Virginia Is the First Southern State With a 100 Percent Carbon-Free Electricity Goal (hydrogenfuelnews.com) 100
An anonymous reader shares a report: Virginia has become the first among the Southern US states to take on a goal for 100 percent carbon-free electricity. State governor Ralph Northam, an Army veteran and pediatric neurologist, issued Executive Order 43. The executive order detailed the state's plans to reach a zero CO2 energy goal by 2050. In September 2019, Northam also brought Virginia into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is a carbon trading network that spans nine states. Before then, Northam's efforts to take these initiatives and to join the RGGI were thwarted. However, following the 2019 election, voters in the state changed the political climate in the state. This opened the opportunity to move forward with renewable energy-based efforts. Earlier this month, the state General Assembly passed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which brought Northam's previously failed efforts into law. The House voted in favor 51 to 45 and the Senate voted 22 to 17.
Among the VCEA goals are to gradually reduce the use of fossil fuels until they are no longer a part of the state's electricity production. Instead, it will use 100 percent clean energy to power the state. In order to achieve this goal, Virginia has a four-part plan:
1. Join the RGGI and develop a cap-and-trade system. The states that are already using similar strategies and that are a part of the RGGI have experienced healthy economic effects overall. Moreover, the hope is that the addition of Virginia to a heavily supplied market will only boost competition. This is meant to drive the clean energy transition forward even faster.
2. Achieve 100 percent clean energy by 2050.
3. Keep power costs low and protect vulnerable and low-income communities.
4. Build rooftop solar, offshore wind, and power storage.
Among the VCEA goals are to gradually reduce the use of fossil fuels until they are no longer a part of the state's electricity production. Instead, it will use 100 percent clean energy to power the state. In order to achieve this goal, Virginia has a four-part plan:
1. Join the RGGI and develop a cap-and-trade system. The states that are already using similar strategies and that are a part of the RGGI have experienced healthy economic effects overall. Moreover, the hope is that the addition of Virginia to a heavily supplied market will only boost competition. This is meant to drive the clean energy transition forward even faster.
2. Achieve 100 percent clean energy by 2050.
3. Keep power costs low and protect vulnerable and low-income communities.
4. Build rooftop solar, offshore wind, and power storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And UK really isn't "SOUTH" either.
Virginia isn't really "south" anymore either. The DC suburbs, the I-95 corridor, and the Tidewater region are all thoroughly infested with Yankees. Heck, in 2016 Virginia even voted for Hillary, the only ex-Confederate state to do so.
Richmond may have survived the Seven Days [wikipedia.org], but it has finally fallen.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.. Are you trying to create panic in the UK or what?
Seriously, even if you are in the "at risk" group, your chances of dying are pretty thin, under 3%, even in Italy where they overran their medical capacity by almost double and everybody smoked (and had lung issue at a much higher rate)... In the UK, where medical services haven't yet been overrun and the rate of smoking isn't nearly as high, the death rate will be *way* under Italy's. Neither Boris or Charles are in serious trouble just because they h
Re: (Score:1)
if/when he does contract the illness, his age and marginal health means he will likely be adding to the statistics and we will have a President Pence for the next 9 months until Biden can be installed.
Biden can barely put an English sentence together and now I hear he's being accused of sexual assault. Biden being 77 years old is 4 years older than Trump. At this rate Biden is unlikely to see his campaign survive long enough to get to the first debate with Trump. That's assuming Biden survives this Chinese flu pandemic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And you've listened to the Orange psycho's pronouncements, and you're going to tell me he's rational, and shouldn't be institutionalized?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Strange Time for Job Killing Initiatives (Score:2)
The Line god demands a virgin human sacrifice. You have been selected as tribute.
Re: (Score:2)
Long before Corona was a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Inappropriate. One word.
Unless you were referring to the town Appropriate, of course. In which case, capitalize the name....
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean? "in appropriate" is a perfectly cromulent phrase.
Re:Strange Time for Job Killing Initiatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you say that?
The energy sector may decline because of more efficient energy. But this will make energy cheaper in the long term, as well less society impact. So other businesses will have more money to expand their own businesses and hire more people.
Efficiency has been shown to be overall good for the economy. Where job have been lost have been often replaced with more new jobs.
