California Governor Says 100 Percent Clean Electricity Not Enough, State Must Go Carbon Neutral (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Monday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill mandating that the state's utilities move to 100-percent zero-emission electricity generation by 2045. Brown also issued an executive order today requiring the state to become carbon neutral by 2045, that is, mandating that the state remove as much greenhouse gas from the atmosphere as it puts into the atmosphere. One of the most interesting aspects of the zero-emissions bill signed today is that it also specifies that California can't increase the carbon emissions of another state to get cheap electricity. It appears that buying electricity from a coal plant in Nevada is fine if that electricity had been supplied prior to the bill's passing, but seeking out new out-of-state natural gas-fired plants to buy from would not be allowed. The bill's ambitiousness is compounded by the executive order that Gov. Brown signed today. The order requires California to become carbon neutral by 2045. "The achievement of carbon neutrality will require both significant reductions in carbon pollution and removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes," Brown's executive order states (PDF).
More seriously, carbon neutral is not enough and the state must go carbon negative. Everywhere will.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
State must go Paleo.
Perhaps, but Silicon Valley is more likely to go Neo.
Ezekiel 23:20
It's planned for long after he is out of office. This is one of those glory grabbing bills
You have a state that is headed for fiscal bankruptcy, the cost of living is so high the middle class is leaving in droves and you have one of the worst K-12 education systems in the nation.
The bottom line is that California is on a path to duplicate the failures of Venezuela and they are working on energy emission plans for 2045.
I don't want to live forever with a fixed set of resources. I want to live a reasonably long time with an ever growing pool of resources.
With such cynical thought, nobody need to try to do any long term planning because it is automagically "glory grabbing bills".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
We choose to shit out more carbon than we use. We choose to shit out more carbon than we use in this decade and do the other things, not because these shits will be hard, but because these shits will be easy, because laying turds will not require our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are not willing to accept, one we are willing to postpone, and one which we intend to leave for someone else to deal with, and the others, too.
FTFY... we shit out the carbon because it is easy. Not shitting it out is the hard part.
Nuclear looks good
Then nuclear looks great when you stop letting smelly hippies use fear mongering to dictate policy. I just watched a documentary on the future of nuclear power. Research is starting to pick up on small design reactors, molten salt cooled reactors, and melt down proof reactors. Reactors that don't use water to cool them down. Reactors that use the laws of physics to stop a melt down before it even starts. Designs for self correcting reactors.
We would have had these designs in place and running 15 years ago if research hadn't ground to a halt thanks to hippie protesters. If the research could have continued Fukushima would never have happened. So thank you smelly hippie. Fukushima is another one you caused.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.