
California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045 - dsr12
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-29/california-moves-toward-requiring-100-clean-power-by-2045
======
jwr
I think another great move would be to start dealing with excessive energy
consumption. Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting
crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient
AC/heating units, vertical-drum washing machines (!!!), poorly designed gas
stoves, oversized cars, monstrous gas-guzzling trucks, energy waste is all
over the place. People behave just as if energy were free.

~~~
ancarda
On the topic of large cars, what is the solution here?

I can imagine forcing people to replace A/C units won’t be so objectionable,
especially if it’s free to do so, but there may be some real opposition to
requiring people to drive different cars. Nobody gets attached to an A/C.

I don’t drive right now - I take public transport everywhere - but I’d love a
large car (a Dodge RAM). If I try to buy something small to be conscious of my
carbon footprint and energy usage, I think I will end up buying the large car
a few years later.

Is there anything at-all I can do to drive a large car while not being part of
the problem? I’m looking into carbon offsetting, but that’s all I am aware of
for the time being.

I wish Dodge would make an electric RAM 1500, that could make this much
easier.

~~~
ams6110
The way Europe deals with cars is they tax the bejezus out of them, and
gasoline also.

In some countries, half the price of a new car is tax.

That is why people drive little toy cars there. Everyone would like a nice big
comfortable car but they are unaffordable for most.

~~~
ancarda
Oh yeah! It’s crazy expensive :(

What I’m trying to grapple with is this desire of mine while trying to be
aware of my environmental impact.

If there’s no way to have my cake and eat it too, I won’t get one.

~~~
justinator
Where is this desire rooted in?

~~~
ancarda
All I can really say is I want one because from the moment I saw one on the
road, I just knew I had to drive it. I really love the appearance. I've never
been interested in cars, but I can't help myself looking at pickups on the
road driving by -- especially RAMs. Maybe I'm just a big kid, I've always
liked big stuff.

Still... I know they aren't good for the environment, which means I wouldn't
be able to live with myself if I just drove one without greatly reducing or
eliminating it's impact.

~~~
lostcolony
Rent one every few months, drive it for the weekend. Cheaper on every front,
scratches that itch, and minimal effect on the environment.

I do that with my wife for convertibles. She loves them, so any time we're on
vacation and need a car I try to get one. It's just a couple hundred more for
a week's vacation, at the time we'd get the most enjoyment out of it.

~~~
ancarda
I never thought of doing that, thank you!

~~~
kaybe
You can also check whether your area has carsharing. I have access to lots of
standard cars of different sizes (some hybrids too), a convertible, an upper-
standard BMW and a couple of vans all within walking distance.

------
BrandonMarc
Politicians giving themselves a ~ 30-year runway is a farce. Promise you'll
reduce it by 10% in 3 years, and I'll take you seriously.

This is garbage. Just like the return to the Moon promised by Regan, Bush,
Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump ... always "15 to 20 years from now" ... and NEVER
happens.

By the way - 10% in 3 years would be a perfect milestone to 100% in 30 years.

~~~
jorblumesea
I agree with the sentiment but this is probably a more realistic goal.
Germany, which is far more organized than the US in many respects, is failing
to hit its climate goals for 2020.

It's just harder than people think. Same with public projects going over
budget. The budget was never realistic in the first place.

~~~
truculent
I think "realistic" kind of depends on your goal. If you want to make it under
2C, I don't believe this is particularly realistic (i.e. not soon enough). If
you want to avoid controversial actions and major changes to people's loves,
sure it maybe too soon.

------
jzoch
I understand this is amazing and totally love my state for doing it, but man
seeing 2045 is always a little dismaying as I wish we could be even more
aggressive. 2035 for example. I realize I am being too ambitious, but we went
to space in a decade why not 100% clean energy in 1.5?

~~~
nostromo
Politicians generally tend to choose deadlines that are beyond their terms.
They get the approval of their voting base today without actually having to do
much of anything to reach the goal itself.

I'm reminded of Bush calling for the US to return to the moon by 2020 -- a
proposal Obama quietly nixed.

I'd much rather we say, "We're going to increase renewables by X% every year,
starting now, to reach the goal of 100% renewables by 2045."

~~~
close04
Even 2035 is still beyond most current politicians' terms. 100% clean energy
will take a lot of work and more importantly determination. The closer you get
to the goal, the more it takes to cover another percent. And you never know
who comes next and decides to kick all the plans to the curb and subsidize
coal (hypothetically speaking o_O). You need to add some buffers.

