Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

76
I think the rooftop solar thing is the smartest thing CA has done in years. They have added 490 MW to the grid without a single lawsuit or environmental impact study; freaking brilliant. Nevada, who has nothing but sun and wide open spaces allowed NV energy to kill the rooftop solar market…freaking brilliant…NOT!!

The great thing about rooftop solar is it most effective during peak hours, and for more than half of those peak hours, people are at work, so most is going to the grid.

I still think there is a real need for 3rd gen nuclear for baseload power, and I think that need will exist until the electricity storage thing has been cracked…once that happens, fossil fuels are done.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

77
FrontSight wrote:I still think there is a real need for 3rd gen nuclear
The problem seen at Fukushima was the diesel fuel for the back up generators was stored above ground, so the tsunami could wash it away. By now everyone should have seen the pictures of the orange blob of melted fuel, resulting from the lack of cooling.

Article w/ pics

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... clear-fuel

California has regs requiring the back up gen fuel to be stored below ground.

Electricity generated by current nuke plants is pretty safe. But there's a bigger picture than just nukes. Back up cooling. It is unfortunate that we have to learn the hard way.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

78
CDFingers wrote:
FrontSight wrote:I still think there is a real need for 3rd gen nuclear
The problem seen at Fukushima was the diesel fuel for the back up generators was stored above ground, so the tsunami could wash it away. By now everyone should have seen the pictures of the orange blob of melted fuel, resulting from the lack of cooling.

Article w/ pics

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... clear-fuel

California has regs requiring the back up gen fuel to be stored below ground.

Electricity generated by current nuke plants is pretty safe. But there's a bigger picture than just nukes. Back up cooling. It is unfortunate that we have to learn the hard way.

CDFingers
Back in the ‘70’s in the US we recognized that backup generators were a single point of failure (post-3 mile island). So all US reactors were modified to pump water via gravity, or through convection as a last line of defense. Fukushima was warned that they should convert their plant to the same system, and they didn’t think the risk was great enough to warrant the cost…whoops!!!!

And Fukushima isn’t a 3rd generation reactor, it’s an early Gen II.

After GW Bush’s Energy Policy Act of 2005 & 2007, the US is now building nuke plants again. There are currently four Gen 3.5 plants under construction in the US. (Southern Company's Vogtle plant in GA, and two at South Carolina Electric, near Jenkinsville, South Carolina.) all of which have the latest in passive cooling systems. Gen 3 & 3.5 plants are much safer than Gen 1 & 2 plants, and they’re more efficient by orders of magnitude.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

79
FrontSight wrote:
CDFingers wrote:
FrontSight wrote:I still think there is a real need for 3rd gen nuclear
The problem seen at Fukushima was the diesel fuel for the back up generators was stored above ground, so the tsunami could wash it away. By now everyone should have seen the pictures of the orange blob of melted fuel, resulting from the lack of cooling.

Article w/ pics

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... clear-fuel

California has regs requiring the back up gen fuel to be stored below ground.

Electricity generated by current nuke plants is pretty safe. But there's a bigger picture than just nukes. Back up cooling. It is unfortunate that we have to learn the hard way.

CDFingers
Back in the ‘70’s in the US we recognized that backup generators were a single point of failure (post-3 mile island). So all US reactors were modified to pump water via gravity, or through convection as a last line of defense. Fukushima was warned that they should convert their plant to the same system, and they didn’t think the risk was great enough to warrant the cost…whoops!!!!

And Fukushima isn’t a 3rd generation reactor, it’s an early Gen II.

After GW Bush’s Energy Policy Act of 2005 & 2007, the US is now building nuke plants again. There are currently four Gen 3.5 plants under construction in the US. (Southern Company's Vogtle plant in GA, and two at South Carolina Electric, near Jenkinsville, South Carolina.) all of which have the latest in passive cooling systems. Gen 3 & 3.5 plants are much safer than Gen 1 & 2 plants, and they’re more efficient by orders of magnitude.
Unfortunately, they're also going to generate the most expensive electricity available on the market, after receiving huge public subsidies, and with the taxpayer as the first group to lose their money if the project dies.

