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 10% and they are having a difficult time maintaining that.

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 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.

SB 1036 passed 39-0.

It authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission to allow investor-owned utilities to recover costs for renewable energy that are in excess of market prices. It Recasts the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Streamlines and provides funding for new renewable energy resources like wind, geothermal, and solar energy that helps reduce dependence on coal and other fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

SB 1036 passed 39-0. It authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission to allow investor-owned utilities to recover costs for renewable energy that are in excess of market prices. It Recasts the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Streamlines and provides funding for new renewable energy resources like wind, geothermal, and solar energy that helps reduce dependence on coal and other fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

SB 210 requires the California State Air Resources Board to develop and administer a program to reduce the carbon content from transportation fuels refined and sold in California by 10 percent by 2020. The legislation follows up on the governor’s low carbon fuel standards executive order, which did not have the force of law and could be modified or weakened by future administrations. It passed solely on the backs of Democratic Senators with the bare minimum needed--21-13. Senator Lou Correa joined Republicans in opposition.

SB 494 mandates that 50 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in California are certified to run on clean alternative fuels by 2020. The measure requires any regulations to be economically and technically feasible and sets environmental performance standards for alternative fuels. It also passed solely with Democratic votes and with Democratic Senators Correa and Machado joining in with Republican opposition.

“SB 210 will ensure that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions meet a 10-percent minimum and that the public health and environment are protected in California,” Kehoe said. “To address the effects of global warming, we must act now with policies that ensure we reach our greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2020. SB 494 does this while providing protections to the environment and public health.”

California utilities are required to add new renewable energy systems to keep up with the State's electric energy loads. California needs about 1,000 MWe addition each year. But renewables do not even come close to meeting that demand so utilities' like PG&E must play the game of adding renewables such as the recent announcement of a 177 MWe solar plant, etc. But the latter will probably never be built, and if it is built it would produce insufficient amounts of electric energy.

But the California democratic politicians, the Governor, the CPUC, CEC, and Air Resources Board all have their collective heads in the sand thinking they are doing the job against global warming. Consider this, the Natural gas fired plant discussed below will emit about 36 billion cubic feet of CO2 per year. Less CO2 emissions than a coal plant, but the cost of energy from natural gas plants will sky rocket in the future, especially since California will not permit LNG terminals to be built on their shore lines.

New requirements for gasoline in California. It appears that the ARB will require that the amount of ethanol in gasoline be increased.

The increased use of ethanol in California gasoline in the next two years under the flexibility provisions is expected to result in reductions in the exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from motor vehicles and no increase in the evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons due to permeation. Any concurrent vehicle exhaust increases in oxides of nitrogen, ozone-forming emissions, or toxics weighted pollutants must be fully mitigated pursuant to the proposed amendments. Thus, the early blending flexibility options are expected to benefit efforts to reduce both ozone and particulate matter

I am not an expert in the reaction of ethanol, but it is my understanding the ethanol has no reduced effect on carbon emissions, reduction of carbon dioxide and nonoxides, reduced ozone and particulates matter, etc.

EX GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN IS ALIVE AND WELL. HE NEVER GIVES UP AND IS ELECTED WHERE EVERY HE RUNS IN CALIFORNIA.

California is now suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for preventing it from strengthening its standards for tailpipe emissions in cars.

It ls a classic case of whether federal laws should supersede those of the states when the two come into conflict. Typically, conservatives prefer to give localities greater say as they are the ones closer to the communities that will be regulated while liberals tend to like centralized power at the federal level. In this latest test, the opposite is occurring. So, California officials have vowed to challenge the Bush administration's ruling in the federal courts to forge ahead with its tougher air pollution rules.

In 2002, California passed its Clean Car law that requires vehicles sold there to release 30 percent less greenhouse gases by 2016 -- a move that the state says will require cars to get 36.8 miles to the gallon by that time. That's a stricter standard than the federal law just passed, which requires fuel economy averages of 35 miles-per-gallon by 2020. It's all part of a strategy to combat greenhouse gas emissions in cars and light trucks, which are responsible for 16 percent of all those pollutants.