Solar and Wind power is now cheap, and after the upfront costs are paid off they get much cheaper. Yes we will have less miners and oil drillers. But there will be people needed for installation and maintenance for this new energy source. Also being that this is cleaner energy less of not in my back yard problem So we can see smaller energy power plants in your own communities where you have a long term stable workforce maintaining it. Not a Boom period where people start mining and drilling then a bust period where either prices get too low to be profitable, or the resource is gone leaving the community with a lot of resources for the tax payers to pay for that isn't used as much any more.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So we all should get Gas guzzling trucks with 4-6 year loans, planning on a low fuel cost that happened with the few weeks. Because Russia and Iran decided to have a price war, and most of the industrialized world is locked at home.
These are temporary problems, where oil prices will shoot up again.
I remember getting a Car a while back Gas prices were cheap, The sales man tried to shame me in getting the 4 cylinder vs the 6 cylinder version. During the period of owning the car Fuel costs went from under a d
Re:Strange Time for Job Killing Initiatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like the perfect time to embark on a job creation process that delivers employment and investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like the perfect time to embark on a job creation process that delivers employment and investment.
Right. Too bad they're doing the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you it requires more jobs to build new renewable capacity or to maintain existing fossil and nuclear capacity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they?
Solar power employs more that twice as man people than coal power [bloomberg.com], and has had larger employment numbers for a few years now.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your definition of "efficiency" is pretty fucked.
I mean, if the argument is coal power dying out to renewable energy is that it's killing jobs, then that's easily debunked and "efficiency" here is literally of no concern.
On the other hand, you are comparing two very different things; The labor for coal is almost entirely for maintaining operations, including mining, waste disposal and maintenance of the plants themselves. The labor associated with solar and other renewable energy tech is mostly installation
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you care how labor intensive it is? The costs of panels is going down rapidly and there are no fuel costs so in many cases it's competitive with fossil fuel plants. This is important for me, not how many people it takes to install the panel vs shove coal into the furnace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> it's way more costly to get a GW of electricity from solar than coal
It REALLY isn't, though. Not only because you're making an inappropriate comparison of labor to operate (coal) and labor to deploy (solar), but because you are literally, flat-out wrong: Solar PV has half the levelized cost of coal;
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/a... [eia.gov]
Coal power is withering, almost entirely due to the fact that it's not competitive any more. It's dying, and it's never coming back.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's not way more expensive, because labor isn't a huge part of the overall cost: https://www.irena.org/-/media/... [irena.org] (page 12).
Solar photovolataic has a wider range of cost per kWh and the average is still a bit higher despite going down massively, but there are a lot of cases where it's going to be cheaper, probably in the more sunny climates obviously.
So yeah I'd totally hire 26 dudes with paint brushes if they were cheaper than the two with the sprayer.
Re: (Score:1)
Solar PV has half the levelized cost of coal
No, it's not.
Your source is an estimate of future costs of low CO2 technologies. They list coal in this by using the costs of carbon capture and sequestration. This is not conventional coal. When solar is compared to conventional coal the LCOE is very different.
https://www.lazard.com/media/4... [lazard.com]
The Lazard analysis will show utility scale solar as less expensive than coal but they point out that this comparison can be misleading as they did not take into account the costs of energy storage or backup power
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is building coal power plants in the US, and even if they did, they would be the type outlined in the EIA document. To that point, in an attempt to compare new capacity to new capacity, I felt that it was an appropriate reference to use.
The Lazard document lists the capacity factor of a coal plant of 83% when it's actually closer to 47% [eia.gov], and solar at 19% when it should be closer to 24% [eia.gov] (there is no explanation why utility scale solar would have a different capacity factor than residential, either). T
Re: (Score:2)
Solar plants run by themselves... they son't need people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People, as in a city, or a region or a country, use much less power at night than during daytime ... so what is your point?
Re: (Score:1)
No sun and that "much less power" is still a need for
Re: (Score:2)
At night, Germany uses about 40% - 50% (depending on season) of day time peak.
What has that to do with "some production lines need power"? You are just trolling with bullshit out of your ass.
Re:Strange Time for Job Killing Initiatives (Score:5, Informative)
Seems in appropriate for them to embark on a process that will raise the cost of energy and likely put people out of work in exchange for lower paying jobs.
This is misinformation. Renewables have created a job boom while we're reinventing outdated, polluting infrastructure, and they are in many cases matching or even beating fossil fuels on cost - and their prices continue to fall.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e... [forbes.com]
There actually aren't many jobs in coal or oil, despite what those company's CEOs and media figures representing vested interests want you to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those jobs are dead anyway. The price of renewable energy has become extremely competitive, and fossil energy (especially coal) is limited, dwindling, and shifting. The inland portions of the eastern US are pocked with small towns left to rot after all the coal was extracted and the mining companies moved on.
