You’ve laid out the problems of renewable energy, quite succinctly commander. Unfortunately, much of the country gets their news from a media that lies to them nightly. Others graduate from university with their heads, still full of rocks and believe that the only way to get anything done is to demonstrate/ protest what they’ve been told is destroying the world by the “academics“ that “teach“ at these “ institutions of higher learning”. I truly hope someone of your caliber winds are congressional seat and then political discourse can be one of reason again. Not purely emotional ravings.
Best of luck in your endeavors, we will surely be backing you.
This article underscores that Cmdr Bob Smith is indeed a local asset who we must each actively support to elect June 2. He’s a proven leader who will get results! Let’s get energized! Join the campaign, if you haven’t already. Volunteer time. Donate any amount up to $7000 to help with messaging costs. Host a coffee or gathering. Come to an event with Bob at my home, 1/31 at Mulligan’s or elsewhere. Together, we can win this for the benefit of everyone. You’re needed! The 24th District covers a large geographic area: Ventura City to Southern SLO plus Santa Barbara County. Contact bob@bobsmithforcongress.com.
According to our best climate "models" the temperature is expected to increase by 1 - 2 degrees by 2050. I heard Al Gore claim at Davos that by 2050 there would be a mass migration of 1 - 2 billion people displaced by global warming. Migrating from places that were 1 - 2 degrees warmer in the past, indeed much warmer in the past. In fact, through all of recorded and prehistoric time the earth was warmer than it is today. All of these discussions are predicated on the notion that temperature is rising due to the burning of fossil fuel and that this increase poses an existential threat to humanity. The fear mongering by climate alarmists has never come to fruition such as claims by Gore of sea level rise and kilimanjaro ice melting. Yet here we are having discussions about solar or wind energy all predicated on climate change bolstered by doomsday scenarios pushed my charlatans like Gore.
Actually, that campaign from the '70s pushed governments to adopt a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982. That ban went into effect a few years later. Many whale populations have rebounded.
Yet now Blue and Humpback whales wash up on the beaches regularly on the East Coast...home to these huge windmills. Where are these outraged environuts NOW? Commander Smith is all over the radar effects, but what about the sonar effects on the mammals communicating and navigating? The new Chumash Marine sanctuary is open to these wind projects...where are the 'save the whale' activists now? Nowhere, that's where they are, the hypocrites.
Global offshore wind capacity reached approximately 83.2 GW in 2024, with expectations to grow significantly to over 500 GW by 2030 to meet climate goals. China leads with 31.5 GW of installed capacity, followed by rapid expansion in Europe. China has 150 times more capacity than the US. So is China really dumb? The answer is blowing in the wind.
China’s offshore wind build-out exists on top of, not instead of, massive baseload capacity. China retains the overwhelming majority of its electricity from coal, nuclear, and large hydro, which provide firm, dispatchable power. Offshore wind is a supplement, not the backbone of its grid.
Key context your comment omits:
• China operates over 1,100 GW of coal capacity, more than the rest of the world combined.
• China is building more nuclear reactors than any other nation.
• Wind in China is routinely curtailed at double-digit rates because it is non-dispatchable and often produces when power is not needed.
• China does not rely on offshore wind to maintain grid reliability or peak demand.
California, by contrast, is attempting to replace baseload with intermittent generation while simultaneously shutting down nuclear and restricting gas. That is the structural reason our grid is fragile, expensive, and increasingly dependent on imports.
So the issue is not whether offshore wind can exist, it’s whether it can carry a grid, and its cost is being accurately characterized with impact. China’s planners understand it cannot carry a grid. California’s policymakers are pretending it can.
That difference, not turbine count, explains why China’s grid remains stable while California’s does not.
Honestly the rhetoric you just posted without context is exactly why CA’s grid is in a precarious position.
Thank you Bob Smith for using your expertise to educate us on the facts surrounding wind farms to produce electricity. I have always thought that Wind farms caused more problems than benefits, when there are other sources for producing electricity. To prove my point I am invested in companies producing miniature atomic generators. As to your point about the navy using them for decades without serious issues, I have wondered why they have not already proliferated on land, especially in California, where the production of electricity has an uncertain future because of stupid decisions by ignorant politicians. It seems that AI cannot succeed in California without enormous increases in electrical power, delivered by point-of-need miniature atomic generators.
