The world is watching California open the way for the development of clean electricit
 

Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that puts California on an ambitious path:
--Using 100% clean electricity by 2045.

The measure also speeds up the renewable target already in place to 50% by 2025 and 60% by 2030.

Put them on the path to having the most expensive energy in the country by far is about all he did.

I thought they already had the most expensive energy in the country.

Perhaps Governor Brown believes a Tesla Powerwall 2 will be $197 at Walmart for Black Friday this year.

I give the Californians credit for taking the lead on this. Unfortunately, I think it is more of the old recklessness (buy now and bill it to your kids) than courage.

I am very pro solar but I don’t think the government should tell you have to install it when you build a house.
CA housing is already crazy prices.

Why do you think it's the most expensive? The price of wind and solar are going down

Because it's still around $1 to $2 per watt to install for name plate rating. The only problem is fixed arrays only produce good power for about 5 hours a day.
Looking at solar for what it actually generates total it's more like 5 times the cost of any other fossil fuel plant.

If solar power is so cheap then surely you can name a very long list of places that use mostly solar power generation and provide cheaper power than what people get from fossil fuel power generation?

In New Mexico prefixture the people's party candidate is running for election here. They are promising a renewable power mandate of 50% by 2030.
New Mexico will achieve 50% clean power on its own, using mostly wind power with out any additional government incentives probably by about 2040.
If the government gets involved to force change they are just going to screw it up.

If solar power is so expensive, why am I getting at least half a dozen solar power plant proposals across my desk at work every year in a state with NO mandate and quota for renewable energy? My state government has even banned the use of the phrase "climate change" and "global warming" (as if speaking the phrase was the cause of the problem??). These aren't DIY homeowner PV arrays, these are 500 acre 75MW zero emission power plants. These PV plants are being built after the power company has already upgraded most every power plant they have to modern NG turbine setups, which given the recent boom in NG production in the USA has made those NG powered systems cheap to run.

Could my power company be gearing up for the next inning in this game where carbon emitters start having to carry some of the cost for their emissions, and a PV array sitting on a former orange grove looks like power to the people without CO2 emissions??

I believe oilpan's assessment is correct at least for now. However as costs associated with panels, storage and installation continue to decrease I expect solar will displace fossil fuels as the main source of electricity at lower prices than current fossil driven plants. I don't expect solar to eliminate fossil fuel use for many years though. Solar is still in its infancy as far as large industries go. There is still a lot of research to be done to reach maximum efficiencies, to make better, less expensive and more reliable electronics and to store the energy produced. Here is a look at the cost trends of utility size solar.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/...r-gets-cheaper

As far as Florida goes. From what I've read over the last few years, the utilities there have done everything they possibly could to keep individuals from installing and owning their own solar including buying government officials and spreading false and misleading information. IIRC the laws were finally changed to make it easier for the individual homeowner to own and install solar. My guess is now that the utilities can't control what the individual does, they are trying to get out in front of what they perceive as a problem and convince the general public that they are really good guys and want the best for them.
A short excerpt from the battle.
"The defeat is a major blow to the state’s largest investor-owned utilities, who poured more than $20 million into the political committee backing the initiative, Consumers for Smart Solar. A handful of other groups, which were also heavily financed by utilities, spent another $6 million promoting the amendment."

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...113449438.html

JJ

Maybe in the 48, but Hawaii has them beat because they are basically importing all of the fossil fuels needed to run their power plants and it is not cheap to float those boats all the way down there. In their case solar plus storage is turning out to significantly reduce their electric generation costs. Over time the natural gas fracking glut will go away and even now most power companies no longer want to deal with coal and are transitioning away from it, so cost factors are likely to change. I don't see fossil fuels becoming a cheaper option over time, but that is the case for renewables, especially at the utility scale.

All good points.

well, in FL it's not cheaper to put in solar, because FP&L hates all things solar.

