Utopia Talk / Politics / california invests in renewable energy

sam adams Member	Mon Sep 07 06:57:57 Lol. Cali has the highest taxes in the country too. http://mob...fLA/status/1302726251371667457 It’s almost 3 p.m. Time to turn off major appliances, set the thermostat to 78 degrees (or use a fan instead), turn off excess lights and unplug any appliances you’re not using. We need every Californian to help conserve energy. Please do your part.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 10:03:36 This is what happens when dumb hippies run your energy policy.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 10:14:18 AC+record braking heatwave = excess consumption. I would be money the problem is not energy policy, its bottlenecks in grid distribution that are struggling under peak consumption (a few hours every day).
habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 10:24:57 Then why does Texas seem fine?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 10:32:06 You mean the place were GOP tards run energy policy and a lot of it is in the process of going bankrupt?
habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 10:34:11 So your saying that even with mass bankruptcies TX still has a better energy policy than CA?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 10:37:37 I am saying that mass bankrupcies demonstrate a fundamental weakness in energy policy. California's problem is that peak usage is many times higher than average usage. The grid runs into trouble when the peaks go too high. You might say "invest more in infrastructure", but that is a general flaw with the current state of affairs in the US. Your country sucks. Learn to accept that.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 10:46:07 "I am saying that mass bankrupcies demonstrate a fundamental weakness in energy policy." If energy is still cheap and readily available, which it is that is a flawed measurement of failure. Texas probably has the best energy policy in the US. It also leads the way in renewables and is popping up carbon free NG plants, Pretty impressive.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 10:48:25 Texas Produces Five Times The Wind Power As California At Almost Half The Price -- Blame Regulation http://www...he-price-blame-regulation/amp/
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 13:52:00 habebe The point with distribution bottlenecks during peak consumption is that electricity is not readily available. rofl@carbon free NG plants. Garbage opinion piece btw.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 13:54:56 http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-4 Use site to find Texas data too.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 14:17:28 Jergul, They use carbon capture. If you get nitpicky nothing is carbon free, what fuel did the trucks use to haul hose windmills? But regardless TX has done a lot to reduce its pollution. A great deal has happened because NG is cheap and abundant and less carbon intensive than coal. Nice link, but I dont see your point.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 14:37:08 We have already had this silly discussion a few years ago. I feel no need to debunk this again.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 07 14:44:10 habebe: "If energy is still cheap and readily available, which it is that is a flawed measurement of failure." Not really, bankruptcies have costs associated with them - indicating either hidden costs that have been met by implicit subsidy, and that indicates current of future under investment. Commodity industries should be low margin, highly predictable safe investments. Bankruptcies indicate un-priced risks. You would expect it in a maturing industry making a transition from differentiated product/services to commodity/utility, but for energy which is very mature already - it indicates some kind of dysfunction and trouble down the road.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 15:34:30 Seb, The bankruptcies I think he is talking about are due to the price drops in oil due to covid. Technically this is more looking ahead from what Ive read in the next 2 years around 250 gas/oil companies may* need to file for bankruptcy IF oil remains too low for them to turn a profit or they find a way to do it cheaper, one way or another something has to give.
sam adams Member	Mon Sep 07 15:35:48 "California's problem is that peak usage is many times higher than average usage. The grid runs into trouble when the peaks go too high." No. Every state has huge swings and big peaks. Only California fails at it. I really love that they decomissioned a relatively young nuke plant recently because the hippy tards were scared by it. That could have given them another million homes of all day-AC. Oh and no CO2. Instead... they built expensive wind farms that dont work precisely when they are needed most. Thats seb-level mismanagement.
