A Critical Point About Nuclear Energy in California

 Licensed from iSpot

Tweeted Saturday by a genuine climate scientist:

Zeek is referring to the Diablo nuclear power plant which is scheduled to be shut down shortly. While I don't care for the phrase "polluting fossil gas" as the increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased agricultural productivity, think carefully about his assertion. 

One of jillions of California's wind turbines

Below is a graph of renewable energy by state.

California has about 33 GW of solar and wind.

I'd like to make a second point for you to consider and that is how trivial the amount of electricity generated by windmills and rooftop solar actually is. One-third (!) of America's solar installations are in California (orange above). It was the early pioneer in wind energy (blue above). It is the only state with utility-scale solar (yellow). Yet, all of that electrical output is negated by the removal of just one nuclear plant. And, building a nuke could have done for a fraction of the cost of all of this alternative energy. Except in rare circumstances, alternative energy is grid-destabilizing insanity. 

This makes this vital point: the way to solve global warming is with nuclear and, where possible, hydroelectric power. We cannot possibly solve it with windmills. We don't need a single new windmill in the United States. In fact, due to grid instability, each one we install makes the energy situation worse.  

Addition, 1:20pm Tuesday: I just came across this tweet from Bjorn Lomborg. 

The bottom line: California's electric cars + all solar + wind energy = less than one nuclear power plant. If we want to decarbonize (and there are many good reasons to do so), the only way to do it is with nuclear and, where practical, hydroelectric.