Easy.
When you need to handle peak load for 4 or 5 hours it's likely cheaper to put in solar panels than it is to build natural gas turbines that are only going to be ran for 4 or 5 hours a day.

HI is a monument to unsustainability. Literally anything would be an improvement over shipping coal or oil 2000 miles to generate power.

They only hate it when regular people have solar.
If they own it they love it.

I'd love to see some numbers to back up that "fact".

California is doing everything they can to make renewable energy go hand in hand with black outs and wild fires.

I think you guys are missing some points here. First, to compare solar, wind etc with fossil fuels you have to base the investment over the lifetime of the generator, such as 20 years to be simple about it. Solar and wind are already at less than $.04/kwh which is cheaper than gas in most places. The big companies have to do this so it is only fair that we do it as well.

Second thing is that we do NOT have 15 years to get out energy house in order. We literally have 10 years before it is too late to reverse it so leaving it to the market alone is not appropriate. The only reason China is leading in nearly every renewable technology is because the govt is forcing them to do it. We have to stop believing the market is the only way.

Thirdly, our idea of cheap power is usually based on coal or gas and they do not add in the environmental factors and cleanup in their numbers. By that measure, solar is cheaper and we should allow for that. We need to understand that perhaps the real, all in, cost of energy is more than what we pay now

It's hard for governments to give up oil and gas because of the revenue streams they provide not just in terms of for the country itself, but also padding their own pocket books. I've read that the fossil fuel industry makes a profit worldwide of about $10,000,000,000 per day. I can't prove that, but it's probably in the ballpark. Who would want to lose that type of money to a new industry? Additionally for those who are able to afford to power their own homes with with renewables, that is revenue that is (at least currently) untaxable.

There are always the people that say something can't be done. Sixty years ago people thought it was impossible to go to the moon until someone said yes we can...and then we did. It is my totally prejudiced opinion that all we need to eliminate the use of most fossil fuels is the person that says yes we can and pushes our country hard in that direction. I also believe that we will never completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels because of how many industries they serve. Almost every computer, car(even if electric), toy, bicycle and device we use today has some plastic in it. Plastic is made almost exclusively from oil and natural gas. Plastics are light weight and pretty durable. Maybe one day someone will figure out a better material to use for our every day lives. OK. Soapbox done.
JJ

The sad truth is everyone was fooled with all this CO2 nonsense while the real destruction from pesticides and other chemicals do real damage among other problems like GMO crops. We have been distracted.

We are at 400ppm CO2, if we go lower then 280ish, all life on earth will end. If anything, we need a bit more CO2.

Don't worry about this CO2 scam. Learn the science and stop using poilitiions and hollywood nut jobs for your knowledge. CO2 has a very small affect on our temperature percentage wise. The sun is what controls our temperature. We are going into a major cooling phase according to NASA as we enter into the next grand solar minimum. Don't be a fool, we need to stop wasting time on the CO2 scam and focus on what is really important like getting rid of Round Up and adjusting our grow zones for the grand solar minimum.

Different fight, same situation on top. Seed saving is outlawed, farmers have to buy seeds from the same company as chemicals. Software has invaded the vehicles, so field repair is costly. Many independent farmers are switching back to old dumb tractors and implements that don't have brain boxes. Most independent farmers have alternate income streams besides farming.

Those farmers need to have the right to repair their tractors.
Just like the did for cars a few years ago.

Thats interesting, maybe they can be retrofitted or hacked. Now the farmers have to deal with the grand solar minimum on top of all their other challenges. They will have to change crops and go to shorter season varieties(less yield)

You all saw 2019. Late frost, cold wet spring; Wet summer flooded midwest; earlier winter up north. Numbers down on all types of crops. Many left in the field which USDA is counting. Yields down, protein content down, grades lower, etc....

We took a big hit in 2019 but the buffer from previous seasons covered it. We need a perfect season next year or food is going to get tight.

