With recent polls showing that more than two-thirds of likely voters want to see the state take decisive action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and fight global warming, that’s a question state lawmakers should be asking in earnest. And fortunately, state Sen. Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento has an answer.

Steinberg knows that in order to reach the goals of the state’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act, which was passed in 2006 and requires a 25 percent reduction in California’s greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, the state will need to do more than replace a few light bulbs and recycle some cans. We’ll need to address larger issues of where people will live and what their transportation options will be. Specifically, we’ll need to reverse policies that have supported suburban sprawl and resulted in the construction of whole communities where people can get to work, go to school or run basic errands without driving their cars and contributing to global warming.

Steinberg’s Senate Bill 375 would do just that. The measure, which has already been approved by the Senate and is under review by the Assembly, would offer incentives for local governments to adopt growth strategies that support “infill” development near transportation hubs and employment centers, giving residents the opportunity to make fewer car trips.

Do you understand this one? Stack people into high rises and have a local hub where they work. Mayor Daily of Chicago did this to people in Chicago a few decades ago. They became domiciles of ineniquity where thieves took over and it became impossible to live there. They are all torn down now. Nuclear power anyone? Let us all live in open spaces.

California does not have enough electric energy capacity to ride out the heat waves. They refuse to admit nuclear power and the renewable have never filled in the gap, nor will they ever. But California keeps trying to push a dead horse.

See the results below below.

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), charged with managing the electricity grid in California, has issued a Flex Alert for Tuesday, July 8th through Thursday, July 10th, 2008

Due to the current hot weather, electricity conservation is necessary. As a result, state officials have called a Flex Alert. It's important that you:

We ask that you pass this e-mail along to your friends and colleagues. And thanks for Flexing Your Power.

Renewables

California law requires the state’s investor-owned utilities — PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) — to obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. But public utilities like LADWP only have to set green energy targets, 13 percent by 2010 and 20 percent by 2017 in Los Angeles’ case. Under California’s global warming law, the state’s greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

Well we will see if this mandate is met. I doubt it. it is interesting to note that when the California Utilities plan to build natural gas fueled plants they finance and own these plants themselves. When they plan to get electric energy from renewable plants they have someone else build and finance these plants, and the utilities merely contract to buy the electric energy. The utilities certainly do not take any financial liability for renewable energy plants. And the renewables systems have very little ability of providing much electric energy.

It is lunacy to expect California to get 50% of it's electric energy by renewables by the year the year 2025. Cal is pegged at 10% now and does not appear to be going much farther

LOS ANGELES - Awareness is low, but 63 percent of those who had a view on it favor a California ballot measure that would require half the state's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025, a Field poll issued Tuesday shows.

Voter awareness of Proposition 7 on the November ballot is extremely low -- 82 percent of those interviewed said they did not know of the measure.

Phone interviews of 672 likely voters were conducted last week, Field Research said. Voters were asked opinions on several issues on the statewide ballot this November.

On the renewable energy measure, 24 percent said they were likely to vote against it and 13 percent said they were undecided.

Renewable power includes wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydropower projects. In California, large, existing hydropower projects are not included in counts of renewable energy.

Proposition 7 matches existing California goals of having 20 percent of power generated by renewables by 2010, but also calls for more stringent requirements of 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

California's current target is for 33 percent of electricity to come from renewable power by 2020.

Proposition 7's main proponent, Jim Gonzalez, a former San Francisco supervisor, said the poll shows Californians want to raise renewable power targets in the face of global warming.

"California can be a leader in new technologies to increase clean energy requirements for utilities," Gonzalez said.

Public and investor-owned utilities, as well as many environmental groups, oppose the measure, saying the effort is well-intentioned but ill-conceived and too costly.

"The survey results are no surprise," said Kathy Fairbanks, who works for one group opposed to the measure. "Eighty-two percent of voters were not aware of Prop. 7 nor were they educated about its flaws."