Nuclear generation has the same problems it's had, though. The fuel cycle is hugely energy and carbon intensive and leaves dead people and poisoned water in its wake. The waste stream has to be maintained for hundreds of thousands of years. And in our post-climate change world with increased rates of severe problems the safety record of plants with or without passive cooling is going down.

The good news is that we don't need any nukes at all. The perception that we need it for base load generation is a myth. The perception that we need to spend the money for this supposedly low-carbon generation is also a myth. In the time it takes for the approval process to flow, we can plant enough wind and solar to completely replace the nuke plant. We can replace it a second time with wind and solar in the time it takes to actually build the plant. Inevitable delays means we can replace the plant 3 or 4 times over.

The final nail in the nuclear coffin is that we don't have enough available uranium on the planet to refuel a bunch of new nuke plants. If we use them to help us get off fossil fuels, we'll spend tons of money and raw materials on plants that can no longer be fueled when it's most important that we be off fossils for good.

Maybe there will be fringe cases for molten salt and/or thorium reactors, provided we get some that work and get them licensed. That's a couple of big ifs, though.

https://climatecrocks.com/2011/11/02/lo ... advantage/

https://www.rmi.org/about/news-and-pres ... emissions/
July 20, 2017, Basalt, Colorado – New analysis from Amory B. Lovins debunks the notion that highly unprofitable, economically distressed nuclear plants should be further subsi­dized to meet financial, security, reliability and climate goals. The analysis, which will appear shortly in The Electricity Journal, shows that closing costly-to-run nuclear plants and reinvesting their saved operating costs in energy efficiency provides cheaper elec­tricity, increases grid reliability and security, reduces more carbon, and preserves (not distorts) market integrity—all without subsidies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1510008645
http://pubs.rsc.org/-/content/articlela ... ivAbstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4214006343

https://skepticalscience.com/renewable- ... -power.htm
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/02/ba ... -industry/
But according to Tim Buckley, from the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the idea of “base load” generation as an essential part of the energy mix is becoming redundant, and turning into a myth dreamed up by the fossil fuel industry to protect its interests.

“It’s as dangerous as the marketing term of “clean coal” and the idea that coal is “good for humanity”,” Buckley says.

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

80
pokute wrote:I recommend taking some chemistry and physics classes at your local community college, while there still are community colleges, before all their funding goes into subsidizing Elon Musk's harebrained schemes.
Just now read this. Musk is not only a beaver effluent but also the pied piper for a generation of glassy-eyed sriracha swillers who believe that tunnels under LA and colonies on Mars are worthy of serious discussion. Let's fix the shit we got instead of abandoning it for the never-to-be.

Give him kudos where due, but let's be wary of the hype.
Remember kids; "Don't be evil"

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

81
And this just about kills any plans for a nuclear renaissance in the US.

SC nuclear project abandoned after 40% complete...cost the utility $9 billion already...total project doubled in price to more than $25 billion. "In March, faced with mounting losses at its nuclear endeavors in South Carolina and Georgia, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/clim ... olina.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... b3cce80a87

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

82
^^^ That's relatively good news, isn't it?

Many of my friends around the world are Greenpeace type activists, strongly anti-nukes and for good reason. The "common" perception that nuclear energy is safe and affordable has given way to the knowledge of its dangers and high potential for radiation pollution. The industry to this point has been designed around The Bomb. A shame since a test facility for Thorium (salt) reactors was already built and running at the Oak Ridge Laboratory when the US military weighed in and "convinced" Congress to fund uranium reactors to generate more fuel for weapons (salt as fuel doesn't make for a very impressive bomb).