Another problem is that nobody else (at this scale at least) got there so it's
hard to anticipate all the challenges. Germany, normally at 36% renewable
energy, managed to reach that magic 100% figure on a winter early-morning this
year. But nothing close to sustained generation. And they plan to get to 100%
in 2060+. So California, currently at ~44% renewable energy, could be the
first to hit the sustained 100%.

Another problem is that everyone defines "100% clean energy" in different
ways, by leaving some sectors out of the count. Will this target cover
electrical power or also aims at replacing _all_ non-renewable sources of
power for _all_ applications?

~~~
MattHeard
TLDR:

"This bill would state that it is the policy of the state that eligible
renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail
sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity
procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045."

Source:
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100)

~~~
BrandonMarc
Note how it's end-user consumers (and government offices). So it won't hurt
CA's business users, cause them to relocate to other states.

As always, devil's in the details. In the meantime, the headline looks
impressive, which is frankly all these critters care about.

~~~
close04
I read _end-users_ as simply customers that intend to consume the electricity
in CA as opposed to those who buy it to potentially resell it across state
borders. This will probably be cleared up later.

------
eikenberry
Is nuclear part of the bill? It is clean but I don't see any mention of it
either way in the article other than in the graph of current sources.

~~~
RobLach
Whenever I ride around Berkeley, CA I see a sea of "nuclear-free zone" signs
on roads filled with Prius traffic. It's not so easy to understand the real
agendas here.

~~~
jaredhansen
> It's not so easy to understand the real agendas here.

The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how
eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper
stickers) than it does with costly and difficult initiatives like figuring out
how to meet the world's energy requirements in a sustainable way.

~~~
WalterGR
_The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how
eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper
stickers)_

This tired bullshit again?

Yes, we understand that everyone could be doing _more_ to help some cause, and
that some people care more about appearances than improving the world, and
some people do legitimately good deeds for ‘selfish’ reasons like increased
self-esteem.

The “virtue-signaling” “every decent action in the world is done just to
impress one’s tribe” meme is getting old.

~~~
x220
If you say you support something, but don't want to take actions that
demonstrably promote what you are supporting, you are virtue signalling. It's
quite simple, and it's maddening.

~~~
WalterGR
"Maddening" implies discomfort. If people didn't virtue signal, it would
eliminate that discomfort. You don't like the discomfort, otherwise you would
have written that you find virtue-signaling being maddening an enjoyable
experience. If it was neutral, you wouldn't use an emotional word to describe
it. Since you don't find the feeling enjoyable or neutral, and because of the
meaning of "maddening," that means you don't like it. Therefore, to prevent
your discomfort, you support people not virtue-signaling.

What action are you taking to demonstrably promote the reduction of virtue-
signaling?

It seems like much of the calling out of alleged virtue-signaling is virtue-
signaling itself.

~~~
Dylan16807
Virtue signalling in this context is giving the _impression_ of doing
something.

Saying "We should treat the environment better" while being _honest_ about
your own [lack of] contribution is perfectly fine.

By the same token, I can complain about a group, and as long as I don't claim
that my complaints magically fixed the problem, that's fine.

~~~
WalterGR
_By the same token, I can complain about a group, and as long as I don 't
claim that my complaints magically fixed the problem, that's fine._

That's not at all how people use it colloquially.

Nobody is claiming that bumper stickers, Priuses, statements of "thoughts and
prayers," or changing one's Facebook profile picture magically fix _any_
problem. And yet those are the exact things that get labeled virtue-
signalling.

In this thread alone, jaredhansen mentions "ideally via cheap signals like
signs and bumper stickers" \- though admittedly doesn't say _virtue_ signals.
x220's definition is also at odds with yours.
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=virtue-
signalling](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=virtue-signalling) is rife with
examples.

The incessant cries of virtue-signalling on the web absolutely do not require
someone claiming that they've "magically fixed" any problem, and are almost
entirely gate-keeping, goalpost-moving, _ad hominem_ attacks, simple
partisanship, and general lazy argumentation.

~~~
Dylan16807
Okay, I've thought about it a bit more, and I think I figured out how to word
things precisely.

A bumper sticker signals "I care".

A prius, in theory, signals "I am actively helping, a lot".

They're both kinds of "virtue signalling", but they're very different in
scope.

The 'maddening' thing is not when people signal they care a little bit. It's
when people signal they care a lot, but their actions contradict that.

------
ThomPete
I am still baffled by the focus on private housholds and private consumption
when it comes to the discussion of clean energy and emissions.

The reality is that private households have very little to do with our
problems and even less to do about them.

Stop eating cow sound great but it's not going to do anything of any impact.

Most emissions (70%) come from very few companies (around a 100 or some).

Instead of making life more expensive and difficult for normal citizens why
not focus on those companies instead. That you can actually do something
about.

[http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/climate-change-green-house-
gas...](http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/climate-change-green-house-gases/)