Opponents also say the proposal would drive up prices for renewable power by setting targets that would force utilities to sign contracts regardless of how much they cost.

Once the issue gathers more attention, the number of opponents to Proposition 7 would swell, she said. (Reporting by Bernie Woodall; Editing by Braden Reddall)

Story Date: 24/7/2008

Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger now believes that nuclear power has "a great future" and that it is time to "relook at that issue again rather than just looking the other way and living in denial." The governor made these comments March 14th, 2008 in Santa Barbara, "ECO:nomics" conference sponsored by the Wall Street Journal. His views are making waves in the environmental and energy circles.

Gov Schwarzenegger told the Wall Street Journal it is time for the Golden State to reconsider nuclear power if it ever wants to meet energy demands for the future.

A totally flawed proposition

Some group in California is trying to get a proposition on the November ballot concerning the amount of renewable energy that should be generated by 2025. Currently, renewables generate about 10% of the electric energy total.

The organizers of this measure are financed by Peter Sperling, son of the founder of the University of Phoenix. They have the required signatures to qualify the proposition. The proposition would require California to supply 50% of its electrical energy by renewables by 2025.

Current law requires California is to supply 20% of its electric energy by renewables by the year 2010. The Governor suggests 33% by 2020.

Surprisingly enough several renewable advocates such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund are against the proposition because they say it would thwart clean-energy projects as well as raise consumer's electric bills.

Other opposition groups such as the labor unions called the proposition fatally flawed by an out of state billionaire with no energy experience.

My comment: Regardless of what goals are set, I do not think California will get much above 15% renewable contribution of electric energy. Remember, each renewable system has a capacity factor of only 20% to 25% and thus there must be four times more renewable system capacity to meet the goals. The California moving target needs an addition of 1,000 MWe of capacity each year to keep with the load growth. Renewable capacity growth would have to be 4,000 MWe new capacity additions per year just to keep up. Renewable energy system contribution is now only 11%.

My comments: Here is an organization that stresses low carbon economy. Below is their solution. Do you believe they have the solution? Where do we get such organizations, in fairly land? Do they know that nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide?

Low Carbon Economy. com

The opportunities to act, to maximize the positive economic benefits as well as minimizing the consequences of inaction are here today in a Low Carbon Economy:

All waste should be minimized – reduce, reuse, recycle
Energy should be produced using low carbon energy sources & methods – Renewable & alternative energy sources, fuels, & sequestration
All resources in particular energy should be used efficiently – More efficient energy conversion devices, combined heat & power
Wherever practical local needs should be served by local production – Food, materials, energy
There is high awareness and compliance with environmental and social responsibility initiatives – Businesses and individuals

Report from the California Independent System Operator (ISO)

California should have enough power to keep the lights on and air conditioners humming this summer although there will likely be days--especially in Southern California--when conservation and voluntary demand response programs will be called on to ease the strain on the power grid.

A tongue and cheek report. California's load will be OK as long as we can get a lot of power capacity from the North Western States. This will not always happen in the future. California will be short as before because the contribution from renewables will never keep up. And we will read about old people dying in the heat.

The information below was takes from a report by the California Energy Commission (CEC).

"California also has promising opportunities to increase energy production from renewable resources connected with the state's water system. In-conduit hydropower - turbines installed within conduits to generate electricity from flowing water in pipelines, canals and aqueducts - is an attractive possibility because it is relatively easy to permit and has fewer environmental impacts than large hydroelectric power plants."

MY comments: The italic words are to emphasize the system recommended by the CEC. Does the water from the Northern California flow down hill to Southern California? No, of course not. It is pumped there and the California ISO must buy a lot of electric energy to supply the pumps. Now the CEC suggest that we put turbines in the flowing water to get that energy back. Can you believe that? And the CEC is the advocacy arm of the Governor. It is no wonder we have shortages of electrical energy and are about to have some greater shortages in the future. California has the highest electricity prices of any state in the union.