Work is ongoing throughout the world (Europe, China) for inherently safe Thorium reactor designs and I suspect a working reactor is not too far off in the future. But if we could meet all the world's energy needs via renewables (wind, solar, and the less desirable hydro-dams on river eco-systems) then so much the better.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

83
Bisbee wrote:^^^ That's relatively good news, isn't it?
I think it is.
Bisbee wrote: But if we could meet all the world's energy needs via renewables (wind, solar, and the less desirable hydro-dams on river eco-systems) then so much the better.
Hydro's getting sketchier with climate change as the water cycle's the first thing disrupted. The rest, tho, is booming. We still need tons of efficiency, tho. The days of 100 units of energy out after expending 1 unit are over.

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

85
CA want to go all renewable by 2045.
With regards to energy, California and Texas have many similarities. Both are large oil and gas and renewable energy producing states. Both rely heavily on the energy industry for their economy and both are large, populous states. However, there is certainly a differing mentality in how each state views the traditional oil and gas industry.

If, and likely when, California passes into law 100 percent renewables by 2045 we will see the continuation of a global energy transition. Both California and Texas fully recognize the energy transition yet appear to be motivated differently. California is motivated by a cleaner environment and lessening the impacts of climate change. Whereas Texas is motivated capitalistically in seeing renewable energy and the energy transition as an economic opportunity.

Motivation aside, the coming decades will present an incredible match between two energy powerhouses. And the winner, you and I.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace ... adaf07570f

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

86
California is importing more solar tech than we manufacture. However, this still results in various net-gains for the state. There are object lessons to be learned here.
Speaking of jobs, and money, and the best interests of the nation-state – How California’s climate policies created an economic boon – California’s Inland Empire, Riverside and San Bernardino counties experienced a net benefit of $9.1 billion in direct economic activity and 41,000 jobs from 2010 through 2016.When accounting for the spillover effects, that state climate policies resulted in a total of $14.2 billion in economic activity and more than 73,000 jobs for the region during the same seven years. The best part of this short article, which is a summary of a large economic analysis, is how they look at the costs/benefits of individual programs across California. Another point – these jobs numbers in italics above, were for just one region of California. California is much bigger than the Inland Empire alone. And the US is much bigger than California. With that – it seems very clear that the USA, via strategic investments just like China, is able to benefit many areas of the economy – maybe not solar panel manufacturing, but the wholesale upgrade of our power grid is more important.
Image


https://electrek.co/2017/08/11/egeb-sun ... olar-more/

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

87
The two graphs above always remind me of the fact that the fossil fuel industry heavily lobby state and federal governments to keep externalizing the costs of burning their products for energy. CA lead the way to force accounting for the cost of pollutants into the atmosphere when cleaner burning technology was developed to scrub the exhaust when burning. But it is a tremendous lack of imagination or foresight to continue to externalize the cost of carbon emissions... as most intelligent people are waking up to now.

True leaders and visionaries today are not looking at the cost curve of fossil fuels as they currently exist and wringing their hands to justify the "higher" costs of renewable energy generation plants/tech. I believe that the majority of political leaders in the US are starting to move in the direction of Europe and China, countries which have committed to a future of sustainable energy production because the true economics of energy lay in a resource that is not inherently finite.

This future of 100% cheap renewable carbon-free energy has the potential for transforming the world in terms of each individual nations' economics, inhibiting global warming, and easing tensions in international relations over resources.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

88
With respect to the OP's article, just anecdotally, I have been out to he Mohave Desert recently and saw two large solar farms and one wind farm. While the turbines were happily spinning I was surprised to see the mirrors of both solar farms I visited turned downward. It was early afternoon when I was there and no strong winds to justify non-operation. The only thing I could think of was overproduction of electricity in the grid.

Southern California Edison is ending its a/c "auto-shut-off" savings program at the end of the year for my parent's house. California no longer faces an energy shortage and in fact appears to enjoy a surplus of electricity generation capacity. So I suspect it is entirely possible for CA to move immediately to renewable energy except for the politics of keeping the one coal, one nuclear, and three dozen gas-fired plants operational.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

89
The last PV I purchased, about 6 years ago, cost me $0.77/Watt delivered from Miami, and they were B grade panels with a 25 year warranty from the Evergreen Solar bankruptcy auction. Current pricing for A grade is down to $0.29/Watt.

http://sunelec.com/revisedsolarpanels.pdf

Mid-2015, Austin Energy contracted for PV at less than $0.04/KWh - that's at the chart's $40/MWh point projected for 2030. Does the establishment always miss revolutions, or just most of the time? :lol:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... s-for-less
https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2 ... in-energy/
Image

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

90
https://climatecrocks.com/2017/08/22/so ... ipse-test/
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/bus ... story.html
Solar Energy Passes Eclipse Test
“We didn’t have any major challenges on the system, even minor challenges,” said Eric Schmitt, CAISO vice president of operations. “We are very pleased about how smoothly it went … All the resources performed the way they were supposed to perform, our planning was excellent (and) the market performed well.”

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

92
AndyH wrote:The good news is that we don't need any nukes at all. The perception that we need it for base load generation is a myth. The perception that we need to spend the money for this supposedly low-carbon generation is also a myth. In the time it takes for the approval process to flow, we can plant enough wind and solar to completely replace the nuke plant. We can replace it a second time with wind and solar in the time it takes to actually build the plant. Inevitable delays means we can replace the plant 3 or 4 times over.
Wind and solar are not yet reliable base load technologies.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

93
FrontSight wrote:
AndyH wrote:The good news is that we don't need any nukes at all. The perception that we need it for base load generation is a myth. The perception that we need to spend the money for this supposedly low-carbon generation is also a myth. In the time it takes for the approval process to flow, we can plant enough wind and solar to completely replace the nuke plant. We can replace it a second time with wind and solar in the time it takes to actually build the plant. Inevitable delays means we can replace the plant 3 or 4 times over.
Wind and solar are not yet reliable base load technologies.
I've provided sources that demonstrate that the need for something called 'baseload' is false, and that wind and solar are more than adequate to supply 100% of not only our electricity but 100% of ALL required energy - hot water, building heat, electricity, transportation, and industrial scale process heat.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/renewa ... -power.htm

You might enjoy grabbing a copy of RMI's book "Reinventing Fire" for a seriously nerd-level deep dive into the 'hows' and 'whys.' I also highly recommend Jeremy Rifkin's "Third Industrial Revolution" for a 'big picture' view of exactly what Germany, the EU as a whole, and China are doing to provide 100% of energy with wind, solar, and storage in the form of hydrogen. Finally, The Solutions Project is based on the work done by Dr. Mark Jacobson - they have plenty of peer-reviewed work that shows we can do 100% of what we need with wind, water, and solar. There are 50 state plans listed as well as a national overview. Those are the three leading programs being deployed in the world today, from completely independent groups, that arrived at the same conclusion.

If you have anything that refutes Skeptical Science, RMI, TIR, or Jacobson's work, I would very much like to read it. Thanks.

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

96
AndyH wrote:
FrontSight wrote:
AndyH wrote:The good news is that we don't need any nukes at all. The perception that we need it for base load generation is a myth. The perception that we need to spend the money for this supposedly low-carbon generation is also a myth. In the time it takes for the approval process to flow, we can plant enough wind and solar to completely replace the nuke plant. We can replace it a second time with wind and solar in the time it takes to actually build the plant. Inevitable delays means we can replace the plant 3 or 4 times over.
Wind and solar are not yet reliable base load technologies.
I've provided sources that demonstrate that the need for something called 'baseload' is false, and that wind and solar are more than adequate to supply 100% of not only our electricity but 100% of ALL required energy - hot water, building heat, electricity, transportation, and industrial scale process heat.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/renewa ... -power.htm

