California Bans Dirty Power Sources - AP

[Eugene]

California Bans Dirty Power Sources

By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, January 25, 2007

(01-25) 12:29 PST San Francisco (AP) --

California regulators approved rules Thursday banning power companies from buying
electricity from high-polluting sources, including most out-of-state coal-burning
plants.

The rules — aimed at reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global
warming — could have a far-reaching effect on the energy market across the West.

While there are almost no coal-fired plants in California, the nation's most
populous state, about 20 percent of the state's electricity comes from coal plants
in other Western states.

The Public Utilities Commission voted 4-0 to prohibit utilities and other energy
providers from entering into long-term contracts with sources that emit more carbon
dioxide than a modern natural gas plant.

-snip-

Full article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/25/national/a122936S68.DTL

[phantom power]

1. So, as their current contracts expire after Feb 1...

they will have to replace 20% of their energy budget. They appear to have left themselves an out with NG. My prediction is that most of this gets replaced with NG generation.

[NNadir]

2. This is going to be fun.

The operative words here are "long term contracts."

Of course natural gas is not "clean," nor will it ever be so.

California - which gets 33% of its electricity from renewable energy sources, assuming nobody ever wants to see the Hetch Hetchy valley - and things like it - ever again, has to be the world capital of "pretend."

Oh wait. It is.

[Possumpoint]

4. Natural Gas

is a cleaner burning fuel then coal. However it also emits CO2. You want cleaner then that, then you have to burn methane or use wind, solar and tidal. Hydro-electric is also very clean but somewhat damaging to the environment. The only power source I'm aware of other then those is nuclear. That's a whole different set of problems.

A state that cuts off 20% of it's electric supply without having a back up plan, is skating on thin ice. How do you explain rolling black outs on a long term basis? NIMBY is very much alive in California when it comes to building new power plants or their other energy problem, new gasoline refinement plants.

[NNadir]

6. Wind, solar, blah, blah are not alternatives to coal.

Wind, solar and tidal do not, and never will, compete with coal since coal is baseload electricity. In some places, California among them, natural gas is used for baseload generation but it is, and always will be, a filthy fuel.

Where natural gas is used for peak generation, the politically popular - but not popularly used - renewable resources could, theoretically, have some impact. I note that in California, the "sunshine state," solar energy does not even produce 1% of their electricity, nor is it likely to do so in the immediately forseeable future.

Nuclear power does not have a huge set of "problems," at least compared to its alternatives. California, has declared that no one can build nuclear plants in that state until a "solution" is found to the "problem" of so called "nuclear waste," but this is simply an abysmally ignorant, arbitrary, and silly declaration that the only "waste" problem with energy involves fission products and actinides. This is nonsense of the worst sort. No one has ever been injured by the storage of so called "nuclear wastes" in California, nor in any other place in North America. Still, the way Californians carry on, one would think otherwise.

The "out of state," coal ban will last until the first brown out, whereupon it will be discarded in less than 2 minutes.

There is, by the way, no "solution" to the problem of fossil fuel wastes, including the wastes of natural gas.

[kestrel91316]

8. Nuclear, of course, is the filthiest of all. The gift that keeps on

giving.

Where are we storing all our nuclear waste these days? Where it can never harm anyone, ever, right? RIGHT?

(crickets chirping)

[NNadir]

9. This is nonsense. We have "stored" so called "nuclear waste" for years

without a single loss of life.

You cannot and will not be able to refute this any better than any other person on this website - or any other website - can, simply because it's true.

Neither do you have any idea about how to store carbon dioxide which is fossil fuel waste.

Unlike so called "nuclear waste," fossil fuel waste actually kills people, not that you care.

The ideal solution to the storage of spent nuclear fuel is precisely the de facto solution, which is to store it where it will be accessible for future generations for use. Everybody who is scientifically literate knows this. Scientifically illiterate people, on the other hand, join Greenpeace and drive their cars to meetings.

