Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Commits To Running Entirely On Clean Energy By 2045 (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: On Thursday, the Washington state legislature officially passed one of the most ambitious clean energy bills in the nation. Washington is now committed to making the state's electricity supply carbon neutral by 2030 and 100 percent carbon-free by 2045. The bill makes the fourth state to commit to 100 percent clean energy and adds a feather to the cap of Governor Jay Inslee who requested the bill be introduced. Inslee is running as a climate candidate for president that can get things done in the District if elected, and this bill is a very tangible accomplishment he can now point to.
The bill previously passed the state senate 28-19. After passing the house 56-42 on Thursday, the legislation goes back to the senate for a final vote. Once signed into law, Washington will join, Hawaii, California, and New Mexico as the fourth state committed to 100 percent clean energy. Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico have also made similar commitment as well as more than 90 cities, according to tracking by the Sierra Club. The bill shuts the door on coal, saying it "is the policy of the state to eliminate coal-fired electricity." By calling for energy to come from carbon-free sources by 2045, it leaves the door open for nuclear power. [...] In addition to committing to cutting emissions, the bill is also designed to ensure the transition to renewables and any bumps in energy prices aren't shouldered by the poor. The bill calls says utilities "must make funding available for energy assistance to low-income households."
The bill previously passed the state senate 28-19. After passing the house 56-42 on Thursday, the legislation goes back to the senate for a final vote. Once signed into law, Washington will join, Hawaii, California, and New Mexico as the fourth state committed to 100 percent clean energy. Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico have also made similar commitment as well as more than 90 cities, according to tracking by the Sierra Club. The bill shuts the door on coal, saying it "is the policy of the state to eliminate coal-fired electricity." By calling for energy to come from carbon-free sources by 2045, it leaves the door open for nuclear power. [...] In addition to committing to cutting emissions, the bill is also designed to ensure the transition to renewables and any bumps in energy prices aren't shouldered by the poor. The bill calls says utilities "must make funding available for energy assistance to low-income households."
https://www.investopedia.com/t...
Largest default in municipal bond history. I guess either memories or short or it was profitable enough for some people that a new generation wants to try again.
...
this is the year for the Linux Desktop!
flying cars by 2015!
free tibet!
make america great again!
goooo saints!
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
It isn't that hard. We're already in the 85%+ range as it is because most of our state's power is hydro-electric.
For example, here is the info on Tacoma: https://www.mytpu.org/about-tp...
Boomer logic. "Oil is fine for us, let's stick our kids with solar."
It's not really that heavy a lift, Washington State has a number of counties which already generate high levels of renewable energy, it's more a matter of phasing out dying coal energy from nearby states. If you look at the entire West Coast, you'll see that, at present, CA OR WA BC are all aiming for 100 percent RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) energy, and since we all have interties, there's a surplus of green energy sloshing around somewhere.
At this rate, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and Mexico will soon be part of people doing things, rather than coming up with excuses for why they use expensive power from non-renewables.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It is no longer renewable, but clean. That is the smart way. It is foolish to commit just to wind/solar with storage. We need an.energy matrix. We also need to quit adding natural gas power plants. Last year, we went up a couple of %, and that was due in large part to nat gas electricity.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's long term enough thinking that the politicians proposing it won't be around to take the blame when it doesn't happen. They are committing the next generation to pull it off, not themselves. So they DO get political benefit without actually doing anything.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Soon enough to make it appear that they are doing something about a problem, but still far out enough in the future to make it someone else's problem. Perfect!
It's long term enough thinking that the politicians proposing it won't be around to take the blame when it doesn't happen. They are committing the next generation to pull it off, not themselves. So they DO get political benefit without actually doing anything.
Exactly right
If you don't support fission you don't support clean energy.
This is WA. They're already running 85% Hydro Electric, and have significant capabilities to add wind in the south-eastern part of the state. The hydro system actually has the capacity to power the entire state, but can't as it would be using the water unsustainably. Add in Wind/Solar, and you can use the Hydro as a large battery, buffering the output from these more intermittent sources. When the wind is blowing, the sun shining, you spin down the hydro plants, and let the water store up. When the wind goes calm and the skies are cloudy, you run the Hydro hard, and draw down on your reservoirs.
This isn't rocket science.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
There, fixed that headline for you.
"Inslee is running as a climate candidate for president that can get things done in the District if elected, and this bill is a very tangible accomplishment he can now point to." It'll be tangible when (or rather, if) it succeeds by 2045; right now, it's a pledge and nothing more. So is Inslee planning on running for president in the 2048 election? (I'm also not clear what the District has to do with it; that's the *other* Washington.)
What does it actually mean to commit in this situation? Is it any more than saying that they think its a good idea? (I think its a good idea, but don't know how a bill now enforces things in the future)