6 ms·

Keep Diablo Canyon running!

by cmpolis 11mo ago

gorfian_robot 11mo ago
naw
toomuchtodo 11mo ago
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025-special-report/insight-2-the-rise-of-batteries-plus-solar/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025... https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/ https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/ https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-storage-system-survey https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo... https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/ https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/
- SirHumphrey 11mo ago
  It annoys me immensely that all provided grid storage statistics are in MW, not MWh. The only statistics that speak about capacity brag that California- one of the leaders in grid storage deployment- can store nearly a third of solar generation in February (which represents only a third of the energy production) on a sub-day time scale.
  - epistasis 11mo ago
    I'm not sure why anybody is annoyed by this, but if it does: just multiply the MW by 4 hours. That's the standard deployment for storage right now.
epistasis 11mo ago
Please no! Our electricity rates are already too high. The massive cost for short-term extensions to Diablo Canyon will drive them even higher. Think of how much an extension to the lifespan might cost in your head. Now go and look: $8.4B to $11B to keep it running only until 2030. There is massive political support for nuclear right now, which is the only reason it's being considered. The whole reason it was initially decided not to extend the license was that the cost would be too high. Now people that know nothing about electricity costs, but really love nuclear, have pre-determined that Diablo Canyon should be kept running without regard to better ways to spend that money on our electricity grid.
- belorn 11mo ago
  This is a perfect example where simulations would be really great to demonstrate the cost of replacing the nuclear power station with an alternative. Take last 5 years worth of weather data and energy consumption, run a combination of solar and lithium storage solution for a similar cost as what is being suggested (say $8B), and see if they would fill in the role of the nuclear power plant. If they can't, add one or several natural gas peak plants to the mix and use less storage, and find how much would be needed. Some cost would be added to build new transmission, but it can be added on top of the simulation. Replacing base load with solar and batteries, especially for days when weather makes supply the lowest and demand the highest, is in general a non-trivial problem, but it is location dependent. Maybe California is one where it make sense.
  - dalyons 11mo ago
    California hit a new low of 22% fossil generation for the first half of 25. It makes sense and is already happening
  - epistasis 11mo ago
    > Replacing base load with solar and batteries, especially for days when weather makes supply the lowest and demand the highest, is in general a non-trivial problem, but it is location dependent. Maybe California is one where it make sense. Storage and gas capacity make this a fairly trivial problem, but it is somewhat location dependent. The difficulties in deploying it are mostly political and regulatory, and not technical. Places like Texas, with a fairly open market that allow new entrants to add assets on their own initiative, storage paired with wind and solar is dominating the market. In fact in most of the us, storage/solar/wind is mostly what's getting deployed no the grid, see the map at the bottom: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586# https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586# However, you only see batteries getting added after there's already a fairly large chunk of renewables on the grid. Before then, there's not much need for the expense. Last stat I heard was that 60% of solar deployments in the US included storage, and that's only going to go up. And you can see on EIA's map that the Intermountain gas plant under discussion is the largest gas addition this year. The only reason it's gas and not solar and storage is that in 2019 the union was anti-renewables for political reasons: https://archive.is/dpoM1 https://archive.is/dpoM1 It would have been better to have solar plus storage. There's far more gas on the grid than is necessary to provide backup to California's current solar+storage capacity.

Keep Diablo Canyon running!

by cmpolis 11mo ago

Keep Diablo Canyon running!

gorfian_robot 11mo ago

naw

toomuchtodo 11mo ago

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025-special-report/insight-2-the-rise-of-batteries-plus-solar/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025... https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/ https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/ https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-storage-system-survey https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo... https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/ https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/

SirHumphrey 11mo ago
It annoys me immensely that all provided grid storage statistics are in MW, not MWh. The only statistics that speak about capacity brag that California- one of the leaders in grid storage deployment- can store nearly a third of solar generation in February (which represents only a third of the energy production) on a sub-day time scale.
- epistasis 11mo ago
  I'm not sure why anybody is annoyed by this, but if it does: just multiply the MW by 4 hours. That's the standard deployment for storage right now.

epistasis 11mo ago

Please no! Our electricity rates are already too high. The massive cost for short-term extensions to Diablo Canyon will drive them even higher. Think of how much an extension to the lifespan might cost in your head. Now go and look: $8.4B to $11B to keep it running only until 2030. There is massive political support for nuclear right now, which is the only reason it's being considered. The whole reason it was initially decided not to extend the license was that the cost would be too high. Now people that know nothing about electricity costs, but really love nuclear, have pre-determined that Diablo Canyon should be kept running without regard to better ways to spend that money on our electricity grid.

belorn 11mo ago
This is a perfect example where simulations would be really great to demonstrate the cost of replacing the nuclear power station with an alternative. Take last 5 years worth of weather data and energy consumption, run a combination of solar and lithium storage solution for a similar cost as what is being suggested (say $8B), and see if they would fill in the role of the nuclear power plant. If they can't, add one or several natural gas peak plants to the mix and use less storage, and find how much would be needed. Some cost would be added to build new transmission, but it can be added on top of the simulation. Replacing base load with solar and batteries, especially for days when weather makes supply the lowest and demand the highest, is in general a non-trivial problem, but it is location dependent. Maybe California is one where it make sense.
- dalyons 11mo ago
  California hit a new low of 22% fossil generation for the first half of 25. It makes sense and is already happening
- epistasis 11mo ago
  > Replacing base load with solar and batteries, especially for days when weather makes supply the lowest and demand the highest, is in general a non-trivial problem, but it is location dependent. Maybe California is one where it make sense. Storage and gas capacity make this a fairly trivial problem, but it is somewhat location dependent. The difficulties in deploying it are mostly political and regulatory, and not technical. Places like Texas, with a fairly open market that allow new entrants to add assets on their own initiative, storage paired with wind and solar is dominating the market. In fact in most of the us, storage/solar/wind is mostly what's getting deployed no the grid, see the map at the bottom: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586# https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586# However, you only see batteries getting added after there's already a fairly large chunk of renewables on the grid. Before then, there's not much need for the expense. Last stat I heard was that 60% of solar deployments in the US included storage, and that's only going to go up. And you can see on EIA's map that the Intermountain gas plant under discussion is the largest gas addition this year. The only reason it's gas and not solar and storage is that in 2019 the union was anti-renewables for political reasons: https://archive.is/dpoM1 https://archive.is/dpoM1 It would have been better to have solar plus storage. There's far more gas on the grid than is necessary to provide backup to California's current solar+storage capacity.