I agree, especially in California, where water capture and storage has been neglected by the state governments over many years, despite continuous droughts over extended periods. The last major water reservoir was built in the mid-seventies, when the population was about 21 million. The Sites reservoir, will have smaller capacity than most other reservoirs in California, it might be started this year or next. It has been under consideration for 40 years, and will probably take more than 10 years to complete. The managed water supply in California is consumed mainly by agriculture at about 80% with 10% going to households and 10% to other uses. As for desalination, it is very difficult to get a permit in California.
I will add that cost per kWh for residential electric in TX is a fraction of what it costs in CA. And gasoline is the same. If CA (Newsom, et al) had their act together they would say their goal is to be cost competitive with TX for residential electricity, and take steps to make it so. And they would follow up with quarterly, audited, reports showing expenditures and results measured against that goal. But hey, it’s CA, so voters don’t hold them accountable and keep putting these jerks in office.
Texas has some messed-up energy situations. Their grid is THEIR grid. Considering the storm is just hitting, let's see how long people are down.
Texas also has a huge benefit over California. What we enjoy, and they envy, impacts costs. Texas is basically flat. Building anything on flat land is much cheaper than the geography that we have in this state.
And to also mess with your head, roughly 1/2 of California is either Federal or State-owned land (think parks). In Texas, iirc, it is 3%.
My point stands: CA goal should not be building wind farms, it should be driving down ridiculous energy costs and accounting for their actions through audits and reporting. We should not have a 170 billion deficit from when Newsom came on and not be able to account for the spending.
What a great summary of the comparison of reliable and unreliable power sources. If we had enough of the nuclear power plants up and down the state, couldn’t we even be like Israel, and produce abundant fresh water for homes and agriculture from the ocean? As I remember, not enough water is a problem here in California.
Great article. You’re taking sense. Absent a change in the governor to one that also has sense, and a majority of the state legislature (can you say prop 50?), we can’t expect a change that would have SMR and other demand focused electric production, as the vote seekers want to push green to their 47% base. Flush out the feel good, virtue seeking idiots that have power in local and state positions to effect change!
Sounds like we need to make it a national security issue and use our federal assets here to force sanity… :) CA is too important to the U.S. to let it just tank.
The ability to ramp electricity production is also extremely important and as far as I know, only NG plants have the capability. I won't even discuss "renewable" energy because there is no such thing.
Thanks for the Good Article…I believe we are nearing the time when Great technologies will spring fourth; making energy from windmills (hydro, coal, oil) lesser economic alternatives. Here’s some interesting information from a fellow veteran.
So much information has been hidden from us, including technology. Tesla had it figured out, capturing energy directly from the ether. Sad that his funding was cut by JP Morgan, curtailing the full blossom of his discoveries, and holding back mankind. Interesting that his files/records/etc. were immediately taken by the government upon his death and eventually ended up at MIT for review and cataloging, and that work was overseen by MIT professor John Trump….Uncle of President Donald J Trump…
Your argument that Solar/Wind are push is dead on accurate. Your argument that TODAY there is no true long-term storage for it is also accurate. I think your solution is wrong. As you mentioned over and over, partnerships have given us what we have today. Heck, without the need for power for spaceships, we would not have solar. But let's look deeper into what has transpired since that Bell Labs tech went on the spaceship to today. The cost was insane, and the amount of power in that photovoltaic was about 5%. Well, to make it even less dramatic, let's go back to when Carter put them on the White House: https://inhabitat.com/solar-pv-cell-cost-has-decreased-an-incredible-99-since-1977. Yes, 99% reduction in cost.
Oil has gone up. Nat Gas has gone up. Nuclear has gone up. None of those has gained efficiency.
Hmm.
Let me clear up what you sourced, but left out a detail:
"California curtails solar and wind generation to keep the grid stable and to leave room for natural gas generation, in order to comply with North American Electric Reliability Corp. requirements and “have generation online in time to ramp up in the evening hours,” according to the report."
So the curtailment was due to the ramp-up time required by other methods. Hmm.
But you also left out the most important factor: Cost.
It costs no more to produce the 'wasted' electricity than it did to use it. Sure, you may have some extra panels to handle growth, but those fixed costs are born once. Whereas producing more with Gas/Coal has an input cost.
I agree with you that we do need a mixture of sources today. I think we will probably need it after I am gone. However, by 2100, I do not think we will need NatGas or Coal. We probably will still need nuclear and renewables.
Sounds like he will answer the question he poses. This installation that was blocked. Did it not have any of the items verified before the installation was approved? Every valid topic around a wind installation must be satisfied before it is approved, I can not tell from this whether any of these were addressed in the permitting process. It sounds like a snow job because of this.
