California Plans to Replace Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant with Solar Panels

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

In the wake of last year’s fossil fuel embarrassment, California has announced plans to double down on their renewable energy fantasy.

California doubles down on renewables and storage in new emissions target

Joshua S Hill 15 February 2022

California, the world’s fifth largest economy, is aiming to deploy another 25.5GW of renewable energy capacity and 15GW of new storage and demand response resources by 2032 over the next decade as it tightens its emissions targets again.

This equates to an upgraded Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 73% by 2032, with 86% of all generation to be green house gas emissions free.

“I support the CPUC’s adoption of a lower carbon emission standard than it has approved in the past, which is particularly important when you consider the urgent need to quickly decarbonise California’s economy along with uncertainties in the accounting of carbon emissions in the CPUC’s modelling tools,” said Mark Specht, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“The additional capacity of zero-emitting resources previously ordered should be sufficient to ensure grid reliability and replace retiring fossil-fuelled generation and the Diablo Canyon power plant.”

Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/california-doubles-down-renewables-and-storage-in-new-emissions-target/

California’s effort to increase reliance on renewables comes in the wake of a major green energy failure, which saw California turn to natural gas to keep the lights on.

California, again, leans on natural gas to shore up energy supplies

By Scott Disavino and Nichola Groom
November 5, 20218:08 AM GMT+10

Nov 4 (Reuters) – California on Thursday said it would increase the amount of natural gas stored at a Los Angeles-area facility that suffered a devastating leak six years ago, its latest loosening of environmental rules to shore up energy supplies.

In a 4-0 vote, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a plan to boost the capacity of SoCalGas’ Aliso Canyon underground storage facility to 41 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas, it said in a statement.

That is about 20% more than allowed previously, but less than the 68.6 bcf the CPUC considered in a rival proposal.

After years of restricting the growth of fossil fuel infrastructure, California has increasingly looked to natural gas for power generation this year after drought and wildfires left it with few other options to keep the lights on.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-looks-natural-gas-keep-lights-this-winter-2021-11-04/

I’m looking forward to reporting about what happens on the day they switch over from Diablo Canyon Nuclear plant to solar panels. I’m guessing sometime around dusk on the big day they’ll start making frantic calls, inquiring about why their EVs all stopped charging, and posting their panic on social media.

Cell towers and remote site backup social media servers should all carry on working for a while. Cell towers usually have enough backup power to continue operating for a couple of days after the power dies. So we’ll have a few days to learn by California’s example, before it all goes dark.

4.9 29 votes
Article Rating
167 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob_Dawg
February 16, 2022 10:03 am

Newsflash. Solar panels and battery storage are not emissions free. They are emission displacing.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 16, 2022 1:42 pm

Rather than the word “displacing” I suggest a better descriptor is “shifting.”

Coal displaced wood for energy beginning 200 years ago, oil displaced coal in trains, natural gas is displacing coal in electricity etc.
Solar panels are shifting the emissions in both geographical location (like to China) and temporally. “Temporal” meaning “in time.”
Shifting “in time” because solar panels and electricity they produce do not last forever, but only about 20-25 years service life in most settings. So the continual life cycle cost of disposal and replacement of PV panels must be considered in a true emissions accounting on solar (and wind turbines), which it rarely is by the climate scammers pushing un-reliables.

Addison
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 16, 2022 4:50 pm

Most people think China is on another planet so shifing all that air pollution there will not affect global warming here

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 16, 2022 2:24 pm

and they also aren’t “renewable” they are replaceable at a much higher cycle rate than traditional power plants (every 15 – 20 years) vs 40-60-80 years for coal or gas or nuke plants … and storage simply doesn’t exist to even be “replaced” in 15-20 years …

James
February 16, 2022 10:04 am

Diablo Canyon produces around 18,900 GWh rain or shine, annually, on 1600 acres. Tall order to replace that with solar panels and dreams.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  James
February 16, 2022 11:38 am

A rainbow-emitting unicorn hovering over a 1600-acre solar panel facility, is capable of focusing the rays of the sun such that the facility can produce 20,000 GWh of electricity per year.

The featured art for the story PROVES my assertion!

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 16, 2022 1:45 pm

The rainbow colors are even reversed, with the longer-wave length red and orange on the inside of the curve, and shorter wave length blue-violet on the outside. Physics defying Magic indeed.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 16, 2022 3:47 pm

It’s an equal opportunities rainbow.

Brian Bellefeuille
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 16, 2022 4:00 pm

Just like their Climate Change and Renewables spiel, the Rainbow is coming from the same orifice.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Brian Bellefeuille
February 18, 2022 9:26 am

WINNER!

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 17, 2022 11:21 pm

It’s like the much weaker reverse color spectrum secondary arch above the richer primary rainbow in a double rainbow, signaling us its actual potential to replace former steady means of electrical generation that we have heretofore enjoyed the richer bounty of.
And of course this also coincides with all the additionally promoted thrust toward electrifying home heating and cooking as well as that major increased electrical supply needed for electric vehicle charging. So I’m bound to wonder what could possibly go wrong that a reassuring flighty unicorn couldn’t be looked to for relief? Yay, boys and girls!

TonyG
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 17, 2022 10:47 am

featured art? I thought that was a photograph.

MarkW
Reply to  James
February 16, 2022 3:39 pm

Using 25.5GW to replace 18900Gw. Only in California would they think that is going to work.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2022 4:26 pm

You’re confusing GW with GW-hr. Diablo Canyon has a capacity of 2.3 GW. Still, it remains to be seen how much capacity they actually install. And take whatever that number is and de-rate it by 60%.

oeman 50
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 17, 2022 8:08 am

I’d say more like 75%, which is what you might get on a cloudless day at the start of winter.

MarkW
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 17, 2022 11:23 am

Actually, I’m not. According to the article, they are going to install 25.5 GW of renewable capacity.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
February 18, 2022 6:32 am

Actually, you are. James said:

Diablo Canyon produces around 18,900 GWh rain or shine, annually, on 1600 acres. Tall order to replace that with solar panels and dreams.

