Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth United States

California Moves To Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045 (bloomberg.com) 282

Posted by msmash from the marching-forward dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Moves To Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045 More

California Moves To Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

Comments Filter:

  • California mandates (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @03:11PM (#57220018)

    Thanks to CA mandates all CA cars went zero emissions 18 years ago.

    Doubtless this mandate will be equally effective.

  • Behold the power of... (Score:3)

    by Type44Q ( 1233630 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @03:14PM (#57220052)

    t would eliminate the reliance...

    behold the power of... words on paper. Words written on paper by politicians, even.

    • Re:Behold the power of... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by myth24601 ( 893486 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @03:16PM (#57220082)

      Words written on paper by politicians who will be out of office by the time the words are to have any meaning.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        In other countries doing this kind of thing they enact laws to encourage it. Incentives for clean energy, disincentives for dirty energy.

        It then becomes quite difficult for their successors to retract them. Businesses and jobs build up around them, people object to things that make their quality of life worse etc.

        Plus it's California, can't see that state swinging hard right.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Re "enact laws to encourage it"
          Low cost power is the key to attracting and keeping businesses.
          Businesses pay more and more for power and then move to another state.
    • It might happen: they of course won't use nuclear, so it's all about solar and wind. Solar and wind depend on new battery technology being invented. If that happens, then California will be able to reach their goal.

      • No, getting batteries will be insufficient. Look at the costs of the different energy sources.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Coal and natural gas are still exceedingly cheap. Nuclear may cost 2x, 3x, or even 4x, of some wind and solar right now but it has the "storage" built into it. Fuel is storage. Remember that...

        Fuel is storage.

        Hydroelectric dams have an inherent storage ability in the water held up behind it. This water though is not unlimited, even with pumped storage, if that water is used for

        • You are right that California could do nuclear now, but you are wrong that they will. New battery technology will be invented and they will use it, or they will fail. Too many people oppose nuclear in California. They would literally rather have intermittent power failures.

  • States = Incubators for testing stuff (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scroatzilla ( 672804 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @03:22PM (#57220124) Homepage Journal

    In terms of states' rights and energy independence and the environment, this is a good thing. Whether or not this works out, we will learn a lot about the feasibility of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels from California's effort; other states could then model their own clean energy programs based on the positives and negatives of California's experiment.

    (I'm not sure what the anti-Trump rhetoric adds to the article summary other than virtual signaling... ??)

    • I don't think their success would prove it's feasible for all the states. I am thinking it only works because the other states are not competing to purchase solar/wind/hydro too heavily while they have access to coal/natural gas. Otherwise the price of clean energy would go much higher. It's still a good goal if they're willing to do it.

    • In terms of states' rights and energy independence and the environment, this is a good thing. Whether or not this works out, we will learn a lot about the feasibility of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels from California's effort; other states could then model their own clean energy programs based on the positives and negatives of California's experiment.

      (I'm not sure what the anti-Trump rhetoric adds to the article summary other than virtual signaling... ??)

      This isn't going to work out. California will simply be importing power from states where fossil fuels are used, suffering blackouts and paying a LOT more for power.

      Electrical power grids require that the energy going in must be exactly the energy being used at every instant. To be safe, one must provide an "operating margin" that can handle the loss of generation capacity and power any variations in load. Grid managers must maintain this balance, by planning generation capacity hours in advance of actua

      • The thing about California power demand is that it is typically higher when the sun is shining. In other words, supply and demand tend towards a natural balance.

        Yes, some storage will be necessary, in combination with things like hydro power, which provides on-demand green energy.

        • You do realize that Hydro requires water and right now that's in very short supply out west...

          Also your "some storage" is in the range of 50,000 Megawatt hours or more, just to even out the solar peak at noon to the usage peak at 5 PM (based on today's usage curve in Texas on an average summer day). This is HUGE amounts of power to store, which currently is made up by fossil fueled power generators and sucking power from the grid from places outside the state.

          ONE Tesla Power Wall 2 stores 13 Kwh and cost

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Batteries.
        Several large ones already installed in California... and other places. Very cost effective.
        Importing fossil fuel electricity is not an option... not permitted.

        • The hell batteries are not expensive. And how you keep California on the nation's power grid, but regulate how the power you receive from it is generated is beyond me. Sure, you can *claim* it's green energy, but is it really when that coal plant in MO is pumping out power into the same grid? I'd call it load shifting to fossil fuels by "proxy" if nothing else. So let's say California wants to go it alone...

          Industrial level power storage is HUGELY expensive and dangerous operations. We are talking about

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by mspohr ( 589790 )

            First, California has its own grid so it's easy to keep out fossil fuel electricity.
            Batteries are proven. Australia is a good example.
            (Lithium batteries are very easy to recycle into safe non-toxic components and even new batteries.)
            There is also geothermal, hydro and pumped storage which can easily be controlled to fill in gaps.
            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 wil

            • Batteries are proven. Australia is a good example.

