LA Times Doubles Down On Energy Illiteracy
LA Times Doubles Down On Energy Illiteracy
"Journalists cannot serve two masters. To the extent that they take on the task of suppressing information or biting their tongue for the sake of some political agenda, they are betraying the trust of the public and corrupting their own profession.” -Thomas Sowell
Yesterday, the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times, ran a piece entitled, “10 more years of nuclear power? Gov. Newsom needs to make the case.”
A newspaper’s Editorial Board’s content is supposed to be separate from their everyday reporters’ content, which makes it odd to see their “Energy & Environment Reporter” and author of the paper’s weekly “Boiling Point” newsletter promote the editorial piece.
Whatever gets more eyeballs and clicks, I suppose.
It appears they’ve learned little since their December editorial, “No, California shouldn’t extend the life of its last nuclear plant. There are better ways to fight climate change” or after the Editorial Board themselves interviewed the Governor this past April.
To sum things up quickly, the Editorial Board wants the Governor and his team to explain their recent change of heart regarding the closure of Diablo Canyon. The piece wonders why there were still blackouts during the summer of 2020 (hint: ya’ll are supposed to be journalists, start here) even with Diablo Canyon running.
They type:
But the onus is on Newsom and his administration to clearly explain those projections and demonstrate how future blackouts will be avoided through continued operation of Diablo Canyon — which, after all, was operating during 2020 when hundreds of thousands of people lost power. State officials also need to spell out how the plan would ensure safe operation of an aging plant and reduce its many impacts on the environment, especially because it would skirt some of the reviews designed to uncover and address such problems.
I do appreciate one of the Governor’s largest cheerleaders, the LA Times, actually asking him to “show his work,” for a change but the case is somewhat made here. It could be much better but it’s indeed there. The same Sammy Roth, even links to it in his own article from last week.
They continue:
The governor’s proposal blames the holdup, in part, on supply chain disruptions, tariff disputes and other delays. But we need to be sure that postponing the plant’s shutdown does not slow more aggressive climate action.
The supply chain disruptions, tariff disputes, and “other delays,” are indeed real issues.
Consider for example, copper, one of the vital metals for the energy industry in general, rapid transition to utopia or not, is set to face some significant supply issues, and on top of that, the largest exporter of copper in the world, Chile, might turn into Venezuela 2.0 if the new Constitution is approved by voters next month.
Copper is just the tip of the commodity shortage iceberg though:
The tariffs too are a real deal, the ones on solar panels, which wreaked havoc on the domestic industry, were started during the Trump Administration, extended this year by the Biden Administration, then the same administration reversed course recently saying these tariffs were a national security threat.
The Orwellian-sounding Inflation Reduction Act signed by President Biden yesterday “promises” both more solar and battery storage faculties, so perhaps this is what the LA Times is waiting on? President Biden did after all use the word “will.” We all know that means it’s going to happen!
What the Editorial Board means by “other delays” is unknown but knowing that this is California, the complex web of regulations often get in the way of even the smallest of projects. The state’s a champion of getting in its own way.
The Newsom administration (to their credit?) have been trying to slash some of these regulations to further increase the speed of the “energy transition” although this is primarily to support renewables which are favorite by himself and his puppet-masters.
The LA Times, presumably like Newsom, his team, and much of his puppet masters, continue to miss the mark with the importance of Diablo Canyon’s contribution to CA’s baseload power. Emphasis mine.
It’s incredibly disappointing that, given so much lead time, state officials can offer no assurances that closing Diablo Canyon, which produces about 6% of California’s electricity, won’t create a void that is filled by gas plants and drives up carbon emissions.
The last part of that quote is actually more damning than the 6% figure.
Back to quoting once again the Doomberg in their piece California Ditzkrieg:
We’d happily quote from their [Dec 2021 LA Times Editorial Board piece] proposed plan to replace this all-important baseload power here, but having read the editorial several times, we can’t find it. We suspect they don’t understand the difference between baseload and intermittent.
I can’t tell if these folks have no idea what baseload power is and why it’s important for a reliable, stable, and cost-effective grid, or if they’re nodding their heads in agreement with many renewable proponents who openly reject it.
Meredith Angwin explains in Shorting the Grid far batter than I can:
To close out, is it just a coincidence there’s currently zero press coverage in the LA Times about the news of Germany’s nuclear plants?
The LA Times author was shocked that Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was to be given another 10 years.
I am too.
I think ithe extension should be for a minimum of 20 years.
The author felt that the governor needed to justify the extension. He did.
I think the LA Times need to give us a very detailed and rational justification for their opposition.