PG&E to Acquire Ownership of Colusa Generating Station

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company today announced it has reached agreement to accelerate the acquisition of the Colusa Generating Station from E&L West coast, LLC (E&L West coast) to maintain the 2010 target completion date. In addition, PG&E filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) yesterday for authorization to directly develop and construct the Colusa Generating Station. The CPUC already approved the project, finding that it was cost effective and needed for reliability.

"The Colusa Generating Station is an important component of PG&E's commitment to ensure a secure and reliable energy supply to support California's economic growth and well being," said Randy Livingston, PG&E's vice president of power generation. "The state-of-the-art 657-MW combined cycle natural gas facility utilizes the latest in fuel-efficient technologies to minimize the environmental impact while ensuring reliable electricity at reasonable costs." I

I think that carbon trading is foolhardy. Who keeps tract of the system and how well does it work? Do we need another FTC bureaucracy to monitor this? Rather then trade carbon dioxide, I say don't emit it in the the first place.

By Gretchen Randall

Date: January 22, 2008

Issue: In a letter to the Government Accountability Office, Congressmen Joe Barton (R-TX) and John Shimkus (R-IL) asked for a "thorough inquiry" into the business of selling credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions. This "carbon offset" market purports to offer consumers and businesses a way to offset the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels when driving or flying by buying credits from groups that plant trees or produce carbon free wind or solar power. However, the two lawmakers said, "We don't want carbon offsets to become the 21st century version of snake oil and patent medicine."

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently began examining methods to substantiate claims made by companies and environmental groups that sell carbon offsets. Deborah Platt Majoras, chairman of the FTC said recently in a presentation that consumers have no way to verify whether the money they spend on offsets is actually funding the activity claimed such as planting of trees, whether the activity would have occurred anyway or if it reduces atmospheric carbon in the amount claimed — actually trees and other plants are carbon neutral. She also warned there is "heightened potential for deception" because of the lack of oversight on these activities.

Comment 1: Carbon offsets help people deal with the guilt they feel for driving an SUV or flying in a private jet. This is a new way of paying for your "sin" of emitting carbon dioxide without making you stop driving or flying.

Comment 2: This is much like the early Catholic Church's practice of selling indulgences.

Comment 3: If the FTC's mission is to monitor "deceptive and unfair practices" for the consumer, I believe they'll have their plate full monitoring whether these offsets actually accomplish their goal

Recently California convened a three day meeting of regulators from around the world. A sober message emerged. They said, "California is working without a template." I guess that means there is no way to meet the green house goals. But that is obvious to most observers.

But California will have renewables regardless of the cost or dismal results. Remember, due to the low capacity factors of renewables, they must install four times as much rated capacity as conventional power systems. It cannot be done, but the utilities under control of the CPUC must make the effort. However, the CEC and the CPUC do not really know how to keep score.

California's RPS Program requires each utility to increase its procurement of eligible renewable generating resources by one percent of load per year to achieve a twenty percent renewables goal by 2010. The RPS Program was passed by the Legislature and is managed by California's Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission.

SOURCE: Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Proposition 87

Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

This is a proposition started on a whim by Anthony Rubenstein, a former screen writer who knows absolutely nothing about energy, who found some other participants who were interested in alternative energy. The group discovered that California is the only major oil producing State without a severance tax on oil extraction. So they decided to stick it to the oil companies by making them pay a 1.5% to 6 % of the value of oil extracted in California. The size of the tax would increase as the cost per barrel price rises.

The proposition establishes $4 billion program to reduce oil and gasoline usage by 25%, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training.

I am happy to report tht Californians voted down this farce in spite of being backed by Bill Clinton who knows nothing about energy.

California's Assembly Bill 32

AB 32 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to work with state agencies to do the following:

Promulgate and implement a green house gas (GHG) emissions cap for the electric power, industrial and commercial sectors through regulations in an economically efficient manner;

Institute a schedule of greenhouse gas reductions;

Develop an enforcement mechanism for reducing GHGs;

Establish a program to track and report GHG emissions.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Announces Executive Order to Begin Implementation of Landmark Greenhouse Gas Legislation; Focuses on Developing Market-Based Solutions

In conjunction with his meetings with New York Gov. Pataki and New York Mayor Bloomberg, Gov. Schwarzenegger announced an executive order that directs state agencies to begin implementation of AB 32, California's landmark global greenhouse legislation signed last month. Bill AB 32 requires California to 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.

