4 ms·

California is going "carbon neutral" by 2045. I think it's time to admit that the crusade to adopt only wind and solar is premature, despite all the good inten

California is going "carbon neutral" by 2045. I think it's time to admit that the crusade to adopt only wind and solar is premature, despite all the good intentions. Hydro doesn't work where it's dry, and socal is feeling it. We need to be realistic. In summer 2020, we had blackouts. In '21, we built 6 new gas-fired plants to mitigate that. There's something really off about burning gas, shipping energy over wires, and using it to charge our teslas and feeling good about it. We've got at least one major nuclear plant scheduled to shut down in 3 years. What then? There has got to be a better way to do this.

epistasis 4y ago
> I think it's time to admit that the crusade to adopt only wind and solar is premature, This would be an unsupported conclusion. We had power outages not because of renewables, but because we hadn't planned for enough capacity. And we hadn't planned for enough capacity because the planners had not taken into account the effect of climate change: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-01/caiso-cpuc-cec-issue-final-report-causes-august-2020-rotating-outages https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-01/caiso-cpuc-cec-issue-... I agree we should stop utilities from building new gas facilities, but if we also combine that with your proposal of stopping renewables, and keeping nuclear, we will have rolling blackouts. The only way forward is lots more renewables and storage, whether or not Diablo Canyon stays open. Diablo Canyon is just 2.2GW, and we need to serve peak demand 25-30x that on hot days. We should choose the most cost efficient method of doing that. If DC can compete on cost, sure, keep it open. But in general the problem in California is that we are not building enough new stuff. We need to dismantle the old, replace it with better newer and more efficient technology. The number of crappy tract homes from the 1970s that are sitting on $1-2M plots of land is an affront to basic common sense. We we'd far more energy efficient housing in the form of townhomes and apartment buildings on such expensive land. And that will greatly reduce our energy, water, and transit needs all at the same time.
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  >your proposal of stopping renewables This is not my proposal. It's the unfortunate side effect. What happened is that now that we're feeling the pinch, we're building fossil plants again. I guess if I had a proposal at all, it would be to keep existing generation online while there continues to be supply shortages. >only way forward is lots more renewables and storage Now, I don't know that I'm 100% on board with that. How much land are we willing to ruin to wind and solar farms? Then there's the strip mining and slavery required for the lithium... All these things combined makes it apparent to me that we're not quite there yet. Let's keep researching. In fact, let's make it the #1 priority. Already there seems to be a lot of promising development, e.g., NaO2 batteries.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Keeping existing generation capacity is the very problem. We had blackouts because we kept the existing capacity. So your proposal of not doing anything and waiting it out will not work. Especially since we need to phase out all that natural gas as soon as possible. Stop mining is not performed for lithium. Slavery is not required for it either. There have been concerns about child labor for cobalt, but that's not a concern for LFP batteries that would be used for stationary storage. And even though you say your proposal isn't to stop renewables, you say priority #1 is that we do research rather than deploy our current technology, and trot out easily solvable talking points to avoid taking action. This sort of status-quo bias is the exact problem in California. Keeping existing infrastructure is causing the problems. Keeping the same infrastructure doesn't mean keeping the same quality of life when the climate is changing, it means worsening quality. The magnification and amplification of any flaws in a new system, rather than properly weighing it against the massive massive harm kf the current system, is the very heat of California's bad decision making.
    - ibejoeb 4y ago
      >Keeping existing infrastructure is causing the problems Are we keeping existing infrastructure? Tell me if I'm wrong, because I am under the impression that several plants have been decommissioned over the past 5 years.
      - epistasis 4y ago
        I probably used the wrong verb tense there. We are not keeping the same infrastructure. But a proposal to keep it static would not meet our energy needs, because of extreme weather events. It also does not meet our needs for climate goals. Thus the only way forward is lord more renewables and storage. We don't have any other options on the table.
        ibejoeb 4y ago
        By "We are not keeping the same infrastructure," is that how you're characterizing reducing capacity but turning off existing plants? I think we agree that decommissioning plants without viable replacements is, in fact, contributing to the energy supply problem.

epistasis 4y ago

> I think it's time to admit that the crusade to adopt only wind and solar is premature, This would be an unsupported conclusion. We had power outages not because of renewables, but because we hadn't planned for enough capacity. And we hadn't planned for enough capacity because the planners had not taken into account the effect of climate change: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-01/caiso-cpuc-cec-issue-final-report-causes-august-2020-rotating-outages https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-01/caiso-cpuc-cec-issue-... I agree we should stop utilities from building new gas facilities, but if we also combine that with your proposal of stopping renewables, and keeping nuclear, we will have rolling blackouts. The only way forward is lots more renewables and storage, whether or not Diablo Canyon stays open. Diablo Canyon is just 2.2GW, and we need to serve peak demand 25-30x that on hot days. We should choose the most cost efficient method of doing that. If DC can compete on cost, sure, keep it open. But in general the problem in California is that we are not building enough new stuff. We need to dismantle the old, replace it with better newer and more efficient technology. The number of crappy tract homes from the 1970s that are sitting on $1-2M plots of land is an affront to basic common sense. We we'd far more energy efficient housing in the form of townhomes and apartment buildings on such expensive land. And that will greatly reduce our energy, water, and transit needs all at the same time.

ibejoeb 4y ago
>your proposal of stopping renewables This is not my proposal. It's the unfortunate side effect. What happened is that now that we're feeling the pinch, we're building fossil plants again. I guess if I had a proposal at all, it would be to keep existing generation online while there continues to be supply shortages. >only way forward is lots more renewables and storage Now, I don't know that I'm 100% on board with that. How much land are we willing to ruin to wind and solar farms? Then there's the strip mining and slavery required for the lithium... All these things combined makes it apparent to me that we're not quite there yet. Let's keep researching. In fact, let's make it the #1 priority. Already there seems to be a lot of promising development, e.g., NaO2 batteries.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Keeping existing generation capacity is the very problem. We had blackouts because we kept the existing capacity. So your proposal of not doing anything and waiting it out will not work. Especially since we need to phase out all that natural gas as soon as possible. Stop mining is not performed for lithium. Slavery is not required for it either. There have been concerns about child labor for cobalt, but that's not a concern for LFP batteries that would be used for stationary storage. And even though you say your proposal isn't to stop renewables, you say priority #1 is that we do research rather than deploy our current technology, and trot out easily solvable talking points to avoid taking action. This sort of status-quo bias is the exact problem in California. Keeping existing infrastructure is causing the problems. Keeping the same infrastructure doesn't mean keeping the same quality of life when the climate is changing, it means worsening quality. The magnification and amplification of any flaws in a new system, rather than properly weighing it against the massive massive harm kf the current system, is the very heat of California's bad decision making.
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    >Keeping existing infrastructure is causing the problems Are we keeping existing infrastructure? Tell me if I'm wrong, because I am under the impression that several plants have been decommissioned over the past 5 years.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      I probably used the wrong verb tense there. We are not keeping the same infrastructure. But a proposal to keep it static would not meet our energy needs, because of extreme weather events. It also does not meet our needs for climate goals. Thus the only way forward is lord more renewables and storage. We don't have any other options on the table.
      - ibejoeb 4y ago
        By "We are not keeping the same infrastructure," is that how you're characterizing reducing capacity but turning off existing plants? I think we agree that decommissioning plants without viable replacements is, in fact, contributing to the energy supply problem.