The only way forward is to establish new energy industries that bring with them new jobs, many of them just as technical and well paying as mining or gas extraction but just in a different skill set.
=Sm
Re: (Score:3)
Those jobs are dead anyway. The price of renewable energy has become extremely competitive, and fossil energy (especially coal) is limited, dwindling
The US has about 300 years of coal at current consumption rates. China probably has even more. it's neither "limited" nor "dwindling".
Re: (Score:3)
We have about 4 billion years worth of sun pretty much independent of consumption rate.
Even if the coal is technically there in the ground, we can't necessarily mine it, and we certainly should not burn it for lots of reasons. Coal power is rapidly going the way of telephone switchboards and horse drawn carriages, and if you don't acknowledge that you're welcome to die with it.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Why, what's the matter? Are you still hoping your shares in the buggy whip company are going to be worth something soon? Or is it shares in fossil fuels?
Or maybe you don't have shares in anything, but believe anything that any billionaire tells you to believe, because they've got your interests at heart?
ROTFLMAO!
2050? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I'm more interested in goals with targets before the next election.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, so they're doing nothing then.
Here's hoping.. Gives the cooler heads time to prevail and undo this stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so they're doing nothing then.
Here's hoping.. Gives the cooler heads time to prevail and undo this stupidity.
At least they can be a cautionary tale for the other states when Virginia sees goal 3 get blown out of the water, looking at the results from countries that have made large shifts in their energy production. Germany, for example, has shifted much of their energy production to wind and solar, and residents are paying three times the US average for power.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany for example has the potential capacity of being fully off-grid (solar and wind only) with the amount of capacity they built. Their actual energy consumption from renewables only rose a few percentage points because apparently peak capacity at which point they have to pay people (effectively tax funded donations to energy companies) to buy energy on the open market only occurs 2-3 days per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany does NOT have the capacity to be fully off grid on a cold, calm night.
They may have enough *capacity* on paper to handle their peak load (and then some) but unless the wind blows and the sun shines when you need it too, there will be gluts and shortages compared to demand. *Most* (not all) renewables cannot be scheduled in advance. You cannot call up the wind farm operator and say "We will need you at 100% capacity from noon though 8 PM" on Wednesday and hope to have them say "Sure, we can do tha
Re: (Score:2)
Germany does NOT have the capacity to be fully off grid on a cold, calm night.
At night power consumption is around 40% - 50% of the day peak - facepalm.
They don't know if the wind will be blowing fast enough ...
Wind forecasts are extremely reliable
This is why they only schedule renewables to be within 20-40% of forecasted available power, and keep considerable surplus capacity from non-renewables online.
You are an idiot. Wind and solar is not "scheduled". However it is planned exactly like the forecast prog
Re: (Score:2)
At least they can be a cautionary tale for the other states when Virginia sees goal 3 get blown out of the water, looking at the results from countries that have made large shifts in their energy production. Germany, for example, has shifted much of their energy production to wind and solar, and residents are paying three times the US average for power.
The goal to keep costs low can be kept if the goal to expand offshore wind and rooftop solar is ignored. Onshore wind, hydro, nuclear, and geothermal are competitive with natural gas and coal. Goals 3 and 4 are simply incompatible, they can keep costs low but not if they use rooftop solar, offshore wind, and energy storage.
Re: (Score:2)
But my goal for renewables is rooftop solar. There are goals beyond "efficiency". In this case, my goal is independence and reliability.
Re: (Score:2)
and residents are paying three times the US average for power.
Per kW/h, not on the bill. Our bills are less than half than yours as we invested into power saving a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so they're doing nothing then.
It's all PR.
Governor Northam (aka Governor Coonman) went full tilt liberal agenda when the photo of him in blackface came out. He should have resigned immediately instead. So, yeah, this is a great way to look 'green' without actually doing anything.
What does doing something look like? (Re:2050?) (Score:2)
Ah, so they're doing nothing then.
Precisely. Politicians doing something about carbon emissions from energy would involve taking a look at how various energy sources rank on costs and CO2 output, picking the best of them, and then setting goals to put them into service within their term in office.
What's the top five energy sources in lowest CO2 emissions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Those would be onshore wind, offshore wind, nuclear, hydro, and tidal/wave power. The various forms of solar power isn't all that great in comparison to
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so they're doing nothing then.
Yep. Setting goals and planning for the future is definitely nothing. It's not how any organization has ever accomplished anything.
