Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

[GRA]

The sheer number of humans on the planet, along with their high densities, is the underlying cause of all major human-based environmental impacts.

Disagree. It's a contributing factor, combined with our high-consumption way of life. But it is not the cause.[

Then what is? One person dumping their wastes in a river isn't a problem, but millions of them doing so is. A few hundred thousand scattered cooking fires has little effect, but billions of people in an industrial society burning huge amounts of energy is. Scale is crucial.

It may be possible to eliminate the deleterious environmental effects of large numbers of humans at high density, but it will always be easier to do so if the numbers and densities are smaller. Since we don't yet have the ability to eliminate those effects, our only other option is to reduce the size of the problems by reducing the number of people contributing to them.

As to eliminating the human race entirely from the earth, there are more than a few scientists who've pointed out that our survival as a species isn't required; it's our egos that make us think our continuation is important. In short, it matters to us, but the earth would get along just fine without us, as it did for the several billion years before we arrived.

Let's just say that you and I have very different views on our purpose here. We don't exist to support the earth. The earth exists to support us.

Yes, we do have different views. To me, our and the earth's existence are independent; it's not aware of us, it doesn't exist to serve us, nor do we exist to support it. We have evolved in a particular period of the earth's existence, and are dependent for our continued survival on things continuing more or less as they have for the past couple of million years or so (i.e. long past the Great Oxygenation event that caused mass species extinction, but was essential to our eventual development), and more specifically for industrial society, as they've existed since the last major Ice age.

Of course the earth could and would go on without us. In fact, I said as much in my post. But that's not the point. We should care about the earth's ability to support us. That's the whole point - to allow the earth to continue to support human life.

Agreed that we should care, but that's only because it's important from our point of view, not because it's likely to be of cosmic importance.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Agreed that we should care, but that's only because it's important from our point of view, not because it's likely to be of cosmic importance.

What, you don't think the rest of the universe deserves spectacular, magnificent humanity???

 

[RegGuheert]

So, while most Californians only get angry over environmental issues when there's a major catastrophe like an oil spill, we are moving away from fossil fuels faster than any other state.

No, you aren't. Between 2007 and 2015, CA reduced emissions by about 9% while the US reduced emissions by over 10%.

Uh huh, and how were our economies doing at the same time, i.e. pollution per $?

You don't seem to get the concept that some economic activities are more energy intensive than others per dollar of revenue spent. You also have ignored the fact that CA lags the rest of the country in both reduction of pollution and reduction of the energy intensity of their activities.

Sure, most people are hypocrites to some extent or another, but to what extent does matter.

I couldn't agree more. In CA, virtue signalling reigns supreme.

No argument there, but we also do take actions to fix the problem, after first admitting that there is a problem, something that most other parts of the country were generally more loath to do because it interfered with 'business as usual'.

Many people, including yourself apparently, do not understand that taking no new action is often the best way to approach a given problem. Case in point: CA trying to build a "hydrogen economy" is an excellent example of taking an action that does significantly more damage to the environment than it helps. As a result, it is better to do nothing different than to do more damage through this poorly-considered knee-jerk reaction.

As I said, the great exodus from CA will likely accelerate due to this action of CA's ill-informed governor. His promotion of this bill is likely MUCH worse than his veto of a bill in 2016 designed to prevent the type of fire disaster which ravaged Northern California in 2017. I wonder when Californians intend to call him to account for his dumb decisions.

In any case, it will be interesting to watch this entire scenario play out. What are the issues facing California right now?
- Insufficient water to meet their needs. This has been true for a very long time, but more water is now being drawn from the Colorado River than flows into it.
- California does not have sufficient fossil fuel resources to meet their energy needs. But California does not want to produce any fossil fuels in CA, but is happy to pay others to produce fossil fuels for their needs.
- California is going to attempt to replace fossil-fuel consumption by the consumption of electricity and hydrogen which they do not have. By making this decision by political decree rather than by allowing the market to orchestrate the transition, CA is doomed to create MORE pollution and drive costs to unheard-of levels.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch it play out.

 

[SageBrush]

I see a different scenario playing out:
California is and remains the undisputed leader of the the clean-energy emerging economy.

Southern states like Virginia drag their feet and engage in self-celebratory masturbation that they were "smart" to wait for lower prices while ignoring the damage that their procrastination engendered.

 

[GRA]

No, you aren't. Between 2007 and 2015, CA reduced emissions by about 9% while the US reduced emissions by over 10%.

Uh huh, and how were our economies doing at the same time, i.e. pollution per $?

You don't seem to get the concept that some economic activities are more energy intensive than others per dollar of revenue spent.

Oh, I'm well aware of ERoI and EROEI.

You also have ignored the fact that CA lags the rest of the country in both reduction of pollution and reduction of the energy intensity of their activities.

No argument there, but we also do take actions to fix the problem, after first admitting that there is a problem, something that most other parts of the country were generally more loath to do because it interfered with 'business as usual'.