Chris, you will find that anything that has to do with “green” energy has a “nothing to see here approach.” For instance, these projects will require many orders of magnitude of more transmission lines. Where is all the copper coming from? Are we reopening mines? Are you not mining with fossil fuels? Environmental impacts? We shutdown oil, but each turbine requires hundreds of gallons each…where is it coming from? Nothing to see here…
None of this gets attributed to a single wind turbine accurately. The point of the article asked the question, why were the concerns being ignored? Why are all the second and third order impact costs not applied?
Yes to comments on the copper and the "backup" information. No on answering my comment on specfics in the original text. "or operational workarounds by the FAA, Department of Defense, National Weather Service, and other agencies" Were these agencies asked to weigh in on this specific project? It is two topics that really need to be addressed separately. 1) The validity of wind turbines or other green energy sources 2) this specific project. Consider whether or not electric cars help our environment vs actually buying an electric car. The big picture or the small picture. If this addresses just the big picture these are valid questions. I can leave it at that and hope that specific questions have been asked about this project and that once answered it will go through as approved.
States partnering with the military on large infrastructure and technology projects is how America built its most important capabilities for the last 100 years. National labs, shipyards, space launch facilities, and energy infrastructure. There is a good book out there called “The Kill Chain.” It discusses how in the last few decades our tech sector divorced itself from the military. The military is now heavily relying again on non traditional defense contractors to deliver capabilities that the civilian sector has done better. I say we lead the way in this area with a state partnership on SMRs.
If we don’t get our power grid on the right path, all tech companies will be leaving CA. I believe we are at a tipping point to get this right. It’s sad that the tech sector born in this state doesn’t want to be here anymore.
The U.S. Navy currently has about 85 commissioned SMRs, including 11 Aircraft Carriers…
This is not a technology problem. Long duration battery storage that can do TW/h does not exist. That is a physics and tech problem. Not to mention once they solve physics, we would need 20,000 facilities all over CA. More transmission and fire sources! So much sense!
I prefer to stop the madness. We go all in on this. It’s clean energy, high efficiency, waste isn’t even worth talking about compared to any other source - not to mention it’s not green ninja turtle goo, it’s elements that can be recycled or used on other apps.
P.S. what is the solution for the copper? Do we increase strip mining? The solution for a .02% carbon offset is to destroy the land and the sea to achieve it?
P.S.S. I’ve spent more hours of my life characterizing the impacts of offshore wind on radar with live testing than most humans should. I also had a living genius on this topic at a national lab review my article before submitting. I’m a little insulted questioning my subject matter expertise…
I realize that this is anecdotal, and I have not verified any of this. Back in the 80s, I employed an ex-Navy sub guy. We became friends and would spend time with until we moved to SB. I would talk about his time in the sub and come to the conclusion that he was right: sub guys are a different breed.
When the Hunt for Red October came out, of course, I had to call Tim. I was trying to discuss 'reality' versus movie fiction. I brought up the scene of the bullets in the sub and where Sean Connery basically states not to shoot at the nuclear reactor. He mentioned to me how it works on the boats. He stated, and again, this is pure anecdotal, and I do not know if he is right or wrong, but it just sounds right to me.
He stated that the people running them are seriously overtrained. The Navy realizes that a mistake is catastrophic. He mentioned that the Navy has a benefit over land, with a massive heat sink: the ocean. He stated that the military has another option that land-based units do not: they can move from inclement weather. He also stated that they control the ventilation. He said that when the sugar cane fields burn, it creates ventilation issues for the plant, which is why Turkey Point is so far away from agriculture, and they control it.
He then also pointed out the 'duh' moment to me. The Navy does not have to worry about permits or NIMBY.
I can not speak to the copper situation; I have not looked into it.
You may be an SME on radar and windmills, but when you frame things stating that there was no work with the DOD, you have gone from an SME to a biased politician throwing out rubbish. I'd have more respect for your knowledge if you hadn't done that.
PS. I think you will find that we are closer in agreement than in disagreement. But as you proclaim to be a conservative, you are demanding a lot of property rights to be shot to hell.
David, you are almost highlighting my point. Any comments on nuclear and safety or how great renewables are is the biased rhetoric. There’s no power generation more safe than nuclear for you or the environment. Nothing has to be “moved.” If an earthquake happens now the safest place for you on the central coast is Diablo Canyons reactor room. It’s spec’d to handle over two times the largest earthquake ever recorded.
Add up all your posts. Won’t address transmission and the copper needed, or all the transmission is causing the geography issue and costs to get to large renewable farms, or that you know cost is coming from nameplate value LCOE and not including all the total lifecycle costs. You can post all the links you want from advocacy things like NRDC, but that’s the point. Anything with “green” gets a free pass with “nothing to see here.”
