Will California “Learn” to Avoid Peak Rolling Blackouts?

Reposted from Climate Etc.

by Planning Engineer

The first week in September of this year California was facing rolling blackouts due to a forecast 20-year high Peak. Residents were asked to cut down electric usage and at risk of rolling blackouts. Is this a new normal? Or can the threat of rolling blackouts be avoided?  The likely answer is that the risk of rolling blackouts could be greatly reduced, but because of other priorities such reliability risks are the new normal.

What has peak demand looked like for California in recent history. The Chart below shows recorded peaks and the projected 2022 value that caused concern in early September.

The forecasted peak conditions were 2.5% above the high 20 years ago and 2.9% above what was observed 5 years ago.

The idea that a system might be unprepared because it had a peak that was a few percentage values higher than what was seen 5 years ago would have seemed strange to a planner 30 years ago. Many of us were used to seeing spurts in peak demand growth that averaged 8 to 10% a year or more. The peak demand shown above for California is pretty well bounded. The most basic planning criteria is that a system should be able to survive the loss of the largest generating resource and the most critical transmission element during a peak load with no loss of load and no severe voltage declines or undamped system oscillations. Looking at the variability in load levels here, no particular challenges to planners are apparent. If “green” resources were capable of replacing traditional resources with minor adjustments, we would not see the problems we are seeing.

Why is California challenged now and why might it continue to see challenges in the future?  Primarily because the focus on green energy is increasing the percentage of “green” intermittent resources. “Green” resources are not as dependable as traditional rotating machinery nor do they support the system as well. It is likely that these resources have been credited with more ability to provide capacity than is warranted, and when the rubber meets the road they don’t perform as “expected”. Intermittent resources cause problems on both the generation side and the load side. Intermittent solar on the residential side serves to reduce load as seen by the Cal ISO. When solar is not performing well available load which is not displaced by solar on the residential side increases concurrent with solar reduction on the supply side.

If California were more honest about the capabilities of “green” intermittent resources planning would be enhanced. However, being honest about the capabilities of “green” resources would have consequences that some would find unacceptable. There has been a big push to make “green” options appear much more economic and capable than they are so that they will be more competitive. Subsidization of “green” resources by traditional uses occurs in many ways. In addition to crediting “green” resources above their dependable capability, others subsidies include directing costs associated with such additions to others. Being honest makes the “green” dream a much harder sell. Assuming that “green” resources work well saves other investment in the grid. This subterfuge tends to limit the cost increase that should be imposed by these resources, but does so at the cost of reliability. This tradeoff takes a while to see as we have built the electric grids to have very high levels of reliability at the bulk level. In the short term it looks like you are getting a cleaner, equally reliable system at a moderate cost increase. But as penetration levels increase, cost get higher and reliability gets much worse.

In 2015 I wrote here:

Greater penetration of renewable resources will limit the options available to operators while at the same time increasing uncertainty around expected generation patterns. To accommodate such uncertainty the choices are to: 1) increase grid costs and infrastructure, 2) limit the operational flexibility of the grid, 3) increase generation costs through backup generation resources or 4) live with increased risks and degraded reliability. Likely all four are and will continue to occur to some extent as the penetration of intermittent resources increases.

California policy makers have determined resource investment, resource allocations and how and when grid improvements are made to enhance reliability. To blame extreme weather for causing the current concerns seems to be quite a reach. I suspect that a careful and fair examination of the weather data would should that the weather triggering such concerns this was not anything extraordinary considering historical weather patterns. But if it there truly was something unusual about the weather as driven by climate change, shouldn’t this have been anticipated by those responsible? California is spending vast sums of money on the power system based on climate change, it seems incredible that they would not incorporate such anticipated changes into their planning models.

Will California learn to avoid peak rolling blackouts?  If reliability were a primary concern, this situation shouldn’t bubble up again in a few years. California should be able to properly credit the ability of its power resources and match them to projected weather ensuring adequate power. If other priorities prevent responsible steps to ensure reliability, then those priorities, not the weather, should claim responsibility for the consequences. If California wants to continue as they have, they should be honest and make statements such as the following:

This is the end of affordable, reliable electric service as we understood it for most of the last 50 years. We are choosing to go with “green “technology to deal with the climate crisis. Keeping past reliability levels will raise your costs tremendously. As we try to put on limit on costs this will decrease your reliability. At time the power will not be there. We’ve all got help each other out.

