Calif. wants third of its power renewable by 2020

AP via SFGate ^ | 9/23/10 | JASON DEAREN, Associated Press Writer

[SmithL]

San Francisco (AP) The state with some of the nation's most ambitious clean energy standards went even further Thursday: Regulators approved new regulations requiring utilities to draw a third of their power from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal in 10 years.

California already is pushing utilities to reach a 20-percent-renewable standard by next year, which has been a struggle to accomplish. Toughening the rules could prompt regulators across the country to do the same, but some consumers fret that they will end up paying for the changes in the form of higher utility bills.

. . .

At a time when nearly one-eighth of the state's work force is jobless, some want California to dial back, not bolster, its leading-edge air pollution rules.

[rahbert]

nucular energy.

[JPG]

You want a pony? OK, but only if you're an illegal.

[Stosh]

If they can harness the thermal energy of whatever the hell they’re smokin’, maybe they can pull it off; otherwise, they’re looking at a pipe-dream (or maybe I should say a bong-dream).

But I’d love to see them try - it will provide great amusement for the rest of the country, and free up a fair bit of fossil fuels I’ll be happy to use at the correspondingly lower price.

[Eldon Tyrell]

Not true at all.

Solar power is borderline reasonable for SoCal.

Requires approx 50-70% investment credit to break even.

As regulations such as this take effect, cost of energy goes up - break even for solar comes down.

Solar power in SW US is a cost/benefit problem - not a technical feasibility problem. Except for the giant batteries they will need when the sun goes down - but again - peak solar matches peak AC demand - so SoCal is not that weird a place for Solar.

Summary - it isn’t stupid - just innefficient.

[Mariner]

Meg Whitman would be, like, totally cool with this.

She prefers Environmentalism over jobs, quality of life andgeneral economic sanity.

I',m voting Jerry Bro9wn to hasten the demise.

Whitman is NOT the Alternative.

[reg45]

One third of nothing is easy to attain.

[Almondjoy]

While you are correct the term comes the ability to get energy from things that already exist and don’t have to be transformed in order to create the energy. Hydro dams where the water already runs, the sun whose light is carried to earth everyday, etc etc etc.

Although my Dad told me the other day that oil is looking increasing likely that it is produced deep within the planet’s mantle and forced back into the pockets from which we drilled from. If that’s the case they would probably have to consider it renewable as well.

[Almondjoy]

Although I’ve seen some pretty interesting research that could get solar to the point of natural gas in 10 to 15 years.

[stboz]

(Will the last civilized human being leaving California please turn out the light?)

That will take care of itself.

[BenKenobi]

“consumers fret that they will end up paying for the changes in the form of higher utility bills.”

Wow, ya think.

Unexpected. /sarc.

[OCC]

unless I’m totally missing something here ....

You are not, but they are... a little thing called common sense.

[BWDog]

I am stunned how these "unobtanium" types of things keep on getting ratcheted up despite all the changes in the economy. When there was "spare" money, or at least the perception of it, around, it was somewhat understandable that people would let utopian knuckleheads run amuck with their feel-good silliness.

However, nowadays, it should be apparent that there isn't extra money around. You can't keep on dumping teaspoons of regulatory "sugar" in the gas tank of a economic engine and expect the damned thing to run.

[SkyDancer]

Somewhere the second law of thermodynamics is tickling my brainbox ... it's been a while though .... once energy is converted from one source to another like coal to produce heat to boil water to run a steam engine that produces electricity, that energy from coal can't be recaptured. Same with hydroelectric ... once the energy from water over a dam produces electricity the energy in the water is gone. It would take extra energy to pump it back to the top of the dam to run again but then that takes energy that can't be recovered. Stuff like this makes my head swim ....

So then, what produces the oil in the earth? It seems something out of nothing is producing energy (energy what's trapped in the oil) - so something had to have given up energy to produce it which gave up energy... hmmmm

[SkyDancer]

So when did any politician have any common sense. I think they’re just voted into office so we know where the idiots are and are not running around loose in our streets ....

[Zeppo]

Regulators approved new regulations requiring utilities to draw a third of their power from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal in 10 years.

Those Commies have it all wrong. The Central Committee is supposed to issue Five Year Plans, not Ten Year Plans.

Get with the program, comrades...

[itsahoot]

I saw Burt Rutan at a flyin in, Pittsburg Kansas, nearly 40 years ago, he flew in his Veri Viggan, I was in my 1946 BC 12 D Taylorcraft. I think his brother was a freeper, don’t know if he is still around.

[marsh2]

We have biomass plants in N. CA foundering. Pelosi has some luny on staff that refuses to recognize biomass sourced from fuel thinning on National Forests as renewable energy. Price subsidies go to solar and wind, but not biomass. Biomass is considered the same as natural gas. Region 5 (CA) National Forest is paralyzed by a handful of environmental groups who appeal. Most don’t live in the area or even the state.

Forest biomass is building at a compounded rate. For instance, in 2009 on the Shasta Trinity National Forest, only 12.07 MMBF (million board ft.) was sold. It had a net growth of 459.7 MMBF and an annual mortality of 99.4 MMBF. After twenty years of little harvest, these forests are a fire trap. Forests are supposed to have a maximum of 50 tons per acre of biomass fuels. Conditions are now from 150-250 tons. This is why 250,000 acres were burned in Siskiyou Co. in 2008 and 260,000 acres in Trinity Co. Successive fires reburned in areas were no salvage was done is sterilizing (nuking) the soil and converting landscapes to brush.

The Regional Forester has stated that we need to step up the pace and scale of fuels treatment in CA. The utilization of biomass for energy production provides a market for small diameter material that partially offsets the costs of the treatment.

Biomass is a win/win. These fires are emitting carbon and other pollutants that dwarf vehicle emissions by comparison. Using biomass for energy under controlled conditions with scrubbers reduces emissions and makes use of the fuel in a manner beneficial to communities.

[colonialhk]

Double total cost and it all works out...morons

[Eldon Tyrell]

Except we get electricity from coal and nuke, primarily. Except where gas is cheap.

Dept of Energy has some really good reports on this stuff. Not politicized - straight data. This is just an example - typing then sleeping -

PS - if you have an accurate 10-15 year forecast - I’d love to see it. When it comes down - all depends on it yo uthink electricity production will cost $0.05, $0.10 or $0.15 KW/Hr in 15 years.

I like solar because no moving parts - so makes the long term maintenance $ easy to calculate - this for me kills wind. Solar is really a question of long term cost and amortization rates the panels don’t wear out. and no moving parts.

http://www.energy.gov/energysources/electricpower.htm

[DrewsMum]

Isn’t Alaska already 1/3 renewable?? or close to it?? perhaps palin could show them a thing or 2....