The DoD was not being listened to the previous 4 years on this issue. Not sure if you know this, but the top of every Dept gets populated with political appointees. I’m not going to go in to details that directly impacted things I’ve done for political not defense reasons with choices from different administrations, so you’ll have to take my word that not every decision from the top is done for “what’s best for our defense or safety.”
Lying about what? That windmills can interfere with radar systems? This is Smith's experience and I have no reason to doubt it. Your link to a Biden/Harris MOU regarding building offshore windmills compatible with military operations in your mind proves that windmills do not interfere with radar? This MOU is just a statement to work together to find solutions to the "climate crisis" via windmills compatible with DOD operations. It does not state that this is feasible or not, only that they will throw more good money after bad in the era of the close of the Biden administration where they were "throwing gold bars off the Titanic" in the name of climate change in the words of a former Biden administration EPA official. If you reject the climate crisis preface, which I do, energy decisions based on cost and reliability today favor gas, coal, hydro, nuclear, while solar and wind are unreliable, expensive and require battery backup which adds to the cost. If it does not blow of the sun does not shine for a couple of days, no energy at all. And save me your bullshit about wind being the cheapest because that is bullshit when you consider that the wind is not always blowing and these systems require battery backup which is of limited duration.
You are seriously misinformed and obviously have issues with mixing topics.
"If you reject the climate crisis preface, which I do, energy decisions based on cost and reliability today favor gas, coal, hydro while solar and wind are unreliable, expensive and require battery backup which adds to the cost."
No. Even if you break it down into cost or reliability, that is false.
You can take a 100 x 100 mile section in SE New Mexico and put solar on it. You can then take a 1 x 100-mile section next to it and put battery storage. That is enough energy for the US by about 145%. It can survive the night without issues. It can survive for about a week without sunlight.
Where nuclear wins is density. In an area of a plant, you can generate more power with nuclear than you can with solar.
This topic to me is ironic. I am on my last day in Vienna, and went to the Technology Museum the other day. It is amazing how intelligent people see power generation.
Now ask yourself . . . why is there such a boom in demand for electricity? Aren't the conservatives screaming for more people to have babies? Aren't they screaming to have no immigration? This should put us a negative growth rate.
The demand for electricity is up because a few companies want more power (figuratively and literally), more water, and more toxic substances. Can you figure out who those are? I doubt it. Again, let me help.
Forrest Gump meets Chat GPT. Shocking that climate activists claim solar or wind are cheaper than nat gas. Look no further than to find confirmation. Consider levelized cost without subsidies including battery backup to existing gas fired plants not new build and you will face the inconvenient truth that solar and wind are by far more expensive. The climate Nazis like to consider new build nat gas which is more expensive due to environmental requirements.
You’ve laid out the problems of renewable energy, quite succinctly commander. Unfortunately, much of the country gets their news from a media that lies to them nightly. Others graduate from university with their heads, still full of rocks and believe that the only way to get anything done is to demonstrate/ protest what they’ve been told is destroying the world by the “academics“ that “teach“ at these “ institutions of higher learning”. I truly hope someone of your caliber winds are congressional seat and then political discourse can be one of reason again. Not purely emotional ravings.
Best of luck in your endeavors, we will surely be backing you.
This article underscores that Cmdr Bob Smith is indeed a local asset who we must each actively support to elect June 2. He’s a proven leader who will get results! Let’s get energized! Join the campaign, if you haven’t already. Volunteer time. Donate any amount up to $7000 to help with messaging costs. Host a coffee or gathering. Come to an event with Bob at my home, 1/31 at Mulligan’s or elsewhere. Together, we can win this for the benefit of everyone. You’re needed! The 24th District covers a large geographic area: Ventura City to Southern SLO plus Santa Barbara County. Contact bob@bobsmithforcongress.com.
According to our best climate "models" the temperature is expected to increase by 1 - 2 degrees by 2050. I heard Al Gore claim at Davos that by 2050 there would be a mass migration of 1 - 2 billion people displaced by global warming. Migrating from places that were 1 - 2 degrees warmer in the past, indeed much warmer in the past. In fact, through all of recorded and prehistoric time the earth was warmer than it is today. All of these discussions are predicated on the notion that temperature is rising due to the burning of fossil fuel and that this increase poses an existential threat to humanity. The fear mongering by climate alarmists has never come to fruition such as claims by Gore of sea level rise and kilimanjaro ice melting. Yet here we are having discussions about solar or wind energy all predicated on climate change bolstered by doomsday scenarios pushed my charlatans like Gore.
