Slashdot Mirror


San Diego To Run 100 Percent On Renewable Energy By 2035 (outerplaces.com)

The city of San Diego has announced a bold new plan to run completely on renewable energy by 2035. While the city already produces the second largest electrical output from solar energy in the U.S., the new plan further details a way to cope with the changing climate. It plans to reduce 50% of the greenhouse gas emission by 2035, as well as create new jobs through the manufacturing and installation of solar panels. "San Diego is a leader in innovation and sustainability," the Climate Action Plan reads. "By striking a sensible balance between protecting our environment and growing our economy, San Diego can support clean technology, renewable energy, and economic growth." San Diego joins San Francisco, Sydney, and Vancouver in its effort to run entirely on renewable energy.

113 comments

  1. Easy! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Just collect all the methane generated by the sewage they pipe in from Tijuana, and use that to run generators!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Easy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aunty Entity: We call it Underworld. That's where Bartertown gets its energy.

  2. Far enough in the future... by mi · · Score: 1, Troll

    2035? That's far enough in the future for most of today's politicians — except the junior ones — to have retired and/or moved on...

    Get the credits and compliments now, never have to answer for them.

    Not entirely unlike the dire global warming predictions we see in the popular press every week or so.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Far enough in the future... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      2035? That's far enough in the future for most of today's politicians — except the junior ones — to have retired and/or moved on...

      San Diego has term limits, so they will all be gone long by 2035. But with rapidly falling solar panel prices, lots of sunshine, and plenty of rooftops due to suburban sprawl, San Diego should be using mostly renewables by 2035.

    2. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have created a 75 page plan. I looked at it, and it does not say how they are going to generate the power, it just says the will add a shitload of renewables. And, the word 'storage' is not stated in the entire plan except for an appendix that discusses carbon sequestration. They can't do it without storage. They do a lot of talk about cutting back on just about everything.

    3. Re:Far enough in the future... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      They can't do it without storage.

      Wait... you mean solar doesn't work at night? Elon Musk thinks he going to improve battery technology enough to make it economically feasible for storage, but I have my doubts.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Far enough in the future... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk thinks he going to improve battery technology enough to make it economically feasible for storage, but I have my doubts.

      The same people who endorse a manned mission to Mars and ubiquitous driverless cars want you to know that renewable energy is impossible.

      Duly noted.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Far enough in the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Why do you think that middle-aged white men are the number one group for suicides?

      So they do not have to face that everything that they have been ditto-heading for the past two decades is flat-ass wrong

      be a good republican, end it all now and leave us behind to fix the mess

    6. Re:Far enough in the future... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      California passed a 1.3 GWh storage mandate about 3 yrs ago, to take effect in stages over the coming decade.

      The storage market is heating up and will likely explode as much as solar has in recent years.

      Tesla has a plan to use battery storage along with SolarCity to provide utility & grid services and has already shipped 2500 PowerWalls and 100 PowerPacks this past quarter.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:Far enough in the future... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I really should feel bad about wanting to mod you up.........

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    8. Re: Far enough in the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there. What with exploding batteries and so forth.

    9. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. You'd think with all that awareness of the importance of storage, San Diego would have included it in their plan.

    10. Re:Far enough in the future... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      They can't do it without storage.

      That's true, but you're overstating the problem. You only really need a tiny bit of storage to maintain a voltage on the wire. Then use demand-response pricing to fulfill demand while preventing blackouts and brownouts. Then increase storage using whatever technology is available until it no longer makes financial sense to add more (when MC=MR).

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    11. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      They can't do it without storage.

      That's true, but you're overstating the problem. You only really need a tiny bit of storage to maintain a voltage on the wire.

      No, you need a lot of storage for time shifting. You may be thinking of voltage regulation and frequency response, but that is not the central challenge. They need to store a lot of power generated during the day for use at night, and/or when the wind is blowing for use when it is not. Storage for hours or even days is required, and a lot of it. Unless, of course, you back it all up with conventional power sources and not renewables.

    12. Re:Far enough in the future... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what would Elon Musk know about spaceships or cars, fool he is.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:Far enough in the future... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      You're only thinking about the problem from the supply side. To equalize supply and demand when demand>supply, yes, one way is to increase supply. What's the other?

      In other words, how does eBay prevent too many people from winning the same auction? (They can't force the seller to sell more.)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    14. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      There is only a limited amount of demand you can shift, and even with that there is still intermittance challenges. If you are saying charge so much that people can't use energy when they want to unless they are wealthy, you are just creating a different set of problems. You can assume that shifting demand is a solution if you want, but all the information we have to date tells us its simply not practical. And, you can decrease overall demand a lot, but if you eliminate the conventional supply you'll still be way behind the curve from a supply side with renewables.

    15. Re:Far enough in the future... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      If you are saying charge so much that people can't use energy when they want to unless they are wealthy, you are just creating a different set of problems.

      The only way to prevent that is to make electricity free, but that will only create a different set of problems.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    16. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The only way to prevent that is to make electricity free, but that will only create a different set of problems.

      I agree with you on that point. But I still don't think its realistic to expect people to not run air conditioners on a hot summer evening, when the winds are not blowing. Not to mention running refrigerators. You are not going to be able to power just those two things alone without a huge amount of storage.

    17. Re:Far enough in the future... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You only need storage if you you generate enough surplus power during daytime (talking about solar here) and you want to use it at night.
      For wind you don't need storage, it blows at night just as it it does at day.

      To be carbon neutral, it is enough to sell excess power to neighbouring "districts" and get their excess power when you are in need.

      The idea that you need storage for a renewable grid, regardless of technology, is a /. myth.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      To be carbon neutral, it is enough to sell excess power to neighbouring "districts" and get their excess power when you are in need

      The idea that you need storage for a renewable grid, regardless of technology, is a /. myth.

      Funny stuff. There is a big difference between 100% renewables, as stated, and 'carbon neutral", which was not stated. The latter is just an accounting game, when in reality they are using power at times from non-renewable sources. But, for an entirely renewable grid depending on wind and solar, you'd need storage, there is no other practical solution. Its obvious to anyone with common sense.

