Bright Green California Dreaming

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

In my recent post yclept Bright Green Impossibilities, I showed that it is not humanly possible to eliminate fossil fuel CO2 emissions by 2050. I live in California, the heart of the green lunacy. Here, there’s a group called Climate-Safe California. Given that there is no sign of the much-hyped “CLIMATE EMERGENCY” I’m not sure what they’re trying to keep us “safe” from … but I digress. Their genius plan is to reduce fossil-fuel emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2030.

Now, energy use will continue to increase in California, but that will largely be offset by increases in efficiency and changes in manufacturing, with less CO2 per unit of fossil fuel used. In fact, current California emissions are only about 1% higher than they were 30 years ago in 1990. So to reach their goal, if we leave out magical fairy dust and giant imaginary vacuums sucking CO2 out of the air, we’d have to reduce fossil fuel use by 80% by 2030.

The green folks think this can be done with wind and solar … but the sad fact is, you need something close to 100% backup for the times when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. We’re already suffering occasional blackouts due to our insane dependence on expensive, intermittent wind and solar. Given the existence of that ugly thing called “reality” that green folks like to ignore, that means we have to replace fossil fuels with nuclear-generated electricity.

So how much fossil fuel does California currently use? Turns out its about 1.7 petawatt-hours (PWh, or 1015 watt-hours) per year. And to replace 80% of this with nuclear, allowing for peak power and downtime, we have to increase our generation capacity by about 307 gigawatts (GW, or 109 watts). By comparison, Diablo Canyon, the only remaining nuclear power plant in California after green activists have had their say, generates 2.3 GW of electricity … 307 GW needed, 2.3 GW per big nuke plant, 8-1/2 years to do it … can you see a problem developing here?

Now, they want to do this by 2030. So we need to find sites, do feasibility studies, purchase land, get permits and licenses, manufacture, excavate, install, test and hook up to the grid a 2 GW nuclear plant, a bit smaller than Diablo Canyon, each and every three weeks from now to 2030. And that’s starting tomorrow …

It’s worth noting that in the US, the timespan from feasibility study to grid hookup is longer than ten years … so if we started tomorrow, by 2030 we’d have exactly zero new nuclear plants online. Here’s an overview of the US process:

And people with industry experience say that timeline is optimistic, it can be 15-20 years … not to mention the intense opposition from California greens to anything nuclear.

Still want wind? To do it with wind, we’d have to find sites, do feasibility studies, purchase land, get permits and licenses, manufacture, excavate, install, test and hook up to the grid no less than 1,000 two-megawatt (MW, or 106 watts) wind turbines, each and every single week from now to 2030. And that’s starting tomorrow … a thousand per week.

Solar sound better? NREL says the actual delivery 24/7/365 of of grid-scale solar farms averages 8.3 W/m2 of ground area (not panel area). That’s 8.3 MW per square kilometer of ground area. So to do it with solar, we’d have to find sites, do feasibility studies, purchase land, get permits and licenses, manufacture, excavate, install, test and hook up to the grid no less than 83 square kilometers (32 square miles) of solar farms, each and every single week from now to 2030. And again, that’s starting tomorrow …

Just finding suitable land for that scale of development is nearly impossible. Here’s some information from California regarding how hard it is to find suitable land for solar power.

Land

… Another issue is the fact that such solar ‘farms’ require huge tracts of land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been tasked with finding 24 tracts of public land of three square miles each with good solar exposure, favorable slopes, road and transmission line availability. Additionally, the land set aside for utility-scale solar farms must not disturb native wildlife or endangered species such as the desert tortoise, the desert bighorn sheep, and others. The wildlife issue has proved to be a contentious one. Projects in California have been halted due to the threat caused to endangered species resulting in a backlog of 158 commercial projects with which the BLM is currently contending.

Note that the BLM is having trouble finding a mere 75 square miles of land for solar power generation that doesn’t have too much impact on the environment, and we’re talking about building 31 square miles of new solar power per week … for the next 446 weeks … yeah, that’s totally legit.

Then, of course, there is the stupendous cost of this whole enterprise. In addition to the decommissioning costs of our existing generating facilities, the cost to build a hundred plus new nuclear plants, plus putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and getting rid of hundreds of thousands of automotive gas stations, the entire electrical grid would have to be hugely upgraded to allow it to carry all the power for newly electric homes, businesses, industries, and cars.

And that’s not just replacing the wires, including rewiring every home like mine that uses gas for cooking and for water and space heating. It’s replacing the transformers, switches, substations, control systems, overload protection, breaker boxes, and every other part of the grid as well.

In fact, to do that the California grid would have to handle no less than 3.75 times the power it is currently carrying … that’s what “hugely upgraded means”. Not just upsized by 10%, or even 100%. It will require three and three-quarters times the volume of wiring, switches, substations, and all the rest.

According to the California Public Utilities Commission, California has 25,526 miles of higher voltage transmission lines and 239,557 miles of distribution lines, two-thirds of which are overhead and one-third underground. So we’d need to install another 94,000 miles of high-voltage line and 886,000 miles of distribution lines. At a rate of 440 miles every workday. From now until 2030. Starting tomorrow.

Or we could pull out all ~ quarter-million miles of lines, above and below-ground, and replace them with much, much bigger wires.

Billions and billions and billions of dollars in pursuit of an unattainable chimera, on a quest that will do nothing to change the climate.

I gotta say … the fact that impassioned but totally innumerate folks like the “Climate-Safe California” people get listened to at all gives me nightmares about how many people have fallen for the Great Green Climate Scam … let me be clear:

It. Cannot. Be. Accomplished. This is just another bright green impossible fantasy.

Sigh …

w.

AS ALWAYS: I can defend and explain my words and am happy to do so. I cannot defend or explain your interpretation of my words. So please, QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING.

DATA:

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS: I gotta give huge props to Anthony Watts, who conceived of and created WUWT, and to Charles The Moderator and all of the volunteer moderators around the world. My thanks to you all.

Charles saw the draft of what I was writing and sent me the following, one issued an hour ago and one a few minutes ago today (Wednesday, June 16) by CAISO, the California Independent Systems Operator responsible for the operation of the California electrical grid. Top one is the most recent.

An hour ago … “no anticipation of outages”. One minute ago … “Flexalert”, and “conserve electricity” … the lunacy of unreliable, intermittent, mostly useless renewable energy never ends.

DISCLAIMER: Don’t be misled by my contempt for the modern “environmental” groups. I am and have been since my youth what I would describe as a true environmentalist, as opposed to today’s “watermelon environmentalists”, who are green on the outside and solid Marxist red on the inside … here’s a post on that.

4.9 38 votes
Article Rating
252 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dk_
June 17, 2021 10:13 am

Don’t forget that a lot of the existing wind and solar is nearing its end-of-life. You’ll have to add in salvage, demolition, and replacement costs too! By the way, that comes in at about a million tons (metric or imperial) of fossil fuels in materials, manufacture, and installation per 25MW capacity.

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
dk_
Reply to  dk_
June 17, 2021 10:42 am

Correction: That should be 32 Million Tons per 25GWh. Estimated from table 3 Wind Energy in the United States and Materials Required for the Land-Based Wind Turbine Industry From 2010 Through 2030. Which included (IMO) very dated and low estimates for delivery and maintenance of current design wind turbines, as well as their required infrastructure and land improvement.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  dk_
June 19, 2021 8:12 am

Excellent paper re: wind turbines. Here is another that looks at the overall environmental and mining impact, along with other factors. Greens have no concept of scale. Green Energy Reality Check: It’s Not as Clean as You Think | Manhattan Institute (manhattan-institute.org)

John Tillman
June 17, 2021 10:14 am

Offshore wind and solar! Pumped storage of desalinated sea water, thereby also fighting drought and MSL rise! That’s the ticket!

What’s the area of unshaded, south-facing rooftops in CA?

Never mind the horrific environmental costs of wind and solar power, or that panels are made by Uighur slaves and cobalt mined by forced African child labor.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 11:50 am

I don’t think that “forced African child labor” is an accurate description. My understanding is that they are family operations that the children help with, probably by looking for pieces of ore lying on the ground. The young children aren’t capable of the heavy labor that requires an adult. By the time they are teenagers, they are biologically adults, despite western societies legally defining them as minors or children. The only forcing is economic necessity, which disappears if artisanal mining is eliminated. Then the children can starve along with their parents because the country is poor and the infrastructure to support a welfare society doesn’t exist. As bad as the situation is, it could be worse.

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 11:55 am

Little kids much younger than teenaged participate. Many indeed do work with their families, but others are orphans or kidnapped.

https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb

Bryan A
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 12:48 pm

Many also work the mines themselves to follow the more cracks without removing too much unnecessary matrix. Kids just fit better. Even Doc and Happy know the benefits of smaller stature miners (or Minor Miners)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bryan A
June 17, 2021 3:12 pm

And Grumpy complains about the situation, but does nothing about it.

John
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 10:01 pm

it was your comment that started it saying that they werent forced labour

Ron Long
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 1:21 pm

John, you are correct to call out the exo-regulated aspect of some mining, like cobalt. When I visited the Bonanza Gold Mine, in Nicaragua, there were many kilometers of old underground workings. The current miner followed international protocols reasonably well, but they discovered that artisanal miners could deliver gold ore to the purchasing agent at the front gate much cheaper than they could mine it underground themselves. They were robbing pillars and venturing into unstable areas underground. The ore purchasers told me they had many occasions to ask: Where’s Jose today? We think he went on vacation for a long time his buddies would say. Mining operations in cultures without respect for reasonable protocols often end up with children in danger instead of in school.

John Tillman
Reply to  Ron Long
June 17, 2021 2:08 pm

Mining has always been an especially susceptible industry for the exploitation of women and children, as were the early textile mills, displacing skilled male cottage weavers.

Oops! Moderated because “sk!lled” contains the word which dare not name its name!

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
B Clarke
Reply to  Ron Long
June 17, 2021 2:14 pm

When children worked the stopes in bronze age Britain they didn’t die in the stopes ,the stopes are still there ive seen them,they often left offerings to what ever mine gods they worshipped, I draw an analogy with Clyde’s post, bronze age mining in the UK was similar to Africa today . Settlements were next to the mine were bronze age man lived,and so by and large it always has been.

Mechanisation was the cause of vast increases in deaths when the stopes were that big stemples and pillars were needed ,children did not work stopes in the Mechanised mining world ,strength was needed rather than small size children ,children work on the dressing floors ,

The point of poverty, poverty in Africa in the context of child labour is western terminology, family units have always worked together be it on the land or under, this is life,life is what they make it, telling them they are wrong ,its dangerous is patronizing and stinks of imperialist telling the natives what to do,

There’s too many folk telling folk what they should and shouldn’t be doing,, I don’t see many folk nipping out to Africa and saying ” here yer go sunny there’s a new mining school , heres the mineral rights for ten miles around your village , never happens we just moan in the hope the family are saved from themselves meanwhile they die from starvation and boredom.