Lots of hot air blowing around Davos.
Whatever happened to "Save the Whales" ?
Actually, that campaign from the '70s pushed governments to adopt a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982. That ban went into effect a few years later. Many whale populations have rebounded.
Save the whales, harpoon a Democrat.
Yet now Blue and Humpback whales wash up on the beaches regularly on the East Coast...home to these huge windmills. Where are these outraged environuts NOW? Commander Smith is all over the radar effects, but what about the sonar effects on the mammals communicating and navigating? The new Chumash Marine sanctuary is open to these wind projects...where are the 'save the whale' activists now? Nowhere, that's where they are, the hypocrites.
David, I wrote about those aspects a few months ago. Here’s the link:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thesantabarbaracurrent/p/gone-with-the-offshore-wind?r=57d2ew&utm_medium=ios
Thank you, sir, for reminding us.
Global offshore wind capacity reached approximately 83.2 GW in 2024, with expectations to grow significantly to over 500 GW by 2030 to meet climate goals. China leads with 31.5 GW of installed capacity, followed by rapid expansion in Europe. China has 150 times more capacity than the US. So is China really dumb? The answer is blowing in the wind.
China’s offshore wind build-out exists on top of, not instead of, massive baseload capacity. China retains the overwhelming majority of its electricity from coal, nuclear, and large hydro, which provide firm, dispatchable power. Offshore wind is a supplement, not the backbone of its grid.
Key context your comment omits:
• China operates over 1,100 GW of coal capacity, more than the rest of the world combined.
• China is building more nuclear reactors than any other nation.
• Wind in China is routinely curtailed at double-digit rates because it is non-dispatchable and often produces when power is not needed.
• China does not rely on offshore wind to maintain grid reliability or peak demand.
California, by contrast, is attempting to replace baseload with intermittent generation while simultaneously shutting down nuclear and restricting gas. That is the structural reason our grid is fragile, expensive, and increasingly dependent on imports.
So the issue is not whether offshore wind can exist, it’s whether it can carry a grid, and its cost is being accurately characterized with impact. China’s planners understand it cannot carry a grid. California’s policymakers are pretending it can.
That difference, not turbine count, explains why China’s grid remains stable while California’s does not.
Honestly the rhetoric you just posted without context is exactly why CA’s grid is in a precarious position.
So improve the grid (as China has), not worship fossil fuels.
Thank you Bob Smith for using your expertise to educate us on the facts surrounding wind farms to produce electricity. I have always thought that Wind farms caused more problems than benefits, when there are other sources for producing electricity. To prove my point I am invested in companies producing miniature atomic generators. As to your point about the navy using them for decades without serious issues, I have wondered why they have not already proliferated on land, especially in California, where the production of electricity has an uncertain future because of stupid decisions by ignorant politicians. It seems that AI cannot succeed in California without enormous increases in electrical power, delivered by point-of-need miniature atomic generators.
Data centers also require a LOT of water. We can make power and argue over how it is generated. The water issue is a whole other complexity.
I agree, especially in California, where water capture and storage has been neglected by the state governments over many years, despite continuous droughts over extended periods. The last major water reservoir was built in the mid-seventies, when the population was about 21 million. The Sites reservoir, will have smaller capacity than most other reservoirs in California, it might be started this year or next. It has been under consideration for 40 years, and will probably take more than 10 years to complete. The managed water supply in California is consumed mainly by agriculture at about 80% with 10% going to households and 10% to other uses. As for desalination, it is very difficult to get a permit in California.
Excellent and concise. Now...can we get anyone on the Left / Green side of the issue to pay any attention or accept? That is the challenge.
I will add that cost per kWh for residential electric in TX is a fraction of what it costs in CA. And gasoline is the same. If CA (Newsom, et al) had their act together they would say their goal is to be cost competitive with TX for residential electricity, and take steps to make it so. And they would follow up with quarterly, audited, reports showing expenditures and results measured against that goal. But hey, it’s CA, so voters don’t hold them accountable and keep putting these jerks in office.
Texas has some messed-up energy situations. Their grid is THEIR grid. Considering the storm is just hitting, let's see how long people are down.
Texas also has a huge benefit over California. What we enjoy, and they envy, impacts costs. Texas is basically flat. Building anything on flat land is much cheaper than the geography that we have in this state.
And to also mess with your head, roughly 1/2 of California is either Federal or State-owned land (think parks). In Texas, iirc, it is 3%.