    19. Re:Far enough in the future... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Did you know that before refrigerators, people used to have fresh milk delivered every day to their front door? True story. So making refrigerators too expensive to run overnight will create jobs, and that's a good thing, isn't it?

      And before residential A/C, people used to put up wet sheets in their windows to stay cool. Today, swamp coolers, ground source heat pumps, and earth sheltered construction are a few modern, low power alternatives. So we'll be fine.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    20. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Did you know that before refrigerators, people used to have fresh milk delivered every day to their front door? True story. So making refrigerators too expensive to run overnight will create jobs, and that's a good thing, isn't it?

      And before residential A/C, people used to put up wet sheets in their windows to stay cool. Today, swamp coolers, ground source heat pumps, and earth sheltered construction are a few modern, low power alternatives. So we'll be fine.

      Yup, that's progress. No refrigerators. Did you know that swamp coolers aren't worth a damn in humid climates? Those heat pumps you talk about require electrical energy and are very costly. I guess the poor lose out again. You simply validated my points, not a practical path forward without storage. You are trying so hard to justify San Diego's grand oversight. Why not just accept that storage is needed? We can have refrigerators, Air Conditioning at night, and the poor won't be left holding the short end of the stick. Or are you just stuck on your idealistic but impractical solution?

    21. Re:Far enough in the future... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Its obvious to anyone with common sense.
      Nope.

      But, for an entirely renewable grid depending on wind and solar, you'd need storage
      You don't.

      Look at a load curve of your country. You have something like 100% load from roughly 8:00 in the morning to roughly 20:00 in the evening. Preceded and succeeded by a roughly 3 hours ramp up and ramp down time down to nightly base load. Base load in my country is 40% of peak, in France it is close to 60%, no idea about yours.

      If you only had solar power and wanted to cover the ramp up and ramp down times as well as the night time, you would need something like 160% of the daily peak production and storage for roughly 1/3rd of a day.

      Obviously no one is using solar only, common sense, hey?

      So you run a big deal of your grid by wind. Now as you plan to be above 100% for daytime production, otherwise you have nothing to store (regardless when and how and where to use it), lets look at the night: do you really think you have so much less wind at night that an "overproduction" at daytime calms down so much that you can not run your grid at night?

      It is common sense that all countries that are investing heavy in renewables already have enough storage, e.g. Germany, Portugal, Denmark. Going from ~40% renewables to 100% does not affect the storage situation at the slightest.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re:Far enough in the future... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      TIL setting prices at market equilibrium is "idealistic but impractical."

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    23. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      . Going from ~40% renewables to 100% does not affect the storage situation at the slightest.

      The most ignorant thing I think I've seen you say.

    24. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      TIL setting prices at market equilibrium is "idealistic but impractical."

      Whatever, but you still need a lot of storage to be using 100% renewables.

    25. Re:Far enough in the future... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Have you read the California law and plans from California regulators? It relies on legislating cost effectiveness but the only thing they are producing is rent seeking. They might as well mandate energy storage using unicorn horns.

    26. Re:Far enough in the future... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      That would only be true if demand for energy were perfectly inelastic. Which, of course, is false, unless you can prove that demand for anything is perfectly inelastic? If you can do that, you would deserve the Nobel prize in economics. Good luck!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    27. Re:Far enough in the future... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      As I'm a long way from CA, the only thing that really matters if it helps or hinders the development & affordability of energy storage.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    28. Re:Far enough in the future... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, then take a piece of paper and do the math your self?

      To store something you need to produce more power than you need at the moment where you produce it. Otherwise you have nothing to store.

      To use stored power you need to have a situation where you need more power than you can produce.

      Now make some simple graphs and try to construct both situations close enough (in time) together, so that storage makes sense.

      Then you realize quickly that this desperate need for storage is a myth.

      The only way where storage makes sense is for individual installations, not grid wide.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    29. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Well, then take a piece of paper and do the math your self?

      To store something you need to produce more power than you need at the moment where you produce it. Otherwise you have nothing to store.

      To use stored power you need to have a situation where you need more power than you can produce.

      Now make some simple graphs and try to construct both situations close enough (in time) together, so that storage makes sense.

      Then you realize quickly that this desperate need for storage is a myth.

      The only way where storage makes sense is for individual installations, not grid wide.

      This, that you just wrote, is highly concentrated ignorant bullshit. It makes no sense at all, not a bit. Anyone reading can see that, and even the renewable industry itself knows storage is needed and is pursuing those technologies. So, I don't even need to respond further.

    30. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      That would only be true if demand for energy were perfectly inelastic.

      The problem here is that you are speaking in philosophical terms, and I am speaking a terms of practicality and realism. In the real and practical world, you must have storage to use 100% solar and wind based renewables. In a hypothetical world, which would never really exist, you could make the case storage would not be needed.

    31. Re:Far enough in the future... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Then explain me why Germany has 40% renewables right now and no storage beyond what it already had 20 years ago?

      If you can not follow the simple logic:

      a) To store something you need to produce more power than you need at the moment where you produce it. Otherwise you have nothing to store.

      b) To use stored power you need to have a situation where you need more power than you can produce.

      You should at least refrain from insults.

      Regarding a)
      As long as your grid is not able to produce at certain points more than 100% of the demand at that point in time completely with renewables: you have nothing to store. As long as you are simply overproducing (meaning: you have far less than 100% covered with renewables) you ramp down the conventional plants. That is much cheaper and makes much more sense than having storage long before you reach 100% peak production with renewables.

      b) is obvious.

      So the only way where large scale storage would make sense if you have lots of wind and store wind power at night. Assuming you produce more wind power at night than you use power at night. Then you can use stored power before your grid approaches the 100% renewable mark. However in terms of the load curve the night is only 6h - 8h long and the rest is either ramp up/ramp down of load or the roughly 10h - 12h "peak" plateau. So to store enough power over night to be able to full fill half of the daytime need, you would need to store twice as much as you need at night.