We all know that god moves in mysterious ways. We need to just keep doing what we're doing, and wait for him to step in and intervene.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. With current price progression, you'd have to be a complete fool to invest in future fossil fuel prices in 2020. The cost of renewables has already crossed the threshold of being cheaper than fossil fuels, and is in a predictable steady decline.
But, think of the virtue signalling value of making this declaration.
Just a bunch of useless (Score:1)
In Virginia the inmates are running the asylum.
Just my 2 cents
Ambitious, but flawed (Score:2)
By 2050? (Score:3)
Hey, if I was a politician I'd sign that without thinking twice. Given the average age of the US politician, he is certainly no longer in office by then. Hell, it's half a miracle if he's still alive.
Why do you think they don't give a fuck about global warming? It's gonna hit us long after they're out of office and most likely worm food.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if I was a politician I'd sign that without thinking twice. Given the average age of the US politician, he is certainly no longer in office by then. Hell, it's half a miracle if he's still alive.
Why do you think they don't give a fuck about global warming? It's gonna hit us long after they're out of office and most likely worm food.
Exactly. Any promise from a politician that has a delivery date beyond their term in office is meaningless. No law, executive order, or regulation, can impose obligations on some future holders of that office.
When JFK made his "We choose to go to the Moon" speech in 1962 people believed him. That's because he was sworn in as POTUS in 1961 and he set a date as "by the end of this decade". If re-elected then he'd still be POTUS in January 1969. That gave him 7 years as POTUS to get the ball rolling for a
Re: (Score:2)
No law, executive order, or regulation, can impose obligations on some future holders of that office.
No it can't, but it's one thing to sign a law in favour of something the general public think it's a good idea, and quite another to revoke it. There's a reason gay marriage hasn't been revoked in any country despite countries having changed political parties often at some point to the conservatives who are generally against it. Doing so is a political death sentence.
It's one thing to say "We'll do something positive by 2050" Quite another thing to come into power and say "Fuck your positivism."
Oh except fo
Re: (Score:2)
No it can't, but it's one thing to sign a law in favour of something the general public think it's a good idea, and quite another to revoke it.
This executive order is not a good idea. Take a look at two of the stated goals.
Keep power costs low and protect vulnerable and low-income communities.
Build rooftop solar, offshore wind, and power storage.
Relying on rooftop solar and offshore wind to lower CO2 emissions will not keep energy costs low. Look at how much they cost compared to other energy sources.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/asset... [www.ipcc.ch]
Rooftop solar and offshore wind could cost double that of other low CO2 sources like onshore wind, hydro, nuclear, and geothermal. Given current costs of these energy sources it is quite possible to have a mix of them that can keep costs
Join the RGGI and develop a cap-and-trade system (Score:3, Informative)
So whats the RGGI? Effectively it's a tax which generates a bunch of revenue that states can then distribute.
What politician wouldn't love it?
From Wikipedia:
RGGI establishes a regional cap on the amount of CO2 pollution that power plants can emit by issuing a limited number of tradable CO2 allowances. Each allowance represents an authorization for a regulated power plant to emit one short ton of CO2. Individual CO2 budget trading programs in each RGGI state together create a regional market for CO2 allowances.[3]
The RGGI states distribute over 90 percent of allowances through quarterly auctions.[4] These allowance auctions generate proceeds, which participating states are able to invest in strategic energy and consumer benefit programs. Programs funded through RGGI have included energy efficiency, clean and renewable energy, greenhouse gas abatement, and direct bill assistance.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like yet another end-around state sovereignty.....
I thought the Federal govt was supposed to be this conduit for stuff like this....at a limited level?
Wait, what?? (Score:2)
Virginia has become the first among the Southern US states to...
When did Virginia become a southern state?
Re: (Score:3)
Virginia has become the first among the Southern US states to...
When did Virginia become a southern state?
That's a strange question to ask about the state that 90% of the Civil War was fought in and contained the South's capitol for the majority of its national existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"The civil war was over 150 years ago. Things change."
Bingo. Virginia is a "Mid Atlantic" state, not really a "Southern" state. Has been that way for many, many years. I have rarely ever seen modern demographics mappings of any type label Virginia as "south" or "southern."
Re: (Score:2)
LOL @ this question
Re: (Score:2)
Is that black face, KKK wizard or post birth abortionist?
Yes.
Re: (Score:1)
Leftist scums don't like reality.
