Slashdot Mirror
California Moves To Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045 (bloomberg.com)
California's assembly has voted to move the state's electricity completely off fossil fuels. The state assembly this week passed S.B. 100, a proposal to transition California to 100 percent emissions-free electricity sources by 2045. A report adds: The Assembly voted 43-32 in favor of the legislation Tuesday. It would eliminate the reliance on fossil fuels to power homes, businesses and factories in the world's fifth-largest economy, accelerating a shift already under way. The state currently gets about 44 percent of its power from renewables and hydropower. California has positioned itself to lead the battle against climate change by cutting emissions even as the Trump administration has worked to roll back the state's stringent auto pollution standards and prop up ailing coal-fired power plants. Earlier this year, California became the first U.S. state to mandate solar rooftop panels on almost all new homes. It would be the second state to require 100 percent carbon-free power after Hawaii.
Yeah, sure. Republicans. Who don't give a fuck about poor people or BLACK people or anyone else who isn't lilly-white and monied.
I'm not even for the ACA, I hate having to be forced to buy insurance I can't really afford, but let's be honest: the GOP hates non-white people and poor people of any color, and they don't need the ACA they have their own insurance or just pay out of pocket because they're The Rich.
How may ways can you be wrong? Let's count!
First, California has its own grid so it's easy to keep out fossil fuel electricity.
Their grid isn't isolated from the rest of the country any more than Texas' grid is. We have our own grid too, but we are heavily connected to states on our borders, as well as Mexico. All "having your own grid" means is that you manage your load and generation within an area, but it doesn't mean you are isolated from the rest of the country.
One wrong
Batteries are proven. Australia is a good example.
Oh yea for load capacity pick up over having rotating capacity online in diverse locations. This has more to do with the economies of shipping fuels over the distances involved than green energy or peak offset. It's a safety device for grid stability because it's not practical to run fossil fueled capacity in some places. So you are not exactly wrong, just not aware of the actual reason they are using it.
(Lithium batteries are very easy to recycle into safe non-toxic components and even new batteries.)
The issue is refining of the lithium from natural sources. It is usually refined using electrolysis at a high temperature, much like aluminum and consumes a large amount of power. Recycling it is similar energy consumption. They may be safe and non-toxic materials, but they are expensive if you consider the CO2 emissions of production. So No, two wrong
There is also geothermal, hydro and pumped storage which can easily be controlled to fill in gaps.
Geothermal plants are the only option here for California, but they are huge investments and very subject to causing earthquakes. California is not an ideal place for geothermal, but it is at least possible there. Hydro doesn't exist in California as they are very short on water, same with pumped storage. The facilities don't exist for this and depend on a ready source of water, which just isn't there. So, one kind of right, two wrong in that statement.
Renewable electricity is cheaper than fossil fuel electricity (the "fuel" for renewables is free) and it just keeps getting cheaper. States which rely on fossil fuel electricity will be at a high cost disadvantage.
With the possible exception of geothermal under ideal conditions, other renewable forms of energy are NOT cheaper than fossil fuels. Apart from geothermal, The absolute cheapest form of power generation over the full life cycle of the plant is natural gas. And this INCLUDES all fuel costs, the cost to build and decommission the plant. Renewables are MORE expensive, total cost, even though the "fuel" is free. So your statement is wrong again.
So by my count you had two facts right, one misleading and five incorrect.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Please stop lying.
ACA-like plans were not "concocted" by the Heritage foundation, and they certainly weren't supported by them. Heritage published an issue with MANY writers proposing different ways to improve the health-care market; one of the articles proposed mandatory participation. Several other writers wrote articles *attacking* that article, on legal, moral, and economic grounds.
Additionally, no, Romney did not support the Mass. version - he attempt to VETO the damned bill, and the Democrat controlled legislature overrode his veto. I'm not sure how much more 'opposing' a bill you can get than trying to veto it.
Only if we wash the coal really well first.
Germany has been real good about "greenwashing" their coal. You see they buy up a bunch of sawdust and woodchips from lumber mills in the American southeast. They then load it all up on ships that burn bunker fuel, when it reaches German ports they load it onto diesel fuel powered trucks and trains, then burn this "green fuel" with their brown coal and pretend that they've lowered their CO2 footprint.
They do this same "greenwashing" at the physical plant where I went to university. They burn "agricultural waste" with the coal for heating, cooling, and electricity on campus. They then get to pretend they made things "green" by diverting valuable material that used to be used for fertilizer and erosion control and turning it to worthless ash.
I swear that these idiots that want to "save humanity from itself" are going to get us all killed. They are taking food and burning it. Civilizations collapsed from this.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.