This week’s Pro vs. Con asks “Is California’s zero carbon emission goal for the electrical grid by 2045 realistic?” Mark Stemen takes the “Pro” position and Anthony Watts has the “Con.”
PRO / Mark Stemen
Senate Bill 100, passed in 2018, set a goal of “powering all retail electricity sold in California . . . with renewable and zero-carbon resources” by 2045. A recently-released joint agency report finds that “the goals of SB 100 can be achieved in different ways but reaching them will require significant investments in new and existing technologies.”
The first step in addressing climate change is to clean up the grid, and then “electrify everything.” That means increased demand for electricity, however, even as the grid decarbonizes. Meeting the 2045 target while extending electrical use to other sectors (like transportation) will require dramatically expanding California’s electrical grid to triple the current capacity over the next 25 years.
So, carbon-free energy is feasible, but it won’t be easy.
It’s important to understand, however, that SB 100 is not a big leap for California. Due to past efforts at promoting renewable energy, the state’s electricity mix is already more than 60% carbon free, with about 36% of that coming from renewable sources, primarily wind and solar.
California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard in 2002 with the goal of 20% renewable energy by 2017, and the legislature has increased the RPS over time (33% by 2020, and 50% by 2030). The state met these escalating targets easily, and many utilities are already closing in on the 50% target. SB 100 simply raises the 2030 target to 60%.
Neutrality by 2045 will be much more difficult and that target must be met with “zero-carbon resources,” which include renewables, nuclear power, and natural gas with carbon capture. Solar and wind operate on their own schedule. They are not, in grid terms, “dispatchable,” meaning they cannot be turned on and off as needed. To balance out variations in sun and wind, grid operators need dispatchable carbon-free resources.
Nuclear energy and natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are current forerunners for dispatchable carbon-free power. While I don’t like either option, the question at the center of the dispute over 100 percent renewable energy remains: Is it feasible to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS? Some say yes, some say no. Regardless of which stance one takes, we can all agree that the current climate crisis demands action, now. SB 100 leaves the question of source open, and that flexibility ensures the measure’s success.
Mark Stemen is a professor at CSU, Chico who likes garden to take his mind off the current state of the world.
CON / Anthony Watts
I’ll likely be excoriated for even writing this, because the California left suffers from the noble cause corruption (look it up) of “saving the planet” by preventing climate change. In the CA Energy Commission report on the topic, they say: “The results of this preliminary analysis show that it is indeed possible to achieve a 100 percent clean electricity future. The threat posed by climate change requires us to think and act boldly today.”
Well, that’s nice, it’s also unrealistic. For example, today there are many people that believe today’s weather events are driven by “climate change.” If true, how can you explain California’s hot droughts of 1929–1934? The Central Valley Project was started in the 1930s in response to drought. The 1950s drought contributed to the creation of the State Water Project.
The 1863–1864 drought was preceded by the torrential floods of 1861–1862, Downtown Sacramento was flooded. If these events occurred today, they would invariably be blamed on “man-made climate change.” My point: weather extremes happen, and we can no more control the weather or climate today with wishful thinking (or bold actions) than we could 100 years ago. We can only mitigate.
Then there’s wishful electrical engineering by politicians. Remember last year when we had rolling blackouts in August and the electric grid nearly collapsed? Part of the reason was the “slump” in renewable energy that occurred at sunset (solar panels don’t work at night) and in wind turbines (wind generally calms at night). California’s electric grid is highly dependent on solar/wind now thanks to the political mandate known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) and later SB100. These laws push wind and solar requiring California’s electricity to be 100% “carbon free” energy by 2045.
According to PG&E tariff reports in 2008, the average cost per kilowatt hour of electricity was 16 cents – today it is 28 cents. The average US national electricity rate is 13.2 cents. If you think your bill is criminally high now (PG&E is a convicted felon), just wait until 2045.
California is paying the price for abandoning reliable energy sources in favor of green energy sources such as wind and solar power, and they don’t work at night or when the wind doesn’t blow. The only sensible path forward for clean energy is hydro-electric and nuclear energy, but eco-chondriacs won’t allow those either.
Good luck everyone.
Anthony Watts is former television meteorologist for KHSL-TV12, currently on KPAY 93.9. He’s also a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at the Heartland Institute in Chicago, and has never taken a dime from the oil industry or the Koch Brothers to have an opinion.
