BUT the problem is that their electric grid is World War 1 era tech in many parts. The Camp Fire[0] fire was caused by close to 100 year old power lines mechanically failing.
This combined with the insane amount of permits and licenses needed to install new power lines makes this a tough nut to crack. (IIRC _anyone_ can complain about a transfer line as long as they can see it from their property.)
California’s electricity use varies a ton over the course of the year; in late summer the heat is most intense and peak demand is highest, roughly 50 GW.
The state is facing a historic heat wave this week, and the grid operator (California ISO) is asking people to voluntarily reduce demand. It’s not clear whether there is enough supply for peak demand without voluntary reduction, there probably is, but asking for voluntary reduction in the use of resource X (power, water, you name it) is par for the course in California these days. It costs almost nothing to do, and saves the utilities the high cost of marginal extra X.
It’s unlikely that the push for renewables has played the definitive role — peak load is after 4pm, when solar generation drops anyway, and baseline power like nuclear don’t help as much at peak because you can’t just spin them up for part of the day.
If anything the push to EVs has the potential to mitigate peak demand by tapping a fleet of grid-connected batteries at peak load, but that’ll require some coordination with manufacturers.
Peak demand after removing solar and wind is about 2.5 hours later and lower:
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx#secti...
This is the point in the year that solar PV earns it's money back fastest, because peak yearly demand would otherwise use the absolute most expensive and dirtiest power.
You can also see their batteries providing slightly more than their nukes at these points too, again a very solid return on investment.
>The main driver deterring PG&E from seeking a 20-year operating licence extension is the 2015 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of producing 50% of its electricity from qualified renewable energy sources by 2030. PG&E’s model for the future cost of operating Diablo Canyon indicated that the cost per kilowatt hour was going to almost double, since the company would be forced to lower the amount of power it could produce from the plant in order to meet the state’s requirement. Dropping the capacity factor from the current 92% to say 50% would virtually double the price per kilowatt hour since costs are largely fixed.
>The state law which effectively dictates that by 2030 Diablo Canyon should operate at lower capacity each year and buy in power from intermittent renewables has apparently sealed the fate of the plant.
If current population and load is straining their power grid because it's hot they have some serious infrastructure to implement before 2035 rolls around. I'm sure it's not lost on anyone, just... the timing on the two articles is noteworthy.
California does have serious infrastructure issues, mostly due to deliberate lack of maintenance on the part f the commercial operators trying to squeeze every dollar of profit out of their ageing infrastructure. There’s an entire distribution grid that needs to be replaced before it literally falls apart.
California has had problematic energy supply since the ‘80s. The problems have been getting steadily worse due to lack of maintenance, lack of upgrades, heat waves getting longer and more numerous, more frequent droughts, and poor water resource management.
There are a lot of people pushing this article on every social network. It’s a rude awakening to see how many people just take the headline and run with it before they spend any time considering the claims in the context of reality.
Maybe slightly. Britannica says (https://www.britannica.com/topic/coal-utilization-122944/Coa...) that most power plants limit steam temperature to 1000 F (540 C, 813 K). The efficiency difference when ambient goes from 300K to 310 K matters... a little.
I think it's more a case of "A grid that powers a lot of peoples' air conditioners is going to struggle when it gets hot". That is, the issue is demand, not supply.
The duck curve "problem" is that the gas plants need to ramp up fast. If they can't ramp fast enough, you need to start them slightly early and turn some other more easily adjustable source down, usually wasting solar.
The fix, apart from just asking gas plants to ramp faster, is battery storage. When the duck curve was first discussed you couldn't even get cheap solar, never mind cheap battery storage and they thought that this small waste of solar might prevent it being cost competitive. This did not turn out to be a problem anyway, but batteries also fixed it.
You can see the batteries charging and discharging on the CAISO live graphs.
But, it is not about the height of the peak. We have more than enough capacity to meet the peak because we build enough for the yearly peak which is higher than the other peaks. We just didn't have stuff that could ramp fast enough. Now we do. Batteries.
Building coal or nuclear as that proposes does nothing to solve this problem.