All the appeals to ignorance in the world, including the pretend game in which natural gas is arbitrarily declared "clean" will not make a fuck load of diferrence with respect to these truths. California uses fossil fuels to generate electricity because of appeals to ignorance and for no other reason.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Yeah...

The fuck-all that have been killed by nuclear waste hugely outnumber the millions killed by fossil fuel waste.

About 315 people have died from fossil fuel waste since the OP was posted. Not that I expect you to give a shit.

:eyes:

[XemaSab]

15. California isn't the Sunshine State.

That's Florida.

We're the Golden State. :D

[bananas]

12. Welcome to DU and the E/E food fight

California isn't skating on thin ice.
It's the rest of the country that's causing the problems.
You energy hogs! Stop wasting so much electricity! :)

Snips from two news articles today:

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8586069


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/25/bush_touts_fuel_conservation_steps_at_a_firm_that_wants_more/?page=full

<snip>

Environmentalists said other models for the federal government come from state initiatives, especially in California, which has pushed efficiency programs for the past three decades. Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, California, through a series of simple efficiency programs, has kept electrical consumption per capita stable for the past 30 years, while Americans nationally have increased their consumption by 50 percent over that time.

"It was so easy that most people didn't notice," said Arthur H. Rosenfeld, a member of the California Energy Commission and one of the country's leading conservationists.

He gave an example of how to keep down energy costs in a home.

"There are two different ways you can save 1 kilowatt worth of energy in an air-conditioned house in, say, Sacramento, Calif., on a hot summer afternoon. One way, which costs society $9,000, is to put photovoltaics on your roof; the other way is when the house was built, if it has a flat roof, it has to be painted white. That costs nothing, but it has the same effect of the $9,000 worth of photovoltaics. But who knows this? I know of lots of lobbyists for photovoltaics, but I know of no lobbyists for white roofs."

<snip>

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Chuckle...

"There are two different ways you can save 1 kilowatt worth of energy in an air-conditioned house in, say, Sacramento, Calif., on a hot summer afternoon. One way, which costs society $9,000, is to put photovoltaics on your roof; the other way is when the house was built, if it has a flat roof, it has to be painted white. That costs nothing, but it has the same effect of the $9,000 worth of photovoltaics. But who knows this? I know of lots of lobbyists for photovoltaics, but I know of no lobbyists for white roofs."

Thanks Bananas. That's why we have bookmarks... :D

[XemaSab]

14. This seems like a crack down on NIMBYism to me

since it also applies to out of state plants.

The reason power plants are so hard to site in this state has to do with public lands. Almost all public lands, including national forests, wildlife refuges, Indian reservations, and military bases, require some kind of buffer, typically 30 miles, in which no power plants can be built. This wipes out HUGE AREAS of the state. In addition, power plants cannot be built in some air quality basins for various reasons. This also removes a lot of the state from consideration.

There are a few areas out in the desert, a bunch of areas in the Valley, and some land in eastern Contra Costa and Alameda counties that are suitable, BEFORE transmission line access is taken into account. Furthermore, access to water, rail lines, natural gas pipelines, and sequestration basins may also be considered.

Finally, NIMBYism itself is considered: will the people in the area accept a power plant nearby?

And all this is just the initial siting phase of a plant. That's before ANY environmental review whatsoever.

This is why California isn't building many new power plants.

[Infinite Hope]

3. I wish Minnesota would pass this and leave North Dakota in the dust. n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

5. When are they going to do something about the cogeneration facitlites like Trona?

[jpak]

7. Good for them - no coal for you

but of course, the nattering nabobs of negativism will say reducing CO2 emissions is a Bad Thing...

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Well, it's a start...

NG is slightly preferable to coal, so that's a good thing: And having the on-demand capacity will allow them to increase their renewable portfolio, which is a big plus.

But I reserve the right to negatively natter about about it still being a CO₂-producing fossil fuel. :D

[XemaSab]

16. We're still building coal plants

We're just looking for saline aquifers and other places to stick the CO2. :P