              The population of the entire country/continent of Australia is less than 2/3rds the population of California. A lot more space per person for green energy.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mspohr ( 589790 )

                The fossil fuel industry put out a hit piece a week ago saying tha California didn't have enough land for renewables. (Published in the LA Times which as usual, didn't do any real journalism, just printed the hit piece.) The usual garbage stats. Quickly debunked.

      • It all depends on improved battery technology. If that happens, then California will be able to reach their goal.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Baloroth ( 2370816 )

      California has little snow, relatively few clouds (or inclement weather of any kind, for that matter), massive amounts of hydropower, and very little manufacturing or other heavy industry (which is power intensive). It's basically an ideal environment for 100% renewable energy usage, which is not true for 90% or so of the US. In the Midwest, for example, there's little hydro, and solar barely works at all in the winter when you need power or you'll freeze to death. The Southwest has at least good solar pote

      • very little manufacturing or other heavy industry

        Why do people keep saying this? Articles from 2015:

        https://www.cmtc.com/blog/how-... [cmtc.com]

        Although California has lost close to 40 percent (842,180) of its manufacturing jobs between 1990 and 2012, it still holds the largest manufacturing market share of any other state. California controls 11.4 percent of the nation's manufacturing output. Texas produces 10 percent, followed far behind by Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.

        https://www.epi.org/publicatio... [epi.org]

        The top 10 states ranked by total manufacturing employment in 2013 are California (1,251,400 jobs), Texas (871,700 jobs), Ohio (662,100 jobs), Illinois (579,600 jobs), Pennsylvania (563,500 jobs), Michigan (555,300 jobs), Indiana (491,900 jobs), Wisconsin (458,400 jobs), New York (455,100 jobs), and North Carolina (442,500 jobs).

  • That's almost enough time (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    to build a nuclear plant.

    • to build a nuclear plant.

      Is it also enough time to make it price competitive without subsidies?

      • I did see this article linked from a popular technology blog about Bill Gates wanting to bring a new molten salt fast neutron reactor to market by 2030. I believe the website was called "Slashdot", perhaps you've heard of it?

        The claim is that the reactor will use a high temperature molten salt for heat transfer and storage. That way it can use efficient Brayton cycle turbines, follow changing loads, and not need water cooling. It's the same technology they use for solar thermal energy storage, so it must

  • with my gas furnace...

    And what of my gas stove?

    I sure hope this only applies to new construction and not existing homes

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by imidan ( 559239 )
      The bill is about moving to renewables for electrical generation, not for heating your home and your soup. At this time, I don't believe that gas furnaces, water heaters, and cooking appliances contribute a significant proportion of carbon emissions in the US.
      • Be glad. In the Netherlands a similar bill was just passed, and that one did include banning gas for heating and cooking, and includes existing buildings. All to be gas-free by 2030. For existing home, the cost of installing a heat pump and induction hob, beefing up insulation, replacing radiators and installing floor heating where needed, is estimated at 30k - 40k euro per household. Of course no one wants to touch the question of who is going to pay for all that.
  • and not because it's technically impossible, but the nationally ruling party has already signaled they're going to block CA on their higher car emissions. I could see them moving against them on this too. After all, CA is so big that where they go the nation follows.
    • Republicans only favor states rights when the states want to do something they agree with that federal government wants to do. When the federal government wants to do something they agree with the states don't want to do (like make pot illegal), they are very much against states rights! Case in point: Gonzales v. Raich

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by bob4u2c ( 73467 )

        Let me mad-lib this up for you:

        Party A: Some stereotypical group
        Noun/Verb: Pick any noun or verb you like

        [Party A] only favor states rights when the states want to do something [Party A] agree with that federal government wants to do. When the federal government wants to do something [Party A] agree with the states don't want to do (like make [Noun/Verb] illegal), they are very much against states rights!

      • >"Republicans only favor states rights when the states want to do something they agree with that federal government wants to do."

        Sorry, you just described what EITHER of the two main parties (D & R) do; this is not the sole domain of Republicans. Although conservatives (not necessarily Republicans, but also Constitution party, Libertarians, Classic Liberals, and others) absolutely support the Constitution and the rights of states to govern their people with the few exceptions laid out for the Fed..

        • Re:I'm not sure they'll be able to (Score:4, Informative)

          by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @05:53PM (#57221006)

          Sorry, you just described what EITHER of the two main parties (D & R) do; this is not the sole domain of Republicans

          What you missed is only the Republican party has attempted to make an issue out of "States Rights". The point is the hypocrisy. Just like passing a massive unfunded tax cut means you should be laughed at if you complain about the deficit.

          • >"What you missed is only the Republican party has attempted to make an issue out of "States Rights". The point is the hypocrisy. Just like passing a massive unfunded tax cut means you should be laughed at if you complain about the deficit."