My point stands: CA goal should not be building wind farms, it should be driving down ridiculous energy costs and accounting for their actions through audits and reporting. We should not have a 170 billion deficit from when Newsom came on and not be able to account for the spending.
Steve,
Power generation and pricing are not set by the government. It is regulated, but it is not 'set.'
It is impossible to 'compete' with other states if we are not geographically the same.
https://poweroutage.us/
How is that grid doing there in your 'cheap' states?
https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/ - there is your pricing.
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/powering-change-understanding-californias-electric-rate-challenges-and-affordability. - there is one of the reasons supporting the geography issue. As I stated, the beauty we enjoy comes with a cost.
What a great summary of the comparison of reliable and unreliable power sources. If we had enough of the nuclear power plants up and down the state, couldn’t we even be like Israel, and produce abundant fresh water for homes and agriculture from the ocean? As I remember, not enough water is a problem here in California.
We need Bob Smith the represent us in Washington
Thank you Commander for illustrating the contributions emanating from military training.
Great article. You’re taking sense. Absent a change in the governor to one that also has sense, and a majority of the state legislature (can you say prop 50?), we can’t expect a change that would have SMR and other demand focused electric production, as the vote seekers want to push green to their 47% base. Flush out the feel good, virtue seeking idiots that have power in local and state positions to effect change!
Sounds like we need to make it a national security issue and use our federal assets here to force sanity… :) CA is too important to the U.S. to let it just tank.
Excellent analysis, Commander.
Thank you.
The ability to ramp electricity production is also extremely important and as far as I know, only NG plants have the capability. I won't even discuss "renewable" energy because there is no such thing.
Thanks for the Good Article…I believe we are nearing the time when Great technologies will spring fourth; making energy from windmills (hydro, coal, oil) lesser economic alternatives. Here’s some interesting information from a fellow veteran.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeEarth/comments/18m3t2j/spaceforce_steven_l_kwast_usaf_general_we_have/
(full speech)… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsPLmb6gAdw
So much information has been hidden from us, including technology. Tesla had it figured out, capturing energy directly from the ether. Sad that his funding was cut by JP Morgan, curtailing the full blossom of his discoveries, and holding back mankind. Interesting that his files/records/etc. were immediately taken by the government upon his death and eventually ended up at MIT for review and cataloging, and that work was overseen by MIT professor John Trump….Uncle of President Donald J Trump…
https://x.com/todayinhistory/status/2009005218252603586?s=61
Bob,
I appreciate your article, I truly do.
There are a lot of things that are just off.
Pulling up an article that is 2 years old is akin to going back to when you joined the Navy. In the technology world, years are like dog years.
https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2025/09/China-Energy-Transition-Review-2025.pdf
That counters your curtailment argument.
Your argument that Solar/Wind are push is dead on accurate. Your argument that TODAY there is no true long-term storage for it is also accurate. I think your solution is wrong. As you mentioned over and over, partnerships have given us what we have today. Heck, without the need for power for spaceships, we would not have solar. But let's look deeper into what has transpired since that Bell Labs tech went on the spaceship to today. The cost was insane, and the amount of power in that photovoltaic was about 5%. Well, to make it even less dramatic, let's go back to when Carter put them on the White House: https://inhabitat.com/solar-pv-cell-cost-has-decreased-an-incredible-99-since-1977. Yes, 99% reduction in cost.
Oil has gone up. Nat Gas has gone up. Nuclear has gone up. None of those has gained efficiency.
Hmm.
Let me clear up what you sourced, but left out a detail:
"California curtails solar and wind generation to keep the grid stable and to leave room for natural gas generation, in order to comply with North American Electric Reliability Corp. requirements and “have generation online in time to ramp up in the evening hours,” according to the report."
So the curtailment was due to the ramp-up time required by other methods. Hmm.
But you also left out the most important factor: Cost.
It costs no more to produce the 'wasted' electricity than it did to use it. Sure, you may have some extra panels to handle growth, but those fixed costs are born once. Whereas producing more with Gas/Coal has an input cost.
I agree with you that we do need a mixture of sources today. I think we will probably need it after I am gone. However, by 2100, I do not think we will need NatGas or Coal. We probably will still need nuclear and renewables.
Sounds like he will answer the question he poses. This installation that was blocked. Did it not have any of the items verified before the installation was approved? Every valid topic around a wind installation must be satisfied before it is approved, I can not tell from this whether any of these were addressed in the permitting process. It sounds like a snow job because of this.