You might enjoy grabbing a copy of RMI's book "Reinventing Fire" for a seriously nerd-level deep dive into the 'hows' and 'whys.' I also highly recommend Jeremy Rifkin's "Third Industrial Revolution" for a 'big picture' view of exactly what Germany, the EU as a whole, and China are doing to provide 100% of energy with wind, solar, and storage in the form of hydrogen. Finally, The Solutions Project is based on the work done by Dr. Mark Jacobson - they have plenty of peer-reviewed work that shows we can do 100% of what we need with wind, water, and solar. There are 50 state plans listed as well as a national overview. Those are the three leading programs being deployed in the world today, from completely independent groups, that arrived at the same conclusion.

If you have anything that refutes Skeptical Science, RMI, TIR, or Jacobson's work, I would very much like to read it. Thanks.
Your article says baseload isn’t needed, and then starts right in about the need for baseload power. You have to have baseload power to support a modern city. Your article just gives different ways of getting there; but it recognizes the need. Wind and solar ALONE (which was your claim) currently will not get you there. You are talking about further research that can get us there; I get that, and agree. But TODAY those two technologies are not there. THAT was my point.

But to your point, you get there by exploiting all renewable energy sources, not just wind and solar.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

97
FrontSight wrote:Your article says baseload isn’t needed, and then starts right in about the need for baseload power. You have to have baseload power to support a modern city. Your article just gives different ways of getting there; but it recognizes the need. Wind and solar ALONE (which was your claim) currently will not get you there. You are talking about further research that can get us there; I get that, and agree. But TODAY those two technologies are not there. THAT was my point.

But to your point, you get there by exploiting all renewable energy sources, not just wind and solar.
"My article"? I assume you're talking about the Skeptical Science link? The SS pieces were written through the paradigm of the fossil fuel industry in order to communicate with folks that have accepted that worldview. The SS link is about the myth that renewables can't provide 24/7 energy and no more. That's why I keep suggesting going straight to Reinventing Fire, The Third Industrial Revolution, and Jacobson's work.

Isolating a thin slice of the demand curve, calling it 'base load' and then declaring that renewables can't provide it is choosing to view the problem through the lens of the traditional generation system. That it's also a propaganda tool used by fossil fuel power providers to smear 'variable' renewables is useful for fossils and nukes but not us.

Wind and solar alone are all the energy collection needed. It's actually not 'my' claim (I'm just reporting what is), and none of this is about further research. Please do avail yourself of the other sources - I think you'll agree that we have everything we need right now.

ETA... Just hit this as a start. It's from Jacobson's work and is 100% wind, water, and solar for the US.
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jaco ... tesWWS.pdf
jacobson_US.jpg
wwsca.jpg
http://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-energy/
/ETA
“The only hurdle to overcome is ‘mindset’,” Liu said. “There’s no technical challenge at all.” **
You might enjoy this as a prereq to Reinventing Fire.


https://youtu.be/AQ217DvU5WY

Then this:


https://youtu.be/bANPXjN9mOA

Finally, for Reinventing Fire, this:


https://youtu.be/U_EKZvb7gc8

Please note that Reinventing Fire retains a small percentage of gas-fired turbines. Those can be run from biomethane and thus renewable and fossil-free, but it's still combustion. Jacobson's work is Wind, water (hydro, tidal turbines, etc.), and solar with no significant storage beyond that provided by solar/thermal and EVs. The TIR is solar, wind, and storing excess generation in the form of hydrogen.

"Baseload"...
https://climatecrocks.com/2016/03/07/ba ... sil-fools/
The “base load” mindset, though, is a pretty big and powerful hurdle. Across the world it infests incumbent utilities, the coal and nuclear lobbies, conservative politicians, energy regulators, and many in mainstream media, who are clinging to the concept of “base load generation” as the last resort to try to ridicule wind, solar and other technologies.
**https://www.aiche.org/chenected/2016/03 ... r-ceraweek

( I tend to overload sources and background. Sorry. Unfortunately this is going to take reading a couple of books and investing 5-10 hours of videos and papers. A few back and forth posts on the interwebz isn't enough. :()

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

98
Hot links within quotes at link:
Californian scientists said a fossil fuel phase-out is achievable that would contain climate change, deliver energy entirely from wind, water and sunlight to 139 nations, and save up to 7 million lives each year.