Established in 2002 under Senate Bill 1078 and accelerated in 2006 under Senate Bill 107, California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is one of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country. The RPS program requires electric corporations to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1% of their retail sales annually, until they reach 20% by 2010.

California will not be close to 20% renewable energy resources by 2010. They are only 10% as of date 4/20/008.

Current energy Policy.

Currently, California has ruled against nuclear power in favor of renewables such as wind and solar, etc. even though the current energy situation is one where the state must add at least 4,000 MWe of new power capacity by 2008. They intend to accomplish this by increasing California's renewable energy production to 20% of the states total energy content by the year 2010. This is a doubling of the current renewable energy contribution. And this is to be accommodated without regard to the cost of electric energy. The state's three major utilities are required to increase their renewable energy capacity by 20%. And also they intend to obviate some of the new capacity additions by enacting conservation measures.

In 1975 when I came to California the CEC said that by the year 2000 the State's electric energy supply content would be accomplished by adding renewable energy systems. They showed charts where renewables would supply 40% of California's total energy needs by that time. I said it would be no where that value. Of course it was only about 10% by the year 2000 and the deregulation fiasco exposed the shortage.

Here are the result of a 20 person of experts who performed a study entitled:

A Low Carbon Fuel Standard For California

Part I Technical Analysis

In summary, a 10 percent Low Carbon Fuel Standard target seems plausible, though it requires innovation in fuel and/or vehicle technologies. Because innovation in the transportation sector is necessary to achieve long-term climate stabilization in any case, the fact that the LCFS will stimulate innovation in the near term is an advantage, not a problem. A 15 percent LCFS target may be possible if some of the low-carbon fuel technologies currently being developed are successful and the regulations are flexible enough to allow fuel suppliers and consumers to take advantage of them. Uncertainties exist in the measurement of the global warming intensity of transportation fuels, necessitating a careful approach to regulation and a robust research effort. Other environmental effects and other approaches to reducing global warming are also important and deserve study. The Air Resources Board should include the LCFS as an early action measure under AB 32 (Nunez/Pavley), the Global Warming Solutions Act.

My comments: This study was intended to validate the possibility of meeting California's Bill AB 32 which requires that California reduce its green house gas (GHG) emissions to the year 2000 levels in four years. In 14 years, the emissions would be brought down to 1990 levels.

I cannot see where they arrived at any definite conclusions, but had a lot of iffy statements and others obfuscations that lead to nothing definite

California is toying with the following requirements. I do not know where it stands today May 25, 2007.

Regulators move to curb coal plants. Rules could ban state utilities from buying their electricity

California utilities would be prohibited from buying electricity from most coal-burning power plants in neighboring states under far-reaching regulations proposed by state energy regulators Wednesday.

Under the rules, the state's investor-owned utilities would not be allowed to buy power from any source that spews more carbon dioxide than does a modern natural gas power plant. Specifically, the source could not emit more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electric energy produced. That's enough energy to light 750 homes for one hour.

"This is really aimed at encouraging new investment, new generation and new power contracts to be clean," said Julie Fitch, director of strategic planning for the utilities commission.

My comments: They are thinking about letting current coal plant contracts stand, but any new contracts would have to meet the 1,000 pound CO2 emission for one megawatt-hour energy duration. This means that no new coal plant contracts would be permitted because no coal plant will ever meet the 1,000 pound CO2 emission rule. Coal plant emissions for a one megawatt-hour energy duration are about 2,300 pounds of CO2. Coal plant thermal efficiencies max out at about 38%. A plant of 38% efficiency would exhaust about 1,500 pounds per hour of CO2 for each energy generation of one Megawatt- hour.

I doubt that anyone would consider building a super critical pressure multiple reheat coal fired plant in an attempt to meet the 1 MWh = 1,000 pound CO2 emission goal. These have been maintenance nightmares due to the ultra high super critical pressures above 3,300 psig levels.

