-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
California Renewable Energy Legislation / Progress
- Thread starter RubberToe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Clearly, we have more electric cars than the period studied, calendar year 2016. Of course, you mean that we need to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles of all types, not just cars.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
California report links emissions reductions to economic growth
California passed its own climate-change regulation in 2006, the Global Warming Solutions Act (better known as AB32), which set a goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Green Innovation Index shows that since AB32 passed, greenhouse gas emissions have dropped slightly more than the national average, while per capita GDP in the state outpaced national growth by more than 35 percent.
California boosted economic activity 19 percent per Btu of energy consumed between 2010 and 2015, to $3.29 in GDP for every 10,000 Btu of energy used, compared with $1.75 for the rest of the United States.
Also, I found this note as their policy...
Green Car Reports respectfully reminds its readers that the scientific validity of climate change is not a topic for debate in our comments. We ask that any comments by climate-change denialists be flagged for moderation.
California passed its own climate-change regulation in 2006, the Global Warming Solutions Act (better known as AB32), which set a goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Green Innovation Index shows that since AB32 passed, greenhouse gas emissions have dropped slightly more than the national average, while per capita GDP in the state outpaced national growth by more than 35 percent.
California boosted economic activity 19 percent per Btu of energy consumed between 2010 and 2015, to $3.29 in GDP for every 10,000 Btu of energy used, compared with $1.75 for the rest of the United States.
Also, I found this note as their policy...
Green Car Reports respectfully reminds its readers that the scientific validity of climate change is not a topic for debate in our comments. We ask that any comments by climate-change denialists be flagged for moderation.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Up to 10 GW more solar, 2-2.5 GW of batteries coming in California
]
According to pv magazine’s calculations, SB 100 could spur an additional 10 GW of solar and wind by 2030. Meanwhile, California Solar and Storage Association (CALSSA) is estimating that SB 700 will spur behind-the-meter battery deployments in the 2 – 2.5 GW range through the end of 2025, and possibly more.
Among our assumptions* is that the increased RPS would be met by solar and wind, given that these two resources have dominated California’s renewable energy procurement in recent years. And with roughly twice as much solar as wind deployed to date in the state, it is likely that solar could be the bulk of that additional 10 GW.
As for SB 700, CALSSA is assuming that 80% of the incentive budget will continue to be dedicated to energy storage, and that the program will continue to be split between residential and non-residential storage. The organization also notes that California regulators will need to adjust the program’s incentive levels and steps, and CALSSA describes their assumptions about average incentive levels as “conservative”.
]
According to pv magazine’s calculations, SB 100 could spur an additional 10 GW of solar and wind by 2030. Meanwhile, California Solar and Storage Association (CALSSA) is estimating that SB 700 will spur behind-the-meter battery deployments in the 2 – 2.5 GW range through the end of 2025, and possibly more.
Among our assumptions* is that the increased RPS would be met by solar and wind, given that these two resources have dominated California’s renewable energy procurement in recent years. And with roughly twice as much solar as wind deployed to date in the state, it is likely that solar could be the bulk of that additional 10 GW.
As for SB 700, CALSSA is assuming that 80% of the incentive budget will continue to be dedicated to energy storage, and that the program will continue to be split between residential and non-residential storage. The organization also notes that California regulators will need to adjust the program’s incentive levels and steps, and CALSSA describes their assumptions about average incentive levels as “conservative”.
We did it, 100% "zero carbon" electricity by 2045. And the 2030 target is increased from 50% to 60%. As the ramp up to 100% starts taking shape, look for the 2045 timeline to be moved closer. I thought that the Governor would wait until the climate summit to sign this, but kudos to him for getting it done prior to then.
The "zero carbon" allows for things like small modular nuclear reactors should they ever materialize out of thin air, and also possible breakthroughs in Geothermal brought about by our friends in the fracking industry. Links to both follow the big news.
California Sets Goal Of 100 Percent Clean Electric Power By 2045
Small modular reactor - Wikipedia
RT
The "zero carbon" allows for things like small modular nuclear reactors should they ever materialize out of thin air, and also possible breakthroughs in Geothermal brought about by our friends in the fracking industry. Links to both follow the big news.
California Sets Goal Of 100 Percent Clean Electric Power By 2045
Small modular reactor - Wikipedia
RT
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
We could have been there a lot sooner. If you want to make climate change a priority, stop ignoring nuclear.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ornia-would-already-have-100-clean-power/amp/
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
That's pretty much the only way nuclear will ever be economically viable. Literally 'magic'
No one is ignoring nuclear... kinda hard not to notice something that's so absurdly expensive....
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
That's pretty much the only way nuclear will ever be economically viable. Literally 'magic'
No one is ignoring nuclear... kinda hard not to notice something that's so absurdly expensive....
It's only "absurdly expensive" because of all the regulatory red tape that was added to it over the past 30 years.
Duke,
There is another entire thread dedicated to Nuclear Power where that is being discussed. Having said that, despite the "regulatory red tape" that you mention, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries still managed to build some replacement steam generators that were so bad that an otherwise perfectly good nuclear plant had to be taken off line forever:
How Broken Is the San Onofre Nuclear Plant?
There is another entire thread dedicated to Nuclear Power where that is being discussed. Having said that, despite the "regulatory red tape" that you mention, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries still managed to build some replacement steam generators that were so bad that an otherwise perfectly good nuclear plant had to be taken off line forever:
How Broken Is the San Onofre Nuclear Plant?
