I live in the town where Valero is closing. It’s a small town of 38k residents. The closure will surely affect the tax base and community. Valero donates to the schools, scouts, veterans as well as employs many folks there at the refinery and port. The scheduled closure is targeted for around April.

I am considering selling my house so likely that will need to happen soon before a bulk of the community bails out.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, December 28, 2025 - 08:27 pm: Edit

BTW I would rather see it go than have Governor Hair-gel and his family start the land/business grab. (They already grabbed districts this year. As you all saw)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 10:42 am: Edit

In 1983, there were 40 refineries In California.

Currently, I believe there are 11.

Depending on the source you consult, there are four refineries scheduled to close in 2026, leaving 7.

It remains to be seen if the Governor will be able seize private property, and further, if he manages to get away with the theft, can he find enough competent personel to manage and operate the properties.

Government operated refineries have a terrible record around the world. It remains to be seen how well it works out.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 01:07 pm: Edit

If it was going to close anyway, it apparently has no value. So CA could just use eminent domain to "buy it" for a nominal fee.

Then sell it to someone willing to operate it (them).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Well, as an engineer, I have to point out the flaw in Mike G's comment. When you close a plant, you don't just leave everything sitting there ready for somebody to push the "on" button. You remove the big expensive parts and ship them to other plants (being built or expanded) in other areas where those parts are needed, and then cut up the rest for scrap metal. I have been in charge of dismantling a big gas facility and it took the best part of a year to get down to bare dirt.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 02:43 pm: Edit

If any of you follow Lazerpig on Youtube, he has a great video on the battleship program.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 03:20 pm: Edit

>> When you close a plant, you don't just leave everything sitting there

Indeed. I believe the refineries are planning to raze the plants and then sell the large plots of land to real estate developers. Onerous regulations make the business no longer profitable.

--Mike

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 04:48 pm: Edit

It appears that the democratic party in California was totally onboard the new clean energy revolution.

The only real problem being that renewable energy sources are not able to replace petroleum.

So much so, that they rushed ahead to phase out internal combustion engines without having alternative energy options online.

Talk anout putting the cart before the horse…

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 04:57 pm: Edit

>>> raze the plants and then sell the large plots of land to real estate developers


How are they going to do that without turning them into the next Love Canal superfund cleanup site??


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 04:58 pm: Edit

My friends, the whole California disaster line here looks frighteningly close to material for which our beloved WebMom frequently calls in her ever hungry assistants.

May I suggest we abandon that line before we lose toes, feet, legs...

... And most worryingly, some VERY sensitive parts BETWEEN our legs?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Well its not like CA needs land. There are plenty of tracts that are available for eminent domain / development. I cannot imagine that this land is free of contamination. Mare and Treasure Islands in the San Pablo and San Francisco bay have been abandoned by the military and are extremely contaminated from Lead both of the paint type and the unexploded munitions type. Also arsenics, fuels and other nasty chemicals.
The direct adjacent lands to this sight is wetland marsh, rolling hills created from garbage dumps, an industrial park, and funny enough a waster water plant and reservoir.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 07:26 pm: Edit

I just read somewhere that the Navy is looking at using 2 nuclear reactors from decommisioned subs to power a Govt AI Data Center in Washington State.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 08:41 pm: Edit

WA rivers are large enough, just pull the sub where you need it and connect to the grid....

Meanwhile, remove the military technology and use it to house reactor techs.....

Feds should have pulled active CVNs into coastal disaster zones and did the same thing...
People just don't think out of the box very often...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 09:30 pm: Edit

The United States Navy has already used one of its aircraft carriers to provide electricity for an american city during an emergency.

Quote:”… In 1929, the USS Lexington was repurposed to provide emergency electrical power to Tacoma, Washington, during a severe drought that crippled the city's hydroelectric power sources. For about a month, the Lexington, using its turbo- electric propulsion system, generated electricity for the city.”

