Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

California Renewable Energy Legislation / Progress

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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%.

YOU ARE MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT:
The article I linked above was a "hindsight" article. I.e. look back and see where we would be NOW if we hadn't scuttled all the planned nuclear we had going in the 70s and 80s.

We would be there, 100% carbon-free power, NOW.

It's always good to go back and look at our history, so we don't repeat the @#$%-ups of the previous generations. In this case, it shows that we SHOULD NOT take Nuclear off the table as an energy source. Period.
 
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):
View attachment 334097

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda;

We are where we are. You... you DO realize that generating 16TWh/yr from wind or solar reduces the amount of gas burned by the same amount as 16TWh/yr from nuclear.... right... I mean... you do understand math that basic... right? 16=16......

AND... we can reduce the amount of gas burned using wind/solar >3x faster and cheaper with wind/solar vs nuclear.... right? Not really seeing the logic in this irrational exuberance for the more difficult and expensive option....

So... basically our two 'viable' options are;

- Time Travel
- Wind, Solar, Demand Response and Storage.

Time travel would be awesome... but as a society I think we should mostly focus on option 2.


It's always good to go back and look at our history, so we don't repeat the @#$%-ups of the previous generations. In this case, it shows that we SHOULD NOT take Nuclear off the table as an energy source. Period.

Sure... and I haven't completely taken the idea of hiring a helicopter to take me to lunch 'off the table'... I give them both roughly the same consideration. If NuScale offers to build a reactor for $3/w and they agree to assume all cost overruns I would totally support that.... the helicopter to lunch thing is probably more likely....
 
Last edited:
My original statements STILL stand:
1) We could be to 100% carbon free, NOW, if we hadn't abandoned nuclear.
2) Only an idiot (nwdiver in this case) would consider keeping nuclear out of the mix if you want to reach carbon goals.

I specifically stated I wouldn't keep it out. I doubt the 4' guy can make the Cavilers but he should still get to try out...

If NuScale offers to build a reactor for $3/w and they agree to assume all cost overruns I would totally support that.... the helicopter to lunch thing is probably more likely....

Nuclear gets to play just like everyone else. Xcel is building a 1GW wind farm in NM. Xcel is paying. Xcel will cover ALL cost overruns. It's projected to save ratepayers >$1B over ~20 years in fuel savings. If someone wants to build a 1GW nuclear plant... they have my support so long as it's none of this ratepayers pay now, pay for cost overruns and keep paying when we abandon it because it got too expensive. Nuclear has become a scam that siphons funds from projects like wind and solar that could actually make a difference.
 
Duke has a point...

Government only screws stuff up, and when government gets involved its only really to benefit other parties. Organic vegetables for instance..... Pretty simple concept, but it wasn't until big growers got involved where they made it far too expensive for the little guy to get into.

More than likely Petrol companies got involved in nuclear and brought fear and other things into the mix to create red tape, and completely made nuclear unfeasible, and we see this from other countries.

Nuclear is actually VERY VERY clean, and releases very little pollutants into the environment... If we would have invested in nuclear right now, we would have GREATLY reduced green house gases, AND made power VERY VERY affordable for the individual. Fact of the matter is big power companies dont want this... See large corporations just like to dance around issues. "Well if we only got more cash we could do it.". But big companies love consumables, because consumables are very profitable. They can make profit on the consumable, they can make profit on the transmission, and they can make profit on the power produced.

Nuclear if done right allows for a LARGE amount of generation in a VERY VERY small foot print. Sorry, but solar, wind and hydro cannot compete sqft for sqft.

Renewable is cool, but the amount of time, and the amount of strides we have to make, really make renewable energy out of touch for most people. Renewable right now is a rich persons game. I just installed a 10.88kw system on my house, and I spent close to 40k for everything. Thats a pretty expensive price point for most people.

Power companies, government, etc etc don't care for you and I. Simply put. We put so much power into government hands, and so much faith into them, when we simply shouldn't. Remember our government couldn't even operate a whore house.... (Bunny Ranch). Yet for some reason we expect them to run our lives, tell us how to get energy, create plans on how we can get to a common goal. However, those gas companies, those coal companies, those .... only care about 1 thing... That profit.

You stamp out the competition to boast your products. This debate sort of reminds me of the Tesla/Edison debate. "AC is better, NO DC IS BETTER". Crap in our everyday lives we use both AC and DC now don't we. Both have benefits.

Nuclear has GREAT benefits, and solar has great benefits. We cannot simply rely on one form of technology, we've got to rely on more than one, and we shouldn't discount nuclear because some asshole decided to discredit it, and make everybody believe that its, "dirty, unclean power".

It is VERY clean, and VERY safe, and if we got the same people who couldn't even run a whore house out of it, we can bring those prices down even more.

Whats funny, is a majority of what you pay for to be seen at the doctor is mainly administration costs. It's not really the 10 cent cotton balls, or the 5 dollar bag of saline. It's all of the padding they have to include to facilitate Mr. gubberment. Again, same people who couldn't even run a VERY profitable whore house.

Again, when government gets involved, they can kill any market, and it doesn't even have to be for the right reasons... Maybe their buddy buddy, decided to donate to their campaign, so now they have to push the agenda.

Battery storage is also a pretty big joke... IMO mining for lithium is far dirtier, and worse for the environment than nuclear. That's the point isn't it? We need power at night, as well as the day. PV helps during the day, but man the other night I was looking at my system stats, and I was only generating about 40w of power. Do we rely on natural gas turbines, or petrol powered turbines, or wind, or hydro? I mean jeez, even Hydro has its whoas. It's EXTREMELY dirty for the first 30 years of its power generation.