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Scuttlebutt around SD is that San Onofre was decomissioned purely for political reasons. FYI, there's a gigantic lawsuit ongoing about this (the political reasons, not the steam generators).
Regardless - just thought that even though everyone is "so happy" about SB100 and reaching 100% renewables in the (distant) future, it's interesting to note that would could have already made a HUGE dent in our carbon footprint (much bigger than we already have) just if some common sense about nuclear energy had prevailed in the previous decades.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No; It's absurdly expensive because the lowest acceptable failure rate is <1:10000. Imagine how expensive a Tesla would be if the annual defect rate had to be <1:10000. AND even at ~1:10000 that means an accident once every ~10 years globally.... hard to call even that 'acceptable'. No one is 'ignoring' nuclear. We paid A LOT of attention. Even those that 'grew-up' in the nuclear industry that weren't ideologically committed to centralized generation like myself realized it simply isn't a viable option.
The critical component to keep in mind is that it's now easier and cheaper to convert sunlight via PV or wind to electricity than heat. Think about that...... even if the heat was free; solar and wind are STILL cheaper. Game over for thermal generation. Game over for nuclear. Time to move on to solutions where success is actually one of the possible outcomes. Time to get serious about solar and wind.
So.... SCE was awarded $125M as part of an elaborate hoax????
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I also "grew up in the industry" and lived the first half of my life in the most nuclear prolific area of this country (TN Valley Authority), and the first paragraph of what you wrote above is just . . . well, wrong. The design for power generation from nuclear plants is just stupid simple. And if political motivations in the 50s and 60s were left out of it, we would be running an even simpler and safer design (Thorium reactors - Oak Ridge ran one of these for about 50 years, they are stupid safe, stupid simple, and don't use nearly as much uranium). Politics are what killed nuclear, plain and simple, and it is a decision that anyone that cares about global warming should lament. We would have FAR fewer coal and gas fired plants if nuclear were built out as originally planned in this country.
PV and wind are cheaper now than nuclear. Part of that is because of the price curve they are on, but part of that is because there is zero competition in the Nuclear generation energy field. In the past 20 years, there was only one company in the USA that made nuclear plants (Westinghouse) and now even they are bankrupt (again, due to regulation expenses, NOT actual expenses inherent in the tech itself).
For anyone that cares about a reduced carbon footprint NOW (not 30 years from now), an ideal grid would be one powered by nuclear baseload and wind + solar (with battery) peak response. Period.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
And this paragraph, is not true. Nuclear is a baseload generation source, it can run when the sun is down and the wind is not blowing.
PV + Wind are peak generation sources.
If you want to properly compare them, you need to add in battery storage (and enough to make it through the ENTIRE night AND for days if the sun isn't shining). You do that, and the economics of renewable + battery are not cheap, not cheap at all.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Gas turbines;
'Base load' is just short hand for cheap fuel; expensive cap-ex that needs to run A LOT to be viable. No reason if you have 10GW of demand you can't have 12GW of gas, ~12GW of solar and ~12GW of wind. Use the gas for reliability and wind / solar to reduce fuel use. As more and more wind/solar are added you can add storage as it makes sense but it's not needed or desired in the short term.
What's heavier a pound of lead or a pound of feathers is the same question as what saves more fuel 16TWh/yr of nuclear or 16TWh/yr of wind/solar... why is this so hard to understand???? Wether it's a nice flat 2GW 24/7/365 or 7GW peaks and toughs is irrelevant. 16TWh/yr is 16TWh/yr.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Gas turbines, for anyone that ACTUALLY cares about carbon footprint, are not nearly as good as they are made out to be.
I'm sure you are going to argue that they produce less CO2 when fuel is burned (they do) than Coal, but what people rarely take into account is that even the smallest bit of leaked natural gas has a far greater greenhouse effects than CO2 (methane is 25 times more effective at the greenhouse effect than CO2).
There is a lot of natural gas that is leaked into the atmosphere during extraction of natural gas from the ground.
I'm sure you are going to argue that they produce less CO2 when fuel is burned (they do) than Coal, but what people rarely take into account is that even the smallest bit of leaked natural gas has a far greater greenhouse effects than CO2 (methane is 25 times more effective at the greenhouse effect than CO2).
There is a lot of natural gas that is leaked into the atmosphere during extraction of natural gas from the ground.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Then why are you such a fan of nuclear? They need gas turbines to supplement load as much if not more than wind/gas....
What's gonna sit around and wait for demand to pick up ~10GW? It ain't gonna be nuclear... not @$15/w not even at $3/w.
Would it be awesome to magically have 100% nuclear? Sure... I'd love that... but if we're going to fantasize about things that will never happen I have a lot to add to that list. Back in the REAL world we need to focus on Solar, Wind, Demand Response and Storage. Eventually Power to Gas for long-term 'storage' to get to 100%.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Why AREN'T you? Carbon-free power.
It WOULD be cheap if not for all the political shenanigans of the past 30 years hadn't driven all the producers out of business (this is what happens when you OVER REGULATE an industry).
Have you actually looked at modern nuclear designs (Thorium reactors, etc.)? They are elegant and simple, not expensive from (in theory) a construction standpoint, and far safer than designs from even 15 years ago.
France is almost entirely nuclear powered, and have VERY low CO2 emissions (4 times lower than California's):
Similar threads