This answer was provided by google, but I can cite other sources if anyone wants to question the source of the citation.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, December 29, 2025 - 09:32 pm: Edit

It's not the whole sub they want to use. Just the reactor they normally bury.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 08:04 am: Edit

Charleston NPTU has a couple old nuc subs there that have connected to the grid post hurricane. IIRC the problem was the transformers and transmission lines.

Just up the street from the NNPTC I built in the 90s and the munitions docks we repaired in the early 2000s. Around the corner from SpaWar thing I did for 4 months between "REAL PROJECTS."

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 08:31 am: Edit

SVC I suspect that the oil companies would forgo salvage if someone else take over the cleanup.

As for renewables, I'd just mandate all new housing have solar roofs &/or wind. Have a threshold for retrofitting (like when that rood has to be replaced. Maybe this won't take care of all the problem, but it should help. 12 watts/ sf is the low end figure I see. 12 watts/sf hour *500 sf usable roof space* 12 hours daylight/day* 365 days/year= about 26000 kwh/year?

Again, ymmv, but I'd bet a dollar that 50% renewable is possible in 10 years if it was mandated. IIRC some Euro countries are going 100% renewable in 20 years iIRC. Norway, Germany & Denmark to start. Note that Norway is an OPEC country! New Zealand, Austria and others are following... It's all a matter of not letting "big oil" buy your policy making.

If we were free from oil then we can ignore all those OPEC states that constantly cause trouble. and they'd have little money to cause mischief. So Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, etc all can just stew in their own juices. And those "sponsor nations" that are kinda allied to can just defend themselves. Good luck Gulf nations!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 11:39 am: Edit

Mike Grafton:

Just to put your last post into perspective…

The United States leads global oil production by volume, significantly ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia, which consistently rank second and third, respectively, according to recent data from late 2024 and 2025 sources. Following these top three are Canada, China, and Iraq, with production figures varying slightly by the month and reporting agency but maintaining similar rankings.
Here's a general ranking by volume (barrels per day - bpd):

United States: Around 20-22 million bpd (including crude, shale, NGLs).

Saudi Arabia: Around 10.9-11.1 million bpd.

Russia: Around 10.8-11.1 million bpd.

Canada: Around 5.7-5.9 million bpd.

China: Around 4.2-4.9 million bpd.

Iraq: Around 4.4 million bpd.

Source: Google.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Mike G, that might be so, but probably not, not unless the oil company still gets to sell the land. Anyway, it’s not what is happening, and Newsome wants the plants handed over intact for free, which won’t happen.

As for renewables, Europe is backing away from their conversion pledges as fast as they can because they do not work. Renewables are several times the cost of carbon per kwhr, and just aren’t reliable (requiring you to keep the carbon plant on standby). Solar works maybe an average of eight hours per day (rain, fog, dust, other issues) usually about six. Wind isn’t much better and can only be used practically in limited areas. Many of those areas are blocked by various groups that don’t want windmills spoiling the scenery. Renewables are the future, but practical reliance on renewables is IN the future.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 01:23 pm: Edit

RE: Solar power ... search YouTube for "New York solar farm", find the young lady's channel, and binge watch it.


Garth L. Getgen

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 01:44 pm: Edit

I make the general claim that when New Zeeland is 100% renewable energy, I may believe that the rest of the world should start to consider if this is possible.

New Zeeland is basically a big north-south highland range with lots of wind, combined with decent sunlight, and with lots of available hydropower, gobs of geothermal power, and a government pushing renewables.

It is basically the perfect storm for renewables to work. If you told God, "Please God, give us a country that can easily be powered by 100% renewables," and he answered with a massive miracle to create someplace that's as good as you could ask for, you'd get someplace a lot like New Zeeland.

Their electric grid still has (relatively small) amounts of fossil fuel, their cars and transportation use a lot more. And Geothermal and Hydro are far and away their two biggest renewable sources, because where available, those are the best renewables.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Not an expert (some of my clients are).... but the main issue with Renewable Energy is storage of it, for when surplus energy is created.

(These huge 'Battery installations are helping - but they like Hydro are still limited!).

Hydro is currenty the only major source of instant Renewable energy, but once it has been used - you need to pump the water back up obvously (and thats is when surplus other Renewable energy can be used very efficiently).