California's State requirements for gasoline

All gasoline shall contain biofuels of the following minimum;

20 volume % by 2010,

40 Volume % by 2020

75 Volume % by 2050.

Biofuels are defined as either ethanol or biodiesel.

My comment: Isn't this a farce? Do they think there is enough farm land area in the State of California to grow enough biofuel plants to supply 75% by volume of all fuels needed by the vehicle fleet.? And what will biofuels do? They put out as much CO2 as gasoline and diesel fuels for the heating values they provide.

Two new California senate bills are proposed to reduce carbon in the fuels used for vehicles. A 10% reduction In emissions must b accomplished by January 1. 2010.

Bill 494 Under the Alternative Fuels Law, requires the California
              Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
              (CEC), in consultation with certain entities, to develop
              and adopt a state plan by June 30, 2007, to increase the
              use of alternative transportation fuels and set goals for
              2012, 2017, and 2022 to increase alternative fuel use in
              the state that meet certain requirements. (Health and
              Safety Code 43865).
Bill 210 Requires the ARB to adopt, implement, and enforce a
              low-carbon fuel standard by January 1, 2010, that achieves
              GHG emissions reductions, and at least a 10% reduction in
              GHG emissions in furtherance of the limit established by
              the CGWSA.

I Wrote an e mail to Senator Kehoe that said that reducing the carbon in a fuel will not provide a reduction in the green house gases because carbon produces the energy and it will just burn more of the fuel and produce the same amount of green house gases. The Senators reply was the following which shows she does not understated the principles of combustion. Also I do not know what clean fuel options are available except hydrogen which is not available for vehicular fuels certainly not by Jan 1. 2010.

Dear Mr. Lutz:

Thank you for your email regarding your concerns over SB 494. This legislation would create clean fuels made from renewable resources that on a full-fuel cycle and energy equivalent basis do not increase greenhouse gas emissions or other air, water and criteria pollutants. The bill also creates a process for the Air Resources Board to certify vehicles that can run on clean fuels.

SB 210 includes language to ensure that no environmental or public health backsliding results from the administrations efforts in finding other fuels or blends of fuels to reduce carbon.

Both SB 210 and SB 494 will next be discussed in the Assembly. I appreciate your input as I consider making changes to these bills.

Senator Christine Kehoe

I wonder what clean fuels from renewables are possible where the reduced carbon emissions are possible? If we examine the properties of of all liquid and gaseous fuels we find that all of these fuels emit CO2 emissions except hydrogen. What possible fuel could be used to meet the requirement of Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) emissions per delivered heating value. Ethanol produces more CO2 per heating value compared to gasoline. Also the Bills do not specify exactly what the requirements are for a clean fuel.

Finally someone came to their senses and dropped the measures that do not make any sense

California State Senate Democrats and environmental advocates held a press conference yesterday as a package of bills to implement AB 32 with specifics to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve state planning for climate change as well as improve air quality, started making their way through committees in the Assembly. They stressed how important the legislation is for the state of California to maintain its world-renowned stewardship of the environment.

However, despite the push for these bills, all of them labeled as Senate Democratic caucus priority legislation and with the backing of key environmental advocacy groups including the California Sierra Club, the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California, Clean Power California and the California League of Conservation Voters, there were stinging defeats at the Assembly Transportation of three of the measures which failed to pass and may be dead for the year.

My comments: The package of bills that were to implement AB 32 were too general and not definitive enough to make any sense. Sometimes in an effort to cover the water front the language is so vague as to not be definitive or enforceable. These three failed measures were in that category. It is also clear that bill AB 32 is not definitive enough to be a legal document in the real world. The problem is the legislators do not have the technical knowledge to write such bill and do not seek the advice of those who do. This would be true with such organizations as the Sierra Club and the California League of Conservation Voters. If a contract is not definitive and enforceable it is not a legal document.

it also appears that the Governor is also in this category and thus fires the chairman of the ARB to compensate. The new ARB chairman will need to be a politician rather than a technical leader. And it is true since the new ARB chairwoman is a lawyer.