kargen Member	Mon Sep 07 15:53:53 Parts of California are divesting away from natural gas sources of energy faster than they are replacing it with green energy. Solar and wind can be unreliable in certain weather events. California hasn't invested in redundancies to take this into account. California isn't bringing in energy from other states as much as the used to. They are also getting away from nuclear energy. They have enough solar and wind resources to keep the state supplied in electricity only so long as everything is performing at near peak levels. Near peak levels isn't often achieved. Toss into the mess the push to convert everything over to electricity. Home appliances heating systems all that stuff. If California meets it's goal of replacing gas cars with electric cars that will cause an increase of almost 50% use of electricity long before they are able to increase production anywhere near that level unless they finally smarten up and embrace nuclear power.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 16:30:19 Sammy Fail. The problem is grid capacity, not electricity production. Its the distribution, stupid. Kargen Fail. Nuclear power is baseload production. The problem is always peak load consumption. See Sammy's fail for details. Hydro and NG are best at dealing with peak consumption, but in the case of ng, it means running at levels far below name plate capacity. The winners of the energy race and the States and countries that can mix in enough hydro into their mix to deal with peak loads. Yay Iceland, Yay Norway. Yay Canada Yay Paraguay Yay Sweden.
kargen Member	Mon Sep 07 17:03:29 Nah jergul you are simply wrong yet again. Nuclear power is a steady source of power and it is clean energy. Just what California needs. Yeah the grid is part of the problem but when you put all your hopes into sun shining all across the state and wind speeds being not to strong and not to weak you are asking for problems. Especially when you are weening yourself off of other energy sources before you replace them. California has set an arbitrary due date to be completely green. They are moving away from natural gas much quicker than their ability to produce green energy. At the same time they are increasing demand. Do you know what happens when demand outweighs supply? Do you know what happens when that supply is essential? California is fucking itself trying to go green much faster than logistically possible. The shoddy grid they have failed to update will become a problem eventually but all the capacity to transfer power will not matter if there is no power to transfer. hydro can have the same problem wind and solar have. It is more reliable but still dependent on nature. A couple of years of below average snowfall in Colorado could really throw a wrench in things for other western states that depend on that water. For an example look at the farming community and ecosystem in California that was reliant on the Colorado River having a strong flow. It is time to give the next generation of nuclear power a very serious look.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 17:19:04 I think the US left is different than European left that the Euros seem more on board with Nuclear and Hydro.
sam adams Member	Mon Sep 07 18:49:15 Sammy Fail. The problem is grid capacity, not electricity production. Its the distribution, stupid. Kargen Fail. Nuclear power is baseload production. The problem is always peak load consumption. See Sammy's fail for details. Mostly wrong. California does not have enough production AND the lines coming into the state are maxxed out. To fix this, you could either build more production inside the maxxed out interconnections OR build more lines. Furthermore, California is so retarded it often uses its natgas peakers and dams for what should be base load. 2 more GW of power close to cities always helps. Not to mention the obvious fact it creates much less CO2 than the nat gas plants that replaced most its production. Trust me. My old company made a buttload of money selling our oregon based peakers to the retards in cali during relatively normal loads. Its a 20 degree C mid-morning? Time for cali to need peakers again. And its only getten worse since they turned off the big nukes at san onofre and tried to replace coal with wind and solar.
sam adams Member	Mon Sep 07 18:55:44 "I think the US left is different than European left that the Euros seem more on board with Nuclear and Hydro." It depends. There is a huge difference between countries, the starkest being france and germany. Germany, in their staggering incompetence, tried to replace all their nuke plants with wind and solar. As a result they pay the most for their power, and the wind and solar dont work well so they mostly burn russian nat gas... the result being that despite their high expense they still have pretty high co2 emissions. Lose lose. France on the other hand is a model country that loves its nuke plants. As a result, they have some of the lowest cost and cleanest power in europe.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 19:23:30 Sammy Now why would you say "mostly wrong" when everything you wrote supports what I said? California's name plate production is fine for both base and peak loads. Its trouble lies in the grid. It cannot distribute effectively and particularly not for extended peak periods. Something that occurs during heat waves. On nuclear power. Very few countries are large enough to support a nuclear industry effectively. 6x1GW = 1 plant. Per year. Forever. That is the scale you need. Otherwise you get the 5-6% inflation all smaller countries have seen since the mid 70s. That is inflation on nuclear power plant construction costs per year. The US might possibly be able to support such an industry. But that would be for a Federal scheme. The States are way to small. Closing down nuclear power prematurely is always stupid. But its not a game for pisant countries like Germany long term anyway.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 20:59:15 Sam, I waa definitely thinking of France when I typed that, I think they cover a larger share of power through NP than anyone.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 21:00:08 The green new deal plans on no new nuclear.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 07 22:12:09 Habebe A Federal nuclear programme is not realistic and nuclear power is a useless cash drain on anything smaller scale. Stick with your special purpose toy reactors for maritime use. Not exactly cost efficient (the newest carrier plans to produce synthetic jetfuel from seawater with excess capacity for gods sake), but at least they let ships do stuff.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 07 23:57:29 jergul, Well either way the GND is trash. About a week ago or so I started some research on the specifics ( after my thread on a separate deal) Its like all the worst ideas put into to one package.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 07:12:48 Wrong. In a funny way if it not been so serious. The worst ideas put into one package are those that privatise profit while the public carries the risk. So any stimulous package ever enacted. The current ones will cost what? 3 trillion? Chicken feed to individuals does not change the core purpose of the packages. Keep stocks inflated.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 08 11:14:02 "California's name plate production is fine for both base and peak loads." Wrong, completely. "A Federal nuclear programme is not realistic and nuclear power is a useless cash drain on anything smaller scale. " Wrong. Nuclear power is the only way to significantly reduce carbon dioxide.
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 08 11:43:31 Jergul attempting to write off California's staggering incompetence on energy policy is infuriating. This Third World-worthy performance is not normal for the US. 49 states dont suffer regular interruptions of electricity supply. Only California does. The reasons arent a secret either. Their idiotic attempts to impose green energy and environmental restrictions on the private utility companies (particularly PG&E) have pretty much destroyed the state's energy capacity. PG&E and SCE generate only 15% to 17% of their power from coal and gas. That's pathetic by every possible metric. Perhaps if the state gave the IOUs more leeway to manage their own capacity then this wouldn't be a problem. Sadly, California is a one-party state run by a bunch of leftist idiots, so the policies will stay the same, the blackouts will continue, and the IOUs will be set up as the fall guys even though their hands were tied by the state. If we dont want California's energy failures to go national, the Democrats need to lose in November.
Habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 12:00:48 I'm all for renewables, IF done in a competent matter. Nuclear while expensive does drastically cut down on pollution. NG replacing coal does also a lot to reduce pollution and is more versatile. To drastically boost renewables we need better battery technology. Solar has great promise, But at best it only works in the day which means it's only supplemental. Wind farms have a similar problem, they don't work when there is no wind. Great for supplemental power but they require better battery tech which also leads to a huge increase in rare earth metals.
habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 15:52:51 Its funny, here in SC its the republicans who are vehemently against oil exploration for environmental concerns. That said there isnt much economic benefit from oil exploration here since there is very little oil. Common sense says that tourism is our big industry, up there with Logging and aerospace/vehicle manufacturing.
kargen Member	Tue Sep 08 15:54:46 Habebe they also do not work if there is to much wind. The amount of wind speed they can handle varies some. Another problem with wind turbines is what to do with the blades when they wear out. Most are cut up and buried in landfills where they will decompose extremely slow. They are working now to find a better solution. A company in Texas is beginning to use old blades to mix in with other stuff to make fiberglass pellets that can be used for other manufacturing projects. Disposal of batteries are a problem as well and one that needs to be worked out as wind power becomes more popular.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 16:00:36 Sammy Name plate capacity + imports from neighbouring states* Otherwise. You remain competely incorrect. That something impossible in your political climate may also be desirable from an environmental perspective, does not mean the impossible becomes possible. Ruggy Oh whine. California is fucking up on grid transmission. Which is sort of a big burn. Closing nuclear plants for political reasons prematurely was also a mistake. Habebe Nuclear power is way too expensive outside of Federal schemes. Your States are not big enough to generate scale. There are lots of small things that can be done, but the only real scalable approach is to use wind and solar to produce hydrogen in combination with large and small scale ng plants (you recall that hydrogen can be added directly ng distribution nets). Here is a stopgap solution btw. http://www...er/natural-gas-generators.html
habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 16:11:57 Jergul, I'm not super versed in the economics of Nuclear Power. But how come France could afford it and not CA? plus CA can likley get federal assistance to boot.
habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 16:17:52 Speaking of batteries, this was a cool article I read the other day. http://www...-could-last-up-to-28000-years/ US startup unveils battery made from nuclear waste that could last up to 28,000 years The nano-diamond battery’s power comes from radioactive isotopes used in nuclear reactors Share on LinkedInShare on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter Dimitris Mavrokefalidis More Articles Wednesday 2 September 2020 Image: Shutterstock The California-based startup NDB has unveiled a battery that uses nuclear waste and lasts up to 28,000 years. The power of the nano-diamond battery comes from radioactive isotopes used in nuclear reactors. Its radioactive core is protected by multiple layers of synthetic diamonds, one of the hardest materials to damage or break. The energy is absorbed in the diamond through inelastic scattering, which is used to generate electricity. The battery can be used to power devices and machines of any size, from aircraft and rockets to electric vehicles and smartphones. Image: NDB Nima Golsharifi, CEO and Co-Founder of NDB, said: “As members of society, we are extremely concerned about the welfare of the planet and are focused on lowering climate change to protect our planet for future generations. “With the NDB battery, we have achieved a massive, groundbreaking, proprietary technological breakthrough of a battery that is emission-free, lasts thousands of years and only requires access to natural air in order to power devices.” The company says the development of the first commercial prototype battery is currently underway and will be available later this year. If you enjoyed this story you can sign up to our weekly email for Energy Live News – and if you’re interested in hearing more about the journey to net zero by 2050, you can also sign up to the future Net Zero newsletter. battery battery cells California climate change electric vehicle nano-diamond batteries NDB nuclear waste
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 16:25:01 New plants are way too expensive to build unless you have economy of scale. Economy of scale is the only way to offset the 6-8% price inflation plant production has seen every year since the late 70s. By scale, I mean adding a 6x1GW reactor plant each and every year for the forceable futures. Very few countries are large enough to do that.
Habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 16:26:56 Ok but CA is comparable to France.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 16:37:39 And France built its nuclear power plant fleet a long time ago. It is going to phase down nuclear power, not replace it with new plants.
Dakyron Member	Tue Sep 08 16:38:11 "California's problem is that peak usage is many times higher than average usage. The grid runs into trouble when the peaks go too high. " This is stupid. First, the blackouts are often to prevent wildfires when there is high winds. That is not a problem due to peak demand, it is a problem of shitty engineering and maintenance. Second, even if it was peak demand causing the problems, it happens every goddamn year so you would think they would take a look at Texas, AZ, or the southeastern states for solutions instead of just shutting off power. Third, its even hotter in this state and we have lower taxes and a better, more reliable energy grid even during times of drought, record heat, and wildfires.
Habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 16:58:25 ", it happens every goddamn year so you would think they would take a look at Texas, AZ, or the southeastern states for solutions instead of just shutting off power." Bingo, States that would have similar situations nearby seem to be just fine.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 17:00:55 Daky Don't selectively quote. Peak usage is a problem because the grid is crap and sparks will fly if you try to overultilize it. The grid is good enough for non peak use, because duh baseload is a lot lower than peak. The core problem is the same as with everything in your stupid country. You are failing massively at investing in infrastructure. Because that like costs money and is not sexy. So better to give ludicrous taxbreaks instead. What State are you from?
Habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 17:13:26 Jergul, The thing is its a uniquley CA problem, not the rest of our stupid country.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 17:21:55 Florida, Texas and California are the only comparable states in terms of electricity consumption. The common denominator for the two others is fossil fuels. Also, Over a 10-year-period, some 25.3 million customers lost power in the Sunshine State, versus 22.2 million Californians and 18.3 million New Yorkers, the study found.
Habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 17:28:01 I would think that geographic similarities would be more of the favtor than E consumption in this case. As such Dakyrons examples seem more apt. Florida had blackputs or FLA got hit by storms/hurricanes? Was it a yearly norm in these states to lose power?
kargen Member	Tue Sep 08 17:29:45 "The report also outlined the 10 most significant outages of 2018, which included Hurricane Michael. The Category 4 hurricane left hundreds of thousands of Floridians without power, with a total of about 2.5 million across the entire Southeast region in the dark, the report stated." There is a difference in nature knocking out power and not having power because of a shit policy.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 17:32:10 Hurricane season is more a surprise than heatwaves is your theory? You seem to understand that smaller countries with small populations have an easier time of it every time I compare Norway with the US. What is your problem with seeing that is true with low electricity use states compared to california? The common denominator is "the same as with everything in your stupid country. You are failing massively at investing in infrastructure." Its smacks of gross partisan dishonesty for you to think there is something special about California.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 17:34:22 Kargen Same goes to you. What, is the GOP surprised by hurricane seasons every year? We keep our tranformation stations in concret bunkers and bury exposed cables beneath the ground if conditions suggest that is needed. Why has not Florida done that? Answer: Because you suck.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 08 17:40:09 Habebe is correct. Rugian, not only did those retards go too hard for solar and wind, Californian mismanagement made even those horrifically more expensive than normal, often delaying for years the simplest project. To build a wind farm you need 2 decades of environmental lawsuits, must only hire minority owned contractors that reach the appropriate representation thresholds(diversity hires that dont know anything about wind turbine construction) and then you have to wait 3 years and hire 4 eagle experts because some hippy found a nest nearby.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 08 17:42:07 "But how come France could afford it and not CA?" The magic of jerguls mind.
Habebe Member	Tue Sep 08 17:50:37 Jergul logic....... Im done here. I'll leave you with this. http://www...ng-electricity-black-outs/amp/
jergul large member	Tue Sep 08 17:58:52 Sammy That is why Seb thinks you are a buffon. Lay off the stupid juice. What was possible to do in the 1960s is no longer possible unless you want to scale things in the same way as in the 1960s. Like I have said repeatedly. Nuclear power becomes more affordable if you gain economy of scale. Make a plan to build a 6x1GW plant every year indefinitely. Can't do it? Why, that is because you suck. Habebe Thank God. There is a limit to the number of times I can say things in different ways in the hopes of you learning something. Not checking the link, since you are gone.
kargen Member	Tue Sep 08 20:17:47 "Its smacks of gross partisan dishonesty for you to think there is something special about California." California is special all right but not in that good way. And no the GoP isn't surprised by hurricanes. They see them coming sometimes weeks in advance. There is a difference in your power system being knocked out and your power system being overwhelmed. You can find articles going back more than twenty years about California's failures in providing power. Not because it was damaged, but because it was/is inadequate both in production and in distribution. "We keep our tranformation stations in concret bunkers and bury exposed cables beneath the ground if conditions suggest that is needed." Doesn't seem to have helped. 2019 Finland set records for power outages. Looks like mostly caused by damage much like Florida and not stupid policies like California. California knows summer happens every year. They know they are not producing enough energy to handle the load. They also know even if they were producing the energy they don't have the means to properly distribute to the consumers. Instead of fixing the problems they passed new regulations to make the problems worse. Florida on the other hand along with other states along the east coast have been making improvements to the grid to make them more reliable and able to better withstand storms. This is being done in a variety of ways as the situation dictates.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 09 01:07:08 Kargen What is the possible relevance of Finland? Florida's stupid policy is not adapting its grid system to hurricane seasons. I also laugh out loud when ice storms cause black outs btw. Again, California has enough electricity with ownership in huge projects just over state lines. The problem is the grid. It cannot safely distribute enough electricity during peak usage. Withstand storms? My god. What century are you living in? The grid has to withstand hurricanes. Its like its news to you that your country has systematically underinvested in all infrastructure for decades and decades. Public poverty to fund ludicrous tax breaks. You suck.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Sep 09 10:43:43 "What was possible to do in the 1960s is no longer possible" Ahhhh, very logical.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 09 11:04:07 Sammy The reason followed. Take some Ritalin. Finish reading two sentences successfully.
Dakyron Member	Wed Sep 09 12:54:46 "The core problem is the same as with everything in your stupid country. You are failing massively at investing in infrastructure. " CA is failing massively. States like Idaho, CO, AZ, etc... have had massive population growth in the last 30 years and their infrastructure has kept up just fine. CA recalled their governor the last time they had rolling blackout and their shitty state government still did nothing to stop it. It is shitty management. There is no other reason.
Dakyron Member	Wed Sep 09 12:55:49 "Its like its news to you that your country has systematically underinvested in all infrastructure for decades and decades." Depends on the state. CA, MI... sure. Arizona, Idaho, Colorado... nope.
Dakyron Member	Wed Sep 09 13:00:45 "Again, California has enough electricity with ownership in huge projects just over state lines. " Exactly. CA attempts to buy/sell power depending on the season instead of providing enough power locally, which is absurd given the massive growth in the states surrounding them. Solar power works great if you pair with battery storage. And hey, look at that, SoCal has been investing in local battery storage, and has weathered the heatwave. Meanwhile, NorCal, heart of batshit crazies country, has done nothing and has rolling blackouts.
Dakyron Member	Wed Sep 09 13:00:53 https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/08/largest-energy-storage-project-in-usa-now-online-in-southern-california/
jergul large member	Wed Sep 09 14:06:24 Daky We are agreeing shitty management. But disagree on what is the weak link. Answer: Grid transmission. Everywhere. Why do I have a feeling pumped storage solutions are going to completely dwarf battery storage? Checks. Yepp. For California, the best solution for storing redundant wind and solar is HO2 electrolysis and adding H2 to the natural gas mix in its pipeline system. That would require ng powerplants in on demand modus, so with electricity production far lower than their nameplate capacity. It is pretty self-evident that peaks caused by heatwaves occur when the ng grid is running under capacity. But none of this will solve the problem with the grid. Your socal-nocal distinction a case in point. California is supposed to have a single grid system. Yet something is stopping effective electricity transfers at certain times. What could that be? Answer: A crappy grid.
kargen Member	Wed Sep 09 15:21:32 "Florida's stupid policy is not adapting its grid system to hurricane seasons." Except they are. They have been for a while and it is getting better. They see their problem and they are investing billions to fix it. Contrast that to California, a state that refuses to admit a problem while doing almost everything they can to make the problem more severe.
Dakyron Member	Wed Sep 09 16:18:49 Should point out, again, that it is Northern California and PG&E doing this, SoCal, which is more moderate, is doing much better.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 09 16:37:53 So Jergul position is that yhe entire US has a shitty electrical grid because.of lack of government investment....however only CA has this problem...and Fla during hurricanes which is somehow comparable to possibly the most temperate climate in the country.....
jergul large member	Wed Sep 09 17:17:15 Daky The grid system is common for the state and is operated by a trust. Your claim is nonsense. Habebe The entire US has shitty everything that might be considered infrastructure. Chronic underfunding for decades upon decades. Ludicrous tax breaks win elections. Its crazy, but its you.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Sep 09 17:25:02 Every other state keeps the power on during heat waves. Only CA fails like this. CA=jergul.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 04:32:56 Sammy Every other state keeps power during entirely predictable natural events? FALSE! Anyway, the problem here is forest fires. The grid cannot run above capacity because that will cause fires (sparks will fly). Also, there is a chance that high power lines have been destroyed. Further weakening the distribution system. Stop being so stupid Sammy. You need a new look.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 04:37:21 http://poweroutage.us/area/state/california Oregon is actually worse right now. No doubt because of Democratic malfeance and not actually because of forest fires raging there.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 04:38:51 http://poweroutage.us/area/regions Knock yourselves out.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 04:40:55 http://poweroutage.us/about/majorevents Funny the GOP dominance over huge power loss events. It does not seem to fit your moron narrative at all, does it?
sam adams Member	Thu Sep 10 10:52:41 Jergul why do you confuse benign heat waves with hurricanes?
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 11:05:03 Why do you confuse benign hurricanes with massive forest fires?
Dakyron Member	Thu Sep 10 11:05:05 There is a huge difference between purposefully shutting down a power grid because of poor engineering and having a catastrophic event destroy power lines or other infrastructure. I am unaware of any state besides CA have rolling blackouts because they lack power.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 11:08:16 Daky Rolling blackouts because they cannot stress their grid system in fire seasons. Leaving infrastructure vulnerable to nature is a choice. A choice GOP Staes excel at making.
sam adams Member	Thu Sep 10 11:26:59 Jergul Fail. The event being discussed is not california shutting down power lines because of high wind fire risk. That would be excusable. The event being discussed is california running out of power because it was hot out.
sam adams Member	Thu Sep 10 11:27:59 Again. Lol @ cali and big government incompetence.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 11:51:13 The issue is California not being able to run its grid excessively due to the risk of sparking more forest fires. This is compounded by the likelihood that transmission lines have been destroyed by fire and increased power demand from AC use. We are not talking about California shutting down power either. The link I provided earlier shows power is available. It it about California asking for restraint in power use right now. The lol at government competence is a general thing as I have demonstrated. The root cause is liking tax breaks more than liking investment in infrastructure. Things have been falling apart since the 70s. You suck.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 11:51:55 What a huge sammy fail. Amazing.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Sep 10 11:53:25 There are two types of blackouts going on in California. One is a safety issue related to the fires. The other is exceeding the energy able to be supplied by California's grid. The fact that California's energy usage can exceed its supply during big heat waves is well-known. However, it's far too simple to suggest it's because they have invested in renewable energy. The biggest problem California has is terrible communication and mismanagement. If their power grid was properly managed and maintained, they'd probably be fine (though I would still say too close for comfort). They've also botched a lot of predictions in terms of how much power would be supplied by certain facilities. It's just a shit show.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Sep 10 11:56:13 jergul, you can find any number of articles very easily that show California's issue with peak energy demand delivery on their grid. Your denial of that is a shocking level of ignorance.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 11:58:51 WoO Correct and I have told you why. Its not lack of power, its grid issues. Or the ability to get power from A to B. "If their power grid was properly managed and maintained, they'd probably be fine (though I would still say too close for comfort)" That is why I have been saying all along. Learn to read.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Sep 10 12:01:04 No, jergul, California has had up to 15% of it's power delivery ability down (either entire plants down or operating at limited capacity). Unfortunately, this was not communicated well and not accounted for. So no, you're wrong. Go figure.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 12:01:06 Or strike that. Recognize that I am debating morons, so my point becomes watered down by sidetrack issues. I have however consistently pointed out that this is a grid issue. A few more natural gas plants would be nice as I have also pointed out.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Sep 10 12:01:47 I'm off to do something productive...Sam can continue shredding you and making you look like an idiot. I'm enjoying the show.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 12:06:45 WoO Feel free to actually look at the link. Power is not out in California. Nor are there rolling black outs. We have in government asking people to lower consumption. There is an ongoing national emergency. So yah, some power output is down. But that is a different argument. The core problem remains grid constraints that limit the amount of power that can be delivered from A to B.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 12:07:23 Not my fault you people are morons. Its the grid, stupid.
sam adams Member	Thu Sep 10 12:07:45 "However, it's far too simple to suggest it's because they have invested in renewable energy." True. Their incompetence extends to pretty much all construction. Whether it is a windfarm, a transmission line, a combined cycle nat gas plant, its difficult to get anything done there. Thats why we made so much money building plants in arizona and oregon and selling it to California at california prices :)
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 12:09:38 Or here is my position exactly: "If their power grid was properly managed and maintained, they'd probably be fine (though I would still say too close for comfort)" Lol.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 12:16:54 Sammy California is not North Korea. High power transmission is at a loss, but out of state production for sale in California is perfectly logical. Arizona and Oregon have what? 1/3rd of Californa's population combined? Of course it is easier. You are still a single nation with no internal trade barriers. For as long as that lasts.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 12:34:20 I will try to explain this another way. California has transmission lines running to Canada, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Mexico*. Unless there are widespread shortages in all those places, then shortages in California occur only because of grid limitations. Electricity flows from A to B for as long it is possible. There are many reasons for it not being possible, but all of those reasons are called grid limitations. I will not bother you with concepts like high voltage, transformers and stuff like that. http://the...st-voluntary-electric-cutbacks
sam adams Member	Thu Sep 10 12:48:34 Jergul you are quite confused by this very simple fact. To alleviate their lack of power, they can build more transmission lines into the state, or more power plants in the state. Neither is easy, because cali sucks.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 14:09:26 You seem very confused about capitalism. California can import as much electricity as it wants to and its grid can carry. The problem is the grid, stupid.
kargen Member	Thu Sep 10 14:23:05 Importing electricity from other states defeats the purpose of going green. California has passed another law that says in upcoming years a certain percentage of power purchased must be green energy. Thing is the other states really don't need to comply in generating green energy. What happens when those states don't have enough green energy to meet California's demands? Purchasing from other states is what got California in so much trouble I think in 2002. California's demand is going to increase by a significant amount as these laws take affect. Yes infrastructure is a problem but so is supply. They are doing very little about the infrastructure problem and are making the supply problem worse by removing sources of energy before having a viable replacement in place.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 15:01:25 Kargen Supply cannot be a problem for California in isolation. Green certificates are fun, but are for now mostly symbol politics. So what if Washington imports hydro from Canada, passes the certificates on to Oregon that in turn attaches them to sales to California? Green certificate issues arise only if the demand for certificates are greater than the total production of green energy in a given market. I am not sure what power plants you mean were shut down prematurely. The NPP shut in 2013 was certified in 1968. Sammy has incidentally already suggested that out of state power production is highly competative in the Californian market.
sam adams Member	Thu Sep 10 15:40:19 Jergul... you dont even get the basics. I will return when you fix yourself.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 10 15:46:28 Sammy That of course is blatantly untrue. There are numerous problems with your POV. Right now I was outlining your fucked up understanding of system boundaries and capitalism. In a market, the problem can never be shortages one place, but not the other unless you blame the grid. If California is fucked for non-grid reasons, then the whole region (from Mexico to Canada) is fucked for non-grid reasons. This is not the case, so let us conclude Its the grid, stupid.
Habebe Member	Thu Sep 10 18:40:54 This thread os hilarious... Almost to 100 posts and its Jergul arguing against everyone and its not even clear what his point is other than CA has energy management is on par with the rest of the US even though it clearly is sub par by comparison. I mean when woo and Sam actually agree it should be a sign there is a clear consesus.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 11 04:31:08 Habebe Its mostly strawman arguments and dogpiling. I am clearly saying that the core problem is the grid system, not electricity production. Sammy agreed that green energy is not the problem. I have quoted WoO directly. He summed up my position quite neatly when presenting his own. Lets repeat it shall we: "If their power grid was properly managed and maintained, they'd probably be fine (though I would still say too close for comfort)" It is in other words the usual UP bullshit. The concensus is my position.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 11 05:54:22 On the wider issue (you suck), I think the problem is mostly a failure of imagination. The town I live has 4 different high voltage tramission systems that can feed into the local grid. Each of them on their own fully cover electricity consumption. Now, this kind of redundancy costs money. A full half of our electricy bill covers grid expenses (its a specified item on the invoice). But we have energy security. Disruptions seldom occur, and when they do, they last for hours, not days or weeks. This is what you should expect. Not the "anyone have a portable generator" threads that show a surprising number of people do. Threads like that are a symptom of systematic underinvestment in public infrastructure including grid systems. So you suck - and think that is normal.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Sep 11 08:49:55 I am not sure transmission is the solution. It costs energy to transmitt energy. I have nerded into the issue here in Sweden, which is fairly similair to CA. And this is according to Svenska Kraftnät, the governmental institute responsbile for the grid. The bullet Points are: - we have dismantled plannable source (nuclear) - wind can not be prognosticated (and is not as intense during the cold peaks) - our energy import demand has been trending up for years. You could solve this to some degree by upgrading the transmission lines (because in most place the grid is at full capacity) then transport energy from the North (where all the major dams are). The price for that is roughly 10% loss (to transport from the north to the middle of Sweden). So, it is not unproblematic. However, this grid upgrade is a 15 year long project that no one invested in. And on top of that, the dams while not as dependant on climate, are still dependant on climate. There is a reason that all the Swedish nuclear Power plants were built in the South, where 80% of the people live. You generally do not want to transport things long distances. So, the grid expansion is akin to building more lanes on a high way so you can transport more stuff, for more fuel. It isn't the optimal long term solution, but serves as redundancy as jergul mentions. Anyway the verdict from Svenska Kraftnät is that we will have issues meeting demand during peak hours of a normal Winters. It will be worse during harsher Winters. This isn't an either or problem. You need grid upgrades, but you also need eletricity production that can be planned so you can balance the budget!
	show deleted posts