Today Washington's electricity is generated using less fossil fuel than almost any state. Currently only 20% comes from fossil fuels. About 2/3rds comes from hydroelectric sources with other renewables and one large nuclear plant included. The bulk of natural gas used in Washington is used directly piped into houses to heat water, furnaces, and other heating appliances...........
Appreciate the response
@wdolson. While I enthusiastically entered the world of EV ownership with our Model X purchase in September 2017, I was understandably disappointed to learn that EV ownership ranked further down the list of sustainability choices than switching to a vegetarian diet and of course making a decision to not have children. We did have only one child, so we managed a negative population growth for the two of us........and after learning that Big Agriculture (meat & dairy industry) has a greater Carbon Footprint than the fossil fuel industry, we have made our best attempt over the last couple years to be vegetarians and to grow as much of our food from our 1 1/2 acre organic garden on our homestead in Idaho as we possibly can. Having given up meat for a more sustainable future I am afraid we would be worthless as cannibals, but the concept certainly makes sense. It's probably pretty difficult to find Organic Options as a cannibal, especially now that Bayer bought Monsanto. Sweden also recently pointed out to the world the value of giving up overseas flights as a top choice to reduce our carbon footprint. Our fascination with the ancient construction sites around the planet certainly had us pleading guilty for our many trips to some fascinating and unexplained locations over the years. So yes, finding a win is very difficult without a whole lot of give.
My frustration with Washington's continued use of natural gas for power production is not because it is still a cost effective method to help meet peak demand when it exceeds NW hydro baseline capacity. My frustration is that Washington already has the capacity to reduce its natural gas dependency on natural gas peaker plants for peak demand by using available surplus California solar during peak hours, but Jay Inslee instead took a position of support for the existing paradigm and sent a hard message to California that it should play by the rules of the old guard in the Pacific NW to not upset the balance - primarily the hydro and natural gas blend of power production. Perhaps you saw his rather sharply penned editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle this last summer where he called out California Solar for essentially being too efficient?
Washington Governor Inslee: California should collaborate on power grid
In a nutshell the NW Hydro system is bleeding money when excess California solar is available on the same grid. And from the perspective of the NW Hydro and Grid operators it obviously isn't a good thing when you have to sell your power at a loss because there is too much power already available on the grid. But from the perspective of a burning Planet...........who cares. Isn't California solar cleaner than natural gas peaking plants? For that matter, California Solar is in many ways cleaner than Columbia Basin hydro. And as more battery storage is added to the solar and wind projects in California the amount of surplus power available on the west coast will only increase. The harsh reality for NW grid operators is that this is the beginning of a real paradigm shift.....one where both natural gas and hydro will be less cost effective than cleaner solar and wind + storage. New solar projects in California will be operating at <$0.02/kWh yet some hydro projects at existing dams cost twice that much to operate. And I have been told that the Columbia hydro system alone has billions of dollars of deferred maintenance it does not even have scheduled yet, and has about $500 Million per year just in salmon mitigation expenses. That is money that could be invested in new solar & wind + storage projects in Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, and Southern/Western Idaho with greater success and lower O&M if the vision wasn't to hang on to natural gas as a 'clean energy' source until 2045. The paradigm is shifting to a more sustainable future, and that future will not include natural gas peaker plants.....and it will also likely have a significant reduction in its hydro production.
At the time of the Enron crisis the amount of surplus hydro power in the Pacific NW was significant, so the NW grid operators invested in improving the grid connection between the Pacific NW to Southern California so that it could create new load for its surplus hydro power. Almost 20 years later the Pacific NW has grown so much that it does not have much surplus power to sell anymore.....instead it has added about 10,000 MW of wind - about the same amount as the federal hydro capacity of the Columbia Basin.....and worse yet, California has a new surplus of cleaner power that can flow north on the same grid that was once meant to supply California. The NW residents and businesses simply want the cheapest power available to them for the most part, but the NW grid operators want to see a return on their investment for building a more substantial grid. So there is great resistance to letting California Solar flow north on the grid. So should we be held hostage from cheaper and cleaner power because the NW grid operators need to pay off their Natural Gas stranded assets. The Economy of the NW would vote NO on that.
I must admit that I go back and forth on the controversy over the removal of the 4 Lower Snake River Dams (Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor) between Lewiston Idaho and the Tri Cities in Washington. Not because I don't think the ocean conditions would be improved if they were removed. The faster the water can flow to the ocean the colder it can potentially be when it gets there. Constantly titrating warmer water into a cold Pacific Ocean from a huge river source that has been warmed by hydro and irrigation projects can only have one effect can't it - warming the ocean that is. My concern is that there are potentially other hydro projects upstream that are having an even greater effect on river water temperatures. It would be extremely helpful if hydro projects could be classified by location and effect to help determine whether or not they are really 'Green' power IMHO. Lake fed hydro like the Snettisham plant that feeds Juneau, Alaska is extremely positive IMO, whereas the damning of the Mekong River and subsequent warming of an already warm river system should result in significant negative ocean effects from that project. Remember that the Snake River is fed from the Grand Tetons and used to flow ice cold water from snow run off down the Snake and into the Columbia River. Now it is not uncommon for water flowing past Hells Canyon Dam to well-exceed 70 degrees before it even reaches the 4 Lower Snake Dams in question. So with the planet on fire and wind/solar a viable alternative, perhaps it is time we also consider looking upstream of the 4 Lower Snake Dams at the impact of the 15 dams in Idaho. I do agree that the 4 Lower Snake Dams can likely be replaced with cleaner sources of solar and wind with storage, that there already is a sufficient surplus of power in the eastern Columbia River Basin, and that they likely no longer serve the transportation needs they were once argued for. And like most, my preference is for wild flowing rivers where ever possible - not simply to improve the wilderness, but most importantly to improve the ocean conditions. The Earth is a sentient being and the rivers are its bloodlines...........we are simply re-learning what the Ancient Wisdom Traditions have tried to tell us all along. And we are learning at the expense of the planet.
I am guilty of rambling once again. I sincerely appreciate your contributions and where they take these discussions. My point that was likely lost a paragraph or two ago was simply that Inslee and Washington have the potential to completely walk away from the natural gas demand used as a peaker plant fuel source WAY before their plan calls for in 2045......perhaps even before 2025 if the motivation was there. Solving the other natural gas demand problems you pointed out such as water heaters and appliances will take longer as you pointed out.