      However: that will very likely be sucked up by EVs: so again, there won't be large storages build.

      I really doubt there will be once a country that will store more than 2 days energy consumption in pumped storages, and those will ever produce more than half the power needed. Germany has roughly 1.5 day storage capacity and can produce about 30% of its peak with pumped storage.

      However: that has absolutely nothing to do with renewables, pumped storage is used to balance the grid. There are plans to build perhaps 10% more, and thats it.

      If you want to talk about power related issues then you should first learn to follow simple logic, and then finally probably read something about the topic.

      The need for storage is a myth brought up by the anti renewables mafia.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    32. Re:Far enough in the future... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      It's funny how you claim to be "speaking a [sic] terms of practicality and realism," yet so far you have completely failed to prove the need for storage.

      Considering that 99% of human history was without electricity, you need to explain why all of a sudden we "need" something that we never needed before. What changed, and why can't it change back?

      Your very existence appears to disprove your theory that storage is necessary, so unless you can come up with even the smallest piece of evidence to support your claim that humans can no longer survive without energy that is both abundant and cheap, I think we're done here.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    33. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      >

      The need for storage is a myth brought up by the anti renewables mafia.

      You'll have a hard time backing that up. Its a statement solely from you, not backed up by any facts. There renewable industry themselves acknowledge the need for storage, even they don't try to sell us such hogwash. I'll keep this as a reference for anytime I want to show others just how out of tune you are with reality.

    34. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll admit that if we revert to not using electricity, we can avoid the need for storage.

    35. Re:Far enough in the future... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I gave you enough facts.

      a) neither Germany nor Portugal nor Denmark is building storage
      b) you need excess energy to store anything, powering down conventials makes more sense
      c) you nee a phase of a day where you have not enough energy to use the stored energy

      If those 3 things are not facts, I don't know what you consider a fact.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    36. Re:Far enough in the future... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Well, if Germany or Denmark were 100% renewables, then you might have a point. So try again. your other points are gibberish.

    37. Re:Far enough in the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a lot of storage to use ANY central generation of electrical power.

      Even gas power stations go offline sometimes.

  3. Talk is cheap by wickerprints · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in San Diego and these plans are just the usual political bullshit. All talk and no substance. The city couldn't even pull together an actual centennial celebration of Balboa Park--millions of taxpayer dollars were spent and it all just disappeared into the hands of various marketing companies and consultant firms, and nothing ever materialized. Meanwhile, the park's buildings and infrastructure are crumbling. And this is just one example of gross political mismanagement. The whole SD Chargers debacle is another. Why are taxpayers asked to foot the bill to help build a new football stadium just to prevent a mediocre team from leaving?

    Having previously lived in LA, San Diego politics makes Los Angeles look like a well-oiled machine. "Climate Action Plan" is just another euphemism for "taxpayers will somehow get shafted by the time this is all said and done." 2035 will roll around and people will have paid for smoke and mirrors, like they have done time and time again. People are willing to fund projects, but only if the costs come under the budget, and what is promised is what is delivered. But there's not mechanism in place to hold officials accountable should they fail to make good on their promises, just as is the case with the rest of the US government.

    1. Re:Talk is cheap by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      But there's not mechanism in place to hold officials accountable should they fail to make good on their promises...

      Yeah, I guess voting out the incumbents and petitioning to put somebody else on the ballot is out of the question. This democracy stuff is high maintenance, babe...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Talk is cheap by wickerprints · · Score: 2

      Oh, and how could I have forgotten the San Onofre nuclear power plant? Edison/SDGE mismanages the plant, ignores documentation of design flaws, causes the plant to become unusable, and then the cost of decommissioning is passed on ratepayers, when this plant was supposed to continue providing energy for decades. Who fucked up the plant? The utilities. Why did they fuck it up? Greed. They didn't want to pay for the fix, and thought that the design flaws posed an acceptable risk. And who is paying for their negligence/fraud? We are. They gambled, we lost. And who is it that is allowing the ratepayers to be shafted...? The San Diego and California State politicians and regulators who "negotiated" this "deal" and is obstructing law enforcement and taxpayers from investigating the collusion that took place.

    3. Re:Talk is cheap by wickerprints · · Score: 1

      You incorrectly presume that when someone is voted in to replace the incumbents, that they are immune to the corrupting influences of the political system. Do you really think that the mere threat of voting someone out of office, even if executed, is enough to deter politicians from being corrupt? You must have an incredibly idealistic and naive view of the way American government works.

    4. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      time to go off-grid IMO and go all electric for the commuter car. I wonder if you'd get evicted from your property should you disconnect from the utilities like some in other States are?

    5. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In East County of San Diego... It's like driving through LA smog now. Then there's also the meth capitol of the world... El Cajon.

    6. Re:Talk is cheap by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The whole SD Chargers debacle is another. Why are taxpayers asked to foot the bill to help build a new football stadium just to prevent a mediocre team from leaving?

      This has nothing to do with corruption or mismanagement. It is direct democracy. The stadium funding will be decided by direct popular vote on June 7th. If you don't like it, don't vote for it. It is losing in the polls, so you will likely get what you want.

    7. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's those republicans. They hate poor people and steal your money.
      That's how they is.

    8. Re:Talk is cheap by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You incorrectly presume we are required to reelect them. We are not. Eventually the message gets through, and we can always add the element of criminal prosecution. But, do what you want, apparently passing the blame is still the rule of the day.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      source?

    10. Re:Talk is cheap by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Actually, they installed new equipment with a design flaw, but they were not aware of it, nor the vendor, until it was discovered during operation. The plant had already paid for itself through over 30 years of operation, and could have replaced the equipment and continued to operate safely for many come, but political opposition pretty much took away that option. So, blame the politicians as well.