Political nonsense (Score:2)
Goals are cheap, especially goals 30 years out. This is just political grandstanding. It must be an election year...
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Virginia is doing something right. That should be the rule for every office in the land.
Mixed goals, and a prediction (Score:3)
1. Join the RGGI and develop a cap-and-trade system.
Will happen ASAP, because it is a tax which generates new revenue they can spend.
2. Achieve 100 percent clean energy by 2050.
Could happen, anything is possible 30 years out
3. Keep power costs low and protect vulnerable and low-income communities.
Joining the RGGI raises energy costs which adversely impacts the vulnerable and low income communities
4. Build rooftop solar, offshore wind, and power storage.
Wow, so forward thinking. I wonder why no one has thought of this.
Re: (Score:2)
4. Build rooftop solar, offshore wind, and power storage.
Wow, so forward thinking. I wonder why no one has thought of this.
People have obviously thought of this. The people that looked into it should have rejected this idea.
Did the authors of this order look at the costs of rooftop solar and offshore wind? This governor obviously didn't before signing it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/asset... [www.ipcc.ch]
Rooftop solar costs more than double that of hydro, onshore wind, nuclear, and geothermal. Offshore wind is just short of what rooftop solar costs. Further down in that document I linked to will show that rooftop solar produces double the CO
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea why you always argue about stuff you have no clue about. ...
My roof top has perhaps 200 square meters. Arguable one half mostly points to the north and only has direct sun in summer in the late morning and late evening
Which hydro plant can I put on my roof? Oh ...
Re: (Score:2)
You have gutters, don't you? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at Virginia, though? A large portion of their population lives in remote areas with very poor power distribution. When you're comparing those costs, you should not leave out the need to pipe that power out to the people that need it. Rooftop solar is a good solution for those remote areas.
Let's see what happens (Score:2)
A news broadcast from the future.... (Score:2)
I wish them luck (Score:1)
It would be great if this is possible and if they can pull it off, however I'm glad it's their state and not mine because it could be disastrous if they're wrong.
LK
The goals don't match the planned implementation (Score:2)
If the goal is to lower CO2 then it would be most logical to place support behind energy sources shown to have the lowest CO2 output. If the goal is to keep costs low then it would be logical to choose the lowest cost sources. What's the plan again?
1. Join the RGGI and develop a cap-and-trade system. The states that are already using similar strategies and that are a part of the RGGI have experienced healthy economic effects overall. Moreover, the hope is that the addition of Virginia to a heavily supplied market will only boost competition. This is meant to drive the clean energy transition forward even faster.
2. Achieve 100 percent clean energy by 2050.
3. Keep power costs low and protect vulnerable and low-income communities.
4. Build rooftop solar, offshore wind, and power storage.
How do various energy sources rank in CO2 emissions? Let's see what the IPCC says. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/asset... [www.ipcc.ch]
The top three are so close it's difficult to rank them definitively. Those are nuclear, onshore wind, and offshore wind. Fourth is hydropower
2050... (Score:1)
Now that's just fuckin lazy. Anyone can declare anything to happen in 30 fuckin years. Cold fusion? Base on mars? Interstellar flight? A legitimate government? You name it.
How about: By this time *next year*?
Yeah, stop making excuses. Fuck the daily grind. If everyone helps, it's done as fast as the base minerals can be dug up and disrributed.
Re: (Score:2)
For which you're going to need geologists. And also, places to establish those mines. Obviously that's not going to be in American's back yards - because they'll all get voted down. So they'll have to be abroad.
At which point, you're going to discover that China has been signing development contracts world wide while America has been dreaming of their former hegemony. And boom - America has got nowhere to go for the res
2050 headline (Score:2)
VA one of the first southern states to fail to meet its decades-old pledge to be carbon-free by 2050.
How are the Kyoto/Copenhagen/Paris promises going for other countries, again? What's the number of countries that have met their commitments?
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I almost guarantee they'll make the goal, but this proclamation won't have a damn thing to do with it. The price of solar is in steady decline.
Anyone can dream (Score:1)
"Occupied Virginia" (Score:2)
What's happened is that Northern Virginia, sometimes referred to as "occupied Virginia" has steadily expanded in population and geographic reach. This has turned VA from "red" to "purple" and perhaps will eventually make it solid "blue". When I was a teenager, Prince William County was totally redneck. I've moved away for quite some time, so I don't know what it's like now but I'm guessing NoVA has expanded quite a bit. It was always like Westward Expansion 2.0 in NoVA. I grew up watching our two-lane