3 ms·
From a Californian perspective, hydro and geothermal are basically tapped as far as I know, in-State anyway. The plants that are operational already is about th
by SllX 5y ago
From a Californian perspective, hydro and geothermal are basically tapped as far as I know, in-State anyway. The plants that are operational already is about the extent of what we can probably build.
Actually something of a dream of mine is to see nuclear reactors eventually replace some of our dams, maybe restore some of the lakes and tributaries that have been lost, but presently new reactor construction is prohibited here per a ballot initiative from before I was born.
My larger point is that society is going to continue to demand increased electricity generation, which means new plants and installations. It’s one thing to want to replace existing installations but if you’re going to service future demand, then new sources of multiple types have to remain on the table. I would take nuclear over gas-fired plants, but I would take gas-fired plants over coal-fired plants.
- sampo 5y ago> From a Californian perspective, hydro and geothermal are basically tapped as far as I know For what I understand, the California State Water Project as visioned in the 1960s, had Stage I and Stage II. Only Stage I was built. Then from the 1980s onward, there was political opposition and Phase II was never started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project#Proposed_and_unbuilt_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project...
- SllX 5y agoTrue, but the Klamath River is in the grand scheme of things a fairly minor watershed in California. Some room for growth, but effectively tapped out as far as the major watersheds in the State go. We have just a lot of dams and we’re still importing more and more of our energy from other States as we make it harder to build plants here.