Fester,

I don't think the situation in California makes the case against renewables that you think it does.

While it's true that electricity rates have gone up, this isn't just because of the move to renewable energy. Other factors like wildfire prevention, infrastructure upgrades, and integrating new renewable sources all contribute to the costs. In the long run, renewable energy can help lower costs by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and avoiding the higher expenses associated with climate change.

The idea that non-solar customers are subsidising those with solar panels can be a bit misleading. Programs like net metering encourage more people to adopt renewable energy, which ultimately benefits everyone by reducing peak demand and lowering grid costs. Additionally, having more distributed solar power increases grid resilience and decreases transmission losses.

Income-adjusted electric fees are designed to make energy costs fairer, ensuring that lower-income households aren't hit the hardest. When designed correctly, these fees can balance affordability while still encouraging energy conservation.

Investing in wildfire mitigation and grid upgrades is indeed expensive, but these investments are necessary to prevent catastrophic wildfires and ensure a reliable power grid. Modernising the grid to handle more renewable energy is essential for meeting clean energy goals and cutting emissions over time.

There are definitely short-term challenges for the solar industry due to new tariff structures and high interest rates. However, the long-term outlook is promising as solar technology costs keep dropping, and the economic benefits of pairing solar with battery storage become more apparent.

The discussions among lawmakers show how complex it is to balance affordability, equity, and sustainability. Ongoing debates and oversight are crucial to making sure that energy policies are effective and fair for everyone involved.

While there are some challenges, California's energy policies are focused on creating a sustainable, fair, and resilient energy future. It's important to look at both the immediate impacts and the long-term benefits of moving towards renewable energy.

Regardless of John D's interpretations it does show why we really need a sensible debate on at least lifting the nuclear ban, rather than childish memes of three-eyed fish and koalas, which impresses no one with half a brain. I think we could all agree on that. And there is no denying that major solar, wind farms and 28,000 km of new transmission lines are very destructive to the natural environment and wildlife as well as arable farms that our expanding population needs. Then there is the aspect of harmful penetrating low decibel sound waves from the turbines, as highlighted by German Dr Bellut-Staeck, linked in the article.

John,

Along with Hawaii, California has the most expensive electricity in the United States. That is a recurring theme with wind and solar unfortunately. Comparatively, residents in nuclear powered Ontario in Canada pay half as much for their electricity.

https://www.oeb.ca/consumer-information-and-protection/electricity-rates/historical-electricity-rates

Why set yourself all these these expensive challenges and destroy the environment when there are numerous examples around the world where people have chosen nuclear and pay half as much for their energy? It just sounds bonkers not to consider nuclear as part of the mix.

Yes, California is a basket case in more ways than one. Here's a segment from the 2019 nuclear feature mentioned at the foot of the main article:
Time Magazine environmental hero Michael Shellenberger, says he was once a firm believer in wind and solar, but experience in California had changed his mind.

Writing on the Quillette website, he also cites major environmental problems with both solar and wind farms but adds:

"Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy, California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.
"Despite what you’ve heard, there is no ‘battery revolution’ on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons."
Shellenberger advocates nuclear energy as a cheaper, more reliable alternative:

"It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.
It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity."

Fester,

I understand your point about the cost differences and the benefits of nuclear energy, but there are several important factors to consider when evaluating California's energy strategy and the broader push for renewable energy.

Again, California's high electricity rates reflect not just the cost of renewable energy but also significant investments in wildfire prevention, grid modernisation, and other infrastructure upgrades. These investments are essential for ensuring a reliable and resilient energy system, particularly given the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires.

Comparing electricity rates directly between regions like California and Ontario can be misleading without considering these contextual differences. Ontario benefits from legacy nuclear plants that were built decades ago, whereas new nuclear projects are notoriously expensive and time-consuming to build. For example, recent nuclear projects in other parts of the world have faced significant cost overruns and delays.

Secondly, the environmental benefits of renewable energy cannot be overstated. Wind and solar power generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases, reducing air pollution, and mitigating climate change. This has long-term health and environmental benefits that translate into economic savings and improved quality of life.

Moreover, renewable energy sources like wind and solar are becoming increasingly cost-competitive. The initial costs of these technologies have been decreasing, and they continue to improve in efficiency. As we scale up renewable energy infrastructure, economies of scale and technological advancements will further drive down costs.

Additionally, renewable energy sources offer the advantage of decentralisation. This enhances grid resilience and reduces the risk of large-scale outages, which is particularly important in a state like California that faces natural disasters such as wildfires and earthquakes.

While nuclear energy can indeed be part of a low-carbon energy mix, it comes with its own set of challenges, which I need not mention yet again. California's strategy isn't about rejecting nuclear energy outright but about creating a balanced and diversified energy portfolio that includes a significant share of renewables to ensure sustainability and resilience.

California's push towards renewable energy is driven by a holistic view of economic, environmental, and social benefits.

Mikko2,

Michael Shellenberger's dismissal of an imminent "battery revolution" likely overlooks significant advancements in battery technology and sets up a bit of a strawman argument. The term "battery revolution" implies a sudden, radical transformation, whereas technological advancements often occur gradually through incremental improvements.

Recent years have seen considerable strides in battery development. Lithium-ion battery costs have decreased dramatically, making them more viable for large-scale energy storage. Innovations in solid-state batteries and flow batteries also show promise, potentially offering greater efficiency and capacity.

Large-scale battery storage projects are already proving their worth. For instance, the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia has demonstrated the economic benefits and viability of battery storage, improving grid stability and reducing costs. Such projects indicate that a battery revolution is indeed underway, driven by continuous R&D investments and technological advancements.

Additionally, the growing integration of renewable energy sources into the grid is accelerating the demand for more efficient and affordable storage solutions. This demand drives further innovation and investment, potentially overcoming the challenges Shellenberger cites.

By framing the discussion around a "battery revolution," Shellenberger might be setting up an unrealistic expectation that overlooks the cumulative impact of ongoing, incremental advancements. These steady improvements are crucial in enhancing the viability and efficiency of renewable energy systems. Therefore, while it's true that technical and economic hurdles exist, the ongoing progress in battery technology suggests a more optimistic outlook.

While Shellenberger raises valid points about renewable energy's current limitations, it is essential to consider the broader context and ongoing advancements. Renewables, complemented by storage solutions and other technologies, have significant potential for sustainable and reliable energy. Meanwhile, nuclear power remains important but is not without challenges.

A balanced approach, leveraging various technologies' strengths, is crucial for a sustainable energy future.