Chris, you will find that anything that has to do with “green” energy has a “nothing to see here approach.” For instance, these projects will require many orders of magnitude of more transmission lines. Where is all the copper coming from? Are we reopening mines? Are you not mining with fossil fuels? Environmental impacts? We shutdown oil, but each turbine requires hundreds of gallons each…where is it coming from? Nothing to see here…
None of this gets attributed to a single wind turbine accurately. The point of the article asked the question, why were the concerns being ignored? Why are all the second and third order impact costs not applied?
Yes to comments on the copper and the "backup" information. No on answering my comment on specfics in the original text. "or operational workarounds by the FAA, Department of Defense, National Weather Service, and other agencies" Were these agencies asked to weigh in on this specific project? It is two topics that really need to be addressed separately. 1) The validity of wind turbines or other green energy sources 2) this specific project. Consider whether or not electric cars help our environment vs actually buying an electric car. The big picture or the small picture. If this addresses just the big picture these are valid questions. I can leave it at that and hope that specific questions have been asked about this project and that once answered it will go through as approved.
Thank you so much for clarifying.
Thank you, Commander Smith, for the explanation of how windfarms can interfere with our defence systems.
Your suggestions for CA to partner sound interesting - just wondered if States had partnered in the past with the military?
States partnering with the military on large infrastructure and technology projects is how America built its most important capabilities for the last 100 years. National labs, shipyards, space launch facilities, and energy infrastructure. There is a good book out there called “The Kill Chain.” It discusses how in the last few decades our tech sector divorced itself from the military. The military is now heavily relying again on non traditional defense contractors to deliver capabilities that the civilian sector has done better. I say we lead the way in this area with a state partnership on SMRs.
If we don’t get our power grid on the right path, all tech companies will be leaving CA. I believe we are at a tipping point to get this right. It’s sad that the tech sector born in this state doesn’t want to be here anymore.
Thank you for the examples.
Why?
Seriously . . . why?
Why do people feel compelled to lie when it is so easily checked?
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3949765/bureau-of-ocean-energy-management-and-dod-sign-agreement-to-bolster-interagency
SMRs sound sexy, and technically, they may become that. Show me one that is working in the US. I will not hold my breath.
If you feel that SMR technology will be worthwhile in the future, then why can't you believe that battery technology will be worthwhile in the future?
The U.S. Navy currently has about 85 commissioned SMRs, including 11 Aircraft Carriers…
This is not a technology problem. Long duration battery storage that can do TW/h does not exist. That is a physics and tech problem. Not to mention once they solve physics, we would need 20,000 facilities all over CA. More transmission and fire sources! So much sense!
I prefer to stop the madness. We go all in on this. It’s clean energy, high efficiency, waste isn’t even worth talking about compared to any other source - not to mention it’s not green ninja turtle goo, it’s elements that can be recycled or used on other apps.
P.S. what is the solution for the copper? Do we increase strip mining? The solution for a .02% carbon offset is to destroy the land and the sea to achieve it?
P.S.S. I’ve spent more hours of my life characterizing the impacts of offshore wind on radar with live testing than most humans should. I also had a living genius on this topic at a national lab review my article before submitting. I’m a little insulted questioning my subject matter expertise…
Bob,
I appreciate the honest and adult response.
I realize that this is anecdotal, and I have not verified any of this. Back in the 80s, I employed an ex-Navy sub guy. We became friends and would spend time with until we moved to SB. I would talk about his time in the sub and come to the conclusion that he was right: sub guys are a different breed.
When the Hunt for Red October came out, of course, I had to call Tim. I was trying to discuss 'reality' versus movie fiction. I brought up the scene of the bullets in the sub and where Sean Connery basically states not to shoot at the nuclear reactor. He mentioned to me how it works on the boats. He stated, and again, this is pure anecdotal, and I do not know if he is right or wrong, but it just sounds right to me.
He stated that the people running them are seriously overtrained. The Navy realizes that a mistake is catastrophic. He mentioned that the Navy has a benefit over land, with a massive heat sink: the ocean. He stated that the military has another option that land-based units do not: they can move from inclement weather. He also stated that they control the ventilation. He said that when the sugar cane fields burn, it creates ventilation issues for the plant, which is why Turkey Point is so far away from agriculture, and they control it.
He then also pointed out the 'duh' moment to me. The Navy does not have to worry about permits or NIMBY.
I can not speak to the copper situation; I have not looked into it.
You may be an SME on radar and windmills, but when you frame things stating that there was no work with the DOD, you have gone from an SME to a biased politician throwing out rubbish. I'd have more respect for your knowledge if you hadn't done that.
