California

California Blackouts: It's Not Just the Heat, It's Also the Anti-Nuclear Power Stupidity

Activists oppose a huge source of reliable, climate-friendly electricity that could have prevented the rolling blackouts in the Golden State.

|

Rolling electric power blackouts afflicted as many as 2 million California residents last week as a heat wave gripped the Golden State. (It's apparently eased up for now.) At the center of the problem is that power demand peaks as overheated people turn up their air conditioning in the late afternoon just as solar power supplies cut off as the sun goes down. In addition, output from California's wind farms was erratic. Currently, about 33 percent of California's electricity comes from renewable sources as mandated by state law. Until this summer, California utilities and grid operators were able to purchase extra electricity from other states, but the current heat wave stretches from Texas to Oregon so there was little to none available to make up for California's power shortage.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, California electricity grid operators had warned in September 2019 that power shortages might become increasingly common when heat waves hit over the coming years. The current situation was thankfully not worse since California still has some natural gas power plants in operation that can be ramped up to supply energy when renewable supplies fail.

"Some folks in the environmental community want to shut down all the gas plants. That would be a disaster," said Jan Smutny-Jones, CEO of the Independent Energy Producers Association, a trade association representing solar, wind, geothemal, and gas power plants, to the Mercury News. "Last night [Sunday] 60 percent of the power in the ISO [Independent System Operator] was being produced by those gas plants. They are your insurance policy to get through heat waves."

Reuters reported that California's grid operators estimated that peak electricity consumption earlier this week might exceed available supply statewide by as much as 4,400 megawatts—roughly equivalent to the amount needed to power 3.3 million homes.

In a particularly obtuse report on NPR's Morning Edition today, Union of Concerned Scientists energy analyst Mark Specht asserted, "the solution is definitely not more natural gas plants. Really if anything this is an indication that California should speed up its investments in clean energy and energy storage."

NPR reporter Lauren Sommer followed up by observing, "After all, he [Specht] said climate change is making heat waves worse, so burning more fossil fuels to deal with that is somewhat counterproductive."

Completely ignored in the reporting is that California has been shutting down a huge source of safe, reliable, always-on, non-carbon dioxide–emitting, climate-friendly electricity—that is, nuclear power. In 2013, state regulators forced the closing of the San Onofre nuclear power plant that supplied electricity to 1.4 million households. By 2025, California regulators plan to close down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant that can supply electricity to 3 million households.

The problem of climate change, along with the blackouts resulting from the inherent vagaries of wind and solar power, are an indication that California should not only keep its nuclear power plants running but also build many more of them.

NEXT: "The Return of Roe v. Wade"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “California should not only keep its nuclear power plants running but also build many more of them.”

    This is California. Logic and Reason hitched a ride out of town about 20 years ago and now live in Texas.

    1. If an environmentalist opposes building nuclear plants, I cannot take them remotely seriously.

        1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.BAI I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is

          what I do………………Money90

          1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.BAI I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is

            what I do……………… CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

      1. If(an environmentalist) then
        Cannot take them remotely seriously
        End if

        For me opposing nuclear has nothing to do with it

        1. `I’ve made $66,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student.oiu. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great m0ney.CMs It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

          Here………> Click here

      2. If an environmentalist opposes building nuclear plants, they’re a communist pretending to be an environmentalist.

      3. Absolutely. If I truly believed the climate was going to reach a tipping point, whether in 12 or 100 years, I would support nuclear like nobody’s business. Nothing else could come close to alleviating the problem they claim to see.

      4. “If an environmentalist opposes building nuclear plants, I cannot take them remotely seriously.”

        I can. Natural gas combined cycle is cheaper and it’s not even close. Plus there’s waste. Dry cask storage is not viable for how long that crap will take to decay to near background. And since we don’t do reprocessing anymore, and Yucca is still offline…

        Yes, NG burning adds to the CO2 balance. I’m not sure that’s an issue. The Western World conducted an involuntary experiment for the last few months, shutting down much of its economic production. And the carbon burning needed to generate it. Did CO2 levels drop, versus the prior year? No. Go look at the Mauna Kea CO2 data.

        Something else is causing the rise. I think it’s greater insolation, leading to warmer oceans, with more dissolved CO2 outgassing. In any event, there’s a lot to the mechanism we don’t understand

        1. This guy gets it.

          Human contribution to CO2 increases is minimal. As the temperature rises more CO2 outgasses from the oceans. The AGW crowd have cause and effect reversed. But that doesn’t surprise you, does it?

          1. If you divide the mass of the atmosphere by the Earth’s population, you’ll find your share of the air is under a million tons. So your share of atmospheric CO2 — from all sources– is presently 400 tons or so.

            Americans on average add ~ 16 tons each of CO2 a year to the air, and it takes generations for the oceans to absorb it. If you can’t handle the math, ask your grandchildren to- their grandchildren will have to live with the climate you are making today.

            1. “If you can’t handle the math, ask your grandchildren to- their grandchildren will have to live with the climate you are making today.”

              Who said we can’t handle the truth?

              Can you handle the truth?

              The truth is that plenty of Americans care more about their own standard of living than they do about the environment. Some of them choose to consume differently because they care more about the environment than they do about their money, but plenty others care more about themselves and their children than they care about polar bears or their grandchildren and great grandchildren.

              The truth is that your qualitative preference for the environment over other people’s standard of living has no authoritative basis, much like your preference in ice cream or what scientists like on their pizza.

              Can you handle the truth?

              1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…JYt after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                Here’s what I do…..>>…..> Click here

            2. If you divide the mass of the atmosphere by the Earth’s population, you’ll find your share of the air is under a million tons. So your share of atmospheric CO2 — from all sources– is presently 400 tons or so.
              Americans on average add ~ 16 tons each of CO2 a year to the air

              This is an interesting statistic you’ve got here. You take the total population of Earth, all 7.5 billion of them or whatever the current number is. Every last person from the subsistence rice farmer in Bangladesh to private-jet-flying Elon Musk and you divide the entire atmosphere of Earth from ground level up to the stratosphere by that number and you call that a person’s “personal portion”. Then you take every single American from the naturist hippie to the president of a plastics factory and label each one of them as producing 16 tons of CO2 a year. Apply a sloppy divisor sign and oh look, now your “personal supply” will run out in just a few decades. You’ve just taken a bunch of garbage numbers that mean nothing in relation to each other, applied some math to them, and are using the resulting value as some sort of proof to support your political views. It’s mathematical vomit and you should be ashamed.

