3 ms·

"environmentalists" in california have succesfully prevented at least 6GW from coming online, and were directly responsible for plans that shutter california's

"environmentalists" in california have succesfully prevented at least 6GW from coming online, and were directly responsible for plans that shutter california's last operating reactor. They lobbied PG&E with a study they paid for that, under the insane assumption that california's energy use would _decrease_ in the future, concluded renewables would be cheaper. Meanwhile CAISO issued increasingly urgent press releases warning of the catastrophic consequences to grid stability were diablo canyon to close. A disaster which was narrowly avoided a few weeks ago by newsom. don't underestimate the negative influence of "environmentalists"

epistasis 4y ago
> They lobbied PG&E with a study they paid for that, under the insane assumption that california's energy use would _decrease_ in the future, concluded renewables would be cheaper Usage in California has gone down, and renewables are cheaper, just look at the blog series in the original article. Calling these well-known and irrefutable facts "insane" does not bode well for the plethora of other questionable assertions in your comment. For the usage: 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...
- andbberger 4y ago
  energy austerity is incompatible with climate change mitigations. eg thermal industrial processes currently powered by fossil fuels need to be moved to grid power. their proposal was to spend $2B to lose 2GW of carbon free baseline power everything in my statement is true and based on documents in the public record
  - epistasis 4y ago
    I have followed the documents carefully, doing a deep dive on Diablo Canyon around 2020, but I do not recognize your framing of the situation as anywhere close to accurate. I'm also not sure what you mean when you are referring to energy austerity in your comment, of what $2B you are talking about.
    - andbberger 4y ago
      $2B is the cost to decommission diablo canyon. energy austerity is planning to use less energy when we know for a fact we're going to need more.

epistasis 4y ago

> They lobbied PG&E with a study they paid for that, under the insane assumption that california's energy use would _decrease_ in the future, concluded renewables would be cheaper Usage in California has gone down, and renewables are cheaper, just look at the blog series in the original article. Calling these well-known and irrefutable facts "insane" does not bode well for the plethora of other questionable assertions in your comment. For the usage: 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...

andbberger 4y ago
energy austerity is incompatible with climate change mitigations. eg thermal industrial processes currently powered by fossil fuels need to be moved to grid power. their proposal was to spend $2B to lose 2GW of carbon free baseline power everything in my statement is true and based on documents in the public record
- epistasis 4y ago
  I have followed the documents carefully, doing a deep dive on Diablo Canyon around 2020, but I do not recognize your framing of the situation as anywhere close to accurate. I'm also not sure what you mean when you are referring to energy austerity in your comment, of what $2B you are talking about.
  - andbberger 4y ago
    $2B is the cost to decommission diablo canyon. energy austerity is planning to use less energy when we know for a fact we're going to need more.