4 ms·

I don't know much about California's energy policies, but it's worth noting that California has by far the largest population in the US (~39 million vs. ~29 mil

I don't know much about California's energy policies, but it's worth noting that California has by far the largest population in the US (~39 million vs. ~29 million for Texas, the next largest), comprising nearly 12% of the US population. It's also the third-largest in terms of area. You'd expect them to have more problems than a state with a tenth of the population regardless of policy. Other large states have also had power problems. Texas (where I live) nearly had to shut down its entire grid due to a hard freeze last year and we've been getting regular requests from the state's grid management organization to limit power consumption on hot days. But our climate change problems tend more towards droughts and hurricanes, which don't affect the statewide power grid very much.

mattboardman 4y ago
I posted a reply to another comment below, but I'm curious how the population difference impacts power generation. Is power more expensive to produce or supply based on your population? Does the power infrastructure not scale effectively to the demand? Nebraska having 2 million people while also requiring a wide land coverage seems like a harder problem to solve. You can't plop a power plant down for a small town easily and if you move the energy across a long distance you now have to cover the cost of servicing the infrastructure for a small population. If anything, shouldn't overhead be cheaper the higher the population density? I'm genuinely curious since this isn't my area of expertise.
- AdamH12113 4y ago
  I'm only an electronics engineer, so I'm afraid I can't give you a good answer on that. Generation might be cheaper at scale, but I don't think distribution necessarily is. I don't have time to do a lot of research, but I did find some interesting differences between California and Nebraska: * California imports about 25-30% of its electricity while Nebraska exports over 15%[1]. * California produces about 5 times as much electricity as Nebraska[2], with about 8 times the peak generating capacity[3][4]. * All of Nebraska's electric utilities are publicly owned[3]. * California relies more on hydroelectric power, which is more vulnerable to climate change[5]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156 [2] https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=US#/series/51 https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=US#/series/51 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Nebraska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Nebr... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Cali... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plant...

mattboardman 4y ago

I posted a reply to another comment below, but I'm curious how the population difference impacts power generation. Is power more expensive to produce or supply based on your population? Does the power infrastructure not scale effectively to the demand? Nebraska having 2 million people while also requiring a wide land coverage seems like a harder problem to solve. You can't plop a power plant down for a small town easily and if you move the energy across a long distance you now have to cover the cost of servicing the infrastructure for a small population. If anything, shouldn't overhead be cheaper the higher the population density? I'm genuinely curious since this isn't my area of expertise.

AdamH12113 4y ago
I'm only an electronics engineer, so I'm afraid I can't give you a good answer on that. Generation might be cheaper at scale, but I don't think distribution necessarily is. I don't have time to do a lot of research, but I did find some interesting differences between California and Nebraska: * California imports about 25-30% of its electricity while Nebraska exports over 15%[1]. * California produces about 5 times as much electricity as Nebraska[2], with about 8 times the peak generating capacity[3][4]. * All of Nebraska's electric utilities are publicly owned[3]. * California relies more on hydroelectric power, which is more vulnerable to climate change[5]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156 [2] https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=US#/series/51 https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=US#/series/51 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Nebraska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Nebr... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Cali... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plant...