The 18,900 number you used is the annual energy output of the plant. It’s instantaneous power capacity is 2.3 GW. You need to compare the 2.3 GW figure to the 25.5 GW figure.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  James
February 17, 2022 4:01 am

“Diablo Canyon produces around 18,900 GWh rain or shine, annually, on 1600 acres. Tall order to replace that with solar panels and dreams.”

It’s mass delusion. This climate change scam just keeps going and going and going. We are surrounded by a lot of delusional people. The question is: Do the delusional outnumber those who see reality clearly? For California, I would have to say the answer is yes, the delusional do outnumber the reality-based.

And not all alarmists are delusional. Some are political activists who see the climate change scam as a means to gaining political power. These people are not delusional at all about climate issues. They see it as a means to an end.

So we have the delusional and the dishonest on the Alarmist side. Facts don’t make any difference to either group.

Last edited 7 months ago by Tom Abbott
Rocketscientist
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 17, 2022 6:25 am

Most CA citizens are not delusional as much as they are woefully ignorant, and not embarrassed by the fact. The educational system is not very good. Frequently I would send back the notes sent home with my children with grammatical and spelling corrections denoted. I DID NOT leave my children’s education solely to the public schools.

yarpos
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 18, 2022 2:33 am

The innumerate are numerous.

February 16, 2022 10:04 am

Is the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) criminally responsible?

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Curious George
February 16, 2022 12:40 pm

They’re certainly politically responsible.

iflyjetzzz
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 17, 2022 8:26 am

OK, that’s not true. CA is a dumbocrat state. As long as you’re a dumbocrat, you’re in office for life.
You can dig up my corpse when CA turns purple because it isn’t happening in my lifetime.

MarkW
Reply to  Curious George
February 16, 2022 3:45 pm

I would say they are criminally irresponsible.

Fred Middleton
Reply to  Curious George
February 16, 2022 7:10 pm

Financially should be responsible. In recent tenure – appointed commission had 0 technical artisans – Engineers. Lots of expert retired available. In order to understand Mega-watts, hired some dozens of advisors. CPUC has become a hair boutique. Some chatter recently 2time brown and or the current flat can – hollering ‘save the CPUC’ from lawsuit.

mst
February 16, 2022 10:06 am

Well, that’ll be the end of the remaining desert tortoises.

Spetzer86
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 16, 2022 5:36 pm

This isn’t a Li battery farm? Ten units melted down and the fire was out by the time the Fire Dept got there?

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  mst
February 16, 2022 10:30 am
D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 16, 2022 4:36 pm

OK, I’m glad I wasn’t imbibing any liquid while I opened that link! Well done, well done.

Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 10:11 am

Note CPUC is still making the same storage error I called them out on in 2014 in essay California Dreaming in ebook Blowing Smoke. They specify storage in GW, when the storage intermittancy coverage must be GWh. There should be, but obviously isn’t, a basic grid literacy test for CPUC commissioners.

California is an excellent crash test dummy for ‘climate change’ and ruinables. The others who have volunteered for crash test dummy include UK and Germany.
Here’s to hoping we get to analyze one soon. Last year’s Texas ERCOT wasn’t quite good enough; a mere fender bender.

william Johnston
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 10:20 am

Specifying storage in GW is the same flimflam as describing windmill production using plate numbers rather than annual output numbers.

Bryan A
Reply to  william Johnston
February 16, 2022 10:37 am

Yep, capacity factor needs to be accounted for

Drake
Reply to  william Johnston
February 16, 2022 11:25 am

Annual output, not dispatchable output, which is essentially 0.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 10:33 am

As a UK citizen and resident I hate being part of the Crash Test Dummies. Unfortunatly all UK political parties are dead set on crash testing the country

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 16, 2022 10:35 am

Look at the good news. At least there won’t be any gas explosions. 😉

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 16, 2022 12:32 pm

No gas explosions but plenty Hydrogen detonations
😀
what a relief…

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 16, 2022 12:39 pm

I love not having to type the punchline. 😉

John Garrett
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 10:44 am

I am stocking up on popcorn and buying long-dated popcorn futures.

This oughta be fun.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  John Garrett
February 16, 2022 12:42 pm

But how will you pop that corn when the grid fails?

John Garrett
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 16, 2022 1:01 pm

LOL.

Damn good question. Fire, I guess.

John_C
Reply to  John Garrett
February 16, 2022 4:03 pm

Jiffy Pop works over campfires.

mal
Reply to  John_C
February 16, 2022 10:21 pm

Can you still buy Jiffy Pop.

ATheoK
Reply to  mal
February 17, 2022 2:43 pm

Yes.

Peter W
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 16, 2022 4:17 pm

A large magnifying glass on a sunny day? (Assuming you will get a sunny day or two there, of course.)

bigoilbob
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 11:01 am

They specify storage in GW, when the storage intermittancy coverage must be GWh. “

Both capacity and deliverability are relevant parameters. But I agree that they shouldn’t be confused. Would you please link us to where it was?

Separately, I’m not worried about Aliso Canyon capacity or deliverability increase. Gavin went thru CalGem years ago and increased their tech HP greatly. I haven’t kept up with the hardening of AC, but the CalGem rep over it has over 30 years private sector relevant experience and is among the best in the biz.

Drake
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 11:27 am

So BOB, who is going to pat to decommission all the wind and solar?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Drake
February 16, 2022 11:38 am

Wut? Unlike extractive energy sources, most wind and solar sites will not be “decommissioned” until a better form of energy comes along. Since the sites are, by definition, the best, the equipment will be updated – renewed if you will – until then. The operators will pay for that, including disposal/recycling of old stuff.

OTOH, uneconomic extractive sites are always trash cans, and need asset retirement plans. Those plans are underbonded just in the CONUS by 11-12 figures USD. They will be 1. left to fester, 2. 0.5 ass cleaned up, 3. done properly, 4. some combo, mostly on our dime.

Last edited 7 months ago by bigoilbob
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 12:43 pm

Actually, the disposal / recycling will be paid for by the rate payers, as always.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 16, 2022 12:48 pm

As with every cost of energy, except for those communized upon the rest of us, regardless of how much used (most fossil fuel asset retirement obligations, for example), agree. That is as it should be, right?

chemman
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 1:28 pm

Do you think something better is going to come along in 20 -25 years?
You fail to realize that solar panels have life span and will need to be replaced to keep up with “rated” capacity.

bigoilbob
Reply to  chemman
February 16, 2022 2:02 pm

Do you think something better is going to come along in 20 -25 years?”

Since “something better w.r.t. economics and technology “comes along” every week, yes.

“You fail to realize that solar panels have life span and will need to be replaced to keep up with “rated” capacity.”

I know.

Folks, yet another in a series of posts that deflects from what I said, and instead responds to what you think I think. Willis Eischenbach sometimes ends his posts with requests not to do this to him. He’s right…

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 2:28 pm

“until a better form of energy comes along. “

It’s already available as in gas and nuclear.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Derg
February 16, 2022 2:40 pm

Gas is finite and nonrenewable. US nuc is hamstrung by those nasty old Nevadans who don’t want to watch the waste for the next tens of thousands of generations. But if you have enough acres in the right spot, with the right bones, and you’re volunteering you and all of your progeny, functionally forever…

John Garrett
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 2:59 pm

“The reason the world is round is because it’s full of gas.”

-Mobil geologist to John Garrett (c.1998)

Peter W
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 4:20 pm

France appears to be successfully recycling used nuclear fuel, reducing the amount of waste significantly and creating more usable fuel as a result.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Peter W
February 16, 2022 4:40 pm

Recycling is great. But since they nuc’d for so hard, for so long, they have no choice. Except to phase out nuc, which they are doing….

mega weld
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 5:43 pm

France announces they are keen on opening 14 more nuclear power plants.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/business/nuclear-power-france/index.html

bigoilbob
Reply to  mega weld
February 16, 2022 5:52 pm

Incredibly cheap talk. Just a pol announcement to quiet those who don’t like trans/post pandemic energy shortages. He claims that they will build 6, “study” 8 more. No citing, no designs, no budgeting. And nada online for 13-4 more years. Thankfully, n’gonna happen…..

Meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 6:07 pm

That’s a flat lie, bigoilyboob. The French just announced that they are going to build 14 new nuclear power plants.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Meab
February 16, 2022 6:21 pm

The French just announced that they are going to build 14 new nuclear power plants.

Sorry you failed to actually read the link, just 2 posts above yours.. These is no actual commitment made beyond the empty words. No budget, no designs, no approvals from either other pol’s or the necessary tech groups. Just Macron’s mouth feels. However, there was some truth written:

But nuclear plants are notoriously expensive to build, and construction tends to run over budget and time. How to safely store the radioactive waste it produces is another headache.”

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 4:45 pm

@bigoilbob

Gas is finite and nonrenewable. US nuc is hamstrung by those nasty old Nevadans who don’t want to watch the waste for the next tens of thousands of generations. But if you have enough acres in the right spot, with the right bones, and you’re volunteering you and all of your progeny, functionally forever…

Regulatory shenanigans don’t provide an argument against the technical superiority of nuclear over solar and wind. Most of the delays and excess costs are the result of lawfare.

Since we already have almost 70 years worth of high-level waste which needs to find a home, what’s the difference between 100,000 years and 100,500 years, assuming we find something better in 500 years. Not to mention, that you take your glassified high level waste, and in 600 years the bulk radioactivity is down to the level of the ore it was extracted from. Your ignorance is like the universe; ever expanding.

Last edited 7 months ago by D. J. Hawkins
bigoilbob
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 16, 2022 4:58 pm

Regulatory shenanigans don’t provide an argument against the technical superiority of nuclear over solar and wind.”

If no one wants it, yes they do. As for these “regulatory shenanigans”, they center around the same rights so forcefully voiced by the political right when it suits them.

FYI, the DOE is trying to find “anyone, anyone” who wants to accept this waste. Do you think that, if no state wants it – for whatever the reason or for no reason – that then we should force it on one of them?

https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-restarts-consent-based-siting-program-spent-nuclear-fuel-requests-input-interim

Albert H Brand
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 17, 2022 9:37 am

What’s wrong with dropping into a subduction zone in Pacific Ocean. Won’t resurface for 50 million or so years?

..

bigoilbob
Reply to  Albert H Brand
February 17, 2022 9:46 am

I’m surprised that no one’s thought of that.

Meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 6:24 pm

Finland is about to commission their long term high level nuclear waste repository. Unlike Yucca Mtn. the Finns know what they’re doing. They are burying the waste deep underground in reducing groundwater conditions so even if the waste package leaks the waste is almost entirely insoluable and cannot reach the accessible environment until far after the hazard of the waste falls below the uranium ore body that was dug up in the first place. That way, they are net reducing the hazard of natural uranium which can and does reach the accessible environment.

You really need to stick to commenting on things you know about, bigoilyboob, assuming that there’s something you actually know something about. If there is, I’ve seen no evidence of it.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Meab
February 16, 2022 6:38 pm

They had no choice. They passed legislation 28 years ago requiring all waste to be disposed of in the country. This is one of the reasons why no new nuc plants, after the 5th one which took 20 years from start to finish, have been commissioned.

Yes, present CONUS waste must go somewhere. As soon as we find the right spot, and approval of those living over it, this project should proceed. Then, we should follow Finland’s good example and phase it out.

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 17, 2022 12:41 am

You and your word salad.

Nuclear is just fine. You and your scare mongering will eventually be unable to afford intermittent unreliables.

John_C
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 4:06 pm

Yo Bob, you better tell the folks around the South Point wind farm on the Big Island about how the operators will clean up old installations. I’m sure they’ll be convinced that those twenty year old rusting eyesores are just imaginary.

bigoilbob
Reply to  John_C
February 16, 2022 4:51 pm

Not the only example I’m sure. Every site was not as productive as planned. Every operator was not as responsible as hoped. The operators should be hunted down and made to clean up. But snap out of it. 37 turbines, out of tens of thousands, just in the CONUS? Need a pencil?

ITMT, there are whole countries that are oilfield trash cans. Not to mention whole counties in W Va., Gulf of Mexico platforms that hardly cast a shadow, and hundreds/thousands of CONUS wells becoming plug and abandon eligible every month. All while the paid up state and federal lawmakers swap thumbs…

michel
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 17, 2022 12:22 am

None of this is the important issue about wind and solar, or about the Californian proposal.

The important issue is: no-one has shown it to be possible or prudent to do or to try running a modern industrial economy off wind and solar power generation.

If you want to see why wind is not fit for this purpose, look at some intermittency stats of actual recorded generation here:

https://gridwatch.co.uk/WIND

The intermittency of solar is obvious, daily.

So if a country, or a state, really tries to move to intermittent generation and couple this with a move to electric home heating and EVs they’ll have a social and economic disaster. Just think it through, think what it would be like living in and adapting to a world where the supply of electricity is half solar and half wind.

It halves at dusk, and then what is being supplied out of the wind farms fluctuates unpredictably. There will be calm days when there will be hardly any power at 7pm.

If you take the UK, these periods will happen regularly if unpredictably and will last for a couple of days, sometimes longer, in winter. And this is when it gets dark at 4pm.

It cannot be done. It doesn’t matter how bad you think coal, oil, gas or nuclear are. What is being advocated cannot be done.

It is entirely possible that both the UK and California will persist until they produce such a disaster. People do these kinds of things, history has many examples.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 11:42 am

“The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has actually with one voice accepted strategies to include greater than 25.5 GW of renewables as well as 15GW of storage in the state by 2032 at an expense of US$ 49 billion.”

The link goes to a story in List Solar – dated 2/14/2022.

https://list.solar/news/cpuc-authorizes/#:~:text=CPUC%20authorizes%20plans%20to%20add%2018.8%20GW%20of,2032%20at%20an%20expense%20of%20US%24%2049%20billion.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 16, 2022 12:00 pm

CPUC is still citing the planned storage build as a 15GW increase.

If that is an example of them taking guidance from “the best in the biz”, then the biz must be graft. It sure is not the business of grid engineering.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 16, 2022 12:17 pm

“the best in the biz””

This was a reference to the tech expertise of a current friend and former coworker, w.r.t. Aliso Canyon operations.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 16, 2022 12:25 pm

“CPUC is still citing the planned storage build as a 15GW increase.”

They are – correctly – referencing deliverability from a storage facility. If and when they comment on how long that deliverability can be kept up, they will be discussing storage capacity.

Get it? Yet?

I only aksed for a reference to where the 2 terms were confused by the business folks. I am not saying that they weren’t, especially with critiquers here confusing industry quotes with MSM mistakes about them.

Last edited 7 months ago by bigoilbob
Joe Crawford
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 3:31 pm

The problem with stating deliverability is that it’s time sensitive. With battery storage it always falls somewhere on a descending curve vs time. It has absolutely no meaning unless it also includes the time location on that curve, and the shape of the curve. It’s totally useless in calculating the usefulness of battery storage in a specific application.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Joe Crawford
February 16, 2022 4:34 pm

I agree. If a battery storage facility is to fulfill it’s duty, then that needs to be identified. The facility not only needs to be big enough to supply the area under the curve, but also capable of satisfying any peaks that could be reasonably likely to pop up during its duty use period.

You make a good point, but this is EE101 and would/should be part of any such project from day one.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 5:02 pm

If someone uses the word “storage” it’s synonymous with the word “capacity”, so the natural question is, “How much?” It’s not hard to construct a capacitor bank capable of delivering 1TW of output. If it’s over a period of 0.001μ-sec (total power, 100 watt-sec) it’s a bit less impressive. They are deliberately skirting the more important question.

Last edited 7 months ago by D. J. Hawkins
bigoilbob
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 16, 2022 5:12 pm

They are deliberately skirting the more important question.”

Your “example” is ludicrously hyperbolic. The deliverability capacity mentioned was certainly available when needed in the required duty cycle. Your only evidence of “skirting” is that it wasn’t mentioned in that headline.

The claim, that the referenced GwH are inadequate, is yours. So, the proof of it is as well. AGAIN:

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence>”

Christopher Hitchens

bigoilbob
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 16, 2022 12:21 pm

Please keep up with what I actually discussed. I expanded on capacity v deliverability and commented on current Also Canyon operations. Nada else. Rant to others…

Observer
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 1:07 pm

And you’re ignoring the most salient point: for exactly how long can this “15GW” be delivered?

There’s a big difference between delivering 15GW for an hour… and delivering it for a month.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Observer
February 16, 2022 1:11 pm

And you’re ignoring the most salient point: for exactly how long can this “15GW” be delivered?”

I’m not ignoring it. It’s indeed important, relative to the duty served. I’m only saying that there was no conflation of the terms in the reference. And AGAIN, I’m also saying that any such conflation is a mistake. Unfortunately common in the MSM. Not so much in the tech community…

Dave Andrews
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 17, 2022 7:42 am

Well the 350MW/ 1.4 GWh Wooreen Energy Storage System in Victoria, Australia, due on line in 2026 would provide cover for 230,000 homes for 4 hours so as a rough ballpark number 15GWh would would do the same for 246,100 Californian homes (providing their electricity usage is comparable!)

Last edited 7 months ago by Dave Andrews
bigoilbob
Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 17, 2022 11:12 am

Either California homes use 10* as much power, or you misplaced a decimal point along the way….

Last edited 7 months ago by bigoilbob
Dave Andrews
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 18, 2022 5:54 am

My Bad. 2,461,000 Calif. homes.

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 16, 2022 3:23 pm

Mr. bob: “Would you please link us to where it was?” Mr. Istvan cites his 2014 essay, but maybe look above, first sentence of Mr. Hill’s article is about CA deploying 25GW of capacity and 15GW storage.
I see the Pillage has pointed this out, leading to a classic bit of bigpettifogbob and some whining. If you can’t get this together, your nom de guerre will be bigoilbrandon.

bigoilbob
Reply to  paul courtney
February 16, 2022 4:22 pm

“I see the Pillage has pointed this out, leading to a classic bit of bigpettifogbob”

Was this the reference? It is unequivocally clear. Unless you can’t get that an incremental storage capacity has both storage and deliverability. The reference was to the deliverability of the referenced storage capacity. Are they anywhere making or inferring a bogus claim as to the capacity of that storage? Not in Pillage’s lift, that’s for sure…

Last edited 7 months ago by bigoilbob
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 1:16 pm

“The others who have volunteered for crash test dummy include UK and Germany.”

And Massachusetts- right up there with the craziest of them. Lots of people in a small area- where to put all the solar and wind? Covering every building and parking lot wouldn’t come close according the state’s energy czar who got fired last fall. But by law the state must be 100% net free by ’50. No new ICE cars after ’35.

Steven Pfeiffer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 16, 2022 1:55 pm

I recently completed a spreadsheet to calculate Utility-grade solar PV system sizing for where I live in central Massachusetts.

By my calculations, for a 1,000 MW baseload system (roughly equivalent to the recently closed Pilgrim Nuclear plant), would require 8,000 MW of PV capacity and 300 net hours of storage capacity.

The land required for such a system, just for the PV panels, would be 1,000 square miles.

Not to worry, as we all know, unused land is bountifully available and cheap here in Massachusetts (/sarc).

And my estimate is conservative. It is impossible to do this type of calculation fully considering the limitations of battery storage, so I assumed a system like pumped storage with a 15% round trip loss.

Battery storage in this climate, if even possible, would have much higher losses.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Steven Pfeiffer
February 16, 2022 4:02 pm

Steven,
It might be interesting to use your spread sheet to calculate how much PV panel space would be required (e.g., in Florida and in New York) to support one EV ( e.g. a 2022 Tesla Model Y) for 10,000 miles per year.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 1:18 pm

You can check into Hotel Callyfornia, but you can’t ever check out.

Joel
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 5:21 pm

I believe the “industry standard” is GW for 4 hours. That’s what I have read.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 17, 2022 4:17 am

“California is an excellent crash test dummy for ‘climate change’ and ruinables. The others who have volunteered for crash test dummy include UK and Germany.

Here’s to hoping we get to analyze one soon. Last year’s Texas ERCOT wasn’t quite good enough; a mere fender bender.”

The sooner the better. People need to wake up to the danger they are being put in by delusional/dishonest politicians who are playing with the power grid with apparently no clue as to the consequences. Every move they make is wrong and people are going to suffer because of it.

Someone yesterday asked what Biden should do to lower gasoline prices, and one fellow volunteered that Biden should undo everything he has done since taking office. I think that would work.

That’s what Calfornia should do: Undo every climate change program they have implemented. Get back on track. Get back in the real world.

James Snook
February 16, 2022 10:16 am

“which is particularly important when you consider the urgent need to quickly decarbonise California’s economy”

Unbelievable stupidity from Herr Sprecht

Reply to  James Snook
February 16, 2022 1:53 pm

The Climate Scam is fully a faith-based religion, evidenced by that statement you highlighted.

Rob_Dawg
February 16, 2022 10:33 am

The good news is that when the last sane person leaves California they won’t have to turn out the lights.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 16, 2022 12:29 pm

Better said: they will not have lights to turn out.

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Joao Martins
February 16, 2022 12:41 pm

I love not having to type the punchline. 😉

Bryan A
February 16, 2022 10:34 am

Diablo Canyon NPP is rated at +/- 2200MW (2-1100MW units), has a capacity factor tor of >90% and covers 12 acres.
Topaz Solar Farm is rated at 550MW, has a capacity factor of 26.6% and covers…
19 square kilometers
7.3 square miles
4700 acres
To equal capacity factor production just of nameplate, Solar would need 3.4 times Nameplate…
64.6 square kilometers
24.8 square miles
15980 acres
To replace Diablo Canyon’s 2200MW with Solar would require 4 times that…
258 square kilometers or
99.2 square miles of panels on
63920 acres of land
In contrast, the City of San Francisco covers 46.9 square miles so a solar farm built to replace Diablo Canyon NPP by capacity factor will require an area greater than twice what the City of San Francisco covers

Philip
Reply to  Bryan A
February 16, 2022 10:52 am

That should probably be 5 to 6 times name plate, solar averages about 20%.
Then you will need lots and lots of lithium batteries to store it all, while shutting down the best emissions free energy available. Look Ma. no brains!!

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Philip
February 16, 2022 12:46 pm

Yes, and you need lots of acres for the storage batteries.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 16, 2022 1:21 pm

and will the climatistas all volunteer to have those storage batteries put in THEIR neighborhoods?

John_C
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 16, 2022 4:12 pm

Plenty of room under the solar panels. Course, the panels will make fighting the battery fires even more dangerous.

Peter W
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 16, 2022 4:26 pm

Question – will the storage batteries last forever?

John in Oz
Reply to  Philip
February 16, 2022 2:47 pm

Don’t forget that the solar needs to supply the demand PLUS charge the batteries to replace the overnight drain (Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers solar panels from the swift completion of their appointed rounds generation – apologies to the USPS motto)

Bryan A
Reply to  John in Oz
February 16, 2022 3:52 pm

You could always get a diesel generator and power some Multi-Million Candle-power lights to shine on the solar farm at night

John_C
Reply to  Bryan A
February 16, 2022 4:33 pm

Ah yes, the Hispanic approach.

(N.B. Spain had a rate premium for solar farms that made powering up lights and selling the PV power profitable. Some used diesels, some used a separate connection to the utility. Eventually someone noticed that the solar farms were delivering power after dark.)

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Philip
February 16, 2022 4:00 pm

I’m trying to calculate the UHI effect of all those black PV panels..

Observer
Reply to  Bryan A
February 16, 2022 1:09 pm

It’ll be fine, everyone knows 100% efficient solar panels are just round the corner, which means you could mount a small one on the roof of your Tesla and never have to pay for electricity again!

Reply to  Observer
February 16, 2022 2:07 pm

Assuming clear skies (no clouds) are always present, Solar PV only produces usable current about 2 hours after sunrise and stops about 2 hours before sunset due to low incidence sun angles and higher short wave solar atmospheric absorption at low angles. So the “average day” is 12 hours sun-up and 12 hours sun-down, but that means only 8 hours of usable solar power production from the direct current of solar PV on average. The other 16 hours would need to be covered by serial use of battery energy storage system (BESS).

The current State of the Art BESS batteries discharge over 3-4 hours before they are depleted. So that would be 4 separate BESS banks used serially to get the grid through the dark hours. Each BESS would need it dedicated solar PV system to be truly no-fossil fuel emissions and thus be Green.
So that means 5 separate and equally sized PV farms along with 4 grid scale BESS to be truly Green in an optimal world of always sunny, no clouds fantasy land.

Not even close to being doable in the real world. And that is also why California’s mandated BESS units are all plugged into a co-located natural gas fired power plant.

Last edited 7 months ago by joelobryan
Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 16, 2022 9:30 pm

Thank you, not economically feasible, but isn’t that exactly the proposal? 5 solar systems of 5 gigawatt each at 40% capacity factor to replace a 2 GW nuclear plant and 4 sets of 4 hours each 4 GW battery storage. That will work fine if it doesn’t stay cloudy/rainy for more than 16 hours or firm supply can be otherwise provided (gas turbines, AZ nukes, OR hydro). $50 billion.

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
February 17, 2022 1:01 pm

Just like clouds in climate models, cloudy days are the bugaboo in the solar scam.
Cloudy days that can go for weeks (a long-tailed Poisson distribution event) can never be accounted for, and can only be compensated for with a reliable backup like coal, nuclear or natural gas. Thus the costs to construct and maintain such a system with backups increases costs enormously. And as for emissions, there’s very little emissions reductions when the entirety of emissions footprints of all the systems life cycles are fully accounted for.

Chraya
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 17, 2022 3:53 pm

Do you have any links to articles calculating emissions taking into account all of the systems life cycle?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Bryan A
February 16, 2022 6:59 pm

Diablo Canyon NPP … covers 12 acres.

That just for the “power producing” part of the plant, which is not further defined. The full plant occupies 750 acres and it is part of 12,820 acres owned by PG&E at that site.

A fair comparison would have to include all parts of the plant needed to operate plus office/work space for the 1,500 people employed at the site and parking for their vehicles.

Still way less than a comparable solar or wind facility, but let’s try to be honest in these comparisons.

Bryan A
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 17, 2022 5:40 am

But that would be an Apple’s to Oranges comparison so I was just comparing the “Power Producing Portions”

Bryan A
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 17, 2022 6:23 am

OK but also be visually observant…
Go to Google Maps and enter “Topaz Solar Farm” in the search bar and zoom out until you see all 22 sections of the array (or click)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3691681,-120.0688705,13z/data=!3m1!1e3
Without changing your zoom, pan west to Morro Bay then South to Diablo Canyon (or click)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2134855,-120.8450828,13z/data=!3m1!1e3
Note in the links the Lat/Long has changed but the scaling is the same.
Diablo Canyon NPP can barely be seen at the same scale and is no larger than the right side southern most array section.
Diablo Canyon Property boundary may be large but it is Pristine and unused land

By the way, if you replaced those current 22 solar arrays with a Diablo Canyon sized NPP each, the 1 facility could power ALL of California on the same amount of land

Last edited 7 months ago by Bryan A
markl
February 16, 2022 10:43 am

Press like this is why the average consumer thinks wind and solar can provide enough energy to run our country. At some point a proof of concept to include reliability and cost must be run or we’ll keep going down this renewable energy rabbit hole. We may make this come true some day but not in our lifetime with known technologies and financial resources.

fretslider
February 16, 2022 10:50 am

It’s clear to me that the elites really hate Joe Public. We in the UK could have a reliable source of relatively cheap gas, but no we’re going to pay through the nose

On this basis California has some catching up to do!!!

Last edited 7 months ago by fretslider
Vuk
February 16, 2022 11:08 am

AS an outsider I’m inclined to conclude that California is aiming to (re) join Mexico and it is making a genuine effort to level down economically.

February 16, 2022 11:20 am

Gonna just love to see how replacing nuclear with solar works out for California.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Phil Salmon
February 16, 2022 3:04 pm

CA imports approximately one-third of their electricity consumption. Surrounding states will not be able to continue supporting CA with resources that will be needed for their growing populations. Hydro is maxed out and FF production faces similar opposition everywhere.

David Dibbell
February 16, 2022 11:23 am

“…15GW of new storage and demand response resources…” Demand response. How? By a mandatory smart meter shutting down your EV charger? Your AC? Your water heater? Your heating system? Your clothes dryer? Your electric oven?

Kemaris
Reply to  David Dibbell
February 18, 2022 10:05 am

Yes. The latest radio ads in Sacramento call on people to shut off their appliances between 4 and 9 PM. IOW, get off work, go home, and sweat in the dark.

Ron Long
February 16, 2022 11:33 am

In a somewhat related story China has gone full speed ahead with coal-fired electric generating plants, which carbon production more than offsets whatever Net Zero the delusional Virtue Signalers in Kalifornia can come up with. That’s right, Kalifornia economy in the toilet for nothing.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Ron Long
February 16, 2022 12:49 pm

Plenty related – somebody has got to make all them solar panels and it takes energy to do so..
There are a few figures I recall…
One number for energy consumed in making solar panels was 250kWh per square metre. Which didn’t seem a lot but I’d guess that that’s just for fabricating the actual cells

There were two other numbers and I took a screenshot, subsequently misplaced, but they were related..

  1. For a residential or ‘large building’ roof mounted array, the all-up energy requirement ran to just over 1.3MWh per square metre
  2. For a ground-mounted array, because of the extra metalwork and concrete footings, the all-up energy input was reckoned to be a shade over 1.7MWh per square metre installed

And for context/perspective, under a standard sun of 1000W/sqm and in North Western European conditions, expect 200Watts/sqm electrical output
Averaged over 24/7/365 the general figure (weather dependant) is taken to be be 10% of nameplate – thus 1 sqm of installed solar panel will generate 175kWh per year

In SoCal the sun is bigger and brighter, so expect 25% of nameplate averaged over the year or about 450kWh of electrical output every 12 months

Mac
February 16, 2022 11:47 am

Diablo Cyn is on the coast. Have the idiots considered coastal weather; often low clouds and or fog?

February 16, 2022 11:51 am

Check performance of the system on windless nights! South Australia is right up there with the world-class crash dummies.

https://newcatallaxy.wpcomstaging.com/2021/09/05/wind-power-fails-in-sa-vic/

BillJ
February 16, 2022 12:23 pm

“So we’ll have a few days to learn by California’s example, before it all goes dark.”

And then LA will start to run out of water. Pumps are needed to get water over the mountains and right now they are powered by electricity from Diablo Canyon.

John Hultquist
February 16, 2022 12:35 pm

 This song seems appropriate:

Late Great Golden State by Mike Stinson; covered by many, including Dwight Yoakam.
Stinson’s version is a U tube video: watch?v=Ow9FV3xjkew

Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 16, 2022 12:50 pm

Eric,

They will not switch over from nuclear to solar in a day. First, the powerplant needs to be shut down – 1 to 2 years? Then it needs to be demolished – another 1 – 2 years? Then the site needs to be prepared – 1 year? Then the miracle energy thingees need to be installed (panels and batteries) – another year? Then, maybe they’ll hook it to the grid and turn it on without any testing.

Peter W
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 16, 2022 4:34 pm

And, of course, the amount of power produced per square mile of production area, will mean a very large reduction in power available.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Peter W
February 17, 2022 8:29 am

Some time ago WUWT had a post ‘The Footprint of Energy Land Use of US Electricity Production’ based on work by the Strata Group at Utah State University

In Acres per MW produced they were:-

Coal 12.21
Natural Gas 12.41
Nuclear 12.71
Solar 43.5
Wind 70.46
Hydro 315.22

It included all the land required to mine and drill for gas and coal.

Ryan W
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 19, 2022 7:54 am

Decommissioning takes much longer, but that’s not the problem since the panels are to be installed at a different site.

ResourceGuy
February 16, 2022 1:08 pm

Forced labor to the rescue.

Bruce Cobb
February 16, 2022 1:28 pm

Wait, these might be magic solar panels which if you throw them out the window, overnight they will grow to become actual, low-cost, reliable power plants. Hey, you never know. It could happen.

February 16, 2022 1:32 pm

California’s claim of “5th largest world economy” will be overtaken by Texas. With the steady erosion of California middle class fleeing for better opportunities in other states along with those the jobs and industry in Cal’s business unfriendly and anti-growth regulatory environment and the explosive growth of industry, population, and energy affordability in Texas means Cal is stumbling and is falling behind. These can be hidden for a time with focusing on current status, but there is no denying the cumulative effects of differential growth rates. Evidence is how rapidly China exploded economically from 2002 to 2018 with differential growth rate versus US growth rates and ignoring the climate scam.

Ultimately, the Climate Scam Energy price premium that living and doing business in California applies versus lower energy costs in Texas will mean California will be left in the dust by Texas.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 16, 2022 5:11 pm

…California middle class fleeing for better opportunities in other states…

Sadly, they generally bring their wokeness with them, like a form of political Ebola, and it’s just as toxic.

Last edited 7 months ago by D. J. Hawkins
February 16, 2022 1:58 pm

Nuclear Power operates steadily, day and night to full capacity. Solar power does not do this when the sun goes down or at night. Battery Storage is costly, uses rare commodities and slave labour, and is limited in capacity. The production of the Solar Units and Batteries emits as much CO2 as its short life saves.
This is truly a Bizzaro move even for California.

February 16, 2022 2:42 pm

IF we were smart here in California, we’d keep Diablo going and we’d build 10 more Diablo-sized reactors. That would provide ~110% of our total electrical needs.

Then we’d take the excess, and the output of all that unreliable wind and solar, and use it to run desalinators (40, the size of the Carlsbad plant) to refill all our reservoirs and aquifers with fresh water – when power is available to do so.

Total cost would be less than the price we’re going to end up paying for high-speed rail from Fresno to Bakersfield…

Dave Fair
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
February 16, 2022 3:10 pm

Hey, you! Those cities are high-end tourist destinations, similar to Aspen and Martha’s Vineyard. They deserve all the taxpayer support they can get.

griff
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
February 17, 2022 1:25 am

Hmmm… there’s be an awful lot of slat going into the California coastal seas…

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/abd0ed#

Reply to  griff
February 17, 2022 10:20 am

Yes Griff, the Arabian Gulf is SO SIMILAR to the Pacific Ocean. I mean, it’s not like a trapped gulf with no currents and a shallow depth is in any way, shape or form different from the largest body of water in the world, with strong currents, and a depth measured in miles…

Check Carlsbad, it’s at most a 10% change in salinity in the bay where it discharges, which is less than the natural daily change in salinity of the water (you do know that pH and salinity of ocean water changes daily with tides, sunlight, and such, don’t you?)

billtoo
February 16, 2022 3:38 pm

in related news, the fines for running a small gasoline generator have just been tripled.

James F. Evans
February 16, 2022 4:28 pm

What?

15% of the electricity produced now by nuclear power.

Article didn’t say or I missed it (I’d like to know).

At this rate California will be having substantial blackouts by 2030 or sooner.

observa
February 16, 2022 4:30 pm

You have to keep an eagle eye on the airconditioning with lithium or it’s more of the same with your unreliables-
The world’s largest lithium ion battery is down, again – pv magazine USA (pv-magazine-usa.com)

DonS
February 16, 2022 4:36 pm

The “right of center” state government of New South Wales in Australia has just announced the early shutdown of its largest coal fired power station which generates about 20% of the states electricity. To be replaced by renewables and very, very, very big batteries. According to the state treasurer to be mostly paid for by the NSW tax payers, private industry not willing to waste money on this unicorn?

My recommendation for the poor people of NSW: stock up on torch batteries, your gonna need ’em.

observa
Reply to  DonS
February 16, 2022 4:56 pm

Just as South Australia announces the start of a $2.4billion interconnector to NSW ostensibly to dump our excess wind and solar power east while Hunter Valley coal backs us up-
Department for Energy and Mining | Work begins on SA-NSW Interconnector (energymining.sa.gov.au)
The interconnector to Victorian brown coal isn’t enough two way at present for the quantity of dumping and reliable backup it offers.
We’re run by morons if they can’t see the fallacy of composition here and a white elephant before it’s begun.

observa
Reply to  DonS
February 16, 2022 8:03 pm

You’d think the NSW RE Minister would be delighted another coal plant is going earlier-
Govt anger at NSW power station closure (msn.com)

mikee
Reply to  observa
February 17, 2022 11:00 pm

Crash test dummies are in vogue in NSW. The competition is fierce!!

observa
Reply to  mikee
February 17, 2022 11:44 pm

I see the Origin announcement on Eraring closure has concentrated the minds-
Bob Brown Foundation slams Marinus Link as ISP “white elephant” | RenewEconomy
Basically- Hey you pay for your own expensive storage in your backyard and naff off mooching on ours! The Covid State border control ethos is quickly catching on with dog eat dog and power reliability.

Dean
February 16, 2022 4:59 pm

I am always very impressed when these idiots get the units for batteries wrong. I know then that all their calculations can just be accepted at face value because they are totally correct…..

Mike Smith
February 16, 2022 5:05 pm

I wonder what we’ll do for power after 5:00pm (in February) when solar output is plummeting and 8:00am the following morning when solar starts to ramp up again. I’ll note that peak demand is at around 7:00pm.

These people are profoundly clueless.

observa
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 16, 2022 6:09 pm

The brains trust have already thought of that with all the V2G EV batteries to back up the grid at night. Apparently they forgot to buzz Elon about that but all in good TOU although Elon’s ahead of the curve with the Long Range battery option for forward thinkers.

observa
Reply to  observa
February 16, 2022 6:35 pm

Mind you Elon can’t do all their forward thinking for them with their V2Gs out and about with daytime solar duck curve charging ready for night time backup-
Non-Tesla EV Supercharging: Parking Issues Are A Significant Problem (msn.com)
He’s a busy boy sourcing lithium supply contracts around the globe at present if you’ve been paying attention.

Last edited 7 months ago by observa
Kemaris
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 18, 2022 10:14 am

We will do exactly what the latest radio ads in Sacramento are telling us to do: go home after work to freeze/sweat in the dark.

Dave
February 16, 2022 6:06 pm

In support of careful reading and bigilbob, the first paragraph reports “and 15GW of new storage and demand response resources.”

Demand response resources could certainly include NG.

griff
Reply to  Dave
February 17, 2022 1:23 am

Demand response is the paid shut off of electrical demand at times of peak demand…

Willem Post
February 16, 2022 6:16 pm

California will have the mother of all duck curves, every day for 25 years, and likely will try do deal with it by having more batteries, which will bankrupt the state

No wonder California is loosing 300,000 successful people per year WITH MONEY, and annually gaining 600,000 illegal, illiterate, unskilled, uneducated, sickly, criminal, drug-addict, impoverished walk-ins.

Willem Post
Reply to  Willem Post
February 16, 2022 6:20 pm

China and Russia need not do anything to destroy the US
All they have to do is be patient
The California RE idiots are doing it for them!!

griff
Reply to  Willem Post
February 17, 2022 1:22 am

California with fossil fuel only surely still has an issue with sharply rising peak demand, requiring additional peaker plants to support at high cost?

eck
February 16, 2022 6:57 pm

Just simply, hard to believe, idiotic. A perfect example of “the inmates are running the asylum”.

Steve Oregon
February 16, 2022 8:35 pm

Fix California.
Throw out all of the commies, halt the high speed train, build several nuclear plants adjacent to new desalination plants and build the Sites Reservoir to the maximum capacity.

Robber
February 16, 2022 8:52 pm

“the urgent need to quickly decarbonise California’s economy” Huh? So California will save the world?

Doonman
February 17, 2022 10:21 am

According to https://www.energy.ca.gov California currently generates 45% of its electricity from natural gas. California also currently imports 90% of its natural gas supplies from out of state.

In January 2022, California retail natural gas rate hikes for natural gas were 43% higher than January 2021, which is also 5 times higher than inflation.

All rate structures in California are approved by the CPUC before they can be charged. The CPUC members are all appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

California is the basket case of energy costs for the nation. They do this on purpose to “save the planet”. There is no other reason.

Gums
Reply to  Doonman
February 17, 2022 11:50 am

Funny, but about 30 or 40 years ago the Federal government had some kinda price control or fee for moving gas from Louisiana to the frozen north.

When some folks in north Louisiana found out they were paying more from their locally owned well than the folks in St Paul, MN due to the fees and royalties and……. they threatened to blow up the pipelines going north.

Only reason I can see for suppliers to move the evil gas and oil to California from surrounding states is the California people pay a lot more. But what about the planet, man? And wait until all the electric cars can’t charge up enuf overnight and there are brown outs in sunny weather cause the PV’;s have to charge zillions of batteries. Can;t wait.

Gums sends…

Gums
February 17, 2022 11:35 am

Salute!

Need a thread concerning disposal of the toxic and radioactive and biological waste associated with the sources of electricity.

Considering all the costs and complaints of securing nuclear waste, how come we don’t just insert the stuff back where it came from – the subduction zones?

Seems to me we have mapped out all the ring of fire, and have a similar idea of where other stuff is going back to the internal Earth machine to be recycled.

Cannot be that expensive to let the subduction zone do the work, and seems we can down real deep nowadays and even make sure the nuclear waste is be sucked up for recycling.

jez wondering….

Gums asks…

Kemaris
February 18, 2022 9:52 am

In other news, the latest adds in Sacramento call for people to turn off their appliances between 4 and 9 PM. In other words, get off work, go home, and sweat in the dark because California politicians are fricking idiots who have been ignoring the sun going down for over 20 years.

%d bloggers like this: