Can California Go 100 Percent Green?

[Claire.]

Can California Go 100 Percent Green?

California's Senate leader wants the Golden State to shift to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045, pushing it to lead the country in grabbing that green power goal.

Environmentalists are cheering California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León's (D) plan to double, and accelerate, the state's current renewables mandate of 50 percent by 2050. Oscar-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio even tweeted his thanks to de León among his 17 million followers.

The nation's most populous state switching to fully renewable electricity sounds idealistic. But several experts said it can be done — with a lot depending on definitions, technological advancements and acceptable price tags.

Read more: Scientific American

[.ZZ.]

That's fine with me.

Every single kilowatt of electricity that comes into our house is from wind turbines.

[PersonFromPorlock]

Going 100% Green isn't hard, people in Papua-New Guinea have been doing it forever.

[+and-then]

It's a good goal.  The devil is, as they say, in the details.  So far, the price of fossil fuels makes the cleaner alternatives unattractive.  There are probably some exceptions in certain areas but overall, we're addicted to cheap fuel and it's going to take more than renewables to solve the problem.

[Myles]

17 hours ago, Claire. said:

Can California Go 100 Percent Green?

California's Senate leader wants the Golden State to shift to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045, pushing it to lead the country in grabbing that green power goal.

Environmentalists are cheering California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León's (D) plan to double, and accelerate, the state's current renewables mandate of 50 percent by 2050. Oscar-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio even tweeted his thanks to de León among his 17 million followers.

The nation's most populous state switching to fully renewable electricity sounds idealistic. But several experts said it can be done — with a lot depending on definitions, technological advancements and acceptable price tags.

Read more: Scientific American

If they can do this without too much economic drain, then good for them.   It is an admirable goal.

I do have issue with the "100% Green" part.   Do they not factor in where the wind turbines and equipment are made.   Those huge blades are usually made of carbon-fibre reinforced plastics.  Much of the parts are made in factories using coal plant produced electricity.   roads are made to every one of them.   Birds are killed by them.   

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against wind power, I just dislike the 100% green term.   It comes across as perfection and we all know we can always get better.

[Doug1029]

19 hours ago, and then said:

It's a good goal.  The devil is, as they say, in the details.  So far, the price of fossil fuels makes the cleaner alternatives unattractive.  There are probably some exceptions in certain areas but overall, we're addicted to cheap fuel and it's going to take more than renewables to solve the problem.

If you're talking about building new facilities, then wind is cheaper than anything except geothermal.  Geothermal requires special situations, so is not useable everywhere.  We are slowly converting, but we could do it faster if we had a good power grid.  That's one of Obama's infrastructure projects that got killed by the Trmp administration.  Why?  Because a grid system that would allow power to be quickly shunted from areas where the wind was blowing to areas where it wasn't, would make wind feasible for the entire country, thus breaking the coal monopoly.

So that's what the argument is really all about.  Will coal be allowed to keep its monopoly and overcharge us for electricity?  Or will we let the "free market" operate?

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

If they can do this without too much economic drain, then good for them.   It is an admirable goal.

I do have issue with the "100% Green" part.   Do they not factor in where the wind turbines and equipment are made.   Those huge blades are usually made of carbon-fibre reinforced plastics.  Much of the parts are made in factories using coal plant produced electricity.   roads are made to every one of them.   Birds are killed by them.   

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against wind power, I just dislike the 100% green term.   It comes across as perfection and we all know we can always get better.

Keeping coal-burning plants in operation is a bigger economic drain than wind.  True that most of those turbine factories use coal-fired electricity.  But where do you get wind power when you're building the first wind system?  As soon as wind power is available, the plants can switch over.  Indeed, the switch can be made without their knowledge, just by throwing some switches.  And, yes there are roads to every one of them.  Around here (Oklahoma) they're mostly mud roads.  Just drive through the field a few times and there you have a road.  Birds (and bats) are killed by the blades, but not in the numbers they used to.  Altamonte, one of the first commercial installations, was in a flyway and had fast-turning rotors that were hard to avoid.  Since they started putting in slower-turning rotors, the kill has gone down.  And proper siting will reduce bird kill at future installations.

Doug

[Myles]

14 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Keeping coal-burning plants in operation is a bigger economic drain than wind.  True that most of those turbine factories use coal-fired electricity.  But where do you get wind power when you're building the first wind system?  As soon as wind power is available, the plants can switch over.  Indeed, the switch can be made without their knowledge, just by throwing some switches.  And, yes there are roads to every one of them.  Around here (Oklahoma) they're mostly mud roads.  Just drive through the field a few times and there you have a road.  Birds (and bats) are killed by the blades, but not in the numbers they used to.  Altamonte, one of the first commercial installations, was in a flyway and had fast-turning rotors that were hard to avoid.  Since they started putting in slower-turning rotors, the kill has gone down.  And proper siting will reduce bird kill at future installations.

Doug

That still doesn't make them 100% green.   

That was my point.  

[MWoo7]

evac ALL for a few days(FILM THIS OF COURSE!), remove all Electrical, destroy cars FLATTEN ALL structures, drive them back in,LOUD SPEAKERS, "the very fit shall excel in hunting, your dreams have come true move MOVE! MOOOOOVE ! *echo*  " ""

Edited March 14, 2017 by MWoo7

[travelnjones]

Northern California does something with brush fired turbines does that count?  Scrape wood and dried scrub brush are used.

Does hydro count, people have been saying it doesn't.  I don't get that.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

That still doesn't make them 100% green.   

That was my point.  

Perhaps.  But then, the real world is never 100% anything.  Nevertheless, we can nearly eliminate pollution from power generation and save money doing it.  Other than being ignorant of the situation, or on the coal industry payroll, why wouldn't you support such a thing?

And that is my point.

Doug

[Tatetopa]

Scotland had at least one day in 2016 when wind power produced the equivalent of all energy used in the country.  They invested their North Sea oil bounty wisely.

California is situated to take advantage of solar too and tidal generation when it matures.  One thing is certain, all of those server farms require a lot of power.

[Myles]

15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Perhaps.  But then, the real world is never 100% anything.  Nevertheless, we can nearly eliminate pollution from power generation and save money doing it.  Other than being ignorant of the situation, or on the coal industry payroll, why wouldn't you support such a thing?

And that is my point.

Doug

Read the thread.   I never said I didn't support it.   I said their claim of 100% green is false.  

[Doug1029]

53 minutes ago, Myles said:

Read the thread.   I never said I didn't support it.   I said their claim of 100% green is false.  

My question was supposed to be rhetorical; I didn't mean you personally.  Sorry about that.

Doug

[Myles]

35 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

My question was supposed to be rhetorical; I didn't mean you personally.  Sorry about that.

Doug

No worries.  

I was apprehensive about posting anything negative in this thread because I thought people would view it as me being against the "green" initiative.  

It's just a pet peeve of mine when that 100% figure is used in an invalid way.

Just like in the NFL.   A QB can have a perfect rating if they complete 30 of 32 passes for 4 TD's and 0 interceptions.   Drives me crazy.   That's not perfect.   He missed 2 passes.