3 ms·

FWIW, Nuclear only accounts for about 10% of the total power generation in CA. Less when you consider the power CA imports. New nuclear power plants take aroun

FWIW, Nuclear only accounts for about 10% of the total power generation in CA. Less when you consider the power CA imports. New nuclear power plants take around 20 years and $40B to build, each. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

ipnon 4y ago
The antecedent is that we could completely solve California’s energy and climate change crises by 2042 for $360 billion. A mountainous policy hurdle, but taller peaks have been climbed.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  They'd already committed to do better than that back in 2018, 5 years ago and keep accelerating the timescale: In March 2022, CPUC approved a plan to add 18.8 GW solar, 6.7 GW wind, and 14.7 GW batteries by 2032 at 18c/kWh, reaching 73% renewables.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California
- falcolas 4y ago
  9 nuclear power plants, at ~5 GWh/y apiece (45,000 GWh/y combined) would barely cover the estimated power requirements of the 2035 electric car plans (around 43,000 GWh/y). 45,000 GWh/y is also less than half of the power CA imports. 43,000 GWh/y = 15m cars * .24 KWh/m * 12,000 annual miles .24 KWh/m is for the latest Tesla 3 cars. 5GWh/y is from https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-electricity-does-typical-nuclear-power-plant-generate https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-...
rasz 4y ago
Because CA mandated this low share >The main driver deterring PG&E from seeking a 20-year operating licence extension is the 2015 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of producing 50% of its electricity from qualified renewable energy sources by 2030. PG&E’s model for the future cost of operating Diablo Canyon indicated that the cost per kilowatt hour was going to almost double, since the company would be forced to lower the amount of power it could produce from the plant in order to meet the state’s requirement. Dropping the capacity factor from the current 92% to say 50% would virtually double the price per kilowatt hour since costs are largely fixed. >The state law which effectively dictates that by 2030 Diablo Canyon should operate at lower capacity each year and buy in power from intermittent renewables has apparently sealed the fate of the plant.

ipnon 4y ago

The antecedent is that we could completely solve California’s energy and climate change crises by 2042 for $360 billion. A mountainous policy hurdle, but taller peaks have been climbed.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
They'd already committed to do better than that back in 2018, 5 years ago and keep accelerating the timescale: In March 2022, CPUC approved a plan to add 18.8 GW solar, 6.7 GW wind, and 14.7 GW batteries by 2032 at 18c/kWh, reaching 73% renewables.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California
falcolas 4y ago
9 nuclear power plants, at ~5 GWh/y apiece (45,000 GWh/y combined) would barely cover the estimated power requirements of the 2035 electric car plans (around 43,000 GWh/y). 45,000 GWh/y is also less than half of the power CA imports. 43,000 GWh/y = 15m cars * .24 KWh/m * 12,000 annual miles .24 KWh/m is for the latest Tesla 3 cars. 5GWh/y is from https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-electricity-does-typical-nuclear-power-plant-generate https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-...

rasz 4y ago

Because CA mandated this low share >The main driver deterring PG&E from seeking a 20-year operating licence extension is the 2015 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of producing 50% of its electricity from qualified renewable energy sources by 2030. PG&E’s model for the future cost of operating Diablo Canyon indicated that the cost per kilowatt hour was going to almost double, since the company would be forced to lower the amount of power it could produce from the plant in order to meet the state’s requirement. Dropping the capacity factor from the current 92% to say 50% would virtually double the price per kilowatt hour since costs are largely fixed. >The state law which effectively dictates that by 2030 Diablo Canyon should operate at lower capacity each year and buy in power from intermittent renewables has apparently sealed the fate of the plant.