Nuclear is clean, its ready right now, and it can be done VERY cheaply compared to PV/battery backups/wind/hydro, and the best part is, it can supply power for EVERYBODY here in the United States in a faction of the foot print of all of those combined.

Just sayin' ... bro.
 
Anti Government? No... Just realistic.

I find it funny that when people want the government to do something, and the government fail, the people then cry, "Well if we just had more government to oversee the government agency that failed, this would have all worked.

But what you breed is a large massive turning machine, that just doesn't work. LOL

But heck, keep spending those tax dollars on larger and larger government that is so prone to fail. It sucks, and its a waste of tax payers cash. But sure the issues at hand, and a large inefficient entity trying to "tackle" it, does make everybody feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't it?

Einstien once said, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity". I tend to agree.. If we keep doing the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, we are insane, because we will never get the results we want, and this has been tested time and time again.

If you want something efficient, and effective, then the people need to step up and fix the problems, not rely on an entity supplied with endless tax payers money do the job.

If you think that is "anti-government" than you are honestly kidding yourself. Government should stick to what its good at.. Starting unwarranted wars, and killing people. Not messing around with my healthcare, my energy production, school, etc etc. Only the people suffer.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: UrsS
Back to the topic of California renewable energy legislation/progress .....

A bill extending the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) through 2025 with an additional $830M in incentives for behind-the-meter batteries has been passed by the Senate and apparently awaits Governor Brown's signature. California Passes Bill to Extend $800M in Incentives for Behind-the-Meter Batteries

The goal of supporters of the plan is to "create a mainstream market for energy storage, like we’ve done for solar PV," according to the executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association.

With residential battery installations increasing by a staggering 10X in the U.S. in the second quarter of 2018 compared to Q2 2017 -- led by California -- great progress is already being made toward that goal. Led by Surging Residential Sector, Q2 US Energy Storage Deployments Grow 200% Year-Over-Year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr and ohmman
If you think that is "anti-government" than you are honestly kidding yourself. Government should stick to what its good at.. Starting unwarranted wars, and killing people. Not messing around with my healthcare, my energy production, school, etc etc. Only the people suffer.

.....True? I guess what needs to happen is that Californians need to organize, come up with a coherent plan to address rising CO2 levels and elect representatives amongst themselves to address this issue that the market is unable to correct..... wait... did I just describe government? Weird. If there's a better way I'd love to hear it....

The market does work best in many areas... it's not so good in others. Like unwarranted wars, killing people, prisons, police, fire AND AFFORDABLE healthcare, CLEAN energy production, GOOD schools, etc etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
Maybe some of you who are more educated on this California Renewable energy can explain a problem I’m having understanding something. So California has passed a bill to be 100% renewables by 2045, but both Governor Brown and Gavin Newsom who is running for Governor want to pass a bill that would regionalize our energy grid. So it seems to me if that passes other western states would get some of our clean energy and we would get some of their dirty energy. In my opinion regionalization does not sound like something California should do, maybe you can give me your thoughts.
 
Maybe some of you who are more educated on this California Renewable energy can explain a problem I’m having understanding something. So California has passed a bill to be 100% renewables by 2045, but both Governor Brown and Gavin Newsom who is running for Governor want to pass a bill that would regionalize our energy grid. So it seems to me if that passes other western states would get some of our clean energy and we would get some of their dirty energy. In my opinion regionalization does not sound like something California should do, maybe you can give me your thoughts.
This is how it already is since California imports >30% of their electricity and water.
 
Maybe some of you who are more educated on this California Renewable energy can explain a problem I’m having understanding something. So California has passed a bill to be 100% renewables by 2045, but both Governor Brown and Gavin Newsom who is running for Governor want to pass a bill that would regionalize our energy grid. So it seems to me if that passes other western states would get some of our clean energy and we would get some of their dirty energy. In my opinion regionalization does not sound like something California should do, maybe you can give me your thoughts.

I need to look at the language of the bill but a bigger grid is more efficient. It's frustrating how often people would rather store surplus wind or solar rather than export it to displace fossil fuels. Exporting is almost always the better option.

National Energy Grid: It might be time to do it.
 
Yes, I realize that but looking forward how do,you go to 100% renewables if you regionalize and some of the other states are not.

I imagine it would simply be; Clean Energy Produced or purchased by Ca > Clean Energy Consumed by Ca


'This bill would state that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.'

Hopefully this means trading is allowed. You can get 100GWh from gas as long as you export 100GWh to Nevada...

Here's the full text of the bill;

I don't think this means that ZERO electricity in Ca will come from fossil fuels... it appears that will still be allowed. This simply means that Ca will 'procure' more clean energy than it consumes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: miimura
I imagine it would simply be; Clean Energy Produced or purchased by Ca > Clean Energy Consumed by Ca


'This bill would state that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.'

Hopefully this means trading is allowed. You can get 100GWh from gas as long as you export 100GWh to Nevada...
Thanks, do you think regionalization is a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nwdiver
Thanks, do you think regionalization is a good thing.

Absolutely. Being 100% will be MUCH easier if you can export solar/wind when there's a surplus and import energy (possibly wind from the mid-west) when there's a deficit. With grids bigger is almost always better and more efficient.

CA utilities own ~10% of Palo Verde nuclear plant so they should also be able to take credit for that generation.