Draft bill imperils states' bid for emission cuts

The above is the head line in the Sacramento Bees' news paper.

California has been battling the federal EPA for two years over a state law that would require automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, by 25 percent from autos and 18 percent from SUVs by the 2009 model year.

I will only say here that the Democrats and Republicans are smart enough to not pass a requirement that is impossible to meet even though California is nutty enough to propose it.

A view point that parallels mine.

"...to establish a renewable portfolio standard that mandates 25 percent of all electricity come from clean energy alternatives such as wind and solar by 2025."

One wonders whether that is 25% of production or 25% of capacity. Since the availability of wind and solar are both in the 25-35% range, a 25% of production mandate would require a solar/wind generation capacity equal to approximately 100% of peak demand. The economics of that alternative would truly be "a wonder to behold". That is the kind of thing that happens when laws are voted on by people who have no clue about the implications of their votes, such as the great majority of members of the US Congress.

Maybe Congress can also mandate a technologically elegant, energy efficient, economically viable, high capacity, high delivery rate electric storage technology in conjunction with the solar/wind mandate. After all, nothing is impossible if someone else has to accomplish it!

"Don't begin vast programs with half-vast ideas."

Edward A. Reid, Jr.
President
Fire to Ice, Inc.

The above goes also for California lawmakers.

Plug in vehicles are all the rage now, but Toyota has reservations.

Carmakers question PHEVs

Not everyone is PHEV-crazy. While Toyota is the leader in hybrid technology it remains cautious about plug-in hybrids. When the plug-in hybrid conversions were first announced, Toyota opposed altering its vehicles. Later, the car company said it would study the technology with the possibility of eventually offering it as an option.

"Toyota believes that plug-in hybrid vehicles have potential in the mid- to long-term," a Toyota spokesman said. "However, currently available battery technology [nickel metal hydride] is not capable of providing a suitable platform for PHEVs, because it would take inordinately large, heavy and costly battery packs to provide meaningful range extension. We believe that it will take some time until the next-generation technology [most likely lithium-ion] can perform to the levels that allow us to provide the same level of reliability, warranty, manufacturing and service cost."

My comment: Metal hydride batteries cannot be discharges fully because the voltage drops significantly as discharging takes place. Tom Edison found this out years ago,

California is moving away from coal, but the rest of the country is moving toward it. California's global warming efforts are all for naught. We will see if renewables or coal predominate. What do you all think?

Coal projected to be bigger source of electricity

Jan 7 - McClatchy-Tribune Business News Formerly Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Kathy Still Bristol Herald Courier, Va. The federal Energy Information Administration's annual energy projection for 2007 and beyond predicts coal will be used even more to generate electricity.

Coal, natural gas and oil will continue to provide the same level of energy supply for the United States, even though growth occurs in biofuels and other renewable energy sources, according to the report.

"EIA's 2007 projection is both welcome and cautionary." Kraig Naasz, president and chief executive officer of the National Mining Association, said in a news release.

"The forecast that coal will increase its share of the U.S. electricity generation market to 57 percent, and thus increase its share among major fuels, should be welcome news in a country blessed with the world's largest coal reserves."

The EIA expects rapid growth in coal use for both electricity generation and for coal liquefaction, which by 2025 is projected to be the second largest use of coal production for electric power generation.

My comment: California intends to again buck the tend and use renewables for future electric energy. This was tried in the 1975 - 2000 year era and remember what happened? Gov Davis was disposed and several natural gas fired plants were hurriedly built. What goes around comes around as the saying goes.

Implementing the Renewables Portfolio Standard Program

Each California electrical company is required each year to obtain a minimum amount of electricity from renewable energy resources, eventually reaching procurement equal to 20 percent of total retail sales. To fulfill this requirement, each company must prepare a plan for obtaining renewable energy.