Some of the highlights of the executive order include:

The Secretary for Environmental Protection shall be the statewide leader for California's greenhouse gas emission reduction programs for state agencies, continuing the leadership role EPA played in the Climate Action Team.
The Secretary for Environmental Protection shall create a Market Advisory Committee of national and international experts to make recommendations to the State Air Resources Board on or before June 30, 2007, on the design of a market-based compliance program.
The State Air Resources Board shall collaborate with the Secretary for Environmental Protection and the Climate Action Team to develop a comprehensive market-based compliance program with the goal of creating a program that permits trading with the European Union, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and other jurisdictions.

Governor Schwarzenegger fired Robert Sawyer because he was not getting the job done fast enough to suit the governor and named Mary Nichols to replace Sawyer. Now Nickels has a fast track action to get the plan moving. Her fast track plan, in my opinion, should appear in the comic strip. It is the following

;Big-Rig trucks shall be retrofitted to reduce aerodynamic drag
Reduction in the use of perflourocarbons used by the semiconductor industry
Electrification of ports to reduce emissions from docked ships
Reduction in propellants in consumer aerosols,
New rules and an education campaign to promote tire inflation
A ban on the nonessential uses of a chemical known as sulfur hexafluoride used in manufacture of many products.
I think most of these will not come close to the items that are projective to remove 3 million metric tons of green house gases per year, but who can say? They are not really quantifiable items.

Moreover, for electrification of docking ports, the electricity does not come from wall sockets but a power plant somewhere that will put out CO2 unless it is solar, which it certainly will not be.
California will require a new `1,000 MWe natural gas plant each year to keep up with the state's additional load requirements. This will emit an additional amount of about 8,400 million metric tonnes of CO2 each year. A 1000 MWe nuclear plant emits no CO2 per year, but California has decreed against them. Go figure governor. The rest of the world is adding nukes. China has a contract for 5,600 MWe new nuclear plants right now.

Manure Management

Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, creates a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. Manure Management is one of many measures that are part of the State's strategy for achieving greenhouse gas reductions under AB 32. Any ideas how this will be accomplished?

Another Bill is in the process

Senate Bill 1368

SUMMARY OF BILL: This bill would authorize the Energy Commission, in consultation with the CPUC and the State Air Resources Board, to establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance standard for base load generation that would not exceed the emissions of a combined-cycle natural gas power plant. Load serving entities would be prevented from entering into financial commitments for base load generation exceeding three years unless that base load generation complied with the Energy Commission adopted GHG emissions performance standard. The CPUC would not be allowed to authorize any financial commitments exceeding three years for base load generation unless it also complies with the Energy Commission's adopted GHG performance standard

The bill requires the CEC to set standards for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The standard may not exceed the average emissions of a comparable combined-cycle natural gas plant.

My comments:

This bill would not permit cheap energy coal plants in the future. Any coal plant would have to be the new Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) that is currently under development. However, this type of plant does produce large amounts of CO2. California would certainly require that CO2 be removed and sequestered by pumping it deep into the ground.
In my opinion, sequestering CO2 is not feasible. Enormous volumes of CO2 would have to be separated from the emission stream, compressed, and pumped to a deposal site. Aside from being impractical, it would be very expensive to dispose of the CO2.

Senate Bill SB375

State Senator Darrell Steinberg offers Senate Bill 375 to tackle the connections between land use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Senate Bill 375 requires the 18 metropolitan planning organizations across the state of California to show that their future planning scenarios will result in a reduction in carbon. The bill provides incentives for regions to consider the impact of land use on climate change. Under the provisions of the bill, the regions must engage in a process to develop scenarios that show a contribution to climate change,. Carbon emissions will require smart land use and transportation. SB 375, would compel local planning agencies to make planning choices that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

My comments: W ell this one looks promising. Turn up the air conditioning temperatures of municipal buildings, do not use municipal autos to go to lunch or private use, have Gov personnel use public transportation for business travel, do away with private offices, reduce the number of meetings, etc.

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. The Commission is required to review and adopt, modify or reject each plan and will do so through this proceeding.

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 table below, all of the fuel options have CO2 emissions except hydrogen. What possible fuel could be used to meet the requirement of Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) emissions per delivered heat value. Ethanol produces more CO2 per heat 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