    11. Re:Talk is cheap by blindseer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh how could I have forgotten the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility? NRG dumps over a billion dollars of government money on this and even after charging double the going rate of electricity to ratepayers they are threatening default. Why did they build this unworkable piece of shit? Greed. Now we've got this eyesore in the desert to clean up, one that is a navigation hazard to passing aircraft by the way. This plant produced expensive power, killed hundreds of birds, disturbed the habitat of a rare desert turtle and now the government is left holding the bill.

      There's a lot of people on Slashdot that love to give nuclear power a bunch of shit when it fails but ignore or excuse the failings of solar power. I'm not accusing wickerprints of being one of the solar power zealots, the comment above is only about how politicians shit on taxpayers.

      San Onofre might have been a huge clusterfuck of a project but that is just one of hundreds of nuclear power plants in the world, most of which don't make the news because they operate safely, quietly, and profitably. It seems to me that solar power only serves as a means to take taxes from the poor so that rich people with connections can lobby for subsidies and walk away with more coin in their pockets, the mess they leave behind is the taxpayers problem.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    12. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      City ordinance in I think every city here. Your house must be connected to the grid, otherwise it's condemned.

    13. Re:Talk is cheap by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      In some areas, the problem is that you may well find yourself with a lovely selection of candidates that are some combination of corrupt and/or incapable--somebody who is neither almost certainly only made it on because they were perceived as not electable by the machine. This has backfired.

    14. Re: Talk is cheap by raind · · Score: 1

      The problem with term limits is they know they're out so they want to get paid 10 years later

      --
      Get up!
    15. Re:Talk is cheap by haruchai · · Score: 1

      That can quickly become unenforceable, much like trying to jail people for spitting on the sidewalk if every 10th person refused to obey the law.
      If neighborhoods or gated communities went off-grid en masse, the city ordinances against it wouldn't be worth toilet paper.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    16. Re:Talk is cheap by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is pretty safe - when done correctly - but a lot of the problems have been forgotten or covered up.
      If you look at the individual histories of plants, even in nuke-loving France, you'll find plenty of screwups.
      Ivanpah may be having problems but there are dozens of solar plants that operate safely, quietly and profitably.
      The SEGS units in the Mojave, perhaps 150 miles away have been operating safely & quietly, presumably profitably for 30 yrs, longer than many nuke plants

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    17. Re:Talk is cheap by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Installed it with a design flaw? Your understanding of what happened is badly flawed. The utility had some major equipment failures at the plant (iirc correctly it was the cooling pumps). The permit they operate under allows them to replace or upgrade equipment as needed. BUT if the equipment is not the same (within limits, minor modifications can be made) they must re-safety validate the entire operation. The equipment that failed was replaced with brand new, completely different equipment. Then the utility LIED and said it was the same when they replaced it with a completely different model (actually required rerouting the entire pumping system at the plant). When they were caught, that's when they decided it was going to be too expensive to fix and the state allowed them to pass it on to the rate payers.

      Lets be clear about this, the utility LIED (and knew they lied), the lie meant the plant HAD to be shut down until the new equipment was safety validated so the state let them throw the whole plant on to the rate payers. Mind you this was a privately owned plant. It's called privatized profit, public bears the cost of the risks.

      Frankly I think the residents of California got bent over and taken by the utilities and the people charged with preventing it not only allowed it but let em do it dry.

    18. Re:Talk is cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I guess the difference is that utility scale solar is a relatively new technology and still developing at a rapid pace, so you expect there to be problems but also that once overcome the long term benefits will be worth it.

      Nuclear, on the other hand, is long established and well understood. There are few excuses left for operators now. Also, I'm not an expert on US energy history, but in the UK many of the plants have never really been profitable. They were built by the government, were so unattractive they couldn't be sold to the private sector until massive (and I really mean massive) subsidies were put in place, and have a long history of accidents and irresponsible behaviour.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re: Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, a house without power is unlivable in the modern world, and the next buyer may not share your tinfoil hat. You have to be hooked up; you don't have to use it

    20. Re:Talk is cheap by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      The design flaw that shut down San Onofre was in the steam generators, which were replaced just like in many other plants. The replacements were a modified design that was supposed to be more efficient. After replacement the new Steam Generators showed excessive wear in the tubes after only a few operating cycles. While tube wear is normal, this was excessive. It was a design flaw in the new steam generators, nobody knew about it until they operated a few cycles and did the normal tube inspections.

      Once discovered, they were able to safety operate for a few more cycles by plugging damaged tubes, but they would need to replace the steam generators again to keep operating long term. Replacement is a very big cost, a few hundred million. Of course, many legal battles with the Steam Generator supplier followed, along with political storm, and since there is already tremendous opposition to nuclear in California, they gave in and just decided to shut down.

      Its also important to note that steam generator tube leakage is not a public safety issue. It is quickly and easily detected, it does not affect safe shutdown of the plant. So, even if they kept running and some of the degraded tubes ruptured, the only issue would be the slight contamination of the secondary system, at no point would there be any increased risk of not being able to shut down safely.

      Unfortunately, the facts get twisted and turned and reported with hyperbole. The operators are made out to be careless greedy monsters. And the plant described by the ignorant as some sort of ticking time bomb. More people just accept that take on the matter rather than learn what really happened.

    21. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most cities the candidates are vetted by the same people that are currently in office. It's really tough for a person to mount a successful campaign against the establishment. This is not democracy in the way that you mean it.

    22. Re:Talk is cheap by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The voters have to do their own vetting. Don't be crying for everything to be spoon fed to you.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's those republicans. They hate poor people and steal your money.
      That's how they is.

      Can't argue with that.

    24. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mm please provide evidence, cant find any, had a good long search, but you seem to be talking bullshit again.

    25. Re:Talk is cheap by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Going off-grid is unlawful in any area where grid power is available. You must have an electricity hook up or your dwelling will be considered uninhabitable.

    26. Re:Talk is cheap by wickerprints · · Score: 1

      I didn't mention Ivanpah because my point was to provide examples of mismanagement and corruption in San Diego politics. Has nothing to do with nuclear vs. solar. I'm open to considering any energy production method that isn't based on fossil fuels. Of course, these may have other environmental impacts, but the whole idea is to weigh those impacts against each other and the benefits.