I have heard Sand might be useable as a energy storage system too.

On production of renewable energy, I have been told Wind and Solar can actually be fairly accurately modelled - but thats over X number of months, X energy is produced - if you want X energy Wednesday afternoon.... you might be out of luck.

Haven't heard much on Geothermal (very locatiom specific IIRC) or Bio (more limited in production of energy, but is more consistent, IIRC).

After Hydran - Tidal is about the next best consistent and reliable - but for what ever reason, it seems to be the hardest to build - people don't want it in bays close to them and it can have issues for wildlife (like Wind!).

As Douglas said - New Zealand is ideally placed for Renewable - as is Norway.

I bet other location (Chile for example - and probably Canada too) probably have good areas - but as others have said, renewable is not cheap to set up.

If you don't live in those area - tough.

So - again as others have said, you need back up power generation for Renewable - to cover peaks in demand AND when it's Dark or Windless etc when production is mininal (IIRC, in theory Solar can work at night, from Moon light, but the energy made is so small it's not worth it??).

Other than cost, the issue is 'Not in my back yard' (NIMBY)- and for that, I think it's actually fairly easy to resolve.

Give every energy user two options : -

1) I am off grid and will supply ALL of my energy

2) I am happy to have a Gas/Oil/Coal/Nuclear/Solar/Wind/Bio/Tidal/Hydro Powerplant built in my area.

One Option HAS to be selected (and some areas might be limited to Gas/Oil/Coal and Nuclear).

Every area has a powerplant built to produce 50% of the regions energy needs.

(The other 50% can come from National sources - for example, Welsh Hydro energy can be used anywhere - as can English Nuclear or Scottish Wind....).

But answering 'none of the above etc' gives your vote to the local authority to build what is needed.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 03:21 pm: Edit

I just realized something.

Back in July, the Navy announced that the next two America-class amphibious assault ships would be delayed by a year or more due to "shipyard labor challenges".

If you look at the America-class, it has the same rough length, beam, draft, and displacement as called out for this new "battleship" that has been announced.

Wanna bet that they're going to try some kind of (ill-advised) shipyard conversion to meet the stated goal of having the first BBG hulls in the water in 2028?

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 03:37 pm: Edit

As far as I know, all of those whopping big grid batteries are basically trying to provide 15-30 minutes of power to give long enough to spin up the gas turbines from standby after the wind or solar has an unexpected drop-off.

Other than pumped hydro, as far as I know, there's simply nothing currently available that stores power on the scale that of what a grid uses over even a few hours, much less overnight.

Lots of grid interconnections help, because when one area is cloudy, someplace else may be bright, and similar for wind. The Continental US has three separate grids, which is a bad idea for renewables, but interconnections alone are not sufficient.

Paul mentioned sand, I've also heard proposals for bricks, the idea as I understand it, is that you use an unreliable or off-peak power source to heat a bulk material that water can flow through, and then you can draw out the energy via putting water in and getting steam out for a steam turbine. This sounds horrifically inefficient to me (but I could be wrong, some modern processes hit efficiencies that I'd intuitively say are absurdly high), but it would work for bulk storage in places where pumped hydro isn't adequate/available.

Gas turbines used as backup generators are one of the most expensive power sources currently in use. I've seen people argue (appearantly seriously) that renewables are cost effective because they are cheaper per kwh than those backup gas generators, missing the fact that those backup gas generators are in fact a COST of renewables, you need to be cheaper than baseline coal generation to really be competative, and as far as I know, no renewables but Hydro and Geo even come close, and Hydro and Geo are both location limited.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 - 04:27 pm: Edit

The America class amphibious warfare ships are listed as having a cruise speed of 20 knots, max speed is generally assumed to be 22+ knots, but the Navy AFAIK has not officially stated a maximum speed.

If 20 knots is all these new “ Battleships” need, why not just use super tanker hulls?

Proven tech, available in civilian shipyards using existing slipways. 20 to 25 hulls would still take years to build, but doesn’t tie up existing Aircraft Carrier production.