              1. Tell us the truth, Ken-

                What part of “math: don’t you understand?

              2. Sure as the world envies the standard of living that comes with a 16 ton per capita CO2 footprint , it strives to emulate it and over the last few generations, average emission has risen to tons per capita– The US is running tonnes per capita behind a half dozen OPEC members.

                The trouble is that everyones CO2 emissions end up increasing the IR opacity of everyone’s air. Like it or not , we’re stuck with one atmosphere indivisible
                , with radiative forcing for all.

                Which is why we need nukes more than rhetorical indiference to the mere fact that we’ve already demonstrated how to raise the temperature of the earth a degree without even having to think about it.

                Please cut the steampunk and run up a more statistically coherent argument before Svante Arrhenius’ granddaughter Greta Thunberg starts pouting in your general direction.

            3. “…If you can’t handle the math, ask your grandchildren to- their grandchildren will have to live with the climate you are making today.”

              And I’m sure YOU know what that will be, right?
              Be sure to tell us; not ONE of the predictions made for the last 30 years has been correct.
              NOT ONE.
              So, I have a hint:
              You’re full of shit and you should STFU

              1. Sounds like Greta on a bad hair day.

        2. Natural gas production in the quantities that led to a lot of U.S. coal plants switching over happened as a result of fracking, though. Is there any portion of the current “green” movement that doesn’t list an end to fracking as one of their top 3 priorities?

          For a generation prior to fracking, the plants that expanded nuclear power would have replaced were mostly coal-fired (which also then attaches the vast environmental and health damage from various forms of coal mining to the cost of it all), and instead of maybe hundreds of tons of spent nuclear fuel we’ve now got billions of tons of toxic coal ash; also by some estimates, the continuing use of coal power in the U.S. instead of the nuclear build-out that the “green” movement halted in the 1970s created as much as 30% of the total cumulative human CO2 emissions to date. If they hadn’t saved us decades ago, the progress of the human-made portion of climate change could probably now be at about where it was sometime in the 1990s.

          At what point will humanity in general decide that what’s really needed from a pro-environment agenda is to get behind things that meet functional criteria rather than those which meet ideological ones?

          1. “At what point will humanity in general decide that what’s really needed from a pro-environment agenda is to get behind things that meet functional criteria rather than those which meet ideological ones?”

            Our neocortex evolved to accommodate religious thinking (and language), and we’re still a very religious people. Environmentalism scratches that religious itch. They have apocalypse to avoid, sins and sinners, sacrifices we have to make for the greater good, and utopias that we can achieve in our lifetime if only we stop being selfish.

            Even for people who imagine that they’re no longer religious, the suggestion that they can be part of something bigger than themselves, something that gives their life meaning, that they can be privy to higher truths, truths that the heathen refuse to understand, etc . . . environmentalism may not be a religion for all of them, but it scratches all the same itches.

        3. Just as in 1980, when an antinuclear communist unknowingly led me into my first meeting with campus Libertarians, so today those collectivist brainwashees ground their premises in what “we” don’t understand about the power source that made national and international socialism infeasible. Petr Beckmann was on the Reason board at the time. “The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear” is to this day the answer to all antinuclear looters.

        4. There is no reason one should expect unused nuclear fuel to approach background radiation, it never was. We dug up natural radioactive material and concentrated it. Why would you think it would? There are plenty of poisonous things on this planet. We agree on one thing dry cask is stupid. 93% of the energy is still in those rods and pellets. You are wrong in your assumption that because we don’t reprocess that we will not be able to use this resource. Molten salt reactors can use this “waste” as fuel. The only reason we take these rods out of the reactors is that helium forms under the cladding of the pellets and can pop the pellets and expose them to corrosion and make a mess. In a molten reactor the uranium is dissolved like in nearly every industrial chemical reaction, and like those it can run to completion. That means 33 times more energy. It also means we can refuel while it is running like the fossil fuel plants. You also make it sound like there are mountains of this radioactive waste. The reality is that the 64 years of waste from these reactors would fit in one warehouse the size of a football field 30 feet high. The waste from fossil is an absurd amount of CO2 all over the planet, and astronomical quantities of coal ash, and arsenic and mercury killing and degrading our oceans. They are dreaming carbon capture. Nuclear is already fully contained.
          Global Warming not being a thing? The evidence is overwhelming at this point. If you don’t accept it, it is because you are motivated like the smokers blaming anything but the cigarettes for their lung cancer. And you forgot that we went bananas and cut down a lot of trees to make absurd amounts of toilet paper. And autos are only half of the CO2 emissions, and they were not completely reduced maybe 1/3 less. You were expecting CO2 to go down? That makes no sense. If we stopped completely, it would take centuries for it to go down to normal. They are just trying to stop the increase in CO2, bringing it down, is near fantasy at this point.

    2. Logic and Reason hitched a ride out of town about 20 years ago and now live in Texas.

      Unfortunately a lot of Californians are now following them. I guess they found out where they went and are out to finish killing them once and for all.

    3. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.ISK I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do………………Work 77.com

  2. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…Click here.

  3. Cali regulators are weird. They let AES convert Huntington from gas fired boilers to gas fired combined cycle. But they wanted Inland Empire shut down after 10 years. Well actually GE was probably tired of fixing it. It was a pilot plant in many ways and may not be cost effective. In any case DWP had plenty of power and they import a lot from Arizona and Nevada. But a combination of heat wave, lower hydro power, more installed renewables at a lower capacity factor, and yes nuclear shutdown made Cali energy policy what it is. And it’s not just the CEC, CO2 regs, and politicians it’s also the labor unions. You don’t build a power plant in Cali without their approval at all. Anyway it’s a large combination of factors that make no sense but all seem to come from a certain left ward view point. And yet Robby says Loomer is crazy.

    1. No contradiction in holding the position that both Loomer and California energy policy are nuts.

    2. Once you factor in Union Labor, price caps on how much you can charge for electricity, liability for starting fires because you are not allowed to clear trees around your power lines, and NIMBY abilities to endlessly block construction, there is zero chance that a gas or nuclear power plant ever gets built, because it will never ever make financial sense.

      I had some friends building a prototype solar generator in the california desert. It was insane. If a small tortise crawls under your work truck for shade (and they did this all the time), you had to call out for an environmental specialist to trek an hour to the site and move it properly. If you tried shooing it away, you could go to jail. The only reason this project was in the black was that 1) the government subsidized it heavily, and 2) the project was so small that the unions had not gotten word of it.