    27. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can only vote for candidates that have been vetted by those in power. You don't get to do write in votes anymore. The ballots with write-ins are no longer being counted and are immediately discarded.

    28. Re:Talk is cheap by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You can only vote for candidates that have been vetted by those in power.

      That is absurd... The process to get on a ballot is very straightforward, available to anybody, rich or poor. As far as counting the ballots, we should be watching more closely. This is our problem and nobody else's.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    29. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In California you need to pay a fee of 2% of that position's annual salary plus signatures for that office, and using San Jose mayor as an example position, that would be 26,500 signatures. Which sounds easy, but currently people are being ticketed for soliciting, trespassing, and various obscure ordinances. Most of the volunteers for a non-mainstream candidate end up quitting because of all of the harassment.

  4. Me too. by caseih · · Score: 0

    I also will be running on 100% renewable energy by 2035. Why not... sounds reasonable. Surely 20 years is enough for someone somewhere to invent something that will make it all work for me. I just have to sit back and wait for the innovation to roll in. And maybe I can get the government to pass a law to legislate it all into existence. And maybe repeal some of those pesky laws of physics.

    1. Re:Me too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I plan to live on Mars by 2035. Plenty of time to figure out the logistics. I'll probably just start planning a couple weeks before though.

  5. nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I assume they'll stop using energy from Palo Verde?

  6. Linked PDF.... by lobiusmoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It has lots of pretty pictures...

    But interesting parts:
    Page 19 - pie chart of emissions inventory - largest segment is transportation, 55%, so needs most attention.
    Page 37 - plan of action is to get 25% of transport done via public transport by 2035... in California... which has 840 cars per 1000 people...

    Good luck with that.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Linked PDF.... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      .84 car ownership? far out!

      That sounds like a very low birth rate. Perhaps they're factoring in a bunch of senior citizens who own multiple vehicles that won't be driving in 19 years time.

  7. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't expect San Diego to be such an incredible home for fiction authors.

  8. Natural Gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they finally found a good use for smug farts.

  9. it's easy to drive this change by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    if you want everyone to switch to renewable energy, it's not a complex process. all you have to do is slowly increase a tax on fossil fuel energy sources (and imported electricity) and use that money to subsidize investments in renewable energy. when gasoline is $10 per gallon, electricity is $1 per kWH and a solar panel with microinverter are $50 each, you see everyone switching to solar power, reducing their power consumption or paying out the nose because they can afford to do so.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:it's easy to drive this change by blindseer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you propose will lower the standard of living for millions of people. That means people will go hungry, delay medical care out of concern for the inability to pay, people won't be able to afford to go to college. I'm sure Obamacare will mean everyone gets top notch medical care. Future president Sanders will give everyone a college education. As for getting enough food for everyone I hear that the Soylent Corporation has a great idea for government subsidized nutrition supplements.

      Where is this money going to come from to pay for all of this if people cannot afford to buy $10 gallons of gasoline? If people are spending that kind of money on energy then that leaves less money for other things like food, clothing, shelter, and education. I am amazed that people believe the solution to the "problem" of cheap oil is to tax it out of existence. Do you really think that will stop people? There's a lot of wells out there and I doubt the government knows where they all are. A black market will develop.

      Here's a rule of thumb that I thought was a good rule for passing a law, would you be willing to shoot someone for breaking it? Think about that. Someone is desperate to keep their family from freezing to death in a North Dakota winter, would you be willing to shoot someone over bootleg heating oil?

      The answer is not making oil expensive, the answer is making the alternatives cheaper. That's a much harder problem to solve but it does not involve shooting people that want to keep their baby from freezing to death.

      In case my tone was lost in the text I'll end with this, fuck off and die.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:it's easy to drive this change by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Here's a rule of thumb that I thought was a good rule for passing a law, would you be willing to shoot someone for breaking it?

      Considering I think people should be shot for murder, rape, animal abuse, child abuse, successive drunk driving and drug dealing, just to name a few laws we already have on the books against doing, I may not be the right person to ask.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:it's easy to drive this change by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      What you propose will lower the standard of living for millions of people.

      i never claimed it was a perfect solution, only that it was an easy solution. however, tell me this, what about the standard of living for trillions of multicellular organisms on the planet. who are you to say that humans are so important that they cannot be inconvenienced to prevent the ecosystem from dying off? that doesn't just include wild animals but other humans as well.

      Where is this money going to come from to pay for all of this if people cannot afford to buy $10 gallons of gasoline?

      well if you read my post carefully, you would have noticed i wrote, "slowly increase a tax on fossil fuel energy sources," and not "hike the price to 10 bucks tomorrow!" i would think when it's $10, just about everyone would have already switched over to solar and wind power sources.

      In case my tone was lost in the text I'll end with this, fuck off and die.

      actually, i was going to do both of those but only for biological reasons. :)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:it's easy to drive this change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when gasoline is $10 per gallon, electricity is $1 per kWH and a solar panel with microinverter are $50 each

      ... you will see a mob of angry voters armed with torches and pitchforks ready to lynch any politician to refuses to repeal said law.

    5. Re:it's easy to drive this change by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      What you propose will lower the standard of living for millions of people.
      Can you explain why? That argument comes up on /. regularly and I simply have no idea why switching to renewable would lower the standard of living.

      Especially in a country where only the super rich have a nice standard of living.
      Can the standard of living actually be lowered for an average american?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:it's easy to drive this change by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The problem with death penalty on rape -- e.g. in Thailand -- is: every rape victim gets murdered.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:it's easy to drive this change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stupid question, of course it can, imagine going from you comfortable life now to living in north korea and not being part of the political class.

       

    8. Re:it's easy to drive this change by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Can you explain why?

      Yes. Imagine your typical wage earner. They get X dollars per hour of work, and they work Y hours per month, leaving them with Z as a monthly income. They have to spend this income on consumables like food and fuel, to pay off long term expenses like a mortgage and/or student loans, as well as things like insurance and so forth. For the typical person that might mean something like, pulling a number out of the air, $200 on fuel each month.

      Right now with $2 per gallon of gas that means their 100 gallons of fuel will take them where they need to go for the month. If fuel goes to $4 per gallon that means $200 less at the end of the month for little luxuries like movie tickets, cable TV, or however else they might entertain themselves. If fuel goes to $6/gal then that means another $200 less for food, so less steak and more peanut butter. If fuel goes to $10/gal this person that used to spend $200 on fuel every month is now spending $1000. For the average American that makes $40k per year that fuel cost is a big chunk of their income.

      With $2/gal fuel that person can pay off loans, eat the occasional steak, and set aside money for retirement. With $10/gal fuel it's now living paycheck to paycheck. Spreading that increased cost over time does not change how it affects people and their standard of living, it still leaves them with less money to spend.

      Of course that is a very simplistic view on how that works because the reality is much worse. Given time this worker is now left with student debt they cannot pay off, or being unable to go to college at all, which affects future earnings for that person and the population as a whole. With less money to spend on little luxuries like beer, steak, and movies, the greater economy suffers, since this one person is one of millions.

      Making energy expensive artificially is taking a path that can destroy an economy. It won't die overnight but it will wear it down slowly over the years as people are unable to invest in their own future, business ventures, or even just beers and a movie.

      Especially in a country where only the super rich have a nice standard of living.
      Can the standard of living actually be lowered for an average american?

      Absolutely. If we arbitrarily decide that energy is too cheap and therefore we must tax it then people are spending money on keeping an old inefficient car running longer rather than having some money left over to save for a newer more efficient one. Even with $2/gal of gas someone can cut their fuel expense in half by trading in a junker for a new hybrid. That's an extra $100/month they can use towards paying off that car.

      Cheap energy is how we reduce energy usage, not with expensive energy. It takes energy to save energy. Those aluminum blades on a windmill take a lot of energy to make, the more energy costs the more difficult it will be to raise the money to build that windmill. People would rather keep burning coal because that is a safe investment. Without money to spare people will be much less willing to risk it on such investments.

      One thing I learned a long time ago is that energy is energy, if oil prices go up then so does coal. If natural gas prices go down then so does oil. A lot of this has to do with the fact that big consumers of energy have some flexibility on what fuel they can burn, utilities have power plants that can burn coal just as easily as natural gas. It also has to do with the fact that it takes energy to move energy, those coal trains run on diesel fuel for example. If we mandate that utilities have to pay solar electric producers a given rate then all electricity rates climb to meet it. If we tax gasoline so it's $10/gal then ethanol is not going to sell at $2/gal because of competitive pressures, it is going to sell at whatever the market will bear.

      If someday gasoline rises to $10/gal because of scarcity then it will still suck but at least we did not impose

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re:it's easy to drive this change by blindseer · · Score: 1

      If you believe we have to tax gasoline to the point it becomes $10/gallon then you are admitting you don't believe your own hype. I thought that solar power is already at price parity with coal. If the price of solar cuts in half every ten years, or whatever the claim is, then we should see solar cheaper than gasoline real soon. In 20 years we should have a solar powered society only on the basis that solar power is so cheap that it will just not be profitable to pump oil out of the ground any more.

      If you believe that solar power can only win this race by hobbling carbon fuels with exorbitant taxes then you have just admitted that you do not believe solar power will ever be cheaper than coal and oil. By saying we must tax carbon fuels out of existence is admitting we will not be running out of oil any time soon.

      Oh, and if you want to save all those wild animals then I have some suggestions. Do you know why we don't have cattle in zoos? Because people raise billions of them for meat. Do you know why lions are going extinct? Because without hunting licenses to fund proper management lions are pests to be killed on sight, not income. People will take care of things that bring them a better life. When the British would colonize an area they'd declare the trees and animals property of the king, which led the locals to kill animals and cut down trees just to defy the king. If you tell those same people that they can keep the produce on the trees but the king wants a small percentage for taxes then you'd see groves pop up in no time. With hunting licenses the locals saw lions as income, they'd get a portion of the fees collected for hunting "their" lions. That meant they'd not only have money to build fences around their land to keep the lions from eating their children they'd also be quite willing to report poachers.

      Proper management of the ecosystem is more complex than just reducing CO2 output. It takes effort on the part of all. By removing ownership of things like water, air, and land then people just don't care about it. The people that want to "save" the zebras but banning hunting are idiots. With hunting allowed people will build habitats for them so they can hunt them. With hunting banned then they become a nuisance to be chased off, poisoned, or whatever else they can do to get rid of them quietly without violating the law explicitly or by doing so carefully to avoid getting caught.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re:it's easy to drive this change by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      If you believe that solar power can only win this race by hobbling carbon fuels with exorbitant taxes then you have just admitted that you do not believe solar power will ever be cheaper than coal and oil.

      the difference is that solar is an upfront investment. many humans have weak long term planning skills and so paying $300 for electricity sure beats a $30K system. however, i've made no claims about the price of solar because the price isn't the issue here, the environment is the issue. the sooner we switch of fossil fuels, the better chance we have at fixing the problem we've created.

      By saying we must tax carbon fuels out of existence is admitting we will not be running out of oil any time soon.

      the problem is not about running out of oil, the problem is all the carbon in the atmosphere is causing the earth to retain too much heat and causing the ocean to absorb a lot more CO2 which is making the oceans more acidic. even if we had a limitless supply of oil, burning it is still a problem.

      Oh, and if you want to save all those wild animals then I have some suggestions

      i'm sure you do.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:it's easy to drive this change by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So you want to explain that having $200 less at the end of the month does affect your standard of living?

