TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
Start a Discussionhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/tags/

California Senate bill introduced: goal of 100% of electricity from renewable energy by 2045

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by ecarfan, Feb 23, 2017.

  1. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    13,035
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
  2. TheTalkingMule

    TheTalkingMule Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,627
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    30 years? I wouldn't call that ambitious considering their starting point and the trajectory of storage technology. If they fully committed to something like this and were able to export surplus to neighboring states without hindrance, they could get to 90% in 15-20 years.
     
    • Like x 1
  3. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,073
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    Some folk in the legislature and their kin are going to get very rich.
     
    • Love x 1
  4. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    4,179
    Location:
    Colorado
    Why is 'retail' specified ? What is not included ?

    I suspect that the rapid growth in utility solar my plateau soon due to pushback against the land use.
    I hope that residential and off-shore demand ramps up quickly instead. Solar thermal is going to wither during the Orange Simians stay in the White House.
     
  5. BrokerDon

    BrokerDon Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Messages:
    437
    Location:
    Newport Coast, CA
    • Like x 1
  6. cpa

    cpa Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,464
    Location:
    Central Valley
    It seems that every time California passes legislation to curb X by 20% by thus and such a date, the major players who are affected whine and cry, so the legislature passes amendments to the legislation to extend the date or to reduce 20% to 10%.

    While I will in all likelihood be pushing up daisies in 2045, it is an admirable goal. But the legislature will wimp out again sometime around 2038-2040.
     
  7. RubberToe

    RubberToe Supporting the greater good

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,553
    Location:
    Pasadena, Ca
    Not sure about the legislature "wimping out", if anything, they keep raising the bar over time. The original RPS was passed back in 2002, with the goal being 33% by 2020. Note that it was initially lower, but progress was so good they raised it to 33%. SB350 in 2015 set the next goal to 50% by 2030. The new proposal is 100% by 2045, not enacted yet.

    How is the progress?

    Total power in 2016 was 230,489,063 TWh, while renewable was 49,406,647 TWh, or 21.4%. That leaves 4 years to get to 33%. Solar Photovoltaic production in 2016 increased by 5,024,174 TWh. Four more years of the same yearly SPV increase (ignoring other renewable) gets the 49,406,647 up to 69,503,343, which would be 30.2%. So the 2020 goal should be no problem, because this isn't even counting other renewable growth, and is not counting on any increase in SPV growth, and it is indeed growing year over year.

    For 50% by 2030, there are 10 more years to add another 39,183,140 TWh. Thats 3,918,314 TWh per year, which is under the 5,024,174 adde in 2016. So again, shouldn't be a problem.

    Note that these numbers do not include residential solar, which ends up decreasing the total amount of power consumed over time. Also note that the RPS mandate coupled with the 30% Federal tax credit, has precisely done what it was intended to do, namely, decrease the cost of renewable power so that it eventually gets lower than other non-renewable sources. We are pretty much there, and all indications are that we will be there very shortly. At that point, simple economics take over and there will never be another fossil fuel plant constructed.

    100% is tougher since you need quite a bit of additional storage for periods where renewables alone can't cut it. I would think that even around 2030+ there may be some gas peaker plants required. If battery storage cost decreases as fast as SPV has, then no peaker plants would be needed.

    My $0.02

    RT
     
  8. RubberToe

    RubberToe Supporting the greater good

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,553
    Location:
    Pasadena, Ca
    In 1990, there were 30 million people living in California. In 2016, there were 40 million. Unless you're one of those people who is convinced that everyone is going to leave because of all the excessive regulations, then before long, there are going to be 50 million people here. Tell me this, how are those people going to be getting around the state?

    I don't know what the traffic is like in Newport Coast, but up around here is just keeps getting worse. It's not physically possible to expand the current airports in San Diego, Los Angeles or San Francisco. And those airports aren't going to be providing service to the smaller cities (i.e. Fresno, Burbank, Merced, Bakersfield, San Jose, Palmdale, Anaheim) that the bullet train will connect.

    So BrokerDon, how are you going to be moving those 50 million people around?

    RT
     
    • Like x 1
  9. renim

    renim Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2013
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Oz
    simple,

    just buy Texas' windpower, I'm sure they would be happy to trade excess electricity to California.
     
  10. miimura

    miimura Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,050
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    I'm sure they would love to. The problem is that there is no grid connection between California and Texas. That is why there is wind curtailment in Texas - there's nowhere for it to go.
     
  11. BrokerDon

    BrokerDon Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Messages:
    437
    Location:
    Newport Coast, CA
    I disagree wholeheartedly with your assumptions and statements above but honestly isn't worth a "Battle Text" session since:
    1. the Bullet Train debate is in IMHO "off topic" of this "California Senate bill introduced: goal of 100% of electricity from renewable energy by 2045" thread.
    2. in my experience people who are SO far to one side of a discussion have their minds closed and presenting contradictory facts is a WoT (Waste of Time) for both of us
    3. I prefer to engage public forums in a sharing helpful manner vs. the negative venom filled manner most forums have become
    So with all due respect for your opinion, I'm electing to take the High Road. Hopefully you will too.

    BTW we totally support the goal of 100% of electricity from renewable energy by 2045... AND "put our money where our mouth is". We've already instituted every conceivable energy conservation practice possible and have energy bills 1/3rd to 1/8th of our neighbors in the same home. We'll become a "Net Zero" home as soon as solar becomes cost effective when installed our Spanish tile roof. Tesla's "solar roof" will be the ideal choice... Hopefully it will arrive soon.
     

Share This Page