My comment: This requirement is for energy, not power. In other words the utility cannot add 20% power capacity and meet this requirement. It must ultimately generate 20% of its total; energy by renewables. For example a wind machine that actually has a capacity factor of 25% must have a power capacity of 4 times that to meet the requirement of energy production. In my opinion no utility will ever reach 20% energy production. using renewables

The North American Electric Reliability Council says that by 2015 the country will need an additional 141,000 megawatts of installed power capacity to accommodate an expected 19 percent increase in electric energy usage. Only 57,000 megawatts are currently on the drawing board. Hardly any of these are in California.

I ask you all. Do you really think that California can meet the additional 19% increase in electric energy output by shutting down the existing coal plants and adding renewables? Looks like we will have the year 2,000 energy fiasco all over again and hurry to install many natural gas fired plants. Remember each 1,000 MWe NG fired plant exhausts 150,000,000 cubic feet of CO2 per day.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger must decide whether to approve two bills that environmental advocates say will help the state achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals that he supports:

AB1012 requires the state Air Resources Board to adopt regulations that will require half of all new cars and light trucks sold in the state to be powered by clean-burning fuels.
SB1368 would prohibit utilities in the state from buying electricity from high-polluting power plants. ( This means coal fired plants from other states)

My comments:

What clean burning fuels are available? Hydrogen is but where does it come from? Certainly not renewables. Ethanol? Not enough corn in the world to supply ethanol.

Replace 20% of electric energy from coal plants operating in other state? Replace them with Combined cycle Natural gas plants? Natural gas cannot be the future fuel for California.

It appears to me that they are calling the Governor's bluff when he said we will be back to 1990 CO2 levels by 2020.

It does not appear that the rest of the US is too concerned about global warming. Here is news of enormous numbers of gas fired plants to be installed. California depends on natural gas plants and the cost of Natural gas will certainly go up with the huge new demands.

Mirant Announces Agreement for Sale of Six U.S. Gas Plants

ATLANTA, Jan 16, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall

Mirant Corporation (NYSE: MIR) announced today that it has entered into a definitive purchase and sale agreement with LS Power Equity Partners, a member of the LS Power Group, for the sale of six U.S. natural gas fired plants for a purchase price of $1.407 billion, which includes estimated working capital. The net proceeds to Mirant from the sale after extinguishing $83 million of project-level debt are expected to be $1.324 billion. The company does not expect to recognize any significant tax or book gain on the transaction. The U.S. plants being sold are the following: Zeeland (903 MW), West Georgia (613 MW), Shady Hills (469 MW), Sugar Creek (561 MW), Bosque (546 MW) and Apex (527 MW), constituting a total of 3,619 MW. The transaction is expected to close by the second quarter of 2007 after the satisfaction of certain customary conditions to closing.

News from the Governor

In the Governor's speech on taking on his second term he outline a plan to meet the state's ambitious greenhouse limits. He mandated a transition to different auto fuels such as ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel, and electricity. Maybe Cellulose plants such as wood and leaves will be made into ethanol, but it stretches my imagination that they could supply very much fuel. This brought some environmentalists out of the woodwork. They suggested we dedicate 800,000 acres of farm land to sugar cane, sorghum, or other ethanol based vegetation. However, sugar cane does not grow in the US because it requires too long a growing season and too much water.

Moreover, we will plug our car batteries in at night time and drive them on battery energy during the day. He does not remember that this did not work ten years ago, but now we will get a super battery some how. And where the fuel comes from to provide this night time energy was not stated. Probably some power plant that does not emit CO2.

When this all comes due in 2020 it will all have been forgotten and a new crew will suggest a program to do away with these terrible green house gases. In 1975 California was to be 40% renewables by the year 2,000. No one remember that now as we strain to get 10 percent.