Of course, once everything is looked at honestly it may lead to further change. Ideally the power system represents the best  balance between economics, reliability and public responsibility. California has reached a balance skewed by false expectations that “green” resources cannot meet. Creating a balance that looks at the true costs and reliability impacts of green resources should benefit electric users in California. Hopefully as consumers, voters, policy makers and others better understand the accurate pros and cons of available generating options either consumers will understand why their reliability is poor or else better choices will be made by policy makers on their behalf. Fairly accounting for the performance of system resources will lead to better balance of economics, reliability and costs.

5 18 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John the Econ
September 13, 2022 2:08 pm

This is what the “Smart Grid” is intended to resolve. On the demand side, anyway. Eventually the state will gain control over people’s thermostats and car chargers and balance demand to match supply, no matter how intermittent.

Will be real popular with consumers. But hey, the planet!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  John the Econ
September 13, 2022 2:27 pm

As people in Denver found out to their chagrin during last weeks heat wave.

Reply to  John the Econ
September 13, 2022 2:31 pm

The state doesnt control the system itself. Its the Market operator or CASIO which runs a ‘semi voluntary’ club of the generators.
The nature of electricity supply itself means it has to be highly regulated.
As the nerve center for the power grid, the ISO matches buyers and sellers of electricity, facilitating over 28,000 market transactions every day to ensure enough power is on hand to meet demand.’

It would be ludicrous to build a system that meets demand on a few days per year. ( Not that longer term increase in supply and grid upgrades isnt necessary)

Like do stores build their shops or warehouse fufillment centres for the very busiest days per year, no theres long delays – which is untenable for an electric grid and the power in more or less consumed the instant its generated ( no electrons dont move around the grid like cars on a highway). Imbalances in supply and demand can break the system and deliberate blackouts are means of maintaining grid stability, damage to electrical equipment connected to the grid can occur if its not done

Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 5:07 pm

Stores absolutely build their shops for the busiest days of the year, it’s when they make the most profit and build a customer base. And the difference between the busiest days and the average day is far greater in retail. For electricity, peak demand might be double or triple on the busy days. In 2020, small retailers had 55 times the average day’s sales on Black Friday.

John the Econ
Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 5:09 pm

The state doesnt control the system itself.

It doesn’t?

Are you suggesting that the marketplace for energy is truly free? You telling me that utilities actually wanted the fractured, unreliable state of affairs?

Reply to  John the Econ
September 13, 2022 6:32 pm

You dont understand how electricity is generated and sold , and theres no way for a generator to only supply its customers in competition to other generators.
Theres plenty of areas with no market regulators ( parts of Northern California arent) and they still have blackouts and such
eg Arizona

This big blackout began in Arizona and expanded into San Diego Gas and Electric distribution area because of their incompetence

John the Econ
Reply to  Duker
September 14, 2022 8:37 am

You dont understand how electricity is generated and sold

Perhaps, but I do remember how it used to be, only a couple of decades ago before “rolling blackouts” became a thing, California had far more energy-intensive heavy industry, utilities were allowed to directly own and manage their own generation capacity, and before Progressive know-it-alls decided that things would be better of they were to direct how the industry would be structured and function.

But I actually do know how it’s generated and sold. One of the massive failures of public education is not sharing that knowledge with the rest of the population, which has little clue as to what really makes their historically unprecedentedly comfortable lives possible.

Mike Smith
Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 5:58 pm

The state does control the system, albeit indirectly. The state defines the laws, policies and regulations under which the grid operator operates.

CAISO are the worker bees who operate the grid day to day. The state government is the management who hold all the real power and have, in fact, mandated most of the ridiculous policies that created the current mess.

