6 ms·

I'm not sure about that goal, California currently imports around 32% of its power now. That number will likely increase if we shut down all of the remaining nu

by vondur 6y ago

I'm not sure about that goal, California currently imports around 32% of its power now. That number will likely increase if we shut down all of the remaining nuclear.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
California can import clean solar from Arizona and Nevada (which have enormous solar potential), as well as hydro and wind from the pacific northwest.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  How much night time solar can Arizona and Nevada give them, today, or in say ten years? Serious question. The nice thing about Nuclear is that it's boringly reliable. You buy a 500MW nuclear power plant, you're getting ~500MW from that maybe 80-90% of the time. Own a half dozen of those (3GW nameplate capacity) and you can have 2GW or more pretty much always. You buy 3GW of solar panels obviously they don't do anything for a big portion of every day because the sun is on the far side of the planet, so then either you're also buying a lot of storage and more panels, or you don't have a replacement for the nuke plant. Now, if you have 3GW of molten salt concentrated solar maybe you can hit that 80-90% reliability on the individual units and replace the nuke plant, but do Nevada and Arizona have any of those today? Are they expected to build a California nuke plant's worth any time soon?
  - epistasis 6y ago
    Serious answer: as much nigh time solar as you want, via battery storage, at cost competitive prices. Here's a three year old project in Arizona for solar plus storage at less than $45/MWh: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-can-tucson-electric-get-solar-storage-for-45kwh/443715/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-can-tucson-electric-get... Since then, the public bidding processes in Nevada and Colorado have revealed many more projects at similar costs. Since utility planning is typically on a five year timeline, bids are expected to be at the cost of storage at the time of delivery, and since the cost of storage is falling 20% per year, outsiders think that these projects are taking future cost drops into account. But if a three year old project is so affordable, anything delivered in the next six months will be pretty equivalent.
    - ibejoeb 6y ago
      We'd need to seriously advance battery technology to make it better than nuclear in the terms we're talking about here. Batteries require minerals from mining, including strip mining, and that's going to fail the environmental test. Mining involves slave labor, and that's going to fail the humanitarian test. They also have a short lifespan and tend to explode. Maybe if sodium proves out then batteries will be acceptable. Right now, though, we don't have a viable technology that serves the purpose.
      - epistasis 6y ago
        It's not like we are going to stop mining copper tomorrow, because it fails the "environmental test," so I'm now sure why batteries are held to a completely different standard than every other single aspect of our economy. We don't need any big leaps in battery tech, just the current learning curve will serve us wonderfully. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/the-story-of-cheaper-batteries-from-smartphones-to-teslas/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/the-story-of-che... As for environmental damage, I've never ever heard that strip mining is essential for any battery component. Could you clarify? Neither is child labor necessary. Current grid storage has warranties longer than a decade of daily cycling. Fire suppression is greatly improving. All the hurdles are easily surmountable. Certainly far more easily surmountable than the difficulty of building new nuclear. There are clear and easy paths for all of batteries, and we are going to be building TWh of them for cars anyway, so we may as well clean that up then use the same industrial process for grid storage.
        cbmuser 6y ago
        No one has ever built electricity storage in the required capacity. You are seriously underestimated the required capacity to just store electricity for one day in an industrial country. There is a reason why Germany is massively build new gas plants and building a second pipeline to Russia (Nordstream 2).
        epistasis 6y ago
  - notJim 6y ago
    It's honestly so weird to read comments like this that presume no one else has ever realized before that the sun sets every night. I would guess that the California power regulators actually do know this and have plans for it.
    - thereisnospork 6y ago
      Assuming the competence on the part of California power regulators seems unwarrantedly generous in the light of recent (and less than recent) failures.

by vondur 6y ago

I'm not sure about that goal, California currently imports around 32% of its power now. That number will likely increase if we shut down all of the remaining nuclear.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

California can import clean solar from Arizona and Nevada (which have enormous solar potential), as well as hydro and wind from the pacific northwest.

tialaramex 6y ago
How much night time solar can Arizona and Nevada give them, today, or in say ten years? Serious question. The nice thing about Nuclear is that it's boringly reliable. You buy a 500MW nuclear power plant, you're getting ~500MW from that maybe 80-90% of the time. Own a half dozen of those (3GW nameplate capacity) and you can have 2GW or more pretty much always. You buy 3GW of solar panels obviously they don't do anything for a big portion of every day because the sun is on the far side of the planet, so then either you're also buying a lot of storage and more panels, or you don't have a replacement for the nuke plant. Now, if you have 3GW of molten salt concentrated solar maybe you can hit that 80-90% reliability on the individual units and replace the nuke plant, but do Nevada and Arizona have any of those today? Are they expected to build a California nuke plant's worth any time soon?
- epistasis 6y ago
  Serious answer: as much nigh time solar as you want, via battery storage, at cost competitive prices. Here's a three year old project in Arizona for solar plus storage at less than $45/MWh: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-can-tucson-electric-get-solar-storage-for-45kwh/443715/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-can-tucson-electric-get... Since then, the public bidding processes in Nevada and Colorado have revealed many more projects at similar costs. Since utility planning is typically on a five year timeline, bids are expected to be at the cost of storage at the time of delivery, and since the cost of storage is falling 20% per year, outsiders think that these projects are taking future cost drops into account. But if a three year old project is so affordable, anything delivered in the next six months will be pretty equivalent.
  - ibejoeb 6y ago
    We'd need to seriously advance battery technology to make it better than nuclear in the terms we're talking about here. Batteries require minerals from mining, including strip mining, and that's going to fail the environmental test. Mining involves slave labor, and that's going to fail the humanitarian test. They also have a short lifespan and tend to explode. Maybe if sodium proves out then batteries will be acceptable. Right now, though, we don't have a viable technology that serves the purpose.
    - epistasis 6y ago
      It's not like we are going to stop mining copper tomorrow, because it fails the "environmental test," so I'm now sure why batteries are held to a completely different standard than every other single aspect of our economy. We don't need any big leaps in battery tech, just the current learning curve will serve us wonderfully. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/the-story-of-cheaper-batteries-from-smartphones-to-teslas/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/the-story-of-che... As for environmental damage, I've never ever heard that strip mining is essential for any battery component. Could you clarify? Neither is child labor necessary. Current grid storage has warranties longer than a decade of daily cycling. Fire suppression is greatly improving. All the hurdles are easily surmountable. Certainly far more easily surmountable than the difficulty of building new nuclear. There are clear and easy paths for all of batteries, and we are going to be building TWh of them for cars anyway, so we may as well clean that up then use the same industrial process for grid storage.
      - cbmuser 6y ago
        No one has ever built electricity storage in the required capacity. You are seriously underestimated the required capacity to just store electricity for one day in an industrial country. There is a reason why Germany is massively build new gas plants and building a second pipeline to Russia (Nordstream 2).
        epistasis 6y ago
- notJim 6y ago
  It's honestly so weird to read comments like this that presume no one else has ever realized before that the sun sets every night. I would guess that the California power regulators actually do know this and have plans for it.
  - thereisnospork 6y ago
    Assuming the competence on the part of California power regulators seems unwarrantedly generous in the light of recent (and less than recent) failures.