      Where do you live? In a third world country or what?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:it's easy to drive this change by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Cheap energy is how we reduce energy usage, not with expensive energy. It takes energy to save energy. Those aluminum blades on a windmill take a lot of energy to make, the more energy costs the more difficult it will be to raise the money to build that windmill.
      Wow I wrote that already a few days ago, but you topped it: this is the stupids thing I ever have heard.

      For starters: blades of wind mills are not made from aluminium.

      Secondly if energy is cheap, no one will reduce its usage, why would they?

      utilities have power plants that can burn coal just as easily as natural gas.
      That is wrong.

      If natural gas prices go down then so does oil.
      It is the opposite around, oil prices are the driving force behind coal and gas prices.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:it's easy to drive this change by blindseer · · Score: 1

      the sooner we switch of fossil fuels, the better chance we have at fixing the problem we've created.

      Agreed, but getting there by artificially raising the price of energy just leaves us with fewer resources to fix the problem. If we have the government tax energy to fund this transition then we are relying on the government to be incorruptible angel geniuses that won't use that money to buy votes, give money to their buddies, or merely choose solutions poorly. That "cash for clunkers" bomb of a program should be a huge clue that these people are corruptible, far from geniuses, and certainly not angels.

      By leaving money in the hands of the people then they can put that money in the market by buying stuff that makes them happy. That means people can have money to buy electric vehicles, solar panels, attic insulation, or whatever. Or, they can spend it on beer and porn. Either way the world is a better place.

      the problem is not about running out of oil, the problem is all the carbon in the atmosphere is causing the earth to retain too much heat and causing the ocean to absorb a lot more CO2 which is making the oceans more acidic. even if we had a limitless supply of oil, burning it is still a problem.

      I'll go with that. How does making diesel fuel, the very thing that powers trains, trucks, bulldozers, etc. that will build the infrastructure we need so expensive that people cannot afford to run them help? Making diesel fuel expensive artificially raises the costs of building the windmills, solar collectors, clearing the sites to place them, pour the concrete, and move all the parts to the site for construction.

      Making fossil fuels expensive will not help in transitioning from them, it will just be a burden on the economy and prolong the transition.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    14. Re:it's easy to drive this change by Agripa · · Score: 1

      if you want everyone to switch to renewable energy, it's not a complex process. all you have to do is slowly increase a tax on fossil fuel energy sources (and imported electricity) and use that money to subsidize investments in renewable energy.

      Um, what is in it for the rent seekers and politicians if a Pigovian tax is used?

      The method must be obfuscated for maximum kickbacks and graft. Think of Congress and the Space Shuttle.

    15. Re:it's easy to drive this change by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but getting there by artificially raising the price of energy just leaves us with fewer resources to fix the problem.
      [...]
      How does making diesel fuel, the very thing that powers trains, trucks, bulldozers, etc. that will build the infrastructure we need so expensive that people cannot afford to run them help?

      which part of "use that money to subsidize investments in renewable energy" didn't you understand?

      Making fossil fuels expensive will not help in transitioning from them, it will just be a burden on the economy and prolong the transition.

      no, it would force the transition to happen. the reason you didn't understand that is that you simply didn't read (let alone consider) my full proposal before launching into a blind rage.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    16. Re:it's easy to drive this change by blindseer · · Score: 1

      which part of "use that money to subsidize investments in renewable energy" didn't you understand?

      The part where you think that our government consists of genius angels that won't use this tax money to fund their pet projects instead of investing it in renewable energy. Your proposal also requires these genius angels to know enough about science and technology to effectively predict the future on which technologies will pan out and which will not. I have greater faith in the market to figure this out.

      no, it would force the transition to happen. the reason you didn't understand that is that you simply didn't read (let alone consider) my full proposal before launching into a blind rage.

      Your "proposal" is a single sentence that requires an incorruptible government to be successful. I've seen how our federal government has invested in renewable energy and they fail often. There is a reason why they fail often, it's because asking for government money is the path of last resort, the government is where people go when they've run out of potential investors to ask for money. If they've run out of people to ask for an investment it's quite likely because their idea sucks. The people in government aren't technology people, they are politicians spending other people's money. They will spend money on this shit because it buys them votes. If their gamble pays off then they get a lot of kudos and it improves their chances of getting re-elected or getting a lucrative private consulting job after leaving office. If their gamble fails then they didn't lose anything, and with all the failed government programs out there people will not be able to keep track of which asshole voted for which money pit. Which means these assholes tend to stay in office because they were able to divert money from my pocket to the second rate con artists that were unable to con private investors.

      I once thought like you. That if only we gave more money to research then we'd have better stuff. What I found out is that the government is the worst way to fund this research. The best research is done by private businesses. They will take a portion of their profits to fund the next best thing. Governments take a portion of our taxes to buy votes. They have very little motivation to actually solve the problems given to them, if they solve the problem then they can't use that same fear, uncertainty, and doubt, to keep people voting for them.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    17. Re:it's easy to drive this change by blindseer · · Score: 1

      So you want to explain that having $200 less at the end of the month does affect your standard of living?

      Where do you live? In a third world country or what?

      I live in the United States of America, where the median income is less than $52000/year. A nation where about half of the population lives paycheck to paycheck. A nation where 1/3rd of the population has nothing saved for retirement.

      If you gave people below the median income an extra $200/month "free" by lowering their taxes then they'd have money to buy a "new to you" car, or pay for night classes at a university or community college, or use their vacation time to take an IT certification course, or use their vacation to actually go somewhere on vacation. Maybe these people would save it for retirement. Even if these people blow the money on beer, cigarettes, and casino chips these people are adding to the economy and not to the government.

      I remember Nancy Pelosi saying something like for every $2 paid out in welfare that adds $5 to the economy. While I think that is complete bullshit let's take her at her word. How is raising their gas taxes, and then giving them welfare to make up for the lost income, any different then allowing these people to keep that money by not taxing them in the first place? If increasing the income of the poor by $2 adds $5 to the economy then I say we should do that, only I believe we should do that by reducing taxes and also the size of government. If people have enough money to pay for their food and fuel without government assistance then we don't need the people in government to hand out welfare checks.