Robert Cherba
Reply to  Mike Smith
September 13, 2022 6:14 pm

You’re right. Electric and other utilities are heavily regulated by the feds,states, public service commissions, county and city governments. And it’s now worse than ever, since nearly all these groups have bought into catastrophic climate change and the woke lies. I’m not going to live long enough to see how this all ends. I wish you younger folks a lot of luck.

Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 8:06 pm

It would be ludicrous to build a system that meets demand on a few days per year.

Heaven forbid that we’d expect reliable electricity year-round.

Would it be acceptable to not have water a few days per year?
Would it be acceptable to not have food a few days per year?

deliberate blackouts are means of maintaining grid stability

“Deliberate blackouts to maintain grid stability” sounds like failure.

Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 9:26 pm

It would be ludicrous to build a system that meets demand on a few days per year.

Yet for some reason, that is exactly what the power company does.
Even more bizarrely, they actually build the power grid to handle once in a decade events.

Seems like what you think you know, isn’t as authoritative as you believe.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  John the Econ
September 13, 2022 4:12 pm

They want to control much more than the grid!

Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 13, 2022 6:38 pm

Who do you think controls the air traffic control system. When your plane takes off the routes it takes, often during landing or takeoff special noise reduction routes are in place

have you wondered about the traffic lights in your city , and who controls them.
Thats right the citys traffic control system can and does over ride the normal operation.
I saw this in covid lockdowns, rather than enjoy mostly traffic free commutes I found the lights were on maximum delay to slow it all down ( ie ped crossings phases were all working inspite of no pedestrians)

Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 9:30 pm

The routes taken by airliners are chosen by the pilot and filed with the FAA in advance.

Very few traffic lights are centrally controlled. The most you might get is intercommunication between a few lights on heavy corridors so that green waves can be set up.

Reply to  MarkW
September 15, 2022 2:15 pm

Centrally controlled city wide traffic is rare but the timing and triggers of lights is heavily influenced by politics. Many a downtown area is setup to make you stop at every intersection in order to drive up window shopping. And the length of the timing cycle is just short of the time that a significant portion of the population would think about running the red light (2:20). The civil engineers that I know have all complained about how their system should have worked smoothly and efficiently and then the city changed the sequences of operations for political influence.

Rud Istvan
September 13, 2022 2:25 pm

Planning Engineer and I wrote several joint posts over at Judith’s some years ago. He has since retired from his very senior executive position at one of the country’s largest utilities. Take his posts as EE engineering gospel.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 13, 2022 5:33 pm

I’ve often wondered how to handle the random high rates of change in energy flows in an increasingly RE dominated grid. The issue is at all levels of distribution from street to statewide and on a range of time scales. Fault current discrimination, hunting responses and natural frequency issues come to mind.
An example is the South Australian grid crash a few years ago. The response was to increase “ride through” by the wind farms so they wouldn’t drop off so soon at peak output. This could cause other issues in different circumstances.
Another incident involved the small grid of the town Alice Springs a few years ago when a solitary cloud blocked solar panels on a hot day. Obviously there are increasingly more sophisticated work-arounds but the added complexity greatly increases the potential points of failure.

Reply to  RobK
September 15, 2022 4:35 am

“…I’ve often wondered how to handle the random high rates of change in energy flows in an increasingly RE dominated grid…”

It’s called spinning reserve. Typically gas turbines. Kept hot and running, ready to pick up load immediately. The more unreliable energy inputs into the grid, the more spinning reserve you need.

Unfortunately, a gas turbine uses on the order of 80% as much fuel idling as it does when at full rated output. Maintenance costs are actually increased and without the revenue from selling power capital (the primary cost of the station) amortization is completely hosed up making the whole thing uneconomic.

September 13, 2022 2:25 pm

Supply v Demand. Probably the only theorem of economics that has validity.

California has committed to capping supply and is fast taking control of demand at the lowest consumer level. The incentives and disincentives are truly draconian.

In the meantime it would take 43 nuclear power plants to electrify the surface transportation network. None a planned.

Hungry, cold and in the dark. It won’t be necessary for the last to leave to turn off the lights.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
September 13, 2022 3:11 pm

I would go so far as to say minus 1 Nuclear plant planned as they are going to take one off line and not replace it or it’s generating capacity.