PS. I think you will find that we are closer in agreement than in disagreement. But as you proclaim to be a conservative, you are demanding a lot of property rights to be shot to hell.
David, you are almost highlighting my point. Any comments on nuclear and safety or how great renewables are is the biased rhetoric. There’s no power generation more safe than nuclear for you or the environment. Nothing has to be “moved.” If an earthquake happens now the safest place for you on the central coast is Diablo Canyons reactor room. It’s spec’d to handle over two times the largest earthquake ever recorded.
Add up all your posts. Won’t address transmission and the copper needed, or all the transmission is causing the geography issue and costs to get to large renewable farms, or that you know cost is coming from nameplate value LCOE and not including all the total lifecycle costs. You can post all the links you want from advocacy things like NRDC, but that’s the point. Anything with “green” gets a free pass with “nothing to see here.”
The DoD was not being listened to the previous 4 years on this issue. Not sure if you know this, but the top of every Dept gets populated with political appointees. I’m not going to go in to details that directly impacted things I’ve done for political not defense reasons with choices from different administrations, so you’ll have to take my word that not every decision from the top is done for “what’s best for our defense or safety.”
I’m lost on the property rights…
Lying about what? That windmills can interfere with radar systems? This is Smith's experience and I have no reason to doubt it. Your link to a Biden/Harris MOU regarding building offshore windmills compatible with military operations in your mind proves that windmills do not interfere with radar? This MOU is just a statement to work together to find solutions to the "climate crisis" via windmills compatible with DOD operations. It does not state that this is feasible or not, only that they will throw more good money after bad in the era of the close of the Biden administration where they were "throwing gold bars off the Titanic" in the name of climate change in the words of a former Biden administration EPA official. If you reject the climate crisis preface, which I do, energy decisions based on cost and reliability today favor gas, coal, hydro, nuclear, while solar and wind are unreliable, expensive and require battery backup which adds to the cost. If it does not blow of the sun does not shine for a couple of days, no energy at all. And save me your bullshit about wind being the cheapest because that is bullshit when you consider that the wind is not always blowing and these systems require battery backup which is of limited duration.
Ok . . .
Here we go again. Hit the enter key a few times.
You are seriously misinformed and obviously have issues with mixing topics.
"If you reject the climate crisis preface, which I do, energy decisions based on cost and reliability today favor gas, coal, hydro while solar and wind are unreliable, expensive and require battery backup which adds to the cost."
No. Even if you break it down into cost or reliability, that is false.
Solar costs are magnitudes cheaper. It is between 22 and 55 per MWh compared to nuclear at 110 to 238 per MWh.https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/
To me, it is obvious that you didn't even make it to earth sciences in school. You are correct, the wind does not always blow, but that is not always the case. Here, take the GOVERNMENTS, k-12 lesson: https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/about/k-12-education/atmosphere/why-does-wind-blow
You can take a 100 x 100 mile section in SE New Mexico and put solar on it. You can then take a 1 x 100-mile section next to it and put battery storage. That is enough energy for the US by about 145%. It can survive the night without issues. It can survive for about a week without sunlight.
Where nuclear wins is density. In an area of a plant, you can generate more power with nuclear than you can with solar.
This topic to me is ironic. I am on my last day in Vienna, and went to the Technology Museum the other day. It is amazing how intelligent people see power generation.
But, if your solutions were true, then why this? https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-mid-year-update-2025/supply-renewables-grow-the-most-followed-by-gas-and-nuclear
Now ask yourself . . . why is there such a boom in demand for electricity? Aren't the conservatives screaming for more people to have babies? Aren't they screaming to have no immigration? This should put us a negative growth rate.
Here, let me help you. The section is even highlighted: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61164#:~:text=Population%20Growth.,a%20generation%20to%20replace%20itself.
The demand for electricity is up because a few companies want more power (figuratively and literally), more water, and more toxic substances. Can you figure out who those are? I doubt it. Again, let me help.
Amazon
Microsoft
Facebook
OpenAI
nVidia
Apple
TSMC
Intel
Micron
Texas Semi Condutor
Those are just a few of the players.
Forrest Gump meets Chat GPT. Shocking that climate activists claim solar or wind are cheaper than nat gas. Look no further than to find confirmation. Consider levelized cost without subsidies including battery backup to existing gas fired plants not new build and you will face the inconvenient truth that solar and wind are by far more expensive. The climate Nazis like to consider new build nat gas which is more expensive due to environmental requirements.