      Make no mistake that taxing fuel is a regressive tax. Just $200 extra expenses every month can put people on a downward spiral, they don't have that money to invest in a home, education, or retirement. $200/month over decades adds up to a lot of money.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  10. Re: Rolling Brownout Announced in San Diego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, that's almost the Apocalypse, dude.

  11. End date 2 years = won't happen by blindseer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any 20 year plan proposed by a government entity is doomed to failure. Any action proposed by a government official that cannot be in office to see it happen means it simply will not happen.

    There is a famous speech by JFK that proposed an American will walk on the moon in 8 years. I suspect that the project survived after he died because his VP was on board and was able to get elected as POTUS afterward.

    That's how to make a government promise work, set a goal in a meaningful time frame, get a lot of people to support it, and make it happen yourself. If you put a goal out beyond your time in office then it's not a promise, it's happy mouth noises.

    Had this been a promise to deploy a certain number of solar panels and/or windmills in 2 years, maybe within 5 years, then I might believe them. Setting a twenty year goal is meaningless. Few people can stay in office that long. Even fewer can keep a promise that long.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re: End date 2 years = won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another way to make a government plan work is to plan something that will happen anyway. Rooftop solar is already below grid parity in California.

  12. Solar farm plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck solar, fuck renewable, fuck san, fuck diego, fuck 2035, and FUCK YOU!!!!!!

  13. Come and knock on our door.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we'll be waiting for you~
    Three's company too!

  14. Horse Shit Crises of 1890 Returns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hay!

    Horse shit and piss are a renewable resource! So let's get the horses back and working 24/7 again to squeeze that lovely shit an piss out.

    Ha ha

  15. Is the Sunrise Powerlink finally in service? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    This is the transmission line that for years was supposed to bring power from solar and wind projects in desert Imperial County to San Diego. Like every other project that might do some good, the flat-earth lobby has fought it every step of the way, imposing court delays to make it as ludicrously overpriced as everything else in California. That is, after all, their whole strategy. Look this game plan up under "California high speed rail."

  16. Now if only they... by guevera · · Score: 1

    ...could run on 100% renewable water. Then they could stop stealing it from NorCal and the Colorado River.

  17. typical san diego by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    My favorite part of this is the tortured logic around the (lack of) funding for anything. The budget for 2017 plans on $106M being spent on street repairs. For the climate action plan, they hope that 10% of the street repairs are helpful for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. So, that's a $10.6M expenditure on the CAP plan! The vast majority of the people being "hired" on this plan are being hired into the sewer repair project. This is a long-term program that was going to hire those people anyway. Also, this is part of the reason the roads need to be repaired so badly, they're being torn up all over town, and then "repaired" when the sewer guys move on.

    These are both good things to do, but we were doing them anyway, and not because we're trying to fight climate change. They money being "spent" in this plan, and the people being "hired" have nothing to do at all with the headline.

  18. Better if they quit taking colorado water by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Seriously, San Diego and Los Angelos should be developing desalinating and quit taking so much from the colorado river. To do that, will require a great deal more energy, so, AE will not do the trick.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. a source of renewable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in addition to the bullshit from the report that can be fed to whatever is going to generate all of the electricity SD needs, since they'll be off the electrical grid (coal/oil/gas) powered plants somewhere in said grid, how about funneling the putrid sewage spewing into the tijuana tributary (that presently flows unabated into the Pacific Ocean and travels north off the coast of ...SD) into one of those imaginary electricity-generating facilities running on renewables? think of the limitless potential of the fuel...

  20. Typical election year drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The mayor is a "moderate" Republican trying to appeal to a growing liberal core in the center of the city. There are a few things to keep in mind with all such plans announced by cities:

    Nowhere in the plans are solid, fixed, detailed plans to ban the use of things like gasoline or the use of electricity from coal-fired power plants, so they are still going to have non-renewables. Even if every car and truck based in the city was electric, visiting vehicles would not be. Also, they are connected to the national electrical grid, so any time the solar panels and windmills are not producing all needed power, they will pull power through the grid from coal-fired plants as everybody does today.

    Many of the wonderful-sounding goals stated are based on projected reductions from lots of other fairy tale policy bullet points. For example: there are energy reductions derived from reducing the water each citizen uses by 8 or 9 gallons per day. What are they going to do? Start rationing water? Order people to shower no more than thrice per week? Order people to wear dirty clothes? Most people in So Cal already use things like low-flow toilets and reduced-flow shower heads and are already often banned from washing cars and watering yards. San Diego already has severe infrastructure issues from many years of shifting maintenance funds into the union pension funds instead, and the sewer system is likely to have severe problems if the water flow through it is steeply reduced (as has happened in other cities)

    This glossy pdf plan also pushes things like bike trails - that constant heartthrob of the leftists and of course mass transit. San Diego is very hilly and quite hot at many points in the year while being host to many old people who cannot be expected to ride bikes, children who are not permitted to bike across the city unaccompanied, and others who are not up to biking, or whose schedules would be destroyed by biking. Biking is a recreation; it's NOT serious transportation. Housing is already so expensive in the city (which recently admitted all it's previous plans to address high housing costs actually made the situation worse) than huge numbers of workers like 30 miles outside the city. None of the fantasy transport options proposed will work for 90% of the people.

    What's most-likely to happen is that the plan will be forgotten after November. The city will put a few more solar panels on buildings and give some grants to a few politically favored entities to study the problems and/or upgrade their own facilities, and years from now they will claim credit for the cleaner air that resulted from the public gradually embracing cleaner stuff on their own as it became practical and affordable.

    All such plans have the basics in common: They use slick marketing to put a big happy face on a top-down plan to gradually dictate more details in the lives of the public, removing liberty, raising costs, eliminating jobs, all to appeal to popular political fads.

  21. Re:End date 2 years = won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trick, then, is to break down a big plan into term-scale programs and objectives (SMART project planning / China's 5-year plans) and get the first one done, at least.