Dave Fair
Reply to  rhs
September 13, 2022 4:44 pm

Its execution has been delayed.

Jon Le Sage
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
September 13, 2022 3:51 pm

Hi RD.. I did a rough estimate a few yrs. back with respect to how much additional generating capacity would be needed to provide enough energy to charge roughly 10 mil. automobiles.. I started out with how many registered vehicles there are in the state of Ca.. There are over 30 mil. cars currently registered. I assumed 1/3 were being driven daily.. I also assumed that each car (EV) took 28 kw to be fully charged… Then I assumed that at any given time only a third 33% were being charged at the same time… So rounding up I used 3.5 mil. cars being charged at any one given time.. 3.5 * 28 kw @7kw per hr. = 98mil kw.. = 98 gw = 44 Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants.. Yes, it is a down and dirty calculation with lots of variables, but it still demonstrates how absurd and unrealistic people are when we hear our state is going to eliminate the gas powered automobile… By 2035 no less… And this not include commercial vehicles..

Reply to  Jon Le Sage
September 13, 2022 4:19 pm

And it doesn’t include the goal of electrifying all homes.

Reply to  Mike
September 13, 2022 9:52 pm

I does include the goal of denying personal transportation to most people.

Reply to  AndyHce
September 14, 2022 12:55 am

Now, now. The sidewalks will still be open…wherever they aren’t blocked with encampments of the homeless.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  roaddog
September 14, 2022 5:32 am

…and piles of excrement and used needles.

Reply to  Jon Le Sage
September 13, 2022 4:51 pm

Thanks Jon. I apologize for being too lazy to dig up my old calculations. I differed in some details but you getting 44 nukes and me getting 43 is less than a rounding error.

Jon Le Sage
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
September 13, 2022 7:32 pm

Rob.. I reveiwed my handy work, and it appears I miscalculated by about a factor of 4.. Heres why.. Diablo Canyon has 2 turbines which produce 2,200 mw. combined In a 4 hr. period these turbines produce 8.8 gw of electrical energy.. 3.5 mil EV’s charging at a rate of 7kw per hr. * 4 hrs. = 98 mil kw.. converting kw to gw it comes out to 98 gw consumed in 4 hrs… 98/8.8 gw (the amount that 2 turbines produces in 4 hrs.) is = to about 11 Diablo Canyons.. Despite the rather large miscalculation.. It’s still more electrical energy than the state currently can produce. Sometimes I get a little ahead of myself.. I hate it when that happens… Bottom line.. try charging your EV at night when the suns not shinning and the winds not blowing.. Good luck with that…

Reply to  Jon Le Sage
September 13, 2022 10:54 pm

Hold up, you don’t need to worry about the hours, you have to worry about the peak load – are all 10 million cars charging at the same time? Say 6pm to 10pm, at a 7KW rate? So you’d better have 70GW of power, which is about 70 current model reactors – like AP1000 EPR1000. Lots of newer designs at 1600MW.
The state will have to impose charging restrictions for sure, and I’m surprised that the building codes for expensive houses haven’t included the requirement for say 24KW of solar panels (200A service times 120Volts) so the rich green hypocrites can cover their own peak load at least.

Stan Sexton
September 13, 2022 2:42 pm

In Europe, huge companies are folding due to power prices. Almost 20% of power customers cannot pay their bills. This is coming here. Also, SDG&E plays games with power voltage. My voltage meters have read as low as 99 volts. When that happens, your large motors like A/C compressors draw more current (amperage) to compensate, and run hotter, shortening their life. That adds more to their obscene electric bills.

Reply to  Stan Sexton
September 15, 2022 2:31 pm

Unless you are on primary power, the low voltage you receive is from the local transformer being undersized compared to the load. – Watts in to Watt out, with the windings determining the ratio between voltages. A 45kW transformer is only good for 45kW regardless of the voltage (assuming it doesn’t exceed the insulation rating). The current carrying equipment(wires, busses, and contacts) is rated by ampacity and lowering the voltage would raise the current. – It is possible that the primary voltage is low, but since that would mean higher ampacity across the grid and would cause long term damage to the electrical equipment and faster insulation degradation, it isn’t in their best interests to do this. Having more than a 5% variance in RMS voltage causes a lot of problems on the supply and load side equipment.