They said it would also create a net gain of 24 million long-term jobs, all by 2050, and at the same time limit global warming to 1.5°C or less.
>snerpz<
According to their roadmaps, 139 nations could be 80 percent complete by 2030 and entirely committed to renewable sources by 2050. Jobs lost in the coal and petroleum industries would be more than compensated for by growth in the renewable sectors, and in the end, there would be more than 24 million new jobs worldwide.

Energy prices would become stable, because fuel would arrive for free: there would be less risk of disruption to energy supplies because sources would be decentralized. And energy efficiency savings that go with electrification overall could reduce "business-as-usual" demand by an estimated 42.5 percent.
>snerpz<
The Stanford team wants to see what could be called a clean break with the past. Space shuttles and rockets have already been powered by hydrogen, aircraft companies are exploring the possibility of electric flight; underground heat storage—to cope with fluctuating demand—would be a viable option, and shared or "district" heating already keeps 60 percent of Denmark warm.

The switch to renewables would require massive investment, but the overall cost would be one fourth of what fossil fuel dependency already costs the world.
>last snerpz: read the article<
"Our findings suggest that the benefits are so great that we should accelerate the transition to wind, water, and solar, as fast as possible, by retiring fossil-fuel systems early wherever we can."
https://www.ecowatch.com/jacobson-stanf ... 30081.html

This kind of research and speculation is important to counter various other narratives. In the mean time, eat less meat. :albert:

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

99
Earlier someone linked to Chinese Investors backing a project for renewable energy farm in coal country to help offset the job losses there while moving toward the future. What the coal minder's are being fed is a narrative of fighting with tooth & nail to hang onto a model that is dying according to all the metrics (scientists, economists, policy-makers) which only benefits conservative politicians. That is the definition of regressive conservatism, isn't it? And the politicians who seek election based on unachievable promises ("Your coal jobs will come back! You'll be working so bigly..."). And yet it's precisely the writing off of fearful unemployed/under-employed in our country that has allowed the liars to profit in this atmosphere of anxiety. Did Hillary say anything to them to point in a different direction for a better future? -No. Whatever Bernie said to change the narrative in coal country was immediately dashed when he was burned by the DNC.

There is power in true leadership and connecting with people's hopes and fears. Too bad the Dems are squandering it by playing a poll-numbers game instead.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: CA made 67% of our power from renewables

100
California thinks about this:
Lawmakers in California will likely be voting on a revolutionary measure for the production of energy in the state. Senate Bill 100 boosts the 2030 goal from 50 percent to 60 percent clean energy generation and calls for a completely clean grid by 2045. The bill passed in California’s state Senate back in May and needs confirming votes from the lower legislative house before the bill will be sent to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown for ratification.

Experts are applauding the ambitious bill, but acknowledge the challenges the legislation will pose. “It’s doable,” said Mike O’Boyle, who studies the power sector at Energy Innovation, a think tank in San Francisco, in the LA Times. “But because we don’t really have a working example for a 100% renewable system, it’s going to be an ongoing experiment.”

--snerp--

This is an ambitious and admirable goal for a state, but could also start a wave of cooperation across the entire nation. California would likely need wind power from Wyoming on cloudy days, and Wyoming could very well benefit from the necessary infrastructure. This would ideally cause a chain reaction leading to a nation of green cooperation, from sea to shining sea.
https://futurism.com/california-is-cons ... fuel-free/

TL;DR: Thinking and writing about renewables propels action in others.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bisbee and 3 guests