Here is how the state of California will reduce green house gases. Build a plant that is fueled with natural gas. What does it do for the green house gases? It exhausts less GHG than a coal fired plant, but the GHG exhausts are not trivial. This plant of the latest technology exhausts 80,000,000 million cubic feet of CO2 GHG every day it operates at full power. And the oversight folks up AB 23 will permit the plant. And probably many more like it if we are to keep up with the load growth demand.

At a capacity factor of 90%, this one plant will produce about 15% more electric energy annually than all of the wind machines operating to gather in California.

Moreover, remember a nuclear plant of this capacity would not put any green house gases into the atmosphere. Does the State really want to get rid of global warming?

PG&E Breaks Ground on Gateway Generating Station in Antioch

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 24, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall

Pacific Gas and Electric Company today broke ground on a new power generating station that will provide PG&E's customers with 530 megawatts of power using the latest fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly technologies. Named PG&E's Gateway Generating Station, the new plant represents the "Gateway" to the future of electric power generation as well as its position near the Delta.

The 530-megawatt, natural gas-fueled Gateway project is the first new power plant to be constructed by PG&E in nearly 20 years. Among the facility's environmental advantages, PG&E will employ "dry cooling" technology -- which uses 97 percent less water and produces 96 percent less discharge than a conventional water cooling system -- to avoid the use of river water. Also, the combined cycle technology will decrease fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, the primary contributor to climate change. Compared to older plants, the new plant will yield 35 percent less carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of power produced. The new generating station will provide enough electricity for nearly 400,000 northern and central California customers.

The above plant will emit about 30 Billion cubic feet of CO2 per year.

Because California’s Energy system was over extended during the 2006 year July heat wave, AB 32 comes at bad time.

California's electricity system recorded 50,270 megawatts during the heat wave. It was expected that energy demand would peak about 47,000 megawatts. California's current electric generating capacity is about 45,000 MWe.

California escaped rolling blackouts during the July heat storm. Imports of nearly 10,000 megawatts, including power from hydroelectric projects in the northwest, kept the lights on. The next years will be pretty tough years in California due to shortages of generating capacity. It is not assured that the added generating can be found every year.

Added energy capacity will be needed, but none is assured now. The CPUC has directed the utilities to solicit new capacity. But due to the limitations of GHG imposed by AB 32, suppliers will be severely limited on what they can offer. Certainly renewables cannot make up this deficiency of electric energy capacity.

To meet the electric energy additions extending to the 14 year period to 2020, California would need approximately 75,000 MWe. And the added amount of about 30,000 MWe is to come from renewables and conservation? This is pure folly.

The Texas Utilities Corporation (TXU) does not think that renewables will fill the bill. TXU Displacing Older Generation With Advanced Technologies

Faced with higher fuel costs, over-reliance on natural gas generation, increased demand, dropping reserve margins and anticipated pressures to regulate carbon emissions, TXU (Texas Utilities Corp) has made plans for $2 billion of investment in advanced technologies. TXU outlined its plans recently – and described its initial investments -- for new advanced power plant technologies in various markets across the nation at the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Annual Financial Conference in Las Vegas.

According to the TXU Corporation, Renewable energy is seen as a relatively small player in the mix, and the company does not see it becoming a large part and contributor in this new technology mix. Even if pursued to its maximum potential, TXU says, it does not have the capacity to meet base load electric power demand. A new company, TXU Renew, plans to double the TXU renewable energy portfolio by 2011, bringing the total to approximately 1,400 megawatts.

California talks about renewables to reduce its dependence on fossil energy, but it does not do it in practice. Here is a new natural gas fueled plant that will operate full time.

Calpine Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets: CPNLQ) today announced that its majority-owned subsidiary Russell City Energy Company, LLC (RCEC) has entered into a ten-year tolling agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) calling for the delivery of the full output of the 600-megawatt Russell City Energy Center, a natural gas-fired plant to be built in Hayward, Calif. This plant will put about 60,000,000 cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere every day.

roup called the AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR CAPITAL FORMATION studied California's plans and Margo Thorning, Ph. D. authored the report which gave the opinion that California is sacrificing economic well being and job growth with little or no long-term impact on global GHG emissions.