      There is a reason that even major solar plants are being built in nevada- because once you add in the california bullshit premium, even massive subsidies can’t cover the short term building costs.

      1. Once the small tortoise is clear of the tires, you could just move the truck.

        1. Some alternatives:
          * Workers saw a great opportunity to jack up the cost with overtime at taxpayer expense.
          * There were too many tortoises to safely move the truck.
          * It’s just a convenient fairy tale.

          Considering Overt is lying about not being able to clear trees under power lines (PG&E is all over these hills right now doing exactly that), I’d go with door number three.

          1. Mistaken seems more likely than lying.

          2. “Overt is lying about not being able to clear trees under power lines (PG&E is all over these hills right now doing exactly that)”

            Yes, NOW, after Gov. Newsmen cut a lot of red tape.

      2. “I had some friends building a prototype solar generator in the california desert. It was insane. If a small tortise crawls under your work truck for shade (and they did this all the time), you had to call out for an environmental specialist to trek an hour to the site and move it properly. If you tried shooing it away, you could go to jail.”

        There’s a Terminal Lance for that: https://terminallance.com/2017/01/17/terminal-lance-453-cease-fire/

    3. I would like to know since we are all in this together and looking to the future why we are not damming any large enough rivers for hydro electric power. It could be done if we just tell the white water rafters and spiney snail darter lovers to pound sand. It might be several years before reservoirs could produce but if water still flows in the future so will power.

  4. “California electricity grid operators had warned in September 2019 that power shortages might become increasingly common when heat waves hit over the coming years.”

    Rolling blackouts were not only foreseeable but also foreseen. The policies that created them were intended to limit the amount of fossil fuel and nuclear generated electricity during times of high demand. Rolling blackouts are those policies working as intended.

    1. No need to attribute to evil what can be explained by incompetence.

      1. Their goal was to limit the amount of energy from fossil fuels and nuclear sources available to consumers–so they implemented policies that limited the amount of energy from fossil fuels and nuclear sources available to consumers.

        We should pretend they did that on purpose for reasons other than the ones they stated–because it might be interpreted some other way?

        That’s willful stupidity.

        1. They did it on purpose, but they engaged in wishful thinking that it would all just work out.

          1. Bullshit.

            This was the intended outcome.

            1. I don’t understand why the enviro-whackos would WANT to see rolling blackouts. It certainly hurts their cause in the short run. Or do you think they will ask for MORE government to fix the ‘problem’?

              1. Because they want to limit the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

                It’s the same reason they want to ban fracking.

                Why wouldn’t they want to limit the amount of power consumers can buy? That’s the whole point.

                They don’t emphasize the obvious consequences of their policies when they’re selling them, but those are the consequences they want. They tell you that if we don’t make sacrifices, we’ll end up destroying the planet, and these are the sacrifices they’re talking about.

                How do you limit the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by limiting the supply of energy–without also limiting the amount of energy consumers have available to them in times of high demand?

                Why would the policies, meant to induce this, result in anything else? Just because they wanted to go swimming doesn’t mean they wanted to get wet? There’s no conjecture here. The purpose of limiting the supply of energy is to limit its consumption. The name for a shortage of electricity in a time of high demand is a rolling blackout. If they didn’t want to get wet, they wouldn’t have gone swimming.

        2. I forget who it was, but one prominent environmentalist population alarmist (maybe Ehrlich but I don’t think so) said that a cheap, clean, and abundant power source would be the biggest disaster to befall mankind.

          1. It was Ehrlich. In 1975, here: https://fas.org/faspir/archive/1970-1981/May-June1975.pdf

            “In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

            To Hell with that guy. I hope Simon rubbed it in his face every day about that bet.

          2. And that’s how they see natural gas–as an environmental disaster–despite the fact that burning it releases about 40% less CO2 than coal to create the same amount of energy.

            And this is why both Biden and Harris are against fracking.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2020/08/15/the-selection-of-kamala-harris-cements-joe-bidens-fracking-ban-credentials/

            The goal is to limit the supply of energy available–and force consumers to use less of it in times of high demand. In times of high demand, learn to live without it.

            That is the goal.

            1. the same thing can be said about anti GMO food. Prolly since around 1900 or so every bit of food produced is genetically enhanced. All of it is engineered to make it grow more efficiently or large or more nutritious or more resistant to disease and pests. the same people against this are the same against nuclear power. Want to cure the problem of food and energy sterilize every 3rd woman and male for the next 30-40 years and within 3-4 generations the problem will solve itself. Or better yet eradicating all the pesky democrats will work more quickly

      2. “No need to attribute to evil what can be explained by incompetence.“

        No need for honesty when you can be an apologist for green scum:
        “We are running a system with a lot of solar,” Borenstein said. When solar goes away when the sun sets, we need other power. We have been rightly phasing out gas plants for very good reasons, but when you combine the lack of replacement for those with the crazy weather, we’re just in the situation where we’re going to be short.”
        https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Hot-stormy-weather-expected-to-linger-in-Bay-15487854.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

        1. The linked article is firewalled, so I cannot read it, but I’m guessing Borenstein is a spokesperson for PG&E explaining the problem, not the policy maker that created the situation.

          If I’m guessing correctly the context of this quote, then how does it make the point you are trying to make: that liberal policy makers intentionally want there to be blackouts.

          1. Borenstein is the ISO rep; the gov’t agency mandating the blackouts, dishonestly labeled the Indepenent System Operator, and if you read what I quoted, you’d see that the blackouts are indeed ‘planned’; they (the ISO) in shutting down the gas-powered plants knew full well they were going to cause those blackouts.

        2. Normal California weather is crazy. Not raining for 6 months is not right.

          1. Pffft. Antofagasta, Chile went 14 years without rain.

          2. Rain produces zero electricity.

      3. It is pure evil when seniors or recovering chemo patients (or any recovering medical) dies of heat stroke. Additionally, when one dies of smoke inhalation inside without powered air filters, or the poor lose freezer items of food.

        California is a dystopian science fiction novel that is inching close to POTUS.

        1. Don’t disagree with you, but just want to counter the narrative that Ken is advancing with no evidence: that liberals had intention of creating blackouts rather than their simply being incompetent.

          1. I don’t think that’s what Ken is trying to say (correct me if I’m wrong, Ken). It’s not that the purpose of the regulations was to cause blackouts, but simply that blackouts were a totally foreseeable result of the purpose which was to limit certain kinds of electricity generation.