John Tillman
Reply to  B Clarke
June 17, 2021 2:20 pm

Guess you skipped school on the day your British history class learned about child labo(u)r in Industrial Age mines:

https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/child-labour#:~:text=The%20Factory%20Act%20prohibited%20the,colliery%20workers%20to%2010%20years.

PS: My fellow Oregonian Ron Long is arguably the greatest metallic mining geologist from our state since Herbert Hoover.

My fellow Stanford grad Hoover made his name in Asia, and Long in South America. Great Americans geologists go where the minerals are. Or hydrocarbons. Oregonian geologists also figure prominently in petro play history. Our state has a lot of geology to inspire us early on. Sadly short on the hydrocarbons,

More from Ron’s bailiwick than mine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Steineke

Another Western Oregonian who cycled through Stanford before going out into the world to find needed resources.

Granted, Brookings is already almost in CA.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
B Clarke
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 3:30 pm

Not at all John, Your talking coal mines, I’m talking hard Rock mines completely different and my example is what Clyde was talking about.

I’m aware Mr Long has some knowledge on mining as I’ve come across him before , he once stated he was a volcanic guy , my professor of geology once stated he didn’t do volcanic stuff ,he was a hydrothermal guy who earned his stars working in the oil industry, I worked with him mapping out our local ore field.

Coal mining communities lived and breathed it, not so in the hard Rock mining world.eg even in the early 19th cent hard Rock Boys downed tools during the summer to get the crops in ,lambing in spring and so on, the tribute system linked withe cost book system ,how they screwed the miners, then we got the contract miners as the science and industrialisation progressed. Its a fascinating subject John not yours is bigger than mine , Clyde was right in what he said and I drew a comparison, I’m willing to learn more particularly early mining in the USA which is as yet not really researched and documented.although I know a few bods doing some good work.

John Tillman
Reply to  B Clarke
June 17, 2021 6:09 pm

It wasn’t just coal mines:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/child-labor-during-the-british-industrial-revolution/

Estimates of Child Labor in MiningChildren and youth also comprised a relatively large proportion of the work forces in coal and metal mines in Britain. In 1842, the proportion of the work forces that were children and youth in coal and metal mines ranged from 19 to 40%. A larger proportion of the work forces of coal mines used child labor underground while more children were found on the surface of metal mines “dressing the ores” (a process of separating the ore from the dirt and rock). By 1842 one-third of the underground work force of coal mines was under the age of 18 and one-fourth of the work force of metal mines were children and youth (1842[380]XV). In 1851 children and youth (under 20) comprised 30% of the total population of coal miners in Great Britain. After the Mining Act of 1842 was passed which prohibited girls and women from working in mines, fewer children worked in mines. The Reports on Sessions 1847-48 and 1849 Mining Districts I (1847-48[993]XXVI and 1849[1109]XXII) and The Reports on Sessions 1850 and 1857-58 Mining Districts II (1850[1248]XXIII and 1857-58[2424]XXXII) contain statements from mining commissioners that the number of young children employed underground had diminished.
In 1838, Jenkin (1927) estimates that roughly 5,000 children were employed in the metal mines of Cornwall and by 1842 the returns from The First Report show as many as 5,378 children and youth worked in the mines. In 1838 Lemon collected data from 124 tin, copper and lead mines in Cornwall and found that 85% employed children. In the 105 mines that employed child labor, children comprised from as little as 2% to as much as 50% of the work force with a mean of 20% (Lemon, 1838). According to Jenkin the employment of children in copper and tin mines in Cornwall began to decline by 1870 (1927, 309).
Explanations for Child LaborThe Supply of Child LaborGiven the role of child labor in the British Industrial Revolution, many economic historians have tried to explain why child labor became so prevalent. A competitive model of the labor market for children has been used to examine the factors that influenced the demand for children by employers and the supply of children from families. The majority of scholars argue that it was the plentiful supply of children that increased employment in industrial work places turning child labor into a social problem. The most common explanation for the increase in supply is poverty – the family sent their children to work because they desperately needed the income. Another common explanation is that work was a traditional and customary component of ordinary people’s lives. Parents had worked when they were young and required their children to do the same. The prevailing view of childhood for the working-class was that children were considered “little adults” and were expected to contribute to the family’s income or enterprise. Other less commonly argued sources of an increase in the supply of child labor were that parents either sent their children to work because they were greedy and wanted more income to spend on themselves or that children wanted out of the house because their parents were emotionally and physically abusive. Whatever the reason for the increase in supply, scholars agree that since mandatory schooling laws were not passed until 1876, even well-intentioned parents had few alternatives.
The Demand for Child LaborOther compelling explanations argue that it was demand, not supply, that increased the use of child labor during the Industrial Revolution. One explanation came from the industrialists and factory owners – children were a cheap source of labor that allowed them to stay competitive. Managers and overseers saw other advantages to hiring children and pointed out that children were ideal factory workers because they were obedient, submissive, likely to respond to punishment and unlikely to form unions. In addition, since the machines had reduced many procedures to simple one-step tasks, unskilled workers could replace skilled workers. Finally, a few scholars argue that the nimble fingers, small stature and suppleness of children were especially suited to the new machinery and work situations. They argue children had a comparative advantage with the machines that were small and built low to the ground as well as in the narrow underground tunnels of coal and metal mines. The Industrial Revolution, in this case, increased the demand for child labor by creating work situations where they could be very productive.
Influence of Child Labor LawsWhether it was an increase in demand or an increase in supply, the argument that child labor laws were not considered much of a deterrent to employers or families is fairly convincing. Since fines were not large and enforcement was not strict, the implicit tax placed on the employer or family was quite low in comparison to the wages or profits the children generated [Nardinelli (1980)]. On the other hand, some scholars believe that the laws reduced the number of younger children working and reduced labor hours in general [Chapman (1904) and Plener (1873)].

B Clarke
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 6:34 pm

So the article agrees with what I said ,very few worked underground exactly as I said ,also agrees with me that children were less needed as production increased from 1870, the article states in various places “children worked at the mines” but they did not work underground as already established,they worked on the surface, a child could not climb the ladders to get to the working areas, as I already stated children worked in coal mines not metal mines ,so your not really proving anything except I’m right,the only teenagers who worked underground 8n metal mines were part of the gang the farther belong too in his right of passage as a apprentice, teenagers also sat just inside the adit entrance and mixed sulphides of zinc with bread crumbs which they sold for rat posion,did your article tell you that.

As for the textile industry I lived and worked it in its last days,don’t patronise me on my own history.

John Tillman
Reply to  B Clarke
June 17, 2021 6:42 pm

Children did most certainly work in metal mines.

No patronizing, just fact. As noted below, I was a seasonal child laborer in agriculture, and glad for it. But that can’t compare with the child labor of the Industrial Revolution, whether in factories or mines.

Your experience was as nothing compared to kids in the 19th century, whether in coal or metal mines. Granted, child labor was more common above ground in the latter, but by no means restricted thereto.

Nor in your day were the child workers under ten years of age.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 9:43 pm

I think that workers should be allowed to do what they are capable of doing, and not be restricted arbitrarily by age, unless there is a clear benefit to society for doing so.

That is, if a job requires strength, then women and children are not qualified. If a job requires a reach or height that excludes children, then it is self-limiting. If a job requires a mastery of calculus, that automatically excludes young children (and a lot of adults).

B Clarke
Reply to  John Tillman
June 18, 2021 1:53 am

No John by and large they worked at metal mines.not in.

John Tillman
Reply to  B Clarke
June 19, 2021 4:09 pm

As in ancient times, children also worked in metal mines, in spaces adults couldn’t reach, and pulling ore carts out.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160420-the-ancient-copper-mines-dug-by-bronze-age-children

B Clarke
Reply to  John Tillman
June 19, 2021 4:15 pm

If you had read my first post above which you replied to I already covered bronze age children working in mines .

John
Reply to  B Clarke
June 17, 2021 10:07 pm

this article is the politically correct
no mention of death rate
no mention of average life expectancy
no mention of health

As for working in the textile industry by the time you worked in it Britain was highly regulated

Not the case in modern Africa

B Clarke
Reply to  John
June 18, 2021 2:06 am

Highly regulated. In some respects , we worked in the same mills as our great grandfathers did ,we lived in the same back to back terrace houses, we were taught in school what life was life in the 19th century.

It was the unions above all else that increased the wellbeing of the work force.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 9:35 pm

The concept of what a “child” is has changed through time. Miyamoto Musashi, known as the Sword Saint of Japan, killed his first opponent in a duel at the age of 13. Sitting Bull, of Custer’s Last Stand fame, killed his first enemy at age 14. Many of the decisions to ‘protect’ children are economic in origin. That is, by reducing the legal labor market, those who are old enough to legally work can command higher wages.

If education is actually valuable, then it makes sense to keep children out of the labor market so that they can get an education. However, one of the downsides is that the curriculums get dumbed down so that the ‘children’ stay in school longer. I suspect that both of my Depression Era parents learned more before they dropped out of high school than most college graduates learn today.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Long
June 17, 2021 2:42 pm

You of all people should realize that a mine is not just a location where a particular mineral can be found. There has to be sufficient grade and volume to justify the large capital investment to produce. Often times there are additional expenses in poor countries in the form of bribes to get the permits to proceed and continue operating. Also, the location has to be sufficiently secure that the company and investors won’t be concerned about losing everything to local warlords or being nationalized by the government. If a location doesn’t meet the minimal requirements for being a profitable mechanized enterprise over a period of time necessary to amortize the costs, it will never happen!

So, what is it going to be? Accept that a modern, safe operation is improbable, and allow artisanal miners and their children to eek out a living, or set your moral outrage so high that they starve to death instead of dying in a mining accident?

How many children die from mining accidents compared to the number that die from malnutrition and lowered immunity to infectious diseases because of poor nutrition? Until recent times, the low life expectancy, as calculated from the survival of 1-year olds on, was because of the high death rate among children. Take a walk sometime in a very old cemetery and look at the ages of those buried there. They are mostly very young and old, with far fewer in-between.

In Third World countries (TWC), with little or no medical care, there is a high loss of life of women in child birth, in part because they are malnourished, and don’t have access to any but a midwife. Children are very susceptible to what were called “childhood diseases,” that have largely been eliminated in advanced countries because of vaccines and antibiotics that are unavailable in TWCs. Accidents are common, which in tropical countries frequently result in infections, for which antibiotics, if available, may be too expensive for the very poor, or not be as represented because of the lack of a governmental infrastructure to insure purity.

What are the opportunities for children to attend school in the DR of Congo, and what is the quality of the ‘education’ they would receive? Might they not be more support to their family, helping find something that has a ready market, then getting an education that they will never have an opportunity to apply?

Drake
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 3:26 pm

All of this IS NOT a zero sum game. That is what most leftists do not understand.

It has been mentioned on this site in the past that if a small fraction of the money wasted on wind, solar and other GREEN energy “solutions” was used to build COAL power plants and a grid in Africa, there would be a possibility of industry and reasonably paid jobs. If there was not a leftist government push for electric cars and grid scale batteries, then there would be no demand for the minerals being mined by these children.

As to your “an education that they will never have an opportunity to apply”, again that is due to GOVERNMENTS keeping Africa in the hole it has always been in. I understand the World Bank will not lend funds to construct coal fired power plants, Clyde, so those choices are keeping the children in those holes.

But I guess you get your electric car, and with your comments here, you seem to be proud of feeding those kids by buying the results of their labor. Good for you.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Drake
June 17, 2021 9:47 pm

If you are confusing me with a leftist, then I think you have your glasses on backwards.

I’m arguing against government or any social justice warriors deciding what is good for other people and forcing their opinions on others.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 6:15 pm

I cannot shake the suspicion that you were typing that as you looked out the window at your groundskeeper from Chihuahua – or further south. “Doing the work that an American won’t do” – for what you are willing to pay.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Writing Observer
June 17, 2021 9:49 pm

No, at almost 80 years of age I still mow my own lawn with a push lawnmower. You are arrogant to make such a remark without knowing me or my history!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ATheoK
June 17, 2021 10:02 pm

People who are poor, and don’t see anyway to improve their lot, rushed to the area to collect colorless, transparent crystals that look a lot like quartz crystals — which is more probable.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 3:10 pm

The situation is different for coltans, where the mining is apparently controlled by warlords, compared to the cobalt production where it seems to be poor families re-working abandoned mines that were once mechanized.

If you are an orphan, who is going to take care of you and feed you? You either get by as best you can or die. This is, after all, a poor Third World Country!

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 6:22 pm

According to that international child care specialist, the orphans’ villages would care for them.

But in fact of course it doesn’t work that way. The continent notorious for its child soldiers also features child forced workers.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 6:48 pm

The specialist is Hillary Clinton.

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 6:34 pm

I was a child agricultural worker, by today’s standards, as a teenager. But my neighbors employed their nine year old kids to drive trucks and combines on their parents’ land.

Then Oregon required that adult migrant workers picked our crops instead of teenage natives, so I was out of the cucumber or strawberry harvesting business until old enough to drive a wheat truck.

But this seasonal, healthy employment is literally a world away from six year olds in the cobalt mines of Africa.

Earthling2
Reply to  John Tillman
June 20, 2021 5:26 pm

I was a child labourer too on the farm, starting at 2-3 years old in the garden weeding the lettuce, carrots and peas. Probably did more eating of veggies with the dirt still on them than work. All kids were expected to work within their ability and babies and toddlers were either sleeping in the raspberry shade or playing in the rows. Potatoes needed a hoe, so that was for 6 year olds and up. There were ‘chores’ including feeding the pigs, chicken, cows & horses, and hand cranking the cream separator so Mom and Gramma could make butter. Milking the cows was for the older teenage kids, or Dad.

Was driving the old Cockshutt tractor with an umbrella for shade summerfallowing by age of 11-12 and driving the grain truck and augerering the grain into granaries by age 14, when I bought my first old 1951 Chevrolet for $75 in 1969. This all served me well, as had my own business at 15 with paper routes and shovelling snow or digging gardens for city folk after school and weekends after we moved to the city.

We even had a pair of old nags that I could harness up by age 12 and take a wagon ride picking up the square bales in the cooler evenings. I missed the binder and stooking age, but heard a lot about it from all the uncles and grand parents. Now that would have been work, standing up 160 acres of wheat sheaves of grain stalks to dry in the Sun. And then feeding the thrashing machine. We’ve come a long way in 75-80 years.

Have never been out of work my entire life. A good hard work ethic didn’t hurt too many kids, unless it was done by mean parents and/or older siblings. Granted, 3rd world slavery like conditions working for some warlord in the Congo that sell artisanal mined cobalt by hand to the Chinese agent probably isn’t comparable to even 100 years ago here on the family farm in North America. But everyone has to make a ‘living’.

TonyG
Reply to  Earthling2
June 21, 2021 7:28 am

My son spent years complaining about child labor laws that made it impossible for him to get any sort of job when he was 12, until he finally aged out and was able to go to work.

John
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 10:00 pm

and many die in the mines due to collapse of tunnels or toxic waste poisoning due to extraction
their is a good reason why they call it blood money
its because many humans die in the process of the overlords

Smart Rock
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 1:29 pm

And if the mining was done on an industrial scale by responsible companies, their parents would have decent jobs and the kids could go to school.

MarkW
Reply to  Smart Rock
June 18, 2021 5:00 am

You are assuming that both the mines are large enough to support industrial scale and that the infrastructure exists to support it as well.

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 5:48 pm

Cobalt is not found as a hard rock ore but as blue mud.

B Clarke
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
June 17, 2021 6:38 pm

Most of the worlds cobalt is found in copper and nickel ores ,and some from smelting

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
June 17, 2021 9:53 pm

Would you mind providing a citation for that claim to this ignorant geologist?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 18, 2021 3:58 am

Forced doesn’t mean someone holds a gun to your head. Just like UK children didn’t have guns held to their heads when they went up chimneys to sweep them or work in Dark Satanic Mills. Economic pressure in parents was enough, orphans and foundlings had no choice.

MarkW
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
June 18, 2021 5:00 am

Would the orphans and foundlings be better off with no jobs available?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 19, 2021 11:07 pm
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 20, 2021 4:03 pm

Thank you for the well-documented contribution to this controversial topic.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 11:51 am

What’s the area of unshaded, south-facing rooftops in CA?

Probably much less than half, like everywhere else.

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 2:10 pm

Of course, where I live, in the Southern Hemisphere, it’s north-facing that collects photons.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
June 18, 2021 6:00 pm

Then obviously the answer is simple. Move all the north-facing homes (actually it is the E-W facing homes that have the problem) south of the equator, and vice versa! That is the sort of answer any liberal suffering with Kruger-Dunning syndrome should be able to come up with.

gringojay
June 17, 2021 10:19 am

L.A. Freeway road rage just won’t be the same.

B2D35538-6311-4064-B20D-9C01340FE306.jpeg
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  gringojay
June 17, 2021 10:50 am

More like a return to the Dark Ages where human life and the filth they lived in was worthless to society’s “betters,” sorta like the back streets of San Fran or under a freeway overpass in LA today.

Bringoutyadead_MP.jpg
Thomas Gasloli
June 17, 2021 10:19 am

Thanks. I love the laughs that come from doing the math on the “build back better”.

Derg
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
June 17, 2021 11:16 am

Build back better for someone else

Joseph Zorzin
June 17, 2021 10:23 am

“I live in California, the heart of the green lunacy.”

Massachusetts is just as bad. It was MA that sued the EPA in the Supreme Court to require it to declare carbon emissions a pollutant.

Rud Istvan
June 17, 2021 10:25 am

Doncha know math is racist because it requires correct answers. Green math isn’t, because it doesn’t. Just ask the squad.

n.n
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 17, 2021 11:18 am

Green math is idealistic, propagandist counting, which is, ironically, based on naive assumptions/assertions.

Joseph Zorzin
June 17, 2021 10:29 am

“today’s “watermelon environmentalists”, who are green on the outside and solid Marxist red on the inside”

I think many are not Marxist- but, their fault is that they foolishly think we can have a modern civilization with no impact to nature. I prefer to call them naive pagans. Many are wealthy like Gore and Kerry- I doubt they want to spread around THEIR wealth like good Marxists should. I blame their stupidity on never having real jobs where you have to get your hands dirty. Ivory tower intellectuals.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 17, 2021 1:32 pm

JZ,
Most of the professed Marxist elites have no intention of ever sharing THEIR wealth! Like all slave masters, they take the bulk of the wealth, and leave some crumbs on the table for the proles to fight over!
Only a sociopath like Marx could come up with a slave state wrapped in quasi-religious robes, and call it egalitarian!

June 17, 2021 10:36 am

It’s time to again look at coal. America has more BTU’s in our coal than what natural gas and oil can deliver combined. It’s time to become Energy Wise. Coal can be combusted and emit less CO2 into the atmosphere than what natural gas does.

[No Soliciting~cr]

Last edited 1 month ago by Charles Rotter
MarkW
Reply to  Sid Abma
June 17, 2021 11:03 am

Once again, Sid pops up to peddle his solution that doesn’t work for problem that doesn’t exist.

Sid, I see you are still having trouble getting anyone to pony up to support your scheme.

MarkW
Reply to  Sid Abma
June 17, 2021 11:04 am

Anthony, I’ve seen you chastise other posters for putting links to their own blogs.
How does directing others to their own investment scheme any different?

Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 11:23 am

Well, it’s not a link and Anthony doesn’t read every comment. But yeah, I’ll take care of it.

Tim Gorman
June 17, 2021 10:40 am

That’s 8.3 MW per square kilometer of ground area.”

Not sure I buy this. A square kilometer is about 1/3 of a section (247 acre). That seems like a very small area in which to generate 8MW of electricty. I’m not sure that includes all the extra ground required for maintenance sheds, warehouse sheds, access roads, right-of-way, etc.

Is my math wrong?

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 17, 2021 11:06 am

The further north you go, the more the panels have to be tilted towards the south in order to maximize solar collection. The greater the angle of tilt, the further apart the panels have to be in order avoid shading each other.

menace
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 17, 2021 10:40 pm

Near me in mid-west at 38N latitude is a solar farm of 20 acres the claims to be 6MW

But I’m sure that is only generated when sun is shining unimpeded at the optimal angle

I you account for that sun shines only half the day and little production near sunrise/set and the clouds probably block out sun about 30% of the time, then they probably only produce on average 2 MW at best.

But still that’s 1 MW per 10 acres or about 25 MW per km&2.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  menace
June 18, 2021 7:23 am

6 MW will be equal to n modules times the deceptive power output rating*** on the back of the modules.

***markings of module ratings are required by the National Electric Code, and are only tangentially related what power the module will produce in actual use. They are more relevant to safety rather than power.

Phil Rae
June 17, 2021 10:40 am

Another great article, Willis…..thanks for continuing your mission to help debunk this nonsense.

However, as long as the MSM pumps out its propaganda and innumerate (& often corrupt) politicians keep voting for laws that destroy our civilisation and culture, we face an uphill struggle.

I keep hoping the energy companies will shut off supplies for a few days just to let people understand what it means to have no hydrocarbons! Now that would be a wake up call….

Davidf
Reply to  Phil Rae
June 17, 2021 1:55 pm

Didnt the Russian hackers just do that?

MarkW
Reply to  Davidf
June 18, 2021 5:03 am

Didn’t Biden just give Putin a list of the industries the hackers need to target next?

Mr.
June 17, 2021 10:41 am

Willis, the greenies know deep down that their wind & solar won’t cut it.

And that somebody else will have to effect a practical solution for supply of reliable electricity ongoing.

BUT, the greenies want to always be in a position to lambaste ANY developments that provide cheap, reliable power for the masses. Fuels that reviled consumerism, doncha know.

That’s the very essence of climate virtue signaling

Joel O'Bryan
June 17, 2021 10:41 am

But they are willing to drag California and all Californians over an economic cliff to try.

n.n
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 17, 2021 11:19 am

First, baby, then granny, then community.

George Daddis
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 17, 2021 12:28 pm

Remember that Joe Biden claims that California is his model for the resto of the US.

Coeur de Lion
June 17, 2021 10:45 am

Sent the link to the wierd undemocratic Climate Change Committee in U.K. which plans to crash our economy on purpose

markl
June 17, 2021 10:46 am

The force in anti fossil fuel people runs deep. Facts don’t faze them. The propaganda has been very effective and I doubt experience would make much difference either. I can see them dying from lack of fossil fuels and still not relinquishing their dogma.

MarkW
Reply to  markl
June 17, 2021 11:08 am

It’s like a feedback loop.

Leftists demand taxes on companies because apparently companies aren’t paying their fair share.
Businesses raise their prices in order to compensate for the higher taxes.
Leftists condemn businesses for being greedy, demand higher taxes as a punishment.

JamesD
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 12:13 pm

This is why smart leftists are switching from advocating socialism to advocating fascism.

John Tillman
Reply to  JamesD
June 17, 2021 1:13 pm

Fascism is a form of socialism. Even Fabian socialism was fascistic. Socialism was supposed to produce heartier warriors the better to subdue the lesser races.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 3:40 pm

It’s amazing to me how few people actually understand Marxism. Marx advocated the following timeline:

Fascism: govt control of business and capital
Socialism: govt ownership of business and capital
Communism: collective ownership of business and capital

Each step was to facilitate the movement to the next. Problem is that Socialism has *never*, not once, moved from Socialism to Communism. Once the dictators and their enabling bureaucracies get into power and actually own the means of production they never let go, not ever. Oh, they hang out trappings of collectivism but it is always meaningless at the working level. The dictators and bureaucracies have the real control.

Too many get hung up on thinking of Hitler’s insanity about Jews as being the definition of “Fascism”. His insanity actually never had anything to do with fascism. Both he and Mussolini were rabid Socialists – until they got into power and saw that Fascism gave them all the power they wanted with none of the actual responsibilities that ownership of the means of production would have required. So neither ever moved to true nationalization and ownership of business and capital.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 17, 2021 11:04 pm

It’ll work this time, comrades! 🤣

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 18, 2021 5:04 am

The difference between govt ownership and collective ownership is purely semantic.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
June 18, 2021 8:33 am

Not really. Under collectivism (i.e. Communism), the entire population doesn’t own each individual unit of production. The workers at a mill collectively own the mill. Workers 100 miles away in an auto factory have their own collective and have nothing to do with the distant mill. Each collective is responsible for maximizing the output of each production unit. The outputs of the production units are shared among the entire population.

Under Socialism the govt owns each unit of production. The workers have no role in maximizing the output of the production unit because they don’t have any buy-in to the sharing of the production. The govt owns the outputs of the production units and distributes those outputs as it sees fit – usually based on loyalty to the government.

It’s why Socialism never works, it *can’t* work. It’s why Marx only saw Socialism as a temporary, transitory step on the way to Communism.

Of course, communism can’t work either but for a different reason. The central planning function required under Communism is simply not a workable substitute for a free market with numerous competitors each trying to maximize profit.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 18, 2021 7:27 am

“Socialism works until the government runs out of other peoples‘ money to spend.” — Margaret Thatcher

“We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” — old proverb out of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

H. D. Hoese
June 17, 2021 10:47 am

Texas has a somewhat similar warning to California, checked around didn’t find much wind or gusts on the coast near the wind farms and San Antonio, apparently need to relearn as those found out when they built the first windmills. Texas coast is famous for its winds, just beginning the slow season, except for the too much category.

Eric Brownson
June 17, 2021 10:47 am

Assuming it’s possible to reduce emissions by 80% by 2030, what effect would that have on the climate? No one ever addresses that question. My guess is there will be NO measurable effect on climate.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Eric Brownson
June 17, 2021 11:14 am

Good guess. It’s actually more ridiculous than none—it’s much less than none.

I just ran the numbers. California is 7% of US CO2 emissions, and US is 14% of the world, so CA is 1% of world.
By comparison, China alone is presently increasing its emissions by 0.8% annually. So California trying reduce 80% by 2030 is overmatched by China alone increasing over 7x by 2030.

Raven
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 17, 2021 11:54 am

. . . so CA is 1% of world.

If CA were to sink below the waves tomorrow and you ran up a chart of CO2 levels from Mauna Loa, wouldn’t it be impossible to see a blip at the monitoring resolution used?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Raven
June 17, 2021 3:11 pm

Yes, but they would probably feel the splash.

TonyL
June 17, 2021 10:48 am

Siting is truly the issue, particularly with nuclear plants.
However, done with care, very positive results can be obtained. Here I detail the placement of just a few nuclear reactors which would have a salutary effect on the CA energy environment.

Site 1) Two reactors – Sacramento, one reactor on the site of the state legislature, the other on top of the governor.

Site 2) One reactor – Los Angeles, on the current city hall.

Other reactors can be placed wherever they will do the most good. CARB, the Clean Air Resource Board recommends itself as a useful site.

OweninGA
Reply to  TonyL
June 17, 2021 11:58 am

Those sites are for the Chernobyl style graphite reactors – right?

JamesD
Reply to  TonyL
June 17, 2021 12:15 pm

I don’t know. Using those sites for long term waste storage seems attractive also.

TonyG
Reply to  JamesD
June 18, 2021 9:01 am

James, those sites already ARE waste storage…

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  TonyL
June 17, 2021 10:58 pm

Fission reactors in an earthquake zone? What could possibly go wrong…

ANDREW BURNETTE
June 17, 2021 10:52 am

Amen. The author has hit the high points.

I wish he had added another “not to mention” portion where he listed the other stuff that is less obvious, but still boggles the mind. Things such as:

  • installing chargers for the millions (yes, millions) of cars that park on the street due to no garage.
  • installing and upgrading thousands of electric substations in residential areas for distributing to those chargers.
  • electrifying the heavy trucks that distribute our goods (you can’t get to 80% below 1990 without changing those).
  • etc…
Last edited 1 month ago by ANDREW BURNETTE
Timo, not that one
Reply to  ANDREW BURNETTE
June 17, 2021 11:52 am

Just return to horse and carriage, dirt roads, candles, whale oil, fireplaces, 47 year life span, etc. etc.
Problem solved.

John Tillman
Reply to  Timo, not that one
June 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Except for equine methane and the fact that wood has a higher carbon to hydrogen ratio than coal, which is higher than oil, which is higher than gas. CH4 is close to running on hydrogen rather than carbon. Which is why the US, without signing, has met the Kyoto reductions while so many other signees haven’t.

Fraizer
Reply to  Timo, not that one
June 17, 2021 1:26 pm

horse and carriage – Nope. Horse farts and Forest Habitat Destruction
dirt roads – Nope, PM 2.5
candles – Nope, CO2
whale oil – Nope CO2 plus “Save thew Whales”
fireplaces- *Already Banned*
47 year life span – What? Ya Wanna Live Forever?

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
June 17, 2021 10:54 am

To make that much hardware would require most of the fossil fuel in the world. If we didn’t follow that path, it might last long enough to bring small scale fusion or other nuclear plants on line and run everything on electricity.

While that is an option, we could also admit that there are good reasons to continue making liquid fuels our of any available material that works. There is a great deal to be said for liquid energy carriers. Algae and sunlight would be sufficient.

meab
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
June 17, 2021 4:30 pm

I have a pond that gets fouled with algae. When it does, it starts to stink. The pond also evaporates copious amounts of water in the summer. Are you sure you want to waste California’s precious water on covering the state with toxic, stinking algae pits? You know algae fuels are much less efficient than solar, don’t you, and solar is a very inefficient use of land.

MarkW
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
June 17, 2021 5:49 pm

In the 500 to 1000 years that we have until oil and coal start to run out, who’s to say what technologies will be developed.
There is no need to waste money on expensive and poorly thought out schemes to try and get oil and coal to last a few years longer.

MarkW
June 17, 2021 11:00 am

I wonder if the trolls who declared that the power problems in Texas as proof that Texas can’t run a power grid will have anything to say about the repeated problems in California?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 1:06 pm

Also, CA is connected to the national grid. So being connected to the national grid is not the panacea that some want to believe.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 1:18 pm

TX is connected to another grid, which is connected to the others.

June 17, 2021 11:00 am

The political and economic solution to this problem is for the “greens” to officially recognize natural gas as a renewable biogas that nature has spent millions of years producing more than we can use for decades. In addition we can produce it from coal and most any form of biomass. It burns clean and efficiently. It burns four hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom. The “greens” can the push rooftop solar with natural gas fired backup generators. Power companies can continue to convert coal fired plants to natural gas. We need more storage and pipelines in our future.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Fred Haynie
June 17, 2021 2:20 pm

Fred,
Expecting the climate crazies to do anything besides pushing their unworkable solution to a nonexistent problem is a pipe dream!
Their faith in the Green catechism is deep, and only a severe reality check will wake them from their profound fervor! If Mother Nature doesn’t issue a wake up call soon, they will drag the once Golden State down into the Third World!

n.n
June 17, 2021 11:02 am

Environmentalism is an extremist philosophy with a narrow, nominally environment-oriented focus, where in fact it is analogous to anarchy in service to single/central/monopolistic/minority solutions. Conservativism is a philosophy of moderation. American conservativism is Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under a Constitutional framework of reconciliation.

ResourceGuy
June 17, 2021 11:04 am

I guess Palo Verde Nuclear power output at 3.3 gw will need to continue for many more decades to prop up California, at their expense of course.

TEWS_Pilot
June 17, 2021 11:04 am

WWMichaelMannSay?

Michael Mann We are DOOMED.jpg
Bryan A
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
June 17, 2021 6:16 pm

We’re Doomed Dooped (duped)

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
June 18, 2021 2:03 pm

Is it just me, or is he getting chubbier? Climate worrying must be a well-paying gig.

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Hokey Schtick
June 17, 2021 11:10 am

Always good to come across yclept, a word not used nearly enough these days. Thank you Willis.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
June 17, 2021 12:18 pm

For me, a welcome improvement to my vocabulary.

clipe
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
June 17, 2021 12:39 pm

https://www.wordsense.eu/clepe/

clipe(d) is the Scottish version.

Last edited 1 month ago by clipe
Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 11:11 am

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 11:32 am

Lawrence,
Grasping basic energy and emissions facts I take it are not your strong point.
You seem to miss the point on the futility of the climate scam’s renewable energy push even if one believes the climate models.
Wind and solar are unreliable, always will be. They have to be backed up by something else that is dispatchable and reliable. And wind turbines, blades, and towers along with and solar panel farms’ life cycle end-to-end emissions elated to their manufacture, construction, siting, and tear-down and life time maintenance means they will barely break even on emissions in exchange for the huge environmental damage that mining for the raw materials needed at the scale for the amount fossil fuel replacement envisioned.

And the Greentards steadfast refusal to accept nuclear power as the emissions-free alternative solution to wind and solar lunacy clearly exposes the climate change scam for the intentional destruction of Western captialism and democracies that it is.

Go do some homework.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 17, 2021 12:44 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

MarkW
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 1:08 pm

If a cloud passes over the panels, the output of the panels plummet.
If dust or bird poop build up on the panels, the output of the panels plummet.
As you mention, the output of the panels drop to zero at night.

Solar panels are the very definition of unreliable.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 2:17 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 2:37 pm

And everybody lives in the desert to plant solar panels on the roof 😀

B Clarke
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 4:07 pm

Not many live in the desert , but it does get dark ,whats your cost annalise of current transportation out of the desert, what cost to the environment?

meab
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 4:50 pm

Ignorant comment. Much of the Southwest has monsoons in the summer. I lived in a high desert town that built a solar farm to see if would save money. The first thing they learned is it didn’t cut the peak power use because peak power demand happens in the late afternoon after solar drops in power. Look up “duck curve”. The utility had to contract for the same peak power supply at the same cost multiplier. The second thing they learned is it often dropped off in the afternoon when clouds would build up. They sought volunteers to install “smart” meters that shut off air conditioning when the solar plant dropped output. I know, because my employer signed up my building. It would get so hot in the building (85+ F) so often (two to three times per week) that I was unwilling to suffer any longer and quit my job and took a different job in an office with a wall-mounted air conditioner that I could control. You know not what you’re blathering about.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 5:47 pm

No sun at night and cloudiness varies during the day.

Solar Energy was heavily invested in my area back in the 1970’s 1980’s, on Banks and Federal buildings, swimming pools heating, today they are long disused when it became clear they were not worth the problems and insufficient power production the whole time.

It failed badly in a semi desert area where from October to March is clouded in a lot and of course no sun at night.

MarkW
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 5:52 pm

Even a few is enough to make solar to unreliable. One thing the desert does have in abundance is dust, which is even worse than clouds and bird poop.

Are you tired of making a fool of yourself, or are you going to stick around so that we can laugh at you some more.

Bryan A
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 6:30 pm

But many a tortoise thrives there as does Joshua Trees which, by law, you can’t damage.
Most of the desert foliage has evolved to thrive in the climate including sparse water and abundance of sunlight and heat. Placing Hectares of Solar Farms there will negatively affect flora (and fauna) dependant on direct sun

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 2:03 pm

Lawrence,
You confuse the Sun with a solar panel sitting on Earth’s surface. The only place solar PV even begins to make sense in the SW deserts in So Cal and So Arizona. Everywhere else, overcast skies are too common to make them nothing but Government-taxpayer subsidies and tax break harvesters for their owners.
Again, you need to do your homework and stop watching pablum spewing, brain-eroding Liberal cable network tv and the Democrat’s media lackeys.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 17, 2021 2:19 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

MarkW
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 5:54 pm

So what? Are you actually stupid enough to not know the difference between anecdote and data?

Lrp
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 8:41 pm

What’s the point of being a progressive if you’re not stupid

Earthling2
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 19, 2021 5:40 pm

Sure Lawrence…I have solar at my off grid properties, and now I just bought a Rav4 hybrid with a super efficient 2.5 L Atkinson gasoline engine, with a 18 kW/h Li-On battery, and use it all to power a 1500 watt inverter which is all I need to run my digital and occasional higher power loads. I also use the hybrid to drive a lot of miles very efficiently, but I bought it principally for the generator/battery as it is super efficient for my purposes. I needed a new vehicle anyway.

But that doesn’t mean I believe that CO2 is the control knob for the climate and why we need to do these things. Natural Gas is about as clean as it gets, and we have plenty of it to last a century if we want. But CO2 levels will never be a problem under 1000 ppmv and even if we double to 560 ppmv at some point, it is still a trace atmospheric gas that has less utility as a GHG per doubling, and more upside for plant life for the entire planet. Carbon-CO2 is life. We should be celebrating the liberation of more CO2. Future generations will be glad we did.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 18, 2021 7:32 am

PV works really good outside of the atmosphere.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 5:49 pm

Go do some homework, Larry.

Troy Hilbert
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 18, 2021 2:44 am

What an utterly reductive argument.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 12:13 pm

As for your “global cooling” allusion, what we have right now is a classic meridonal pattern (probably related to being a more common phenomenon in the several years around solar cycle minimum) in the jet stream bringing in waves of hot and cold to mid-latitudes to the edge of the Arctic circle, i.e a wavy jet stream.
In about 2-3 weeks, the pattern will likely be reversed, and all we’ll be hearing about from the biased media is how hot it is in the Eastern US, where today it is running cooler than normal.

610day20210611-USNOAA.jpg
Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 17, 2021 12:48 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

MarkW
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 1:10 pm

Quite easily. If you knew anything about meteorology, you would have known that.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 2:20 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

MarkW
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 5:55 pm

In other words, even you know that you’ve been caught saying something really stupid, but you have too much pride to admit it.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 1:18 pm

Yes we know. Record high temperature measurement means catastrophic global warming, end of world event. Record low temperature measurement means catastrophic climate emergency, end of world event. Either case requires the immediate adoption of worldwide communism, or else face the end of the world.
I’ve seen this somewhere before. Oh yes, every day on the mainstream media for the last 50 years.
Yawn.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  Timo, not that one
June 17, 2021 1:53 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

MarkW
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 5:56 pm

No matter how many times you reference a stupid comment, it remains a stupid comment.

John Tillman
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 1:22 pm

How about all those cold records broken this winter?

CA’s state heat record remains 1913.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 1:54 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 3:15 pm

This is the kind of apocalyptic nonsense website the mainstream media gets it’s “news” from.
The truth is that by, literally, every measure, the world is a better place to live than a century ago, and the improvements, when graphed, exactly match the increase in Co2. Not a causal relationship, but rather they all are a result of fossil fuel use.
You should avail yourself of a little critical thought, before you push for the destruction of all that is good.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 12:21 pm

I guess you don’t hang around here a lot.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  Timo, not that one
June 17, 2021 12:48 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
MarkW
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 1:10 pm

Yes, we do get quite a kick out of you. Thanks.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 18, 2021 7:40 am

I was showing concern that your post would elicit multiple, withering refutations. How you consider that to be “trolling” or a “personal attack” is just silly.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Timo, not that one
June 18, 2021 8:07 am

Oops. I think I misunderstood that the edit about trolling was the author’s and referred to LS’s comment.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
June 17, 2021 6:18 pm

Odd! No response from Larry

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 18, 2021 7:50 am

I’m optimistic he learned something. If so, it would take a long time before he admits it, at least on this web site.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Timo, not that one
June 18, 2021 8:09 am

Or his comments are now being moderated, and not being approved.

Bryan A
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 6:22 pm

Yep and California’s dependence on unreliable solar and wind combined with an inherent maverick attitude towards reliable gas and nuclear threatens to curtail distribution yet again as demand potentially reaches capacity yet again

clipe
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 6:50 pm

“Park Williams, a University of California, Los Angeles, climate and fire scientist who has calculated that soil in the western half of the nation is the driest it has been since 1895.”

“climate and fire scientist”?

“driest it has been since 1895”? Why?

OK Larry, you have convinced me of something other than what you intended,

Last edited 1 month ago by clipe
Lrp
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 8:37 pm

You are bursting with climate ambition. That’s all.

Robert of Texas
June 17, 2021 11:28 am

Well, I am sorry to say this but apparently we Texans have decided to give you nut-job Californians a run for “who is the biggest idiot state?” We are behind at the moment, but but our wonderful ERCOT agency is plowing ahead with more wind turbines even after Freezagedon.

We just received another “rolling blackout warning” notice this week and it’s still early June. What is late July and August going to be like? I know – more wind turbines…never mind the wind doesn’t blow that hard in the Summer here.

Someone is getting really rich off of this.

Doonman
June 17, 2021 11:32 am

Whenever CAISO issues an alert to save electricity, I dry my laundry and turn on the air conditioner.

Saving electricity is a fools errand. The California grid needs to crash routinely and often so people actually experience the policies of the idiots they elected to office.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Doonman
June 17, 2021 12:28 pm

Bumper sticker meme to make Green heads explode:

comeandchangeit-meme.jpg
Right-Handed Shark
June 17, 2021 11:34 am

griff will be along shortly to explain how this is all doable with the new technologies that are just around the corner, namely:

Night-time solar
Static air turbines
Grid scale batteries.

No, really!

TonyG
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
June 18, 2021 9:10 am

Hey, night-time solar is perfectly feasable. Just put cells on the underside of the panels so they’re still pointing at the sun!

Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 11:39 am

Another problem unique to California is that siting nuclear plants on the coast exposes them to potential damage from a tsunami, as happened with Fukushima. Northern California is also uniquely vulnerable to earthquakes near the coast. That risk shut down the construction of a plant north of San Francisco when it was found that a splinter fault from the San Andreas went right through the excavation for the reactor.

Siting them inland, away from the major population centers that need the power, would eliminate the risk from tsunamis, and reduce the risk from earthquakes [The Auburn Dam project was aborted when, preparing the site on the American River for the actual dam, apparently active faults were exposed.], but then there are issues of cooling water for the reactor and steam turbines. The waste heat would be detrimental to the biota in the local rivers, which are already so contentious that recreational gold dredging has been outlawed. Availability of cooling water from rivers and reservoirs might be problematic in drought years, which are, and always have been, frequent in California.

Nuclear plants do, however, have the advantage that fewer sites and less acreage required means there is more likelihood of getting the construction approved, anywhere but California!

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 1:13 pm

The faults in CA are strike slip, not subduction. Tsunami’s in CA are usually measured in inches, not meters.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 1:59 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 2:00 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 5:38 pm

From Wikipedia:

The Cascadia subduction zone is a convergent plate boundary that stretches from northern Vancouver Island in Canada to Northern California in the United States. 

=====

From Wikipedia:

The San Andreas Fault is a continental transform fault that extends roughly 1,200 kilometers (750 mi) through California. It forms the tectonic boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, and its motion is right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal).

===

I did much better than you did should I laugh at you?

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 2:51 pm

Yes, the Pacific North West is more prone to tsunamis produced by dip-slip faults. However, there are numerous deep canyons along the California coast, such as the Monterey Canyon in Monterey Bay, that are subject to underwater landslides during violent shaking resulting from strike slip motion. Large vertical displacements of sediments can induce tsunamis.

There are some coastal communities in Northern California that are sufficiently enlightened to have actually taken measures to survive a large tsunami.

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 17, 2021 1:24 pm
Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 1:43 pm

The Russian model produces only 70 MW on a 21,500 T. unpowered barge, estimated sufficient for a city of 200,000. In Siberia, heat is as important as electricity, which wouldn’t be the case in CA.

The AB1 reactor of the Ford class CVNs generates around 700 MW (heat) energy, so ten times that of the Russian floating power stations. Ford CVNs have two. The Nimitz class had four less powerful reactors and Enterprize eight.

Carriers have a lot of displacement not needed for a floating power station, so an AB1-equipped barge might come in under 40,000 T. Maybe a lot less. Put one each offshore of San Diego, LA, SF and maybe Eureka.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 2:02 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 2:09 pm

They really wouldn’t like the electric bill even more then. That would be some pretty expensive residential and commercial electricity as a commercial power venture just to break even.

willem
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 18, 2021 5:30 pm

This is true. Naval reactor fuel is hideously more expensive than commercial reactor fuel. Commercial reactors use fuel that is around 5% enriched, whereas Navy reactors use 95%+ enrichment, vastly more expensive.

John Tillman
Reply to  willem
June 19, 2021 4:25 pm

Some naval reactors use LEU rather than 93% (weapons grade) enrichment of US CVN and submarine plants.

But, in any case, the US has lots of HEU.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Darrin
Reply to  John Tillman
June 18, 2021 7:29 am

John,

Nimitz class carriers only have 2 reactors on board unless they did a damn fine job of hiding the two backup reactors when I served on the Nimitz (-> nuclear machinist mate so I was operating and maintaining the reactors),

Naval reactors work and work damn well but are not designed to be a civilian power plant. Run one at 100% and you have ~4 years of life out of it then it’s down for a long darn time to refuel along with a lot of $$ spent. Navy can run them as long as they do because a) they mostly run at a very low power % for normal ops. (i.e. one reactor can run the entire ship with plenty of power to spare but two are run for redundancy) b) they spend a lot of time shutdown in port while on shore power. c) government doesn’t give a damn about costs.

John Tillman
Reply to  Darrin
June 18, 2021 10:57 am

Oops! Should have checked than rely on memory. Two reactors, four steam turbines and four shafts.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 2:54 pm

I think that has some potential. However, being a former California resident of some decades, I doubt that the ‘woke’ intelligentsia would allow that either.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 3:43 pm

Our own navy already has a bunch of floating nuke plants. The problem isn’t the plants. It’s getting the power on-shore!

John Tillman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 17, 2021 6:56 pm

I’m not actually advocating this approach for vast megalopolises in CA vs. isolated settlements in Siberia. However on shore isn’t really that much of an issue, basically no different from powerlines from nuke and fossil fuel plants into cities. Just with cables on the seafloor, and generally shorter distances.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 9:57 pm

Yes, the problem isn’t much different from getting power from offshore windturbines or tidal generation schemes.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 18, 2021 8:38 am

A fleet of floating nuclear power plants!”

This might be true if the “floating” platforms can be either structurally anchored to the sea floor or are located in always calm waters. Anything else requires a floating connection with the slack needed to accommodate horizontal, vertical, and torsional movement.

How many wind towers or tidal generators are free-floating? Like on a ship?

John Tillman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 18, 2021 10:58 am

Yes, they’d have to be anchored.

dk_
Reply to  John Tillman
June 17, 2021 7:57 pm

John TIllman,
Actually, not Russian, but Danish — Seaborg announced something of the sort in the past 14 days in IEEE Spectrum (who panned it) and several other sites and outlets.
But it isn’t even a new, or “furrinoor’s idear,” Robert Heinlein (shout out to Kip) proposed it in an essay in the 70’s or early 80’s, based on his personal respect for Hyman Rickover (who he included as an unnamed character in a short story as part of the essay). The rationale being that U.S. Navy nuclear reactors, designed, built, run, and operated by a self-made expert and disciplinarian, had never melted down.
Heinlein and Rickover were at the U.S. Naval academy at around the same time, and both were engineers.
I’m sure the Danish solution wouldn’t come in cheap, either.

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
John Tillman
Reply to  dk_
June 19, 2021 4:16 pm

Rickover entered the USNA in 1918; Heinlien 1925.

GrayCat
June 17, 2021 12:01 pm

Thank you for clear, factual, open truth. I hope this goes viral immediately.

Duane
June 17, 2021 12:04 pm

To paraphrase the great Tina Turner,

“What’s logic got to do with it, got to do with it, got to do with it?”

Robert H Watt
June 17, 2021 12:11 pm

The UK government intends to phase out ICE cars starting in 2030. My thoughts on this policy are set out below:

ASSESSMENT OF THE PRACTICALITY OF REPLACING ICE CARS WITH ELECTRICALLY POWERED CARS IN THE UK

Basic Facts:
1. A battery with a capacity of 75kWh is needed to provide a car with a range of 250 miles.
2. The maximum charging capacity available in most UK homes is 7kW (single phase supply).
3. The time needed to charge a 75kWh battery from a home supply overnight is, therefore,
around 11 hours.
4. Currently, there are around 32 million private cars registered for use on the UK’s roads.
5. Therefore, the electrical generation capacity needed for car battery charging alone would be
32 x 10^6 x 7 x 10^3 = 224 x 10^9 Watts, or 224 GW.
6. The average electricity demand in the UK is currently around 39 GW produced by an
installed capacity of around 65 GW.
7. Total electricity demand would increase to 39 + 224 = 263 GW, which implies installed
capacity would need to rise to around 400 GW, plus a corresponding uprating of the
transmission grid.

Conclusions:
1. The UK’s electrical generation capacity will need increase by about 600% to cope with an
all-electric car fleet.
2. Alternatively, the entire fleet of private cars will have to be reduced to about 5M.

Open Question:
When legislating for an all-electric private car fleet, were the UK government and parliament aware that they would need to increase the UK’s electrical generation capacity six-fold or deny car ownership to a majority of its citizens?

Jan de Jong
Reply to  Robert H Watt
June 17, 2021 12:41 pm

The EV is ofcourse a solution for a non-existing problem. That said, the charging would have to accommodate actual daily use, not 250 miles.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jan de Jong
June 17, 2021 3:30 pm

My daily commute for a dozen years was 206miles (103 miles one-way). For another five years I commuted weekly between Topeka, KS and Tulsa, OK – about 220 miles one-way. How many EV’s get 220 miles in freezing weather or 100F hot weather? Not uncommon occurrences here on the plains.

Far too many people think of urban commutes of 20 miles or so when they think of EV’s.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert H Watt
June 17, 2021 1:15 pm

In step 5 you are using all of the home’s available electric power to charge the car.
Nothing left for lights, TV, etc.

Davidf
Reply to  MarkW
June 17, 2021 2:08 pm

Oh, and the electric heating that has now been mandated. Biggest power user in any household – water heating, followed by space heating.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Davidf
June 17, 2021 11:07 pm

And the average UK home will need a massive wiring upgrade to double capacity.

B Clarke
Reply to  Robert H Watt
June 17, 2021 1:42 pm

Its always been about denying, also your excellent example of the under capacity of the UK power grid if we were (32million) to switch to electric cars does not take into account the extra electricity needed for home heat,( no new gas boilers by 2025) at the same time out right banning of domestic coal burning and server restrictions on what wood and where you can burn it.which leads to a new group of comsumers reliant on more electricity.

Roads will close,this is already happening, during covid we already have seen a trial run. The pushing of public transport, cycling ect ect, as if one size fits all .

A huge society shift without a by your leave, essentially forced upon us by deception and lies, no msm asking the right questions ,no offence but if you can do the maths so can any investigational journalist, who simply won’t ask the questions and won’t report on any who do.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  B Clarke
June 17, 2021 11:08 pm

You will own nothing, and be happy, or else. Our ‘leaders’ are morons.

Rusty
Reply to  Robert H Watt
June 18, 2021 4:20 am

Have a look at what’s required to replace domestic gas boilers. An additional 170GW of peak electrical capacity is needed. That’s 77 Hinkley Point C nuclear power stations.

Mike Smith
June 17, 2021 12:13 pm

Thank you Willis. Sadly, huge numbers of Californians just don’t want to accept this basic math. Half of them seem to believe that Elon Musk is going to pull a few hundred GW out of a place where solar panels won’t work 🙂

Interestingly, CAISO have disappeared all of their their current demand/supply data. Either that or something broke due to the (not very) excessive heat:

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

First time I’ve seen all the data vanish from those pages. I wonder what it is they don’t want us to know?

Darren
June 17, 2021 12:24 pm

“…allowing for peak power and downtime, we have to increase our generation capacity by about 307 gigawatts (GW, or 109 watts).”
How did you come up with 307 GW? Did you account for 50% generation capacity?
Is there a source for that or is it general practice?

gbaikie
June 17, 2021 12:47 pm

Does government keep track of how much CO2 it emits.
So for State of California all Federal, local and State and all their employees- and anyone the government to pays salaries to, so including private contractors- or if government paying more 1/2 a parties salary [all their CO2 emission]. Maybe govt could lower this by 80%.

Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 12:56 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Mike Malone
June 17, 2021 1:20 pm

Rarely discussed are the social costs associated with expensive green energy. Historically, slaves were the source of cheap energy for human civilizations. You see that even today in a large emerging civilization, i.e., China. The industrial revolution using abundant hydrocarbon fuels made machines the slaves, largely replacing much of the economic incentive for cheap human labor. As the subsides for green energy end, which they will one way or the other, there will emerge increasing economic incentives for an underclass. You can see that today in the north San Francisco wine country, where I lived for nearly forty years before exiting to a more freedom-embracing state. You can see in the flat vineyards of the valley floor increased us of machinery, not so on the steep hillside vineyards where hand work and hard labor done by peasants from other countries are required. I have often wonder why the linkage between energy costs, machinery and the economic incentives for an underclass is not more of a topic.

michel
June 17, 2021 1:27 pm

Willis,

In its own terms this is a splendidly convincing piece. But I am afraid that what it shows is that the program is excellent, well conceived and just right, and that if you are a Green you should continue to press for its immediate adoption.

Why?

Because its impossible to do. So obviously impossible that California will not attempt to do it. And that means it will be around as an issue to organize about for the indefinite future. And when it fails to materialize in 2030 or whenever, that will give the opportunity for endless vituperation, celebration of a target missed.

The basic rules, which the California Greens are following conscientiously, are:

1) Never demand anything that its possible you will get

2) If by some horrible chance its conceded, have nothing to do with its implementation. Change your demand to make it impossible to deliver.

So, if they concede on 2030, demand 2025. If they concede 90% demand 100%.

Why?

Because your aim is not to get anything done. You do not care one way or the other about energy or climate. These are just today’s convenient topics to organize around. Your aim is radicalization and organization. You take a long view, and your aim is complete power. Power sufficient to allow you to dispense with normal political horse trading.

Today the issue is AGW and energy. Next time it will be race. The time after that gender.

So your success in the piece is also its great error. It supposes that the merits of the case are a factor in its adoption by the Greens. No, they are not. And what you have unwittingly done is prove that the case they have picked is superb and supremely fit for the purpose they have in mind.

Its totally impossible to implement. And that is what they need it to be.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  michel
June 17, 2021 2:47 pm

I understand your point, but tend to disagree, at least with respect to climate. My reasons are two:
First, they are responding to a non-problem. Evidence is that none of the dire predictions of the last 40 years have come true. Not even close. Trashes the ‘science’.
Second, as shown here by WE, none of their proposed GND solutions are even remotely practical. Let alone in the proposed timeframes.
Both will cause the movement to eventually collapse on them.

michel
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 18, 2021 3:04 am

Yes, eventually.

But read ‘When Prophecy Fails’. It can take a long time, particularly when the movement’s key forecasts are of events that are quite some years away. And the initial reaction of the faithful to failures of prophecies is, paradoxically, to strengthen their faith and to increase their hostility to skeptics. I think this is what we are seeing now.

There are two things going on: the measures being impractical or impossible is a feature, not a bug. That is not only not a problem for them, its a key advantage.

The forecasts failing is a bug all right. But its going to take a very long time to come home to roost.

I think we haven’t seen half of the mad nastiness that is coming down the road on the climate question. Its going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Eric Harpham
June 17, 2021 1:34 pm

There may be hope here in the UK with the arrival of GBNEWS, a new right leaning, news channel (515 on Sky). A number of their guest experts are starting to put a gloss of reality for the general public. Who knows they might actually be able to wake up the average Joe as to what he is going to have to spend.



dodgy geezer
June 17, 2021 1:34 pm

There is no point writing tracts about the impossibility of powering our society from green visions. As you say, it can’t happen. And I think the greens know this.

The interesting points to make involve what is NOT being said. I strongly suspect that the green game plan is to provide as much ‘green’ energy as they can, and then force people to accept that as the total energy we have to live off.

The new world will have enervy as a luxury. Most energy will go to the rich, and the rest will be used on essential state services. People will need to get used to living in an unheated house, not travelling, charging their Chinese laptops from the sun and eating local produce. There will be a lot of bicycling down to the nearest farm to pick your own….

Derg
Reply to  dodgy geezer
June 17, 2021 1:56 pm

I told my son that only the rich will be able to travel and everyone else gets a VR headset.

Reply to  dodgy geezer
June 17, 2021 2:08 pm

The “Net Demand” graph on this page seems to be heading in that direction. When net demand riches zero, green nirvana is achieved.

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

michel
Reply to  dodgy geezer
June 18, 2021 3:08 am

I’ve always thought this is correct. The only way to reach the supposed Green energy goals is to move everyone into dense housing within walking or biking or mass transit distance of workplaces. Suburbs will have to be usable from mass transit links, shopping malls will have to go. Car ownership will have to fall to about 10% of today. Consumerism will have to shrink, it will be only buy what you need and use it a lot longer. Think the country as it was in about 1900, but with modern technology.

TonyG
Reply to  dodgy geezer
June 18, 2021 9:22 am

Dodgy, I think your assessment is exactly right.

It’s funny how Hollywood creates dystopian Science Fiction with almost exactly those themes, yet still pushes for policies that will bring about the very dystopia they portray. Almost like they think they’ll be the ones inside the “safe” cities – and their stories will remain fiction.

Abolition Man
June 17, 2021 2:03 pm

Willis,
Thanks for another foray into the fantasy world of GangGreen!
It seems like the climate kooks of my late, great home state come in three different varieties; the useful idiots, the corrupt scammers and the clinically insane! The first remind me of a morbidly obese toddler, throwing a tantrum on the store floor to get an ice cream cone! Too bad there aren’t enough responsible adults left in CA politics that are willing to say “No!”
I hope all is well along the Left Coast! I’m spending a lot of time watching my tomatoes basking in our usual, early summer heat; wondering how soon the summer monsoon will kick in. Be well!

Kevin
June 17, 2021 2:06 pm

What perfect timing for those living in SoCal or just those that want to know. State and local experts will be available to answer questions about the clean energy future for SoCal during a virtual event on 24 June from 2-3:30 p.m. PDT. The Zoom session registration link is: https://ucr.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_SgcD7nNgSFKC7qFciFWitg. Questions or comments can be sent to: events@scng.com. The forum is a Southern California News Group event BTW.

This is a good opportunity to put the so called experts on the spot and to see just how well the green energy future is going to work.

Henkie
June 17, 2021 2:10 pm

And has someone already figured how much more copper wire would be needed for the net expansion? Which, at the current cost of copper, would be an amazing amount of money needed for just the purchase of the conductors? Crickets???

Andy Pattullo
June 17, 2021 4:32 pm

Willis you have very ably tackled the solutions that don’t and can’t work. What about an overlooked solution that is a sure bet: do without! Let’s start with the Climate-Safe California crowd and anyone else in a similar intellectual stratum. Once they see the logic of your arguments (I am a shameless optimist) they will gladly have their gas and electric shut off and send their ICE vehicles to the car museum. And when the rest of us see the care free and fulfilling lives they live scrabbling about for seeds and nuts in the dark we will all be persuaded to jump on board.

Willem Post
June 17, 2021 5:11 pm

The only way to deal with this, is to move to Nova Scotia, or some similar place, far from where the government can screw with you.

Plus you have to live off the grid with solar panels, batteries, a generator, and a 1000-gal hot water storage tank. Use a heat pump for cooling in summer, if needed.

What, me worry?
Ha, Ha.

Willem Post
June 17, 2021 5:26 pm

California will be using FLOATING wind turbines, at $8 million per MW installed, plus grid work. Electricity will be sold to utilities at 25 c/kWh, which is about 5 times annual grid wholesale prices of 5 c/kWh, plus they will need RELIABLE back-up generators for when the flirtatious/capricious wind ain’t sufficiently blowing.

Something to look forward to.

How in hell are we going to power all those EVs and heat pumps?

We will need entirely new transmission and distribution grids

The disruption would be similar to starting to put in Eisenhower’s National Defense Highway System in the 50s.

California will be sooooo competitive!

H.R.
June 17, 2021 6:01 pm

Willis E. wrote about the land needed for solar:
“Just finding suitable land for that scale of development is nearly impossible. Here’s some information from California regarding how hard it is to find suitable land for solar power.”

On the recent thread about California emptying the reservoirs when the farmers were in need of water, I asked a sort of cui bono question; who might pick up the land for a song as the farmers go bankrupt?

This current article tends to make me go, “hmmmm…”

There just might soon be a lot of suitable, flat, sunny farmland available to the State of California in lieu of unpaid back taxes… perhaps.

Still just spitballing.

eck
June 17, 2021 6:12 pm

Well put Willis. FYI, I’m here in silicon valley and received that alert also. And…….the streetlights have been on all day and yesterday!!??

ResourceGuy
June 17, 2021 6:54 pm

I think it’s time for neighboring states to pass legislation for impact fees on power plants that export to California. This free rider relationship needs to be stopped.

donb
June 17, 2021 8:06 pm

For some sanity, go and read “Alice In Wonderland” again.

John
June 17, 2021 9:54 pm

great article

your insights show that the output volumes are impossible to deliver

but remember we need to fail to know we can’t

Just to add a few extra thoughts when you start going back through the inputs to name a few – silicon, rear earth minerals, copper, silver, lithium, cobalt, steel, plastic, concrete, paint, diesel, electricity etc etc etc

You fast realise California would effectively require effectively 50% of the entire world output of most materials to meet this vast insane activity

Then you need to consider the supply chain for moving the panels, wind turbines etc from the manufacturing location to the final location

Then you add UK, EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, India, Russia, Scandinavia etc etc etc and you would see realise that the world energy consumption would required multiple hundreds times of every resource

then finally by after 10 years you need to start to replace the first items

talk about environmental damage with mining ops to get the raw materials
Oil & coal to supply the energy
Humans to build operate and maintain

Not to recognise the where you are going to find these competent trades personnel

This is an implausible impossible dream

Dave Andrews
Reply to  John
June 18, 2021 7:32 am

John,

To switch the UK’s 31 million cars and vans to EVs would take an estimated 227,900 tonnes of cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate, 7200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium and almost 2.4million tonnes of copper. This amount is twice the current world production of cobalt, an entire year’s world production of neodymium and 75% of the worlds production of lithium.

Replacing the estimated 1.4 billion ICE vehicles worldwide would need 40 times these amounts.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00325-9

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Andrews
farmerbraun
June 17, 2021 11:00 pm

One or two commenters veered dangerously close to the truth.
Why does anyone think there is a will to replace the mothballed fossil energy plants?
The plan is to reduce the population by denying them the energy they need to survive.
One is not supposed to take these proposed replacements seriously; only a fool like Larry would even pretend that.

Barry Sheridan
June 17, 2021 11:56 pm

Only by turning the lights out will it ever be possible to make good on these political promises. The quicker this happens the quicker sanity will finally find a home in the minds of the modern green.

GeorgeK
June 17, 2021 11:57 pm

I’m amazed that nobody has twigged …

It’s all part of the agenda …

Why lefties hate nuclear so vehemently …

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy”
Amory Lovins, The Mother Earth-Ploughboy Interview, Nov, Dec 1977, p.22

June 18, 2021 12:11 am

Thank you for these Willis Eschenbach posts.

Greg
June 18, 2021 12:23 am

Willis. There is a new paper being pumped by the Guardian about the Earth energy imbalance doubling in last 15y. They claim CERES and ARGO corroborate each other “very,very” closely.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled

My instant reaction is that that is probably by design. Somewhere there is a “calibration” process where one of these datasets is used to tweak the unconstrained parameters of the other. Good old “data homegenisation”.

since you are the resident expert of CERES and have a keen eye for spotting this kind of “trick”, what you make of it ?

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
Ed Zuiderwijk
June 18, 2021 1:52 am

Willis, it is quite obvious to me that California is blundering blindfolded into electricity rationing. It could be interesting to explore who will be most affected and what the social consequences might be. Some thoughts: The most power consuming items in the household are: 1) the electric car and 2) the dishwasher and the washing machine. Both favourites of the climate-crazy eco loons. Rationing will affect them most. Those who wisely held on to their hybrids or even petrol cars will remain mobile, while those who have invested in the diesel powered standby generator will face less hardship. I can see a lively smuggling trade of petrol and diesel by cartels from south of the border and petrol theft Breaking Bad style. But what will it mean for the purists to face rolling blackouts? No driving at will and restricted use of appliances. That means the empleiada can do the dishes and the washing by hand again, but methinks she should refuse and tell the lady of the house to do it herself. Electricity rationing means back to the kitchen for women. I bet they don’t see that coming.

john rattray
June 18, 2021 3:07 am

Willis

I believe that the stated goal is not to eliminate CO2 emissions but to move to net zero, which is entirely another matter as it allows for carbon sinks to be included in the calculations. These sinks include:

  • Changing agriculture by moving to a form that encourages carbon to be retained in the soils, sometimes called regenerative farming aka “best farming practice”.
  • Planting trees as an ongoing program. What better way of humanising cities, reducing erosion (including wind blown loss of soils), and increasing GDP.
  • Injecting CO2 into wells to increase gas recoveries.
  • Using CO2 captured from gas power plants as a feed stock for the petro chemical industries.

Also in your calculations for solar area required you have assumed that panels are built for night time use, which I humbly suggest is not the smartest idea and perhaps one subject to challenge. The Australian experience is that roof top solar (homes, offices, factories, shopping malls and parking lots) have sufficient non south facing areas to satisfy local peak load outside of exceptional times. In fact, in this jurisdiction the problem is lack of load rather than lack of generation. See for instance any of the many AEMO forecasting reports.

I acknowledge that evening and night loads require non solar generation as do peak periods. This is where utility scaled wind and gas peaking plants (with pure CO2 feed stock) come in.

I humbly suggest that the problem is not so much physical improbabilities as economic losses. For instance, the Australian experience is that market prices for electricity drop to near zero (and sometimes negative) whenever “renewables” dominate generation. This is to be expected from a basic understanding of micro economics and marginal cost curves.

In short how much are people prepared to pay for a low carbon life?

MarkW
Reply to  john rattray
June 18, 2021 5:30 am

Point 1) I’ve often been fascinated how those who have never even seen a farm are capable of coming up with ways for farmers to improve their farms.
Point 2) There aren’t enough places in most big cities to plant trees to make a difference. In smaller towns, most people like trees well enough to plant their own. Increase GDP? I suppose you believe that paying people to dig holes and fill them back in would also increase GDP. Finally, once those trees finish growing, they stop sequestering CO2.
Point 3) Is already going on every place where it’s economical.
Point 4) Already going on every place where it’s economical.

Your idea is apparently to install three times as many solar panels, but have a third of them pointing eastward, and a third of them pointing westward, so that you can produce a flatter energy curve over the entire day.

Gee whiz, spend three times as much for only a little increase in power generation. What a deal.

As to understanding microeconomics, you are demonstrating that you don’t.
Yes, during the day the instantaneous price of electricity does drop dramatically when there is a large solar component. That’s because solar panels produce power when the need for it is not at the maximum and as a result the electricity has to be dumped. From an economic standpoint this does two things.
First, it makes it hard for the owners of solar panels to actually make money, as the value of the product that they are selling drops to zero.
Secondly, it makes the power sources that are needed to provide power when the solar panels aren’t producing even more expensive since they can’t be shut down for a few hours and the value of what they are producing also goes to zero.

Finally, look at the actual price of electricity, not the spot market. You will find that the more “renewable” in the mix, the more expensive electricity becomes.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
June 18, 2021 8:01 am

Your idea is apparently to install three times as many solar panels, but have a third of them pointing eastward, and a third of them pointing westward, so that you can produce a flatter energy curve over the entire day.

There is already a proven way of doing this — north-south single-axis tracking systems.

john rattray
Reply to  MarkW
June 18, 2021 12:17 pm

Mark

You don’t have to read much, or talk to many farmers to understand that there are smart ways of farming and dumb ways. The traditional methods which effectively mine the soil of their carbon content are really dumb and are non sustainable in the long run without hugely expensive additional inputs. Some examples of best practice are:

  • regenerative grazing in the range lands of NSW, Australia where farmers are moving cattle daily onto fresh pastures mimicking the grazing behaviour of herds in the wild.
  • Putting sheep into vineyards after harvest (Margret River, WA and McLaren Vale, SA – Australia) where they get rid of weeds, fertilise the soil and encourage grass growth in the aisles. This leads to a cooler more ,moist atmosphere and better grapes. I understand ducks are also sometimes employed in this manner.

In terms of space in cities; maybe not in Manhattan but certainly in the cities in NZ and Australia in which I have lived there are large amounts of waste space – rail corridors, street corners isolated by changes in road layout, motor way verges, street verges etc. in which trees can and should be planted. GDP is enhanced from trees in cities through increased property values, better air, better health, less crime. The same applies in country areas where there are huge amounts of undeveloped public land sitting along road corridors.

In terms of panel orientation with moderately pitched roofs there is surprisingly little reduction in actual power output providing that you are not in the high latitudes. Remember I am writing from a NZ and Australian perspective. In fact having a combination of east and west panels is often better than just north facing as the output profile usually better matches the demand curve.

The point that I am trying to make here is that facts matter, as much if not more on the rationalist side of the debate than on the catastrophist side.

TonyG
Reply to  john rattray
June 18, 2021 1:03 pm

“You don’t have to read much, or talk to many farmers”

You’re basically saying that the people who actually do the work don’t know what they’re doing.

Theory is all well and good, but when it comes to what actually works in reality, you do need to talk to the people who are actually doing it.

And it turns out that there are a lot of considerations beyond just “does it work” – time, cost, personnel, etc. In my experience, many of these “sustainable” practices take a lot more effort for the same yield.

TonyG
Reply to  john rattray
June 18, 2021 9:35 am

“move to net zero”

NET zero is a cop-out position. Nothing more than modern indulgences.

Reply to  TonyG
June 20, 2021 12:57 am
David Loucks
June 18, 2021 7:03 am

And the calculations don’t even include the logistics and cost of providing battery storage for all the wind and solar.

TonyG
June 18, 2021 7:38 am

Nobody cares about actually accomplishing anything, it’s all about feeling good because you’re “doing something”.

And for the politicians it’s a bonus if nothing is accomplished because then they can run on “doing more”

observa
June 18, 2021 7:45 am

I see some Californians are heeding the call and doing their bit to save electricity-
1 in 5 electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas because charging their cars is a hassle, research shows (msn.com)

Beta Blocker
June 18, 2021 8:01 am

Here in the US Northwest, most of the coal-fired power capacity that services the region, including the power imported from Montana and Wyoming, is scheduled to be retired before the end of the decade.

The risks of the transition to wind and solar in our region are discussed in this article: Washington State’s Approaching Energy Crisis – Good Intentions Gone Wrong?

Building new gas-fired generation to replace the coal-fired generation now scheduled to be retired is not in alignment with the Biden administration’s announced target of a 50% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2030.

Moreover, it is impossible to build enough wind, solar, and nuclear to replace the coal and gas-fired capacity which must be retired by 2030 in order to reach Biden’s 50% goal. The only way to reach that goal is through aggressive efforts targeted at energy conservation, even to the extent of imposing a government-enforced energy rationing scheme on the American people.

The big questions still remain: How serious is the Biden administration about making substantial reductions in America’s GHG emissions? Are those who make the public policy decisions about our how our future electricity needs are to be supplied willing to force the shutdown of legacy coal and gas-fired power generation resources, even if the retired capacity isn’t being replaced?

David S
June 18, 2021 9:57 am

The same people who hate fossil fuels also hate nuclear. So switching to nuclear is not going to happen. Let California cut off most of their electric power and live with the consequences of their own folly. That might change their attitude toward fossil fuels. But then again it’s California, the land of nuts and fruits, so maybe not.

willem
June 18, 2021 5:24 pm

Using your own source, I think you’ll find that your calculations are off by a factor of 10. For example, total CA generation in 2018 using your cited source is 285,488 GWh, which is approx. 2.85 E14 (not E15, as you state).

I worked at Diablo Canyon for years, and know that it provides roughly 10% of the state’s power, but when I did a rough calculation using your E15 number, it came out showing that Diablo Canyon’s annual power production is only about 1% of that. I looked up the numbers using your source (https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation/2018) and found, sure enough, that you are off to the upside by an order of magnitude.

Not that this makes the problem any less dire. Even that reduced number is essentially impossible.

willem
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
June 19, 2021 6:24 am

If that is the case, what is your source for THAT number?

Joe Born
June 18, 2021 7:29 pm

to do that the California grid would have to handle no less than 3.75 times the power it is currently carrying”

Interesting stat. How did you come up with it?

yarpos
June 18, 2021 7:39 pm

The high speed railway to nowhere probably provides a model for how far the liberal mind can delude itself that nirvana is just over the horizon and just needs a little more of other peoples money. Then of course you have to hang on to the tattered remnants of the project as if it is an achievement and perhaps talk about how it could have succeeded if only (insert external factor here) All the while ignoring reality and the level of your own incompetence.

kcrucible
June 19, 2021 4:50 am

See, their “backup” is buying from other states. Of course, they want THOSE states to follow their lead and don’t realize that they’re painting themselves into a corner when there are regional outages. Better to whistle past the graveyard and hope that it all works out.

Doug Day
June 19, 2021 8:38 am

“Renewables” can’t harness enough energy to produce, distribute, maintain and replace itself, much less power the surrounding society…but that’s the goal, isn’t it.

June 19, 2021 10:57 pm

Nobody does the numbers like Willis does the numbers. Thank you for this great post.