Many people, including yourself apparently, do not understand that taking no new action is often the best way to approach a given problem. Case in point: CA trying to build a "hydrogen economy" is an excellent example of taking an action that does significantly more damage to the environment than it helps. As a result, it is better to do nothing different than to do more damage through this poorly-considered knee-jerk reaction.

Reg, your conclusions about H2/FCEvs are well-known, but as many governments and entitites disagree with you, you'll just have to accept that some things which you are against will be done anyway. Time will tell which ones were smart, which ones weren't, like California's support for the development and deployment of BEVs back in the '90s. Here's some more steps California is taking and/or spearheading - how do you feel about these:

GCC: “Drive to Zero” program to fast-track adoption of clean trucks and buses

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26531

GCC: California first state to regulate GHGs of ridesharing companies

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26528

In the latter case I realize you're not concerned by GHGs, but since

The premise that by prioritizing trips made in zero-emission vehicles, ridesharing companies can help popularize clean transportation, and help California meet its goal of putting 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030.

, and most of those will be BEVs, you presumably would consider that a positive step. I've always thought the Bolt's design was heavily influenced by ride-sharing requirements, and GM is obviously intending for it to have a large part of that market.

As I said, the great exodus from CA will likely accelerate due to this action of CA's ill-informed governor. His promotion of this bill is likely MUCH worse than his veto of a bill in 2016 designed to prevent the type of fire disaster which ravaged Northern California in 2017. I wonder when Californians intend to call him to account for his dumb decisions.

As we consider far more of his decisions smart than dumb, the answer is never. but if it makes you feell better, his likely successor (Gavin Newsom) come January plans to keep those policies in place and implement more of the same, so you can bitch about him.

In any case, it will be interesting to watch this entire scenario play out. What are the issues facing California right now?

- Insufficient water to meet their needs. This has been true for a very long time, but more water is now being drawn from the Colorado River than flows into it.

You forgot to add warmer winters, which leads to more precip falling as rain instead of snow (the snowpack has acted as much of our storage), and hotter-drier summers (more frequent/severe droughts) causing more fires. Of course, you reject AGCC as a cause of that, but whether you believe it's that or just a natural cycle, it's still happening. But on the off-chance that a lot of people leave, that will ease the pressure considerably, although most water in California is used by Agribusiness, and their political clout and unwillingness to conserve have been one of the drivers of our water woes (there's always three-way tussle here between water for ag, urban use, and environmental needs).

- California does not have sufficient fossil fuel resources to meet their energy needs. But California does not want to produce any fossil fuels in CA, but is happy to pay others to produce fossil fuels for their needs.

Good thing we're switching to VRE as quickly as possible, then.

- California is going to attempt to replace fossil-fuel consumption by the consumption of electricity and hydrogen which they do not have. By making this decision by political decree rather than by allowing the market to orchestrate the transition, CA is doomed to create MORE pollution and drive costs to unheard-of levels.[/quyote]
Or not, as the case may be. We banned new or renewed coal-fired electricity contracts some years back, which has been replaced by VRE and NG, and we're down to quite low levels of coal elec. now. I'm more in favor of keeping Diablo Canyon going while we draw down fossil fuels than many, but its unprotected location on the coast (see Fukushima) as well as the cost of necessary upgrades make that a non-starter.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch it play out.

Yes, it will be interesting, especially because our air is so much cleaner than it was before we implemented most of the regulations requiring clean air, that we can see much further on average.

 

[RegGuheert]

I see a different scenario playing out:
California is and remains the undisputed leader of the the clean-energy emerging economy.

Based upon what measure do you you make this claim? Let's take a look at the facts instead of continually making unfounded claims:

Does CA produce a higher percentage of its electricity using renewable sources than the other states in the United States? Let's see using 2017 data:
- CA: 47.2% That means CA lags six other states: VT: 99.6%, ID: 81.6%, WA: 80.0%, OR: 76.3%, ME: 75.9%, and SD: 73.1%.

So, I'll dispute your claim based on the data above. What's that you say? Those states have access to more hydroelectric resources than does CA, so they have an advantage. So they do! No problem, we have data without hydroelectric renewable generation. So let's try again:

Does CA produce a higher percentage of its electricity using renewable sources besides hydro than than the other states in the United States? Let's see using 2017 data:
- CA: 26.5% That means CA lags seven other states: ME: 46.1%, VT: 41.3%, IA: 37.2%, KS: 36.1%, OK: 32.3%, SD: 30.2%, and ND: 26.9%.

So, I'll dispute your claim again based on the data above. How about total renewable energy, including hydroelectric, produced in the state? There CA IS the leader in the US:
Does CA produce more electricity using renewable sources than the other states in the United States? Let's see using 2017 data:
- CA: 97,298 GWh

So I won't dispute your claim based on this, at least within the U.S. But doesn't CA have more hydro resources than many other states? Yes..
So let's see how they do without hydropower, again using 2017 data:
- CA: 54,606 GWh That means that CA lags on other state: TX: 70,759 GWh

So I'll again dispute your claim based on the data above.

