7 ms·
Why “scrambles”? Seems like something that should’ve been planned in advance, to coincide with the closing of those plants, no? Is the issue that they gave too
by KoftaBob 5y ago
Why “scrambles”? Seems like something that should’ve been planned in advance, to coincide with the closing of those plants, no?
Is the issue that they gave too short notice, or waited till the last minute to figure out replacement?
- nend 5y agoIt's the wsj, they have a right wing partisan lean, which means any discussion of renewable energy or California has to lean negative. Edit: Surprising amount of downvotes here, didn't realize this was so controversial, the Wikipedia page talks extensively about the wsj's stances (with citations): "The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy and has published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all. The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change deniers" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal
- NDizzle 5y agoReality = right wing in 2021.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agoof course. the party that denies climate change and evolution is the party of reality.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI don't think most Republicans or the WSJ deny climate change these days, just differ on urgency and impact. This poll shows 67% of Republicans think warming is happening and 56% think warming will continue in the future if nothing is done to address it. https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020-partisan-divide/ https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020...
- vixen99 5y agoWhy continue to use weasel words (i.e., an equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment) like 'climate change'? What does that mean? Aside from the truism that the climate is always changing (who can possibly disagree?) what specifically is denied and which values are accepted? Estimations of the warming due to carbon dioxide comprise a wide range of values not changed much in 20 years. Met Office UK states that the warming parameter (ECS) has a 'likely' range of 1.5 - 4.5°C and is extremely unlikely to be below 1°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. The wide range accounts for all evidence. Stating this is not denying anything. It's accepting the complexity of the issue rather than indulging in emotive cliches.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThe republicans passed a resolution asserting that the climate does indeed change.
- xyzzyz 5y agoLast time I’ve heard any Republicans party official deny evolution was during Bush administration.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hairofadog 5y agoMike Pence denies it.
- xyzzyz 5y agoRecently?
- hairofadog 5y agoNo, I guess you’re right; all the recent news about Pence is about his role in trying to overthrow the election. 2009 is the last time I see him on record denying the theory of evolution, but I also don’t see any indication that he has changed his position, and he was in a pretty high position of power within the Republican Party as recently as 2020.
- iammisc 5y agoYou have to be delusional to believe pence has any power. He was chosen to appease a certain part of the party needed to get enough electoral votes.nothing more
- hairofadog 5y agoYou may be right about that. Trump thought Pence had the ability to unilaterally declare the victor of the 2020 election, for example.
- iammisc 5y ago
- AdrianB1 5y agoYou can read about the facts without caring who is writing it, what side is WSJ is less relevant than the facts, if you can believe the facts and eventually confirm it in other places. If you don't like the message, discuss about the message, don't attack the messenger.
- nend 5y agoI would argue the bias of the editorial board is fair game when it comes to discussing the word choices and phrasing made in the article.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- keneda7 5y agoIMO Wikipedia is a bias source for anything politics related. Heck the Wikipedia page for its confounder even mentions this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#:~:text=In%20a%20blog%20post%20in,Wikipedia%20as%20%22badly%20biased%22.&text=He%20listed%20other%20topics%20he,%2C%20religion%2C%20and%20LGBT%20adoption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#:~:text=In%20a%20.... I have found this site to be much more reliable when looking for media bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
- nend 5y agoThat website also says the WSJ has a right lean: "Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting combined with a strong right biased editorial stance." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/
- keneda7 5y agoYa that is my mistake sorry it was early and somehow I misread WSJ as NYT.
- hairofadog 5y agoI’m confused (sincerely, not concern trolling) about the point you’re making by linking to media bias fact check for NYT (which wasn’t being discussed) but not WSJ or Wikipedia. According to the site you find reliable, NYT: biased center left, factual reporting “high” WSJ: biased on the right edge of center right, factual reporting “mostly factual” Wikipedia: “least biased”, factual reporting “mixed”
- keneda7 5y agoNope you are correct. It was early and I misread it as NYT. That is my mistake
- Proven 5y agoin California only destruction of the State seems to have been going according to plan
- endisneigh 5y agopro tip: don’t care too much about titles. The author of articles rarely are the one who also titles the piece.
- TigeriusKirk 5y agoTo actually answer your question instead of trying to spin it away - “What changed dramatically…is we have had significantly bigger and more West-wide heat waves than ever before,” Mr. Randolph said. “Those aren’t built into our planning standards.”
- bryan0 5y agoYeah this quote caught my eye too, but how is this possible? They’re not planning for a hotter and dryer climate in CA? I find that hard to believe.
- cedilla 5y agoBoth intensity and frequency of extreme weather events increased much faster than anticipated. This may be a result of climate scientists presenting conservative estimates due to the fear of being labelled alarmist.
- bryan0 5y agoThis explanation doesn’t make much to me. CA is aggressively moving to renewables (well if you ignore shutting down nuclear) and we’re doing this because the state is alarmed about climate change.
- cedilla 5y agoWell, extreme weather events have become much more common sooner than expected. As to why this happened, I only speculated. I don't think that the state is alarmed about climate change as it aims to have a carbon neutral grid by 2045, which is already quite late even following the conservatives estimations.
- rsj_hn 5y agoNo, this is the money quote: other states have moved to close coal-fired power plants in recent years, reducing the amount of electricity California can import when high temperatures boost electricity demand. In other words, the problem with wind/solar is that they are not controllable, and so California was planning on using the rest of the grid as a buffer -- all of Western US is on one grid. Thus California can still import from coal fired plants in Utah when it needs power, say on a hot day when AC use is high or a day when the wind isn't blowing too strongly. Except now it's realizing that as other states adopt the same strategy, that the grid can't be relied on so much and the state has to do that itself or face blackouts in hot days or windless days. So with this new awareness that the rest of the grid will not be able to bail them out, they have updated their estimate of needed battery capacity in time for the planned shutdowns. Alternately, they are scrambling for some sources of energy that could be tapped on demand in place of battery capacity.
- cedilla 5y agoIt may be the money quote but you removed the context in an almost misleading way: > The drought has constrained the output of some of the region’s most significant generating facilities, including the Hoover Dam. … “What changed dramatically…is we have had significantly bigger and more West-wide heat waves than ever before,” Maybe a failure of planning, but the plan was not to get "bailed out" by the grid as you guess.
- AwaAwa 5y agoUnless the plan was to have rolling brownouts/blackouts I have no doubt that being bailed out by the grid was absolutely part of the contingency plan. Maybe they didn't expect to need the contingency so soon, but that is on their risk analysis of the weather.
- cedilla 5y agoA deliberate underproduction to get "bailed out" is a strong accusation, I think it warrants a better proof than analysis of one line of an article. Especially when the article points out other reasons why production doesn't meet demand. Unless you talk about actual contingency plans for emergencies in which case I don't quite understand what's so scandalous about falling back on the grid in emergencies. France also falls back on Germany's power generation when they have to shut down some of their nuclear reactors during heat waves.
- cedilla 5y agoThe article doesn't really seem to reflect the headline. It's seems hasty to order companies to build up plants in just three years, but it's not made clear if that order is made too late by the state or if it's a reaction to the companies neglecting their responsibilities. A bit further down there's also mentions of less foreseeable complications like wildfire damages and less power output of hydroelectric plants due to draughts. Even further down the changes brought on by more frequent heat waves are blamed. And that makes sense, those both increase demand and negatively impact all forms of power generation, including nuclear and solar.
- AdrianB1 5y agoThe idea behind this push to renewable is to force energy providers to find solutions. You don't know how to swim? Let's throw you in the water, you will figure out a way.