Steve Case
September 13, 2022 2:48 pm

We are choosing to go with “green “technology to deal with the climate crisis.

H L Mencken’s hobgoblins are more real to CA politicians than the elephant in the living room.

Or they are destroying the economy for some other reason.

September 13, 2022 2:58 pm

Traditionally, grid operators have been most concerned about the “peak demand,” which happens on the hottest summer days when folks are blasting the air conditioning. But California’s grid operators are now more concerned with “evening ramp,” which is the time in the evening when the renewable generation (mostly solar) tapers out and other sources of energy must ramp up to meet electricity demand. The evening ramp is a yearlong challenge for the CAISO.
Losing the generation you need at the most critical time of need is of course a crazy approach

The most interesting part is large parts of US dont have an independent system operator at all. The local utility does that, presumably they are the owner of grid and generation, and of course buy in outside power if needed

jeffery p
Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 3:15 pm

But outside power from where? More and more, utilities have no excess power to sell. This is a consequence of the Green New Deal, AKA, “Screw You, America.”

Old Man Winter
Reply to  jeffery p
September 13, 2022 4:28 pm

Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 13, 2022 4:47 pm

The Titanic didn’t steer towards the iceberg either.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
September 13, 2022 6:42 pm

Texas has been going all in for renewable as well. One of the reasons for the major blackouts a few years back and it was during winter not the summer peak ( cold is more dangerous if you lose power)
Its not just a ‘California issue’

Reply to  Duker
September 15, 2022 2:41 pm

It is an issue, but the major Tx blackout was because of 3 major causes. 1) Initially, spot pricing for gas exceeded spot pricing for electricity so the independent natural gas plant electricity suppliers would be losing money just for adding power to the grid. 2)Two large plants were offline for maintenance and the winds in West Tx also reduced during that week.
3) The gas pipelines which fed multiple plants had electric pumps tied to the grid at unmarked locations. The pipelines switched from inline gas powered pumps to electric pumps to avoid the EPA emission regulation that was enacted during Obama’s presidency. When they tried rotating blackouts, they found that it shut down parts of the supply lines and so it was counterproductive to continue.
Another issue but not as critical short-term, required reserve capacity margins are made up of more renewables, which may not actually be available when needed.

Dave Fair
Reply to  jeffery p
September 13, 2022 4:49 pm

CA gets about 1/3 of its electric energy from surrounding states. If I was the ISO manager, I wouldn’t plan on that being available going forward. The surrounding states are also going Nut Zero.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 3:25 pm

Evening ramp problem is usually called the ‘duck curve’.

Reply to  Duker
September 13, 2022 3:41 pm

No kidding, why are we not building more nuclear while tearing down intermittent wasteful sources like solar and wind?

Don’t we want reliability?

Reply to  Derg
September 14, 2022 12:57 am

Who you callin’ “we”?

Philip CM
September 13, 2022 3:06 pm

UHaul is doing what they can to help lower the number of Californians dependent on that failing energy grid.

Reply to  Philip CM
September 13, 2022 5:53 pm

Well that, and the increasing number of people who become homeless.⛺️

jeffery p
September 13, 2022 3:11 pm

Of course they won’t learn anything. California keeps getting bluer and bluer as sensible people are fleeing to states with more freedom, fewer taxes in reduced costs of living. Yes, plenty of die-hard, brain-dead progs are leaving too, but a majority of those leaving the state are centrist or center-right.

Last edited 2 months ago by jeffery p
Reply to  jeffery p
September 14, 2022 8:29 am

Center in CA would be center left to left in most of the rest of the country.

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
Shanghai Dan
September 13, 2022 3:52 pm

This year, we had a $97 billion surplus in California.

IF we were smart, we would have taken $60 billion and started building 10 more Diablo Canyon-sized reactors, and in 5-6 years (with the State streamlining the process) had 100% of our electrical needs met by reliable, ultra-green nuclear.