Looking more globally, CA lags countries like Norway, Portugal, Denmark, and Germany in terms of percent of their electricity generated and lags China in every category of renewable generation *except* percentage.

If you are talking about electric vehicle production, China wins there, too, at least in terms of quantity. CA (Tesla) certainly has the most advanced electric vehicle design in mass production.

But the question remains: Can CA wean itself off fossil fuels in 25 years by mandate of the government? Let's see what history has to say about the topic:

How much has the world weened itself of fossil fuels over the past 40 years? Not much. In fact, fossil fuel production has steadily increased. But even the percent of total energy the world derives from fossil fuels has dropped very little over the past 40 years (from about 84% to about 81%:

 

[iPlug]

Reproduced from earlier this year at https://priuschat.com/threads/california-electrical-grid-sources.167955/

Another great year for California, continuing to lead in grid greening (rain helped out last year too)

2017 California Electrical Grid Source data:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html

Highlights comparing 2017 to 2016:
(note units are percent total system power)

-coal mix unchanged at 4.13% (vast majority remains imported)
-natural gas use decreased and is down for 3 consecutive years, now 33.67% of the power mix
-nuclear remains nearly stable, down a tenth of a percent to 9.1%
-large hydro increased from 10.2% to 14.7% of the mix due to drought breaking rainfall
-non-large hydro renewables grew almost as fast and renewables continue to climb rapidly, with another year over year 3.55% power mix gain to the current 29.00%
-wind continues to grow, but at an ever slowing rate, now 9.4%, up from 9.06%
-solar outpaced wind for the first time now at 10.2% (8.11% last year)
-small hydro grew temporarily with large hydro, again with record rainfall that winter/spring
-still, the impact of solar is underestimated as “behind the meter” home solar is not measured as only units generating 1MW or greater are counted
-California total system electric generation was up 0.5 percent from 2016 and the first factor sited was growth in the number of light duty electric vehicles registered in the state
-California’s non CO2 emitting electric generation categories (nuclear, large hydroelectric, and renewable generation) accounted for more than 56 percent of total in-state generation for 2017, compared to 50 percent in 2016 (and 40% in 2015)

 

[RegGuheert]

Another great year for California, continuing to lead in grid greening (rain helped out last year too)

What should we call that, then? Leading from behind?

Yeah, let's go with that.

 

[iPlug]

We should compare all States total solar, wind, and geothermal mix and how they have been improving each year.

We should also compare all States total coal mix and how they have been improving each year (if coal mix isn’t already near zero).

That will show the leaders.

 

[RegGuheert]

So those states and countries which are already at 100% renewable electricity production don't count as the leaders because they already got there and are unable to increase to a number beyond 100%?

Got it.

ETA: BTW, by that logic (CA logic?), if ALL other states and countries were already at 100% electricity generation and CA was still trying to get there, CA would be the LEADER! :roll:

 

[iPlug]

Having lots of hydro resources native to ones State doesn't count much towards deploying or leading in green tech. Being a State with lots of precipitation that is easy to capture and with low relative population doesn't give that State an inherent title of being more green.

The green title would come from developing and deploying green tech like solar and wind turbines, battery storage, etc.

FWIW, I am not against large hydro or nuclear and they have plenty of merit.

But California is making leading progress with deploying solar and wind and eliminating coal and even reducing natural gas. That is something many other places so far have struggled with. Germany, for example was leading with solar, but still uses a lot of coal.

Keep in mind that the population of California is larger than the sum of (VT+ ID + WA + OR + ME + SD) or (ME + VT + IA + KS + OK + SD + ND). So adding any one of those States renewable or renewable + hydro production to the CA grid barely makes a dent. Conversely, if those States had to support the population of CA, their percent renewable or renewable + hydro production is rather small.

 

[RegGuheert]

So you want to discount hydro-electric generation and then not mention that TX leads CA in renewable generation by 20% in that case? And that this is true even though the population of CA is about a third larger than that of TX?

That would be a bit inconvenient to mention, wouldn't it?

And, of course, I've already covered this fact in my previous post.

Simply put, CA is the undisputed leader only in the minds of Californians who have not bothered to look outside their own borders (even when the facts are put plainly in front of them).

 

[iPlug]

I have lived at least several years in both States, no special loyalty to CA.

CA vs. TX hydro was not a point I brought up, but actually a pretty convenient point now that it is mentioned. So first let's be clear on the difference between supply and demand. Population is demand side. But you are talking about supply side.

If it is of importance to discuss, let's take the 20% mentioned above as correct, and make the required supply side adjustments for:

Precipitation:
TX > CA (~1.3:1)

AND

Geographic Area:
TX>>CA (1.64:1)

TX therefore also underperforms CA on hydro.

 

[SageBrush]

@RegGuheert,
I'm feeling too lazy for now to rebut your post point by point so I'll just highlight the main problems with your bullet points:
1. The New England states that appear to have