Ok so hopefully many of you have been watching the events playing out with utility scale renewable energy in Europe and California the last few years. And the winner is... Nuclear power.

France has solved the climate friendly energy issue by making nuclear power their predominant source. They now enjoy the lowest energy cost, the lowest carbon footprint, and in fact sell excess power to their neighbors. Germany and California are both in trouble in this respect, having leaned on solar and wind energy. Rolling brown and blackouts, paying high energy cost, while actually increasing their collective carbon footprint.

For the religiously skeptical, I would suggest that you watch a show entitled "Pandora's Promise". It's available on Amazon video, so if you're a prime member, it's free. If not, it's worth more than Amazon charges to watch. It really spells out the current state of fervor and fanatical movements in the environmental arena. If a couple bucks is too much, the author has posted a gaggle of utube videos about his journey; his name is Michael Shellenberger.

Very true about nuclear power (or as I like to call it, fossilized supernova fuels)! France & Germany are a great example of unintended consequences. I was very skeptical for a long time, but the more I look into it, the more it makes sense for baseload power (at least until solar and battery technology develops enough to make fossil fuels uncompetitive). What's interesting is that most current reactors are basically designs that work great for nuclear submarines (infinite water cooling, always under pressure) put on land (not such a good idea when your cooling source fails). But what's really exciting is the advanced reactor designs being developed, the Molten Salt Reactor among them, that are far more efficient, way safer and open the possibility of using currently stored nuclear waste as fuel. PBS's Nova had a great documentary about it. Also check out Kirk Sorensen. Titan s of Nuclear is a great podcast if you want to get in-depth with nuclear experts around the world.

I have a family member that does work in containment at a nuke plant here in the US. I hear lots of stories and that is some scary stuff. I use to be pro nuke till after the fuku disaster(which is still on going). We have proven that we are not capable or responsible enough for such a nasty source of energy.

No more nuke please.

Not going to argue about it on here. Like I said, it's been escalated to a religious issue through decades of lobbying, campaigning, and perpetual propaganda and dogma. Progress on American soil is deadlocked at present, but continues abroad. My only hope is that the Federal government will get in front of the used nuclear fuel issue and provide approval of some solutions. I promote recycling and closing the fuel cycle rather than repository disposal. If you do a little homework, the old American processes have been copied and are being refined and revised quite productively now.

The problem I see with all discussion of energy production is that everyone wants more energy, with or without the consequences. Nobody in the public arena is suggesting that we use less energy to begin with.

Improvements in combustion efficiency of fossil fuels hasn't reduced its use. As jet engines improved, plane fares went down, more people started flying. As cars became more efficient, longer commute times became the norm. As home insulation improved, people bought bigger houses. The list goes on.

The public debate is about how best to continue wasting energy. It may satisfy the electorate but it isn't addressing the real problem.

Jimmy Carter was talking about lower energy use 45 years ago. That's why the speed limit was dropped to 55 mph. Every president since then, except the current one, has repeated the same thing. President Obama pushed for EV's, higher efficiency in ICE vehicles, LED light bulbs, and the elimination of incandescent bulbs. Our current leaders seem to think none of those things matter.

Actually as cars became more efficient they also became larger and larger. For a while I had access to a Ford e model van with I think a 351 engine in it. Damn thing was like 18 feet long but still got over 20 mpg on the freeway @ 62 mph. Now you have a ton of 4000 pound vehicles out there that make 300 to 500 horsepower that they never need. Instead of getting 25 to 30 mpg, they get 20 to 25.

JJ

Lots of great info in this thread. To bad 95% of the state has become a s#!thole. As a California native having lived all over that state for many decades I can say this with confidence.

Maybe they should worry less about "clean" energy and work on "cleaning" up the state.

I drove my wife through a few years back and warned her. Every town we drive through, you won't want to get out of the car.

The democrats have ruined it like all the other democrat run citys in America.

Prove me wrong.