Some analysts fear that in AB 32, California going it alone is likely to cause net job loss and leakage of industry to states and countries which do not have mandatory emission caps-- the so called "leakage issue" - and lead to no net reduction in GHG.

California currently gets 20% of it electrical energy from coal fired plants located out of state. Under the new law, this practice would no longer be permitted for future plants. Thus the future power plants would have to come from natural gas combined cycle plants which will become very expensive due to the rapidly escalating price of natural gas.
Moreover, Combined cycle plants are fossil fueled plants and their addition would not result in the reduction of CO2 to meet the goals of Bill 32.
Here is a good one to watch. Under the Law AB 1268 it would not qualify because its thermal efficiency is only 41% compared to 60% for the latest GE combined cycle gas fired plant. Due to the efficiency difference, the Walnut creek plant would produce 50% more CO2 per day (30,000,000 cubic feet greater CO2) compared to the GE's latest combined cycle plant. Not a trivial amount is it?

Walnut Creek Energy Park On November 22, 2005, Walnut Creek Energy, LLC (WCE), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edison Mission Energy (EME), submitted an Application for Certification (AFC) to construct and operate a nominal 500 megawatt (MW) simple-cycle power plant, the Walnut Creek Energy Park (WCEP), in the City of Industry.

In my opinion California would not have had green house gas (GHG problems nor electrical energy shortages and high cost of energy if they had elected to accept nuclear power plants in the state.

High Mileage vehicles and Alternative Fuels.

California is going to carry out a program to develop high mileage vehicles that use clean alternative fuels.

Heading the program is the same organization ( The Air Resources Board) that brought MTBE to California and poisoned the water, etc for years.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1811, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) is to develop a joint plan with the California Energy Commission (CEC) to spend $25 million for the purposes of incentivizing the use and production of alternative fuels. AB 1811 requires the funds to be encumbered by June 30, 2007. There are a number of recent state policy directives that call for substantial expansion of the use and production of alternative fuels made from biomass and to reduce dependence on petroleum-based fuels. These include the Climate Action Plan, Executive Order S-06-06, and the Bioenergy Action Plan for California. To support these policy directives, AB 1811 provided $25 million to incentivize and fund:

Market-based incentives for high efficiency, high mileage, alternative fuel light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles, both individual and public fleets, in California.

Production incentives for alternative fuel production in California;

Market-based incentives for the construction of both publicly accessible alternative fuel retail refueling stations and fleet fueling facilities; including E-85.

Funding for research, development, and testing of alternative fuels and vehicle technology.

Incentives to replace the current state vehicle fleet with clean, high mileage alternative fuel vehicles.

My comments:

It is not clear to me exactly what they will do here. The fourth bullet seems to be the description where the funds will be applied to develop and test alternative fuels and alternate vehicle technology.

The other bullets address incentives which are obvious to the goals of alternative fuels and vehicles.

In the plans I find they intend to center on biofuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and also hydrogen fuels. For vehicles they center on fuel cell vehicles. In an upcoming meeting they intend to address the current status of the items including internal combustion hydrogen fuel vehicles. The latter I consider to be reachable energy. Fuel cell autos are too expensive and they do not have durability.

I do not think that biofuels can be provided in quantities that will serve the vehicle market. As for hydrogen, where does it come from? Since California will not consider nuclear power, there is no good source for hydrogen. Certainly not renewables. I believe that hydrogen generated by nuclear power and applied in internal combustion engines will be the final answer.

In summing up the totality of all of the above programs, the answer to California's energy problem is nuclear power. Nothing else will provide an ample economical energy supply void of green house gases. And the air we breath would be clean. France has gone nuclear and because of it they have been able to shut down all of their coal mines. This results in an enormous reduction in green house gases, and conserves coal reserves for future petrol chemical needs.

Return to Top