    2. This is an intentional regression from 21st Century standards of living.

      1. Yeah, progressivism is all about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good–as they see it. And the purpose of progressive environmental policy is to force us to sacrifice our standard of living for the environment.

      2. Yeah, progressivism is all about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good–as they see it. And the purpose of progressive environmental policy is to force us to sacrifice our standard of living for the environment.

      3. “This is an intentional regression from 21st Century standards of living.”

        The goal of greenies everywhere!

        1. Including restoring an elite supervisory class, known elsewhere as aristocrats.

          1. The Aristocrats! Now, THAT was a great movie!

  5. The only coal plant left operating in CA is my old alma mater, Argus Cogen in Trona. I spent 10 years working there at the adjacent surface mine in the Mojave Desert. So proud. I imagine the state would love to close it down also, but they’ve been burning coal there for almost a 100 years and I imagine they are grandfathered in. They capture a good portion of the CO2 from the exhaust side and use it in the process to create soda ash.

    1. I’ve been through Trona on my way to Panamint Valley quite a few times. It’s a fascinating place to travel through but I can only imagine how horrible it is to live there. What was it like working out there? Did you live in Trona or commute from Ridgecrest or one of the other surrounding areas?

      1. Lived in Ridgecrest. I liked the work. I was a millwright and did maintenance on their equipment.

        I especially enjoyed the dry weather. A big difference for a boy from South Jersey. The downside was being so far from civilization. 85 miles to Lancaster.

        The state government was another pain in the ass. Eventually that drove me out of the state and to Texas.

        1. And you think Lancaster is civilization? hahahahah

  6. However, to be sure, the fish and wildlife are safe.

  7. Completely ignored in the reporting is that California has been shutting down a huge source of safe, reliable, always-on, non-carbon dioxide–emitting, climate-friendly electricity—that is, nuclear power.

    I’m ok with nuclear power but it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with peak or variable loads like a heat wave. It takes six months or more (minimum) to turn off and then turn back on a nuke power plant.

    There are other issues too but any time a particular energy source is viewed as a one-size-fits-every-fucking-scenario, then this is about hoary old politics not energy

    1. You think a nuclear reactor would only be used during peak load hours?

      1. Even the topic of predictable variability in an electricity market is increasingly secondary re nucler power. Because producers can turn into consumers and vice-versa and that means a completely different market structure. Yapping about nuclear – esp when what you’re really addressing in unpredictable variability – is in truth denying that there is any possible change in that market structure. That the future is – the 1950’s.

        This is why the US is rapidly becoming a backwater re energy technology – and will be irrelevant within about 5-10 years. But you can bet the political horseshit will be the same

        1. Way to not answer the question.

          No, nuclear is not intended to—by itself—manage unforeseen power needs. It does however, provide gobs of boring, high uptime (provided the regulators haven’t taken a unit offline because the fifth backup system is wonky), high capacity power so that other power generation systems (wind, microturbines, what have you) can manage peak loads.

          1. Nuclear can’t do ANYTHING unforeseen. AT ALL. It has at least a 40 life span with huge upfront capital costs. Which means it most likely has to have subsidized capital costs – and most certainly has to ossify everything for that lifespan. And since the fuel itself has huge externality risks – that last for 1000+ years – then it is GOVT that has to ossify everything.

            No surprise then – the arguments re nuclear are really mainly about govt/politics.

            1. Much of the capital cost is government imposed, especially in CA.

              1. Not to mention that any other power source (including wind and solar) has a finite lifespan, and huge upfront costs.

            2. New small modular nuclear plants are in the works and should be available in the next few years. These can be built in factories and shipped to existing power plant sites for installation. The advantage is that they can be used to incrementally replace existing plants without the fouling off the environment that will come with constructing turbines, solar panels and hundreds of thousands of miles of new transmission lines.

              If you think nuclear waste is an issue, just wait until we see the waste from turbines, solar panels and batteries that have reached end of life. Besides if we used re-processing like the French do, we would have less dangerous waste to store.

    2. When you take a bunch of plants offline, then the issues are ALL on you. CA did this. By choice. And the Dems want this to be done NATIONALLY.

      Either build more nuclear plants or, honestly, STFU.

      1. The the relevant article was when those plants were taken offline. Other than that – what is obvious is that you only give a shit about politics not energy

      2. No, build more gas plants.

        1. There’s also a limit to how variable gas plants can be because the pipelines are fixed capacity. Even coal isn’t that variable because the mines and trains require a lot of predictability. And even that assumes you can store a shit-ton of coal outside the plant.

          1. “There’s also a limit to how variable gas plants can be because the pipelines are fixed capacity.”

            So lay another pipe. The existing easements are certainly big enough for it to fit. Where they aren’t, I guess it’s time for the landmen to earn their keep. Like it is to build out another wind site. Or large scale solar installation.

            Are you really going to claim that’s harder or takes more time/paperwork/resources than trying to get the same power production from renewables?

            1. Your entire mindset is about building massive centrally-organized energy projects. Rather than highly decentralized. And yes – within a couple decades – America will be left far far behind and become utterly irrelevant.

              It’s funny as hell really. The core problem here is that there is a shit-ton of housing with blazingly hot/sunny roofs. Where there is so much energy heating up those roofs that you cannot even imagine how to harness any of that energy to cool things down. So instead you want to burn giant piles of dinosaur manure/farts.

              What a stupid stupid people you have become.

              1. JFree
                August.19.2020 at 6:10 pm
                “Your entire mindset is about building massive centrally-organized energy projects. Rather than highly decentralized. And yes – within a couple decades – America will be left far far behind and become utterly irrelevant…”

                JFree has returned to arm-wave regarding his wonderful solution to just about everything, AND NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO HIM!!!
                Can’t be because he’s full of shit, not at all!

              2. What a stupid person to talk about more solar power when the heaviest load arises around sundown.

    3. I’m ok with nuclear power but it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with peak or variable loads like a heat wave. It takes six months or more (minimum) to turn off and then turn back on a nuke power plant.
      Nuclear is a base load power source. It wouldn’t drop off when the sun goes down. California has pushed too much reliance on intermittent sources that couldn’t be augmented with imports during a heat wave.

      1. “It wouldn’t drop off when the sun goes down.”

        Again, the sun doesn’t go down. You’ve been reading too much Ron Bailey.