~~~
abtinf
How will normal people be affected if you severely restrict the activities of
those 100 companies?

~~~
ThomPete
That depends on how you do it.

How were normal people affected by putting in carburetors in cars so they
didn't spit out lead into the air?

Edit: My bad I meant catalytic converter not carborators (katalysatorer in
Danish)

~~~
skookumchuck
Carburetors have nothing to do with lead emissions. Lead emissions come from
lead being added to gas to raise its octane, and hasn't been added for years.

~~~
ThomPete
I might be wrong but as far as i know they were added while there were still
lead in the gazoline. Anyway it didn't hurt the normal person it helped them
because techonology.

~~~
skookumchuck
The first gasoline engines used carburetors, they weren't added after lead was
added.

~~~
ThomPete
Sorry i meant catalytic converter (katalysatorer in Danish)

~~~
skookumchuck
Catalytic converters are ruined by leaded gasoline, hence the switch to
unleaded gas.

~~~
ThomPete
Yes and the question I was answering was what I think the focus on industry
changes rather than asking normal people to change did for those people.

The point is that the car industry moved on just fine.

------
walrus01
Writing as a person that's recently built some PV:

The problem of building enough photovoltaics to meet demand is _solved_. High
quality 60 and 72-cell PV modules at sub $0.50/watt and massive scale cheap
ground mount and roof mount systems are not rocket science. With sufficient
zoning and regulatory incentives it's possible for roof mount PV in California
to entirely meet the state's energy needs in megawatt-hours per day. There are
a LOT of empty roofs out there.

There is also a lot of nearly useless, non arable desert land that is
relatively low cost ($/acre) that can be covered in fixed ground mount
photovoltaics. Go drive around out in the area around Twentynine Palms...

The problem is energy storage. Batteries need to get better and have much
longer cycle lifetimes. Economies of scale driven by things like the Tesla
gigafactory will help. But we will need other, new things like pumped storage
hydroelectric and possibly vanadium flow batteries as well. The $/Wh stored
ratio is still very high, and the cubic density for energy stored is very low
(Wh per cubic meter).

~~~
dublin
Or you could realize that natural gas is a far superior energy storage
mechanism, and the cleanest fuel available. Fracking, and the consequent
reduction in natural gas prices, is directly responsible for the US dropping
its CO2 production faster than any other major country...

~~~
walrus01
Natural gas is a possible short-term temporary solution. If PV continues to
drop in price as it has historically, [1] at a point in the near future it
will become economical to crack hydrogen from seawater. If your $/kWh cost is
astronomically low it doesn't matter how electricity intensive it is.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=photovoltaic+price+chart&num...](https://www.google.com/search?q=photovoltaic+price+chart&num=100&client=firefox-b-1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbh57nupXdAhVCCDQIHbFUBjsQ_AUICigB&biw=1824&bih=1017&dpr=1.58)

------
ghouse
For those who think data is beautiful, here is real-time information regarding
the majority of California's grid:
[http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx)

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Very cool, though I'm curious about the classification of large hydro(and
maybe even nuclear) outside of renewables?

------
Tuxer
Once again, making me proud to pay CA taxes.

If they do not take large hydro into account when calculating this 100%, I
wonder what we'll do with the dams. Destroy them to let the rivers free-flow
again? Dams would have been a great store of energy for this project by
pumping the water up during the day using solar/wind.

Tesla Energy must be salivating at all those batteries that will need to be
constructed.

~~~
pastor_elm
Meanwhile, NYC's plan is a measly 80% reduction in carbon emissions in _city
run_ operations alone by 2050. We'll be going backwards once Indian Point is
decommissioned.

~~~
blang
Though to be fair the state of new york has lower per capita carbon emission
than California, though I think that mostly has to do with the density of new
york city.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

~~~
oftenwrong
To be really fair, policy choices influence population density, and vice
versa. California is fairly sprawling and favours sprawl over dense
settlement.

------
vondur
I believe ever since we had the rolling blackouts in the early 2000's we've
been purchasing more and more energy from power plants in Utah, as regulation
in the state makes it difficult to build new ones.

~~~
dmode
I don't believe it is true. I believe CA generates more electricity than is
needed and actually pays other states to take it off the grid

~~~
vondur
Looks like we buy a lot of power from Intermountain Power, who are in Utah:
[https://www.ipautah.com](https://www.ipautah.com)

~~~
ghouse
Intermountain will be converted from coal to gas:
[http://www.ladwpnews.com/information-regarding-proposal-
to-r...](http://www.ladwpnews.com/information-regarding-proposal-to-reduce-
fossil-fuel-generation-at-intermountain-power-project/)

~~~
vondur
That is true, but I believe there are more than one coal powered plant in the
Intermountain system. My main point is that California will just switch to
purchasing power from other areas and claim that they are using all clean
energy. I 'm assuming they don't consider natural gas as clean energy.

------
tedunangst
Hypothetically, if I build a big coal power plant across the border to power a
giant light array shining on solar cells on the CA side, does that count?

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
Nope

>The bill would require the PUC and the Energy Commission, in consultation
with the state board, to take steps to ensure that a transition to a zero-
carbon electric system for the State of California does not cause or
contribute to greenhouse gas emissions increases elsewhere in the western
grid.

[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100)

~~~
dublin
No but due to the horrendous grid instability this policy must induce, CAISO
will have to bring in a lot of power from other regions at pretty premium
prices if they don't want all CA customers to find out the hard way that the
only thing worse than rolling blackouts is non-rolling blackouts....

------
corradio
That's very interesting. Right now California seems to run about 40-60%
renewable according to
[https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...](https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=US-
CA)

~~~
toomuchtodo
California is at a bit of a tipping point. It has so much renewable energy, it
has to pay other states to export their excessive energy because they don't
have enough storage [1]. So you have to decide if you're going to subsidize
utility scale energy storage to help drive it below the cost of fossil and
peaker generators (which, it appears, California is prepared to do). It also
helps that renewables are quickly approaching 1-2 cents/kwh at utility scale,
as more of your cost can be storage (as your generation is almost free). China
is ending subsidies of their solar manufacturing industry [2], which is going
to push down the cost of panels, increasing the rate of uptake. You will see
California meet their 100% renewable mandate much sooner than they're
targeting.

A side effect is this is going to cause extensive losses to investor owned
fossil generators. C'est la vie.

[1] [https://www.zmescience.com/science/california-renewable-
ener...](https://www.zmescience.com/science/california-renewable-
energy-18082018/)

[2] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-solar/chinas-solar-
su...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-solar/chinas-solar-subsidy-cuts-
erode-the-impact-of-trump-tariffs-idUSKCN1LF18K)

~~~
village-idiot
I won't shed many tears for the death of fossil fuel power plants.

~~~
dublin
Your face may be dry, but it will be in the dark. There is quite simply NO
KNOWN TECHNOLOGY that can cost effectively meet peak demands other than fossil
fuel plants. The people that build the natural gas peaker plants that
California will MUST have for grid stability will make a fortune, and be
painted as the "bad brown energy guys" even though they'll actually be saving
the entire grid from collapse.

~~~
village-idiot
I'll never understand people that worship fossil fuels.

~~~
toomuchtodo
In America, there is a perception that our self-worth is dependent on our
jobs. To you, fossil fuels are filthy and environmentally dangerous (they
are). To those who work in the industry, it's a way of supporting themselves,
their families, and it's a craft (and associated skills) they might be proud
of (roughnecks on an oil field, product pipe installers/maintainers,
coal/steam/natural gas installers/maintenance techs/operators).

So, like all issues, it's not black and white, but many shades of gray. Our
jobs are not who we are, and we need systems in place to help transition those
who are in industries that are harmful and in their sunset period to
industries that have a future, while ensuring these new jobs provide enough
compensation that people can live.

~~~
village-idiot
See, as a software engineer I just can't quite identify with this.

On one hand, I understand taking pride in your work. I view what I do as a
craft, and I take pride in being good at what I do.

On the other hand, there's nothing better than taking a weak and hobbled
system out back and finishing it off.

If my opinions applied to power production, I'd be proud to help decom a coal
plant and install a brand spanking new nuclear or solar plant.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> If my opinions applied to power production, I'd be proud to help decom a
> coal plant and install a brand spanking new nuclear or solar plant

Would you feel the same way if you went from making $100k /year to $50k/year
doing this? That's part of the problem. You have to be okay taking a
substantial paycut, or losing your job entirely, when you decomm the previous
system. Not that same as doing so when you're a software engineer.

Single income in your family and having to start out from scratch? Of course
people are going to cling to their chance at a middle class life by their
fingernails in a fossil industry job.

~~~
village-idiot
That's fair.

------
true_tuna
We are going to need some more big batteries. Don’t we pay our neighbors to
take our excess during peak times?

~~~
dublin
Get a clue and do the math. (Seriously, this is a one-to-two hour google for
info and apply third-grade arithmetic back-of-an-envelope project.) Batteries
are NOT the answer - the quantity of batteries required is astronomically
beyond the world's battery production capacity, even in Musk's most fevered
dreams. Seriously - the mining impact of REALLY trying to build enough
batteries to stabilize an area the size of CA would increase mining pollution
worldwide by an order of magnitude or more...

~~~
sctb
Could you please stop being so thorny? It doesn't make your point any clearer,
it just makes the discussion worse.

------
tathougies
Currently, I buy all my electricity from renewables. The price I pay per kwh
is lower than conventional generation. However, the state of California has
given PG&E a monopoly on electricity distribution, and PG&E charges me the
difference between the generation charge from renewables and its own
generation charge as a 'distribution fee'. This fee is waived, if i used PG&E
generation.

Until California kicks out PG&E's monopoly and lets me pay the actual fair
market price for my renewable electricity, I find it hard to take these
initiatives as anything more than virtue signalling.

A better method for my county would be for the state to get rid of PG&E's
ability to selectively charge the distribution fee. Then, private market
forces would basically make everyone switch to renewables. Of course, the
legislature wouldn't get the chance to appear virtuous. In fact, they'd look
like villains for allowing this ridiculous pricing structure to begin with
(and they really do knowingly allow it -- after talking with my state senator
and representative, they told me they know this is the case, but 'the PG&E
lobby is strong'.. give me a break).

~~~
amluto
I don’t really see how California could practically kick out PG&E’s monopoly.
There won’t magically be a bunch of competitors that string is their own power
lines. CA could potentially take over entirely and run its own system, which
might not be totally crazy. Some cities (e.g. Palo Alto and Los Angeles)
already do this.

~~~
tathougies
The legislature directly controls PG&E's pricing. They can legislate it out of
the market, or at least legislate out this particular pricing snafu.

~~~
tedsanders
The legislature does not control PG&E's pricing.

Periodically, PG&E submits rate cases to the CPUC. The outcomes of these rate
case submissions dictate what PG&E is allowed to charge customers.

The CPUC is a quasi-executive agency established by the state constitution:

[https://ballotpedia.org/California_Public_Utilities_Commissi...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Public_Utilities_Commission)

------
jtchang
I actually had no idea how much of CA's energy came from renewable sources.
That is actually astounding. In many ways CA is ahead of the nation.

------
johng
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/05/07/texas-
pr...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/05/07/texas-produces-
five-times-the-wind-power-as-california-at-almost-half-the-price-blame-
regulation/#6a315025438c)

------
skookumchuck
"California would need to install more than 200 times as much energy-storage
capacity than it has now to make up for the loss of gas plants,"

They wouldn't need near as much if they abandoned the silly fixed 24/7
consumer electric rates in favor of rates that vary based on the supply.

------
ousta
They should find how to create electricity from poo as it is their first
renewable material

------
alexnewman
I’d bet 10x harder than 99% and 100x harder than 95% and 1000x harder than 66%

------
jorblumesea
It's unfortunate the US response to climate change is completely localized and
basically dependent on blue states. Not saying this is a bad thing but climate
change is a huge global issue and requires at least a coordinated national
response.

~~~
tathougies
Many US states are comparable in size to typical nations, so its not clear to
me why this localized response is worse

~~~
jorblumesea
Climate change is a national/global issue and requires a national/global
response.

California going green while Virginia stays with coal while Florida floods is
objectively bad for the nation. The carbon footprint of the nation isn't going
to be balanced by only a few states taking serious measures.

We are a union under the federalist system and we're all in this together,
despite what people seem to think.

------
internet_user
Does aneutronic p-b11 fission count as clean in California?

~~~
phkahler
p-b11 fusion. I'd count that anywhere someone can make it work for large scale
energy production.

------
truculent
Not soon enough though, is it?

------
westurner
1\. Hawaii

2\. California

3.

------
justaaron
excellent

------
ebikelaw
Why not 2025?

~~~
rhacker
I would assume it would be better to use 30%-40% effecient panels that will
come out in 10 years than forcing everyone on the current 23% tech.

~~~
tedsanders
It is _extremely_ unlikely that commercial cells will be high-efficiency
multijunction in 10 years.

Silicon has been dominant for decades, and its lead in cost-effectiveness has
only grown.

