California is arguably the wealthiest and most technologically advanced place on earth. It’s ground zero for innovation and a magnet for the world’s brightest people.
But it can’t keep the lights on.
In recent weeks, millions of Californians have experienced rolling blackouts, and they’re expecting more.
According to the Los Angeles Times, California Governor Gavin Newsom cites the state’s transition away from traditional yet stable sources of power, like nuclear and gas, toward cleaner yet unreliable renewables, like solar and wind, as the leading cause of the blackouts. This comes at a time when the population is projected to grow by several million people over the next five years. Something will need to change.
Green energy may be the solution to a serious long-term problem — climate change — but as it stands, the harsh reality today is that Californians cannot expect the lights to always turn on. And when they do, the cost is double what states like Texas pay.
Sign up for The Bold Italic newsletter to get the best of the Bay Area in your inbox every week.
These high prices are directly tied to how California’s energy supply has changed over the past decade. Between 2010 and 2018, the closure of the San Onofre nuclear plant in San Diego caused the supply of nuclear power to fall 42%, and generation from natural gas fell 17%. In the same period, wind power more than doubled, and solar jumped from less than 1,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh) to more than 27,000 GWh.
A government mandate for a carbon-free energy supply by 2045 has caused the slowdown of gas and nuclear, but renewables aren’t replacing them quickly enough. The state’s noncommercial production of energy is falling while imports are rising.
The irony is that while California, one of the wealthiest and most innovative destinations in the world, goes without power, some of the poorest and most isolated places on earth are enjoying access to unlimited and affordable power.
Take, for example, the Chukchi region of Russia’s north, a vast and lightly populated region in eastern Siberia. Last December, in the Siberian port city of Pevek, a barge emerged from the winter gloom, carrying the world’s first floating nuclear power plant (pictured below). The tiny town of just 5,000 people now has access to a source of energy that can supply up to 100,000 people, while replacing an outdated and dirty coal plant in the area.
Now, for anyone who just finished watching the HBO series Chernobyl, a floating Russian nuclear reactor is probably the last thing you want to see bobbing in the San Francisco Bay. But, the Russians promise, there’s nothing to worry about — it uses the latest technology and is completely safe.
On one hand, we have a modern state like California embracing renewables yet suffering blackouts while paying sky high prices for power. And on the other hand, we have remote Arctic towns quickly hooked up to energy that’s cheap and reliable.
Nuclear energy in general is surprisingly safe, according to research, including by Our World in Data, a science publication affiliated with the University of Oxford. Nuclear is just as safe as renewables — it has the lowest rates of death per terawatt-hour of all energy sources except biomass.
And it’s getting safer. There are dozens of startups making nuclear power smaller, safer, and cheaper. They even look different, like the small plant shown below that is planned for Idaho in the next few years.
The people of Pevek and others in Russia’s Arctic seem to agree that floating nuclear power is a worthy investment. The country has long had a fleet of nuclear power icebreakers, and it’s building three more, including the Leader, which will be the world’s biggest, able to smash its way through ice up to 4.3 meters (14 feet) thick.
(Of course, we’ve also had nuclear-powered submarines plying the ocean depths for decades. Today there are about 150 nuclear subs operated by six countries, with Brazil next to join the club.)
So, on one hand, we have a modern state like California embracing renewables yet suffering blackouts while paying sky-high prices for power. And on the other, we have remote Arctic towns quickly hooked up to energy that’s cheap and reliable.
Even the most ardent supporters of green energy must admit these are bad optics. And many countries are taking notice.
In 2026, Egypt will turn on the continent’s first nuclear power plant outside of South Africa, while 10 other African countries have informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of plans to explore nuclear energy.
Take a moment to consider how extraordinary this is. Rwanda — a country that saw up to 1 million people killed during a civil war turned genocide in the 1990s — will have nuclear research labs and a small reactor by 2024.
Africa’s embrace of nuclear energy may be surprising, but it shouldn’t be. The continent has suffered from severe power shortages as its population and economies grow. Western governments and NGOs have told African countries to embrace renewable energy, but Africa has to look only as far as California to see soaring costs and devastating blackouts.
Many countries remain committed to nuclear energy even if California isn’t. Fifty new reactors will be finished by 2025. They are in the usual places like Russia and China, but also in countries like Bangladesh, Finland, UAE, and Turkey.
Now that Russia has shown that a reactor can simply be towed into position off the coast, who knows where this might lead.
Rosatom, the country’s atomic energy agency, says several countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, and Namibia, have approached the agency about its floating reactor.
With almost half of the world’s population living within 100 kilometers of the coast, what’s stopping a country from renting a floating reactor to meet its energy needs? It could be floated into position and plugged into the local grid much quicker than a land-based reactor that takes years to plan, let alone build.
This may also solve two of the biggest worries with nuclear power: the threat of arms proliferation and the disposal of waste. A rented reactor would remain under the jurisdiction of the owner — like Russia or the United States — so the local country couldn’t access any material needed for weapons development, while any waste would be eventually returned to the renter country for disposal.
These possibilities are starting to dominate national discussions about energy. What is clear, however, is that places like California are not leading the way on future energy as much as we may have hoped. Our soaring costs and power outages are causing some developing countries to tap the brakes on renewables and take another look at nuclear.
Wouldn’t this be the cruelest irony of all for advocates of green energy? That their greatest successes in places like California might turn out to be the greatest argument against green energy itself?