And then we’d have taking the remaining $37 billion and rolled out 37 more Carlsbad-sized desalination plants to provide clean, fresh water for 15 million people – eliminating our water shortage. And power those desalinators with excess nuclear power at night and intermittents during the day (water buffers really nicely in reservoirs).

But we’re not smart, it’s about no nukes, more wind, and how dare we raise the salinity in a 100 yard radius of the discharge tube!

Reply to  Shanghai Dan
September 13, 2022 6:17 pm

Yeah, the all change is bad crowd would never go for any of that…

Reply to  rhs
September 14, 2022 8:32 am

Yet the “all change is bad” crowd are all in for clear cutting forests to make room for solar farms and for allowing wind farms to kill large numbers of endangered birds.

Reply to  MarkW
September 15, 2022 4:42 am

Yet the “all change is bad” crowd are all in for clear cutting forests to make room for solar farms and for allowing wind farms to kill large numbers of endangered birds. are about to see the biggest change they have ever experienced in their lives.

Reply to  Shanghai Dan
September 14, 2022 11:01 am

High Speed Rail Fact-


The Authority’s 2020 Business Plan shows updated cost estimates for the program which will serve as the basis for the Board of Directors to adopt an updated Program Baseline in 2021. This updated included a revised estimate of $13.8 billion meet our federal commitment to construct 119 miles of high-speed rail civil infrastructure in the Central Valley. The current cost estimate to deliver the 500-mile system linking San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim via the Central Valley ranges from $69.01 to $99.9 billion…..

This is to serve maybe 1000 people a day, about 1/2 of them joy riders.

The wisdom of the state in guiding itself and all who hitched their wagons to it is, well, unsurpassed.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Charles
September 15, 2022 2:37 pm

Another fact – we still don’t have a path over the mountains between Bako and the SF Valley.

We’re dumping tens of billions into a rail system without even having a route/plan to build it.

But you’ll get from Bako to Fresno in record time!

September 13, 2022 3:52 pm

There is no problem with the power grid in California, the problem is with the lying and cheating politicians, administrators, bureaucrats, academics and pseudo scientists. They need to be held to account for their dangerous behavior. End of story.

September 13, 2022 4:51 pm

Put the demrats in charge – they will fix it up!

Reply to  Antigriff
September 14, 2022 8:33 am

The demonrats have been in charge in CA for most of the last 50 years. For the last few decades they have rigged the election system to guarantee themselves super majorities most years.

Mike Smith
September 13, 2022 5:53 pm

The problem with meeting peak demand is very simple. California has made itself reliant on solar power to satisfy a big portion of the daytime demand. And last week, solar output was falling like a rock as folks turned on their air conditioners in the late afternoon and early evening.

In environmental fantasy land, wind picks up the slack in the evening. But California wind produces only about 6 GW on a really good evening. Frequently, it’s less than 1 GW.

To be clear, there are many other problems with California’s insane energy policies which have driven prices through the roof. But the peak demand problem is simple and was entirely foreseeable. A high school student with access to the daily demand curve and eyesight sufficient to note the times of sunrise and sunset could have told them renewables wouldn’t work. A few of them probably did but were drowned out by progressives extolling the magical virtues of “free” wind and solar.

Reply to  Mike Smith
September 14, 2022 8:40 am

In environmental fantasy land, wind picks up the slack in the evening.

In my experience from trying to air out the house by opening windows. The winds drop dramatically as the sun goes down.

Mike Maguire
September 13, 2022 5:54 pm

Replace the combustion engine with electric cars to increase demand for electricity by 40% in California and eliminate fossil fuels to lower reliable peak supply of electricity.

That will fix it.

California energy math:

+40% = -30%

Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 14, 2022 3:17 am

SuperCalifornilisticexpialidocious: even though the sound of it is really quite atrocious.

September 13, 2022 7:17 pm

Slowly, slowly, governments are understanding that wind and solar don’t provide reduced cost, availability, nor security.

Reply to  markl
September 13, 2022 10:03 pm

not many western governments

Reply to  markl
September 14, 2022 12:58 am

In California, that will get you ex-communicated.

