Grid’s Inertia Problem | Greentech Media
Yep, more and more WASTED FUNDS because of the reliance on UNRELIABLE SUPPLIES.
Wind has been a TOTAL FAILURE for the last week or so.
.
THANK GOODNESS FOR GAS, hey griff !
.
Why do you HATE poor people so much that you want to see this electrical price imposition on them
You, of course, have your several lots of unemployable benefits to rely upon, right
You will find an experimental site in Europe!
Germany is going of Coal and Nuclear and on Wind and Solar with some Natural Gas in a short time.
Gas will be needed.
Merkel does not trust Nuclear and US don’t allow them to build North stream II so we will study it carefully. Price of electricity will skyrocket from a high level.
Thanks Willis,
Clear, concise and irrefutable. I’ll send this to our Prime-minister if you don’t mind? You never know he might even read it.
BR,
John
John, I throw my words on the electronic winds in the hope that they will circulate further … send it where you wish.
w.
Thanks Willis, done.
Nuclear power is totally unsuitable as a backup to unreliable fake-green wind and solar. It’s nice that the newer reactor designs make them quicker to respond to variations in demand, but reactors sip their fuel very gently anyway, no advantage at running the reactor at 90% or 50% or even 10% power – most of the reactor’s cost are fixed, does no good or save any substantial amount running it slower, though the reactor might last longer, or could wear out sooner if the power is ramped up and down frequently. Nuclear plant design toting the idea of load following backup for wind are just BS’ing their way on to the renewable bandwagon.
Exactly. Nuclear doesn’t even do well at coping with variations over a week or season… France continually dumps nuclear electricity at cheap rates into Germany on weekends and holidays… plus it can’t operate in summer when water heats up in rivers used for cooling systems.
That’s because Germany NEEDS it to make up for lack of wind energy..
Good think Germany still has COAL and GAS and interconnects from France, hey griff-liar.
And we can see by looking at UK data that Nuclear (grey) does ramp up and down.
See the grey at the bottom, ramping up for the daily peak
Not enough to account for the MASSIVE INCONSISTENCY OF WIND.
That is what GAS has HAD TO DO over the last 6 days, as wind in the UK has basically crapped itself.
griff caught in a LIE yet again.. dishonesty is his meme.
If the plan is to add nuclear – which is carbon neutral – as a back up to wind and solar, thereby breaking the nuclear taboo, then why would you need the wind and solar in the first place?
Nuclear is must have
Wind and solar are nice to have (to some).
It looks like we are all broke
Well let’s take a look at the scale of renewable roll out in the UK… where coal power plants are firmly on the way out. The USA, if it wanted to, could surely achieve more than the UK…
Figures from March 14th show that, in the UK alone, the current overall pipeline for renewables and energy storage projects stands at 86GW of viable projects, according to Cornwall Insight.
The energy analyst said 40.6GW of the pipeline for England, Wales, and Scotland held a development status of ‘scoping’, with such sites having had a grid connection confirmed with National Grid’s register, but having not yet submitted a planning application.
Around 13GW of the pipeline is currently classified as ‘application submitted’, while sites deemed to be ‘awaiting construction’ stand at a total of 24.5GW, and those under construction total 7.8GW, according to Cornwall Insight.
“We are currently seeing increased activity in sites classified as scoping, with recent developments in the offshore leasing rounds being undertaken by the Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland,” explained Cornwall Insight analyst Lucy Dolton. “As such, Cornwall Insight’s Renewables Pipeline Tracker now accounts for these sites in its analysis, helping us assess the potential trends from the next Scotwind Leasing round and future Contracts for Difference (CfD) Allocation Rounds.”
42 percent of the UK’s electricity was generated by renewable sources in 2020
ROFLMAO
LIES and MISINFORMATION as griff-tard DESPERATELY tries to hide the massive inconsistency of wind..
Now SIX DAYS STRAIGHT with basically ZERO wind energy
.
THANK GOODNESS the UK has PLENTY OF GAS, hey griff-tard,
……because that is what is holding the UK grid together. !!
.
.
Oh look.. COAL was producing more than wind…
… and the only RELIABLE so-called “renewable” is WOOD CHIPS FROM THE USA.
It is a rare day in the UK coal produces anything at all: it produced just 2% of total UK electricity in 202o and 2019.
Not at all rare that GAS has to carry a majority of the load, hey griff.
They still NEED that COAL, and the nuclear interconnects from France…
… because they KNOW that wind will be like you are..
….. a REGULAR and CONSISTENT FAILURE.
Would that be 42% for one hour at midday on a bank holiday when the sun was shining and people were out?
As you well know that’s 425 of demand over one year. And increasing.
The figure for coal would be 2%
GAS carries the UK grid..
Wind is an erratic, often MIA waste of time and money,
The cost is ENORMOUS to keep wind industrial estate financial…
Without those OBSCENE subsidies, there would be very little installed wind energy.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/04/16/obscene-windfarm-subsidies-revealed-gwpf/
Griff, it’s good they are building all this
It may allow them to get to 10% of electricity generated per year, all for the low low cost of uncountable trillions
Useless waste as it will all produce zero for great periods of time.
people must understand something..
“we ” will use electric vehicles means … you and I will not use individual vehicles…
Excellent as usual, Willis. If readers want to follow the proverbial canary into the coal mine, watch Germany. They now have too much renewable electricity having shut down base load coal plants and have little recourse but to buy natural gas from Putin to run their grid. If not…well there are always rolling blackouts! Get a big bag of popcorn, this will be fun to watch.
The German grid is far more reliable than any US one. and they continue to increase their wind etc power even as they shut down coal plant. Gas is just temporary…
“The guaranteed output of wind + sun = 0.”
Look at the data for January 2021 🙂
They are decommissioning wind at a faster rate than replacement
DELUSIONAL griff yaps again.
German grid RELIES on France and other countries to hold it together.
GAS… they are building Nord 2.. what makes you think its temporary.
You live in a fantasy la-la-land totally unrelated to REAILITY.
Get your medication adjusted so it doesn’t cause you so many dumb fantasy imaginations.
Are there fairies at the bottom of your garden, Griff?
Excellent article, Willis.
Our blackouts last summer were not as bad as those during the Texas cold snap, but both were the result of an over reliance on unreliable power sources. California depends on being able to buy 30% of the power it consumes from neighboring states. As you pointed out, there is a governmental push to increase the use of electricity for EVs, domestic heating, cooking, drying clothes and heating water.
Is California building more reliable power plants to provide for this increased electricity usage? Although that would be logical, California is shutting down reliable sources. Diablo Canyon is scheduled to be shut down in 2025. This plant produces 9% of the electricity that California consumes. Thus in 4 years, California’s neighboring states will need to increase their electricity sales to California by over 30%. This number is likely low, since California is pushing for more electricity use.
I keep wondering what it will take to wake up the folks in Sacramento that they have the state on a path to disaster.
w. ==> The oddest thing is that, according to your first graph, U.S. electrical generation hasn’t increased in the last ( > ) decade. Yet we all use more and more electronics, air conditioning, “bitcoin mining”, hydroponic indoor farming, etc etc.
So why ISN’T production and consumption rising?
And yes, the entire electrical grid, right down to a new higher-amperage power drop to each home, will have to be upgraded if we all have electric cars — and hope to fast charge our family’s two autos (and Dad’s pickup).
Kip, my assumption is that the plateau in electricity usage reflects the fact that like idiots, we are outsourcing our manufacturing overseas …
w.
w. ==> Like importing electricity from Quebec? Or our factories that used to use electricity are now idle as “everything is made in China”? [ even my granddaughter knows that… ]
There must be more real data than just our guesses.
Sure, “let my electricity go” to higher unsustainable, unmanageable rates so all you investors can make fortunes. Electricity is where the money is – OUR money in THEIR pockets. Of course, this means that the other avenues of green deals aren’t as important as they pretend they are… Electricity is the cash cow.
Willis, as usual a great read. I have read the majority of your articles over the last decade at WUWT. You are truly a gifted mathematician and stat whiz. My comment has nothing to do with the current article but since I don’t have your email address I beg tour indulgence for the following. Several times in the past you stated that you have no patience for those that believe in “fairies in the sky”. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute in Seattle has just published a new book titled, “Return of the God Hypothesis” in which he delves into three topics in physics, cosmology, and biology that according to the concept of inference to the best explanation, reveals that intelligent design is a superior explanation to raw materialism that might be an explanation to your superior mind (metaphorically). Recommended by several Nobel Laureates in physics. It’s 400 pages of heavy duty science and my guess is that if you perused it, you might come away feeling differently.
Thanks, Bob. Me, I do think that, as the Grateful Dead sang,
“Let it be known, there is a Fountain
That was not made by the hands of men …”
On the other hand, I don’t think that there is an invisible being who loves to have humans tell him how great he is, and who, if asked in the proper way, will suspend the laws of physics on my behalf …
Instead, I’m a shamanist, a follower of Carlos Castaneda, and a practitioner of Tensegrity. Tensegrity involves the Five Pillars, which are:
See here and here for further information.
Please note that I’m not saying any of this for dispute or debate. It’s not a question of right or wrong. I’m describing my own practice. I am not advocating that anyone follow it. I’m very clear that the path is an individual choice, and is not the same for everyone.
We now return you to your regular scheduled scientific discussion.
My best to you,
w.
1.2 GW per plant, you say?
Paging Doc Brown…