California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-29/california-moves-toward-requiring-100-clean-power-by-2045
379 comments
I think another great move would be to start dealing with excessive energy consumption. Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units, vertical-drum washing machines (!!!), poorly designed gas stoves, oversized cars, monstrous gas-guzzling trucks, energy waste is all over the place. People behave just as if energy were free.
Politicians giving themselves a ~ 30-year runway is a farce. Promise you'll reduce it by 10% in 3 years, and I'll take you seriously.
This is garbage. Just like the return to the Moon promised by Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump ... always "15 to 20 years from now" ... and NEVER happens.
By the way - 10% in 3 years would be a perfect milestone to 100% in 30 years.
This is garbage. Just like the return to the Moon promised by Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump ... always "15 to 20 years from now" ... and NEVER happens.
By the way - 10% in 3 years would be a perfect milestone to 100% in 30 years.
I understand this is amazing and totally love my state for doing it, but man seeing 2045 is always a little dismaying as I wish we could be even more aggressive. 2035 for example. I realize I am being too ambitious, but we went to space in a decade why not 100% clean energy in 1.5?
Is nuclear part of the bill? It is clean but I don't see any mention of it either way in the article other than in the graph of current sources.
I am still baffled by the focus on private housholds and private consumption when it comes to the discussion of clean energy and emissions.
The reality is that private households have very little to do with our problems and even less to do about them.
Stop eating cow sound great but it's not going to do anything of any impact.
Most emissions (70%) come from very few companies (around a 100 or some).
Instead of making life more expensive and difficult for normal citizens why not focus on those companies instead. That you can actually do something about.
http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/climate-change-green-house-gas...
The reality is that private households have very little to do with our problems and even less to do about them.
Stop eating cow sound great but it's not going to do anything of any impact.
Most emissions (70%) come from very few companies (around a 100 or some).
Instead of making life more expensive and difficult for normal citizens why not focus on those companies instead. That you can actually do something about.
http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/climate-change-green-house-gas...
Writing as a person that's recently built some PV:
The problem of building enough photovoltaics to meet demand is solved. High quality 60 and 72-cell PV modules at sub $0.50/watt and massive scale cheap ground mount and roof mount systems are not rocket science. With sufficient zoning and regulatory incentives it's possible for roof mount PV in California to entirely meet the state's energy needs in megawatt-hours per day. There are a LOT of empty roofs out there.
There is also a lot of nearly useless, non arable desert land that is relatively low cost ($/acre) that can be covered in fixed ground mount photovoltaics. Go drive around out in the area around Twentynine Palms...
The problem is energy storage. Batteries need to get better and have much longer cycle lifetimes. Economies of scale driven by things like the Tesla gigafactory will help. But we will need other, new things like pumped storage hydroelectric and possibly vanadium flow batteries as well. The $/Wh stored ratio is still very high, and the cubic density for energy stored is very low (Wh per cubic meter).
The problem of building enough photovoltaics to meet demand is solved. High quality 60 and 72-cell PV modules at sub $0.50/watt and massive scale cheap ground mount and roof mount systems are not rocket science. With sufficient zoning and regulatory incentives it's possible for roof mount PV in California to entirely meet the state's energy needs in megawatt-hours per day. There are a LOT of empty roofs out there.
There is also a lot of nearly useless, non arable desert land that is relatively low cost ($/acre) that can be covered in fixed ground mount photovoltaics. Go drive around out in the area around Twentynine Palms...
The problem is energy storage. Batteries need to get better and have much longer cycle lifetimes. Economies of scale driven by things like the Tesla gigafactory will help. But we will need other, new things like pumped storage hydroelectric and possibly vanadium flow batteries as well. The $/Wh stored ratio is still very high, and the cubic density for energy stored is very low (Wh per cubic meter).
For those who think data is beautiful, here is real-time information regarding the majority of California's grid:
http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx
Once again, making me proud to pay CA taxes.
If they do not take large hydro into account when calculating this 100%, I wonder what we'll do with the dams. Destroy them to let the rivers free-flow again? Dams would have been a great store of energy for this project by pumping the water up during the day using solar/wind.
Tesla Energy must be salivating at all those batteries that will need to be constructed.
If they do not take large hydro into account when calculating this 100%, I wonder what we'll do with the dams. Destroy them to let the rivers free-flow again? Dams would have been a great store of energy for this project by pumping the water up during the day using solar/wind.
Tesla Energy must be salivating at all those batteries that will need to be constructed.
I believe ever since we had the rolling blackouts in the early 2000's we've been purchasing more and more energy from power plants in Utah, as regulation in the state makes it difficult to build new ones.
Hypothetically, if I build a big coal power plant across the border to power a giant light array shining on solar cells on the CA side, does that count?
That's very interesting. Right now California seems to run about 40-60% renewable according to https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
We are going to need some more big batteries. Don’t we pay our neighbors to take our excess during peak times?
Currently, I buy all my electricity from renewables. The price I pay per kwh is lower than conventional generation. However, the state of California has given PG&E a monopoly on electricity distribution, and PG&E charges me the difference between the generation charge from renewables and its own generation charge as a 'distribution fee'. This fee is waived, if i used PG&E generation.
Until California kicks out PG&E's monopoly and lets me pay the actual fair market price for my renewable electricity, I find it hard to take these initiatives as anything more than virtue signalling.
A better method for my county would be for the state to get rid of PG&E's ability to selectively charge the distribution fee. Then, private market forces would basically make everyone switch to renewables. Of course, the legislature wouldn't get the chance to appear virtuous. In fact, they'd look like villains for allowing this ridiculous pricing structure to begin with (and they really do knowingly allow it -- after talking with my state senator and representative, they told me they know this is the case, but 'the PG&E lobby is strong'.. give me a break).
Until California kicks out PG&E's monopoly and lets me pay the actual fair market price for my renewable electricity, I find it hard to take these initiatives as anything more than virtue signalling.
A better method for my county would be for the state to get rid of PG&E's ability to selectively charge the distribution fee. Then, private market forces would basically make everyone switch to renewables. Of course, the legislature wouldn't get the chance to appear virtuous. In fact, they'd look like villains for allowing this ridiculous pricing structure to begin with (and they really do knowingly allow it -- after talking with my state senator and representative, they told me they know this is the case, but 'the PG&E lobby is strong'.. give me a break).
[deleted]
I actually had no idea how much of CA's energy came from renewable sources. That is actually astounding. In many ways CA is ahead of the nation.
"California would need to install more than 200 times as much energy-storage capacity than it has now to make up for the loss of gas plants,"
They wouldn't need near as much if they abandoned the silly fixed 24/7 consumer electric rates in favor of rates that vary based on the supply.
They wouldn't need near as much if they abandoned the silly fixed 24/7 consumer electric rates in favor of rates that vary based on the supply.
They should find how to create electricity from poo as it is their first renewable material
I’d bet 10x harder than 99% and 100x harder than 95% and 1000x harder than 66%
It's unfortunate the US response to climate change is completely localized and basically dependent on blue states. Not saying this is a bad thing but climate change is a huge global issue and requires at least a coordinated national response.
Does aneutronic p-b11 fission count as clean in California?
Not soon enough though, is it?
1. Hawaii
2. California
3.
2. California
3.
excellent
Why not 2025?