Reply to  roaddog
September 14, 2022 5:24 am

Yeah, in Cali their minds are changing at the speed of the San Andreas Fault, I wonder which one will snap first?

September 13, 2022 7:32 pm

No electricity, warmth, travel, and other modern conveniences for you. Your privilege has been rationed. Next!

Rod W
September 13, 2022 8:42 pm

Hopefully California doesn’t learn.

The world needs basket cases like CA and Germany to set an example to the rest of the world about what happens when you elect WEF stooges.

Reply to  Rod W
September 13, 2022 10:04 pm

That is probably a racist opinion, a racist remark. Either that or you are a terrorist.

Reply to  AndyHce
September 14, 2022 3:14 am


Reply to  IanE
September 14, 2022 5:26 am

No, he’s an engineer pointing out oot smart CA and Germany are by being the RE demonstration projects that prove doability.

Reply to  IanE
September 14, 2022 6:51 am

I think AndyHce had his tongue so firmly planted in his cheek when he typed that, he had to seek medical attention to get it back into its proper position.

We really need a good sarcasm font for the web.

September 13, 2022 9:45 pm

A rather mild evaluation of the current stupidity.

September 14, 2022 6:04 am

California is making it reasonable to consider investing in coal, gas, or nuclear-based energy plants in Nevada or Arizona near the CA border.

There will be windfall, or perhaps that should be ”wind-fail” profits.

September 14, 2022 6:44 am

No it won’t unless the voters kick out the current batch of Green Idiots running the place.
Its up to the voters from here on in and I will have little sympathy with them if they don’t do it.
Just waiting for it to happen and then trashing the place in anger doesn’t seem sensible to me.
But I am a Brit and happen to respect our Monarchy; which you lot can’t have; so have NOTHING to respect at all which tends to leave you floundering about a bit and getting aggressive with each other’s opinions, about matters of values.

Best tell me where to go 😤 🥹 😉 ? We are also in the same mess as you are these days.

Incidentally-: The Monarchy is VERY different from whoever happens to be the Monarch. It is vaguely to do with common sense VALUES fortunately not defined but nonetheless understood and it is good that here we have our Prime Minister having to go to the Monarch representing those principles every week to bend the knee.

September 14, 2022 8:16 am

If you read anything from over at cleantechnica.com or energy-storage.news it was all the Tesla storage batteries that set records and kept the lights on in California so they just have to speed up the remaining 5Gw of proposed and approved battery energy storage systems(BESS) and everything will be perfect. Yeah right.


September 14, 2022 9:04 am

Meanwhile in the UK…
A letter has flooded in from my current dual-fuel energy supplier.
It says that from 1 October 2022 ‘100% renewable electricity will only be available to customers with a ‘smart’ meter’.
Question 1: how can they ever honestly assure those customers that all of the electricity they receive is 100% renewable (even if that definition includes nuclear, despite the decades of greenies’ anti-nuclear campaigning), when it is delivered over a national grid that carries electricity from all generating sources and relies on the reliability of gas, nuclear and the last dregs of coal-fired generation to keep it from falling over when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Promising to supply 100% renewable electricity over the National Grid is like promising to supply 100% vodka through the water mains.
Question 2: what do they send their ‘smart meter’ customers when wind and solar contributions to UK electricity demand are close to zero and their contracted renewable electricity suppliers cannot meet their commitments? Maybe use the meters to cut back supplies pro rata?
But ‘green is good’, as the man nearly said, so this cannot be a con.

Matthew Schumann
September 14, 2022 10:51 am

No, CA is doomed

September 15, 2022 1:39 am

The reason they were not honest about the real costs and implications is that would have triggered more than hand waving and an actual serious examination of the “settled science” to justify taking the renewables course…..

September 15, 2022 8:03 am

“The nameplate farce”:
There should be financial penalties for wind and solar power plants inability to deliver at least 90% of permitted for nameplate ratings on an annual basis.

Subsidies for wind and solar power plants are based on “nameplate ratings”, thus they should be penalized when they cannot deliver what they have been permitted for.

%d bloggers like this: