The Contra Costa Times seems to think so. But Jack Smith at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram disagrees.
Here's some atomic insight from Rod Adams:
Here's some atomic insight from Rod Adams:
Though many people point to California as an energy conservation success story, the path that it has taken to get there is not one that can or should be followed by the rest of the US.
The first step is to locate as many people as possible in a temperate climate where neither heat nor air conditioning is needed. That is not an option for states like New York, Illinois, Florida or Texas where the climate is a little less mild.
The second step is to push out as much manufacturing business as possible. Chemicals, metals production, aircraft manufacture, chip fabrication, and even server farms take too much power, so they should be discouraged by ever tighter and more expensive regulations, heavy property taxes and rising electrical power costs.
After a few decades of such policies, most of these concentrated electricity consumers will have found other places to do their business, allowing the state to claim energy efficiency improvements. Of course, this path is sort of being followed by the rest of the states in the US, but it is not one that is recommended for continued prosperity.
Comments
As my own limited memory recalls, minimal excess capacity and highly loaded lines (due to heavy electricity imports into the state / region) were some principal root causes. I think forest fires contributed as well etc. But ‘we’ – yes us nukes partially contributed when a DC lube oil pump failed to start following a reactor trip following a loss off-site power to a California nuke (not naming names here). This resulted in a sustained loss of about 1000 MWe. The turbine damage was so severe that the plant was out of service for many months until the rotors could be re-machined and new bearings could be supplied (among many other dramas I’m sure).
California has some unique energy resources. It is one of those rare places where some renewable strategies other than hydroelectric actually are practiced successfully, notably geothermal. Of course, the majority of the renewables there are good old fashioned hydroelectric, but, particularly in the Salton Sea area, I think they really have some more room for geothermal.
I, for one, am not convinced about the long term stability of the hydroelectric power in California or any where else. The game of water in the West is surely going to get interesting sooner or later. Of course, access to water is a factor in geothermal too.
On the other hand, even though it wasn't a very good performer, the business about closing Rancho Seco was most unfortunate. It's not a pretty story, and it was a matter surrounded by a lot of myth making of the type that gains particular credence in California.
Then there's the matter of "don't worry, be happy" natural gas dependence.
They have a zillion miles of coast line, and they could certainly stand to have a few more places like Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.
I don't know what they're going to do about water, which is yet another elephant on the table. I'm not a giant fan of desalination to be honest, but, if they're going to do that, it's an excellent place to dump some off-peak electricity if you have some spare night-time capacity. If memory serves me well, Diablo Canyon was at one point one of the largest desalination plants in the United States. I think they had some flash systems - which are very pretty for marketing cogeneration - but ultimately went with electrically driven RO. I think there was a problem with corrosion in the flash system, but I don't know if that would be a problem if one went to do it now.
As far as the utilization of off-peak capacity goes, they have, because of their unique geography, some potential for pumped storage too.
So in theory, California is not like many other places with respect to energy.
But talk has always been more popular than action in California. I remember the ZEV bill, another one of those "in 20 years" deals. Twenty years went by and the only thing left to do was to mumble excuses.
I take Rod's points pretty seriously though. As usual, he's on to something. I've been to India and you see things you cannot imagine there, both good and bad, but yes, they are competing with California. I've heard a lot about Kaiga-3 and if even part of that is true there is definitely something about which California should worry. They need stable electricity in California, and if they keep kidding themselves about it - if they don't start building new nukes - they're going to experience a world of hurt.
-NNadir