            That is, indeed, a good point. Neither party really cares about the deficit or debt, ultimately. They just continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. This is a result of a government that is far too large, far too remote, far too powerful, far too corrupt, and ha

        • Fair enough. Both markdavis and bob4u2c have pointed out that this isn't a strictly Republican attribute, and I won't disagree with either of you. I'm not clear why states can't have higher standards than the federal government; California isn't FORCING manufactures to sell anything to other states that don't have California standards, it's just cheaper to make cars that meet the standards in all states. I work on medical devices, and it in same way it is more cost-effective to make a device that meets the

    • the nationally ruling party has already signaled they're going to block CA on their higher car emissions.

      They can signal all they want. They don't have a constitutional leg to stand on.

  • Wind and solar energy don't reduce your need for peak capacity from non-renewables at all unless you have some way of storing energy. And yes, water behind a dam is a way of storing energy.
    • Actually California could use a huge water reservoir that doubles as an energy storage resource. From what I understand, wind and solar are among the cheapest sources of power today.

      • From what I understand, wind and solar are among the cheapest sources of power today.

        Then you understand incorrectly.

        I just saw a US government projection that there will be 20 GW of new natural gas electrical generation built his year. How much wind and solar? Well, there's been installs of solar of as much as 50 GW per year, and 12 GW of wind. Wind and solar are also highly subsidized. Does natural gas get subsidies? I'm sure they do. There's no mistaking though that solar and wind installations depend highly on the rate they get their disproportionate subsidies. If wind and solar

  • Apparently Facebook has figured out how to power a data center just using people's personal information.

  • But what's their target for the next 4 years. Or should I say before the next election. Because none of the actual politicians are going to be there in 2045 even if the target is met.

  • Guess what? Left to their own devices humans will burn everything they can burn for fuel and they don't give a fuck about the environment, but they'll whine and cry and kick their feet when their lights don't come on and their cars won't start and it's 100 degrees out in the middle of winter. We'll run out of fossil fuels before too long and it's pants-on-head retarded to keep using them regardless, so how about all you whiners and complainers just get in line and get used to the idea that we HAVE TO CHANGE

  • We should have 100% clean municipal water in Michigan. And 100% clean government in D.C.

    And 100% Clean coal, except if it's not actually clean we have the dump the soot into the ventilation at Mar-a-Lago.

  • Title is wrong: 100% clean electricity is not 100% clean energy. Fuel will still be allowed for cars and planes, which are huge greenhouse gas emitters.

    This is a step in the right direction, but not toward 100% of problem solved.

  • Clean power, bad news for Russia. End of the petroleum age. End of petroleum economy. The Russian mafia has a plan of course.

  • Seriously, CA, as well as America, needs to cut that sooner. As in 2035.
    Add to that, they should require all vehicles be BEV, or series hybrid for certain ones (off-roads including Ag and Construction, EMS, etc). There should also be exceptions for antique cars.

  • I went into considerable detail on this a couple days ago here:
    https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

    If any state in the USA wants energy that is cheap, clean, safe, reliable, feasible in the short term, and with promise to stay that way in the long term, then they must invest heavily in wind, hydro, and nuclear. Oh, almost forgot, with a little bit of natural gas to speed things along on cleaning things up until something better comes along.

    California has been going backwards with their unreasonable hating on nuclear power. Maybe some of this is justified with seismic activity in the state but there are means to address this.

    What is exceedingly frustrating is that the politicians that made this promise will not be in office to see it through. This is no different than Obama signing a pledge to have the USA reduce it's carbon footprint only days before he left office. He didn't even bother to make it binding in any way by sending it to Congress.

    If these politicians were smart then they'd be doing wind, hydro, and nuclear right now. If they were honest on following through then the pledges on making this happen would be within their terms in office.

    I'd like to see a politician make a JFK style promise, "in this decade", once in a while. Anything longer beyond 10 years is outside the power of any politician to promise anything. A promise on the scale of 10 years is having a working plan in 2 years, 2 more for breaking ground, 2 for building something tangible, 2 for testing, and 2 for making it happen. On this scale we can see it happen and call them on it if the milestones haven't been reached.

    The video on that Bloomberg article spent a lot of time explaining the "experience curve" and how it can improve performance and bring down costs on renewable energy. That same thing applies to nuclear power. Nuclear power costs keep rising because it is rare for anyone to build more than a handful of any one kind of reactor. If the US federal government would just allow people to get this experience, and keep it, by issuing licenses for new reactors more than once in a decade then nuclear power could experience the benefits of this experience curve too.

    Solar power was once far too expensive until people decided to make long term investments in bringing down costs. If the politicians in California made this kind of investment then they could enjoy this from nuclear power just as they could from solar. By betting everything in solar plus batteries they set themselves on a path with no competition, and therefore only a bunch of people in industry working to maximize on tax credits against other companies in the solar market instead of making something that can thrive outside California mandates. Pit solar, nuclear, wind, and hydro against each other in a free market means near assurance of reaching their goal. Betting everything on solar and storage is just setting themselves up to fail.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close