One key reason word-salad Kamala lost - she was a woke woman from woke California, with her "$10 trillion" plan for "net-zero 2045".

Again, Ronald, this should be seen as a world-faith like the Abrahamic religions, science and evidence are at a discount. The order of beatitude seems to go like "renewables" no matter how flawed (corn-fed or wood-fed or biomass is OK) then bad gas, then worse coal, with nuclear a wicked, wicked last - heavens, bring out incense and exorcists.

Statler and Waldorf here show they know enough about the topic to lobby, sell books, and understand that nothing they say is ever in the least bit accurate.

Their conflating of California’s complex social issues with its energy policy, without offering a shred of evidence that one caused the other, makes it patently obvious that the article was written to entertain and boost the moral of a denialist audience only.

High unemployment, homelessness, and electricity prices aren’t the result of pursuing renewables - they’re the result of housing crises, income inequality, wildfire liability costs, and long-neglected grid modernisation. Blaming wind turbines for systemic economic challenges is too much to take seriously.

The attack on California’s electricity imports is similarly dishonest. California imports energy because of its size and demand, not because of a failure of renewables. And no, it’s not "mostly coal." “Unspecified power” is a reporting label - not code for coal - and includes natural gas, hydro, etc. Utilities are still required to estimate emissions for these imports under California law.

Then the shutdown of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is misrepresented. It wasn’t closed due to ideology but because of a major equipment failure, radiation leak, and projected multi-billion-dollar repair costs. Calling it a “mismanaged routine service operation” is a gross understatement.

Most egregiously, however, is the claim that California is trying to shut down its only zero-emissions plant - Diablo Canyon - while ignoring the fact that the state just extended its life with bipartisan support and federal funding.

The entire premise of their article is outdated.

And claiming California supports “humanity atrocities” through renewable supply chains while ignoring the ecological and human toll of coal, oil, and uranium mining is a laughable case of selective outrage. Every energy source has trade-offs. The key is managing them ethically - not using them to score points against climate policy.

These Wojak-meme-looking fellas rely on omission, distortion, and innuendo to build their case. They don’t inform. It purposefully mislead - and do so with just enough technical jargon and cherry-picked figures to sound convincing to the uncritical reader.

WTF?

California has recently overtaken Japan to be the world's fourth largest economy - it is no wonder that they have a need for more energy. Energy for which declining "red" states have less and less need.

The author states: "California has been successfully lobbied by PacifiCorp to import a large quantity of its electricity from their out-of-state coal power plants that support California's high cost of electricity."

This PacifiCorp?: The utility owns or contracts for about 5,150 MW of wind, 4,530 MW of coal, 3,850 MW of gas, 3,620 MW of solar coupled with 550 MW of storage, 1,200 MW of hydroelectric capacity and 525 MW of stand-alone storage, according to the IRP.

Under its resource plan, PacifiCorp expects that coal- and gas-fired generation will account for 16% and 10% of its energy mix in 2031, down from 35% and 19% this year, respectively. Wind and solar will make up 32% and 25%, up from 24% and 10%, respectively, in the same period.

It appears that PacifiCorp is gearing up to "provide (the) affordable, safe, reliable, continuous, uninterruptable, emissions free electricity" that the author calls for.

I wonder how much French nuclear imports saved yesterday's mass European blackout. Obviously some Californians don't object to nuclear too much when they walk their dogs along the beach next to the retired San Onofre NPP. Diablo Canyon is their remaining nuke. The giant Moss Landing battery caught fire recently so I wouldn't depend on it. It's like sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

"I wonder how much French nuclear imports saved yesterday's mass European blackout."

I doubt that Spain would function at all without dispatchable power from France. Thinking you can run Spain on intermittent and erratic power is pure idiocy. At least Spain's trouble will help expose the wind and solar con.

Fester,

And how exactly is Spain’s localised outage - which is still under investigation and, as of now, has no confirmed link to renewables - supposed to “expose” anything?

Your claim that “Spain would not function at all without French dispatchable power” is just silly. Spain has one of the highest shares of renewable electricity in Europe and a highly interlinked grid - like every other modern country. Yes, interconnection with France helps during peaks - but that’s the whole point of a grid, not an sudden and improvised means of managing a weakness unique to renewables. And let’s not forget: France relies on imports too, especially when its aging nuclear fleet stumbles in summer heat or hits unplanned outages.

Calling renewables a “con” while ignoring Spain’s steady emissions drop, shrinking fossil fuel reliance, and growing energy exports is more of the same denialist fiction. Spain’s wind and solar frequently provide over 50% of daily demand - and often exceed 75%. If that’s a con, it’s the most effective one in European energy history.

You don’t have to love the energy transition, but treating every grid hiccup like proof it’s a failure is just lazy. By your logic, every oil spill, nuclear shutdown, or gas price spike would prove your preferred energy sources are a scam too.

It seems the only thing Spain’s blackout has exposed is how desperate some people are to keep selling yesterday’s fixes as if the future hasn’t already moved past them.

Funny how people threatened by new technology - or just unsettled by change - suddenly interpret routine mishaps as proof that the new technology is too unreliable.