        1. New to English idioms?

          1. Blaming English speakers now? The sun doesn’t go down. It only appears to go down because of the earth’s rotation.

            1. id·i·om
              /ˈidēəm/
              Learn to pronounce
              noun
              1.
              a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light ).

              1. id·i·ot
                /ˈidēət/

                A person who thinks the sun actually goes up and down. Or that the sun goes away at night.

                1. Silly, the sun god moves across the sky in a chariot. He goes to the underworld at night.

      2. And a base load power source is radically different when:
        a)all the producers are on one side and the consumers are on the other and the distribution network in the middle has strong natural monopoly elements.
        b) producers and consumers can be different groups at different times – with pricing of fuel, capital, electricity, and other inputs on both producer and consumer side all arbitrating supply and demand.

        1. Yeah, that old comparative advantage just doesn’t work in the case of power generating!
          Why, we can put a small nuke or a huge fan in your backyard TODAY!
          Just call 1-800-bullshit!

    4. But you can change the output of a nuke, can’t you?

      1. In the case of California, I would recommend increasing the output so that it releases really, really, really fast.

        1. That scene towards the end of Chernobyl, where the lead control rod covers were bouncing out of the reactor floor, might be instructive here…

    5. “Commonsense and Nuclear Energy” is another good source evaded by antinuclear socialist pseudoscientists. The author is Sir Fred Hoyle and his son Geoffrey. Bernard Cohen’s 1977 article on “The Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from Fission Reactors”, back when Scientific American was still Scientific and American is guaranteed to turn Climate Cassandras a shade of deep purple just from hearing the title. Every delay in bringing a nuclear plant online is a deliberate health hazard and ought to be prosecuted as such.

    6. well it did make the edible sea life larger and more numerous in the area.

  8. I can’t even imagine how big of a national story this would be if it were happening in a red state.

    1. This wouldn’t happen in a red state.

      1. Republicans are the cowardly owners of the reactors the other looters keep shutting down. They care not a whit for safety comparisons or actuarial records so long as illiterates are shrieking for blacker blackouts.

    2. Even Governor Moron gets it:

      “California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that the state’s transition away from fossil fuels is a contributing factor to the state’s rolling blackouts.

      The elimination of fossil fuel products as a major form of energy production and the shift to solar power and other forms of green energy has led to what Newsom called “gaps” in the energy grid’s reliability, the Democratic governor said during a press conference Monday.

      Newsom addressed the sudden loss of power many Californians experienced Saturday and Sunday during high temperatures.

      “We are not backing off on that commitment,” Newsom said, referring to California’s push to transition away from oil and gas.

      “In the process of the transition, in the process of shutting down, understandably, the desire and need to shut down polluting gas plants … comes the need to have more insurance, comes the need to recognize that there have been — by definition, demonstrably, in the last few days and what we expect over the next few days — gaps in terms of that reliability,” Newsom said.

      1. Yep, he’s got one of his advisors working on no-polluting unicorn farts as we type!

  9. In addition, output from California’s wind farms was erratic.

    So build some silos for the farms, and store the excess wind for when you need it. Do I have to think of everything?

    1. If only we could capture the bullshit generated by CA’s government(s), we would have power so plentiful there would be no need for meters!

      1. There is a lot of energy there but it is highly entropic, and therefore useless.

  10. I was living in CA when San Onofre shut down. No one seemed concerned at the time, but it contributed something like 17% of the states’ power (IIRC).

    If environmentalists really consider GW to be an ‘existential’ threat, they would be demanding a ramp up of nuclear power.

  11. “Another part of it is the state’s growing reliance on solar energy. The outages have been occurring between 6 to 9 p.m.
    “We are running a system with a lot of solar,” Borenstein said. “When solar goes away when the sun sets, we need other power. We have been rightly phasing out gas plants for very good reasons, but when you combine the lack of replacement for those with the crazy weather, we’re just in the situation where we’re going to be short.”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Hot-stormy-weather-expected-to-linger-in-Bay-15487854.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    One of moonbeam’s royal decrees mandated solar and wind to make up 50% of CA’s power by some arbitrary date.
    There is no way solar and wind can produce 50% of what CA needs, so in order to achieve the mandated number, CA simply reduced the supply of power.
    IOWs, the rolling blackouts are a government-mandated ‘feature’.

    1. Yes, this is what when you think that government simply telling industrial scientists and engineers “make it so” will get you what you want.

  12. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that when the sun goes down or is hidden by clouds or smoke, and when the wind stops winding, you need some other energy source. It does take a few seconds thought to realize that there can never be enough batteries to stash several weeks power for winter months, whether those batteries are from Elon Musk or in the form of pumping water uphill.

    In other words, every solar or wind plant still needs old-fashioned power generators as backup, of the same capacity. And even then, it takes a few more seconds and some actual explanation to realize that backup power plants take some time to come on line; they can’t just blink on and off when shadows pass.

    1. “t doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that when the sun goes down ”

      The sun doesn’t actually ‘go down.’ It stays right where it belongs up in the sky. It’s the earth’s rotation that makes the sun seem to disappear at night.

      1. Is your hockey helmet on too tight? Ask your keeper to help you with it.

        1. You just try explaining sciency things to my readers.

          1. id·i·om
            /ˈidēəm/
            Learn to pronounce
            noun
            1.
            a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light ).

          2. And making an ass of yourself in the bargain!

  13. California is run by one party full of ideologues. Ideologues never let facts, reason or what is best for the people get in the way of their ideology or fantasy.

  14. There once was a pleasant, cooling, green stretch on land along the 429 toll road in southwestern Orange county (FL).
    Now there are no trees, just hundreds of acres of bare earth covered by solar cells, often reflecting into drivers eyes.
    But the mouse is “green”, so all is well in that Happiest Place on Earth where seven year old children are rudely turned away after their parents pay a huge amount of money for travel, lodging, and tickets. Because, ADA notwithstanding, since she cannot (not would not, medically cannot) wear a mask, it is “begone!”
    (Lawyers, behold the deepest of deep pockets! Go get ’em!)

    The same corporation fully supports the Communist Chinese regime, apologizing is anyone offends them with the truth about Hong Kong, and fully supports the Marxism and anti-family ideals of BLM.

    I fled California ahead of the democrats.
    I fled Virginia ahead of the democrats.
    Now where, that they have come for Florida?
    Perhaps I shall select this hill; it is shaded and pleasant.
    And the democrats want my vote?
    No. I shall Trump your insatiable fascism.

    1. “Perhaps I shall select this hill”

      You found a hill in Florida? Don’t tell the Democrats.

      1. North FL is full of hills.

      2. We do have Mount Dora – – – – – – – –
        (elevation 184 feet)
        https://ci.mount-dora.fl.us/

        1. What is the free climb rating?

      3. There is a hilly area to the west of Orlando.

        1. I’ll be sure to take my skis next time I visit.

    2. i’m in AZ and wondering how long til it falls to the blue scourge. Next destination probably Montana or Wyoming.

      1. “I’m in AZ and wondering how long til it falls to the blue scourge. ”

        I think it 50/50 they go for Biden this election. Sinema getting the nod was not a good sign for you. Yes, she’s a socialist, but have you seen her chest?

        1. Sinema hasn’t actually been too bad from what i can tell. I’m more concerned with the state govt anyways. the GOP has been lucky that team blue has had no good candidates for governor recently but Ducey is term limited (and hes been crushed by the covid hysterics anyways).

          i’ll probably move when they start messing with the gun laws here.

    3. Happiest Place on Earth where two year old children are eaten by alligators!

      1. They’re always looking for a hand-out!

      2. To be sure, the parents were warned; there were signs.

        1. People were surprised that there were alligators living in a resort built on a swamp.

          There can be alligators in any fresh water body in Central Florida, but people have weird assumptions about the extent a place like Disney World can control nature.

    4. And FL has nuclear. I used to take my kids to watch the manatees frolic around the coolant outflow tanks at the plant in Port St. Lucie. And no, the manatees did not have two heads.

  15. “California should not only keep its nuclear power plants running but also build many more of them.”

    Keeping and building nuclear power plants isn’t going to prevent the heatwaves which are causing California’s difficulties.

    1. No sense buying bottled water. It won’t prevent the heatwaves that are making you thirsty.

      1. You’ll need more than bottled water to keep our crops healthy and happy. Air conditioning has its limits. It won’t help our crops make it through these heatwaves. It’s suitable for indoor use.

        1. Way to miss my point. I wasn’t literally talking about water, and the plight of Californian crops has not come up once until you deflected to it just now, because the topic at hand is electric power and blackouts.

          The criticism I was making is that your comment is idiotic on its face. You seem to be making the argument that a plan to increase the supply of a resource in the face of high demand is useless and should not be considered because demand will remain high. Or do you really believe that it would be easier to abolish heatwaves than to build more reliable power plants?

          1. “…The criticism I was making is that your comment is idiotic on its face…”

            Don’t recognize your handle; trueman IS an idiot, so that’s what you get.

            1. If you told him drinks are on the house, he would look for a way to the roof.

          2. ” and the plight of Californian crops has not come up once until you deflected to it just now”

            How is that a deflection? Crops suffer under intense heat, I promise you. And no amount of building nuclear reactors is going to change that.

            “You seem to be making the argument”

            I am making the point that California’s problems stem from heatwaves rather than a lack of nuclear power generation. Something shy of a half a million acres are ablaze in California now. I blame the heatwave, not a lack of nuclear power generation. That’s no deflection either, but an accurate and intelligent understanding of cause and effect.

            1. The article, and all of the discussion in the comments up til now, has been about lack of reliable electrical power. Not crop failures. Not wildfires. The problem of blackouts would be significantly ameliorated by nuclear power. How in the hell does the existence of other problems negate that fact?

              1. My comment is about heatwaves and the inadequacy of nuclear power to mitigate their terrible effects.

                1. And yet record crop yields continue to pour in. Those poor plants aren’t drinking your Kool-aid.

                  1. “And yet record crop yields continue to pour in”

                    Without building all these nuclear power plants? How on earth do they manage it?

            2. Further, and more to the point, if you insist that the only problem worth talking about is the heatwaves themselves, do you have a solution in mind? Do you intend to mine comets for ice cubes to drop in the ocean and cool off California’s climate? When natural phenomena are too great for humans to alter, we generally adapt by using technological solutions to solve, one-by-one, the problems we face because of them.

              1. ” if you insist that the only problem worth talking about is the heatwaves themselves”

                I’m not insisting that. But that is what is causing California’s problems now.

                “we generally adapt by using technological solutions to solve, one-by-one, the problems we face because of them.”

                Once upon a more confident, dynamic time, that was undoubtedly true. These days though, there is more political hay to be made by attacking Californians, leftists, environmentalists and others not affiliated with the nuclear industry. If you want to find people seeking technical solutions to these sorts of problems, go to communist China.

            3. I have to deflect a bit. so if pelosis’ husbands salmon farms in the sacto delta had not cut off the water supply to Calis central valley the crops would still be one of the worlds leading food sources.

  16. There are “peaker” plants that are supposed to turn on when demand spikes. But… they somehow didn’t get turned in in my area, so we had rolling blackouts while plants were down. Fail.

    Yes, we need nukes. Any environmentalist wringing their hands about global warming who also wants to ban nuclear power is a fucking poseur. Nuclear and hydro are the only core power generation we have that don’t use carbon. And we don’t have any more rivers to dam up. The idea that we can pave over the desert with solar and mine enough rare earths to make all the batteries we need to make wind viable, is simply not realistic.

    And let’s not forget the other energy insanities for the Left. Like banning Uber and Lyft from the state, in favor of idling taxis. Ride *sharing* reduces energy use. Those two companies are also currently working on self driving shared vehicles, which would substantially reduce overall petroleum usage. Also their anti-GMO and pro-organic mandates make farming far more energy intense than it should be. And wasting billions on a bullet train when commercial airflights between LA and SF are not only more convenient, but a much smaller carbon footprint.

    Poseurs because it more about their feelz than it is the hard actual results.

    1. “when commercial airflights between LA and SF are not only more convenient, but a much smaller carbon footprint. ”

      What they didn’t tell you is that you have to walk between the airports and the commercial districts at either end of the trip.

      1. If you’re talking about the high-speed rail, it’s never coming anywhere near those commercial districts. They’ve changed the plan so it runs only through rural CA, not coming near the big cities. It’s the railroad from nowhere to nowhere.

  17. To be clear, I’m not exactly in favor of reopening San Onofre for other reasons (see Fukushima). It’s on the coast, there are faults both inland and out to sea that might trigger failures at the plant or tsunami . . .

    That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of good places to put nuclear reactors elsewhere in California. We already have the infrastructure to deliver power from the Hoover Dam across the desert, and there are plenty of good places between Las Vegas and LA that would be better places to put a nuclear reactor. It is not necessary to build one in proximity to numerous earthquake faults and next to the ocean.

    1. ” It is not necessary to build one in proximity to numerous earthquake faults and next to the ocean.”

      Wherever you plan on building your reactor, it’s still going to be operated by humans. And humans are the biggest source of human error, always have been and that’s not going to change. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, both down to human error. With Fukushima, the reactors were working perfectly except that the designers mistakenly believed that a mag 9.1 quake wasn’t in the cards.

      1. You realize that the U.S Navy operates hundreds of fission reactors right now without incident, right?

        1. You think US Navy personnel are immune from human error? They aren’t, I assure you. Read up on any accident involving nuclear reactors or weapons. They are almost certainly to be the result of human error.

      2. The Fukushima problem was that the coolant reservoir was built at, or below, the level of the core it was meant to cool. If the reservoir had been above the core the pumps would not have been needed to be operational to cool the core since the water could flow downhill to cool it. BAD DESIGN.

    2. You need a place to dump the waste heat. Water works well for that, except there isn’t much water in a desert.

      Fukushima was fine…if the backup diesel genset wasn’t near sea level. Even then, it was proof against a 8m (?) tsunami. Who’d ever heard of a bigger one there? You’d need something like a magnitude 9 earthquake right next door to get a tsunami bigger than that…

      Whoops. I’m very glad the spent fuel pool didn’t go up too.

      Anyway, Onofre’s on bluffs, right? Short of an astrobleme, I’d think they’re good against that threat. They need to stick the thing near water. Vandenberg would probably be a good spot if, LOL CA ever wanted to build another one.

      1. “You need a place to dump the waste heat. Water works well for that, except there isn’t much water in a desert.”

        One of the biggest wastes of energy in our country comes from cities in the southwest pumping effluent back to places like the Colorado River because of the ick factor. It’s especially a waste when a city like Las Vegas squanders all that perfectly serviceable water back to the Colorado River, when the water its pulling out of the Colorado River is pulling in effluent from other cities upstream. People just don’t like the idea drinking effluent or taking showers in it.

        I can now think of another use for that water that wouldn’t waste so much energy needlessly pumping it back where it came from.

        “Fukushima was fine…if the backup diesel genset wasn’t near sea level. Even then, it was proof against a 8m (?) tsunami. Who’d ever heard of a bigger one there? You’d need something like a magnitude 9 earthquake right next door to get a tsunami bigger than that…”

        San Onofre was designed to withstand a 7.0 earthquake and a 25 foot tidal wave.

        If the earthquake is 7.1 just off the coast and the tidal wave is 26 feet, then what? You’re risking the health and lives of how many million Californians?

        It was stupid to put a reactor on the sea and near a bunch of faults when they could have put it away from the sea and away from the faults.

        No, San Onofre isn’t on the bluffs, although there are bluffs north and south of there. He’s a shot of San Onofre from the beach.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station_2013_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg

        P.S. Isn’t it the easiest military/terrorist target in the world? How easy would it be to launch a team from a submarine to blow that reactor and terrorize 20 million Californians a la Chernobyl?

      2. Frisco bay has plenty of coast line and room for nuke plants there in the millionaire vineyards and if a melt down does happen its no big loss

    3. Ken, the level of exposure in the Fukushima area was actually lower than what people in CO are exposed to every day.

  18. It’s hilarious to see Reason Mag touting nuclear power. Not a single nuke has ever been built anywhere in the world without massive governmental corporate welfare. Private insurance companies will not insure nuclear plants, and for good reason. Reason, the Socialist Magazine of Big Gubmint all of a sudden when it comes to nuclear power.

    1. If the point is that California regulators don’t care as much about saving the planet from CO2 as they do about forced sacrifice, then the point if valid.

      Reason isn’t in charge of whether California builds more nuclear reactors, but the fact is that California has gone out of its way to shut reactors down–whether Reason likes it or not.

      Incidentally, it’s the same thing with upgrading the power generation capacity at dams all over the country. Environmental groups are largely opposed to that, even though many of those systems are ridiculously out of date, because they want to remove the dams and return the rivers to their natural flows to protect wildlife, etc.

      Again, making as much carbon free energy available to consumers as we transition away from fossil fuels does not appear to be their primary objective. Their primary objective is to choke off the supply of energy–whether it’s carbon free or not–and teach consumers to go without.

  19. How’s the cleanup of Santa Susana Field coming along?

    1. 60 years in, 6,000 to go.

  20. nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen, and your mistakes linger for a few hundred (or thousand) years.

    we need sea powered electrical plants (and desalination plants for fresh water) in California. but environmentalists will block those too.

    1. “nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen, and your mistakes linger for a few hundred (or thousand) years.”

      Yeah, the alternatives are so much safer!
      “Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh
      Coal – world average, 161
      Coal – China, 278
      Coal – USA, 15
      Oil – 36
      Natural Gas – 4
      Biofuel/Biomass – 12
      Peat – 12
      Solar/rooftop – 0.44-0.83
      Wind – 0.15
      Hydro – world, 0.10
      Hydro – world*, 1.4
      Nuclear – 0.04
      * Includes the 170,000 deaths from the failure of the Banquao Reservoir Dam in China in 1975
      https://energycentral.com/c/ec/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes

    2. 2020-1945=75 years Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  21. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

  22. Nuclear power doesn’t have a future. It can’t compete with fossil fuels on average cost. But it can’t compete with renewables on marginal cost. The Market has spoken.

    1. The decision to close Diablo Canyon was political not economic

    2. “The Market has spoken.”

      The market doesn’t have the last word. The nuclear programs in communist countries like China and North Korea are leading the world. Nuclear’s centralizing power into the hands of a small number of bureaucrats and technocrats make it an irresistible choice for authoritarians. Democratic Californians are too wary and ornery to place much trust in a nuclear power elite.

      1. And yet they bend over when the pols ban plastic bags, plastic straws, and high cost, unrelilable energy installations.

        1. They reelect these politicians as well. That only shows the depth of the distrust Californians have towards their nuclear elite. If you want to live among a more compliant and trusting population with respect to nuclear, give China a try.

      2. DEMOCRAT==DEMOCRAT== DEMOCRAT not democratic huge difference.

    3. “…But it can’t compete with renewables on marginal cost. The Market has spoken.”

      You bet it has! Solar and wind; cheap and worth it.
      The market prefers lights to go on when the switch is flipped, not when there’s no clouds and a breeze.
      Bicycles offer transport at very low marginal costs and will never replace autos.

      1. Q. How many Sevos does it take to fix a light bulb on Alcatraz?

        A. 13:
        1 to screw it in, and 12 to row the extension cord to the mainland.

      2. then give all the enviro weenies a bicycle powered generator. problem solved

  23. San Onofre is already in the process of being dismantled. Too late

    But Diablo Canyon could run for another 40 years if folks would get their head out of their ass

    Idiot Newsom is discussing batteries for fucks sake

    1. “But Diablo Canyon could run for another 40 years if folks would get their head out of their ass”

      Wasn’t it designed to run for 40 years or so when it was built in the 1960s? I wouldn’t eat a sandwich 10 years beyond its sell-by date, and I’m not sure why you think decommissioning can be postponed seemingly indefinitely.

  24. What’s the problem??? CA has by far some of the BEST power in the USA…. So I’ve been told a million in a half times. With their amazing Solar power that is SOOOOO awesome it’d power the world for free if only those filthy oil companies would stop making solar illegal..

    Hmmm… Seems to me; Solar never was illegal. In fact it seems to me Solar went around with guns and Stole Trillions from people just to exist.

    OMG! What it ALL a big fat political LIE???? I thought the science about it was closed… lol.. .:)

    1. JUST IN — CA Residents who solved “global warming” are now “warming globally” without their HVAC units running.

    2. With their amazing Solar power that is SOOOOO awesome it’d power the world for free if only those filthy oil companies would stop making solar illegal.

      No, the oil companies move the sun out of the sky every night, causing severe disruptions to solar energy. And they stop the wind from blowing.

      Trump tells them when to move the sun and stop the wind, doncha know?

      1. lol… That insane theory actually holds a ton of “scientific” water in the party that likes to pretend government has the sole power to affect global “climate changes”… Gov = God? 🙂

      2. Darth Cheney is using his weather machine again. I thought they took it away from him after Hurricane Katrina.

  25. Why do I keep reading stories about California as if it’s normal and operates and governs in a rational and reasoned manner?

    I think it’s pretty clear the place is just about absurd. That’s what you get when you have one-party rule.

    Democrats are far left loons. So it’s only natural the ‘party of science’ is going to hate on nuclear.

    Where do we stand now? Tesla and Rogan. Gone. Uber and Lyft. Probably leaving. I’m sure there’s an exodus of other businesses.

    Why in the world would you plump down capital to start a business in CA given the obscene government intervention like that retarded law turning free-lancers into employees.

    California isn’t a trail blazer. It’s a stagnant loony bin.

    1. “California isn’t a trail blazer.”

      You might consider China. Though far to the left politically – it’s ruled by a Communist Party – it produces more electrical vehicles and has a more active nuclear program than anywhere else in the world. There is much for authoritarians in America to admire.

  26. I am extremely pro nuclear…big nuclear especially. The bigger the reactors the better. There are definitely economies of scale. But California is a special case. California is prone to earthquakes. And there could easily be faults we don’t even know about. All our reactors have been at the coast. That is a very vulnerable location. If we are to build new reactors, they need to be near the eastern state line so as to be on the North American Plate and far from the intersection between the North American Plate and the Pacific Plate, or they need to be submerged off the coast. Not resting on the bottom but held by cables or chains and modestly buoyant. But that second choice would require a lot of R&D to realize. The third option is molten salt reactors as they are already melted down. That is their normal state and are thus very safe. Unfortunately, they will take a long time to build as there are still unresolved aspects to their design and we will need a few experimental reactors first to iron out these aspects. So that is probably 15-25 years down the road. So the second option makes the most sense and maybe one experimental molten salt reactor built with at least 50% Federal dollars.
    The author points out San Onofre, as an example of the State shutting down nuclear. But that is not what happened there. A part ordered and delivered from Japan did not perform as expected and it badly damaged the reactor. The shut down was not some misguided political decision.
    I am not saying we cannot build conventional reactors on the coast. I am saying the costs would be astronomical because of all the heavy duty earthquake protection. It just does not make sense at the beach.
    And energy storage should not be a dirty word. There are some reasonable solutions to increase that. I particularly like the concrete block trains. But there are a number of viable technologies.
    And lastly, it does not make sense to spend dozens of billions of dollars to prevent something that only affects a few tens of thousands of people for a few days once every 5 years.
    My opinion is that right now there is no problem. Though, without building more storage, more solar or wind would be an issue.
    A quicker fix than nuclear would be tripling geothermal. Geothermal like nuclear is reliable continuous power. Nuclear usually takes many years to build and intentions are to move away from fossil faster than that.

    1. “A quicker fix than nuclear would be tripling geothermal.”

      What’s to stop someone from drilling a deep hole and taking advantage of the difference in heat between the cooler surface and heat at the bottom of the hole? I suppose there are environmental considerations against the idea, but as far as engineering is concerned, how about it?

      1. At 100-200 milliwats pre square meter , the average geothermal heat flux at ground level is about as tenth as large as the 1 to 2 watt/m2 radiative forcing from greenhouse gases

    2. Interesting.

    3. I said earlier build the reactors in Frisco Bays vineyards that way IF there is a melt down it won’t make that much difference and would solve Calis political problems as well.

    4. My opinion is that right now there is no problem…

      that affects you personally. Now all those folks experiencing intermittent power like some third world dump may feel like there is a problem.

  27. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.BAI I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is

    what I do……………… CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

  28. “Last night [Sunday] 60 percent of the power in the ISO [Independent System Operator] was being produced by those gas plants. They are your insurance policy to get through heat waves.”

    60%?

    Sounds like gas plants are CA’s PRIMARY means of getting through heat waves, not their “insurance policy,”

    Just how stupid does this dude think the rest of us are?

  29. The anti-nuclear activists caused AGW/climate change by all but destroying the nuclear power industry with their superstitious fearmongering.

  30. Just like homeless advocates are the biggest reason that homelessness is growing, environmentalists are the biggest reason that actions to combat global warming are failing.

    Homeless advocates, shun mental health institutions and compelled drug treatment, in favor of the fund the advocates first philosophy. The I hate coal and natural gas but won’t allow nuclear crowd that think a freaking solar panel will power the world are the same way. Simpleminded, emotional zealots that do more harm than good.

  31. It is so damn delicious to see Californians reap what they sow.

  32. This is scary and devastating. Thanks for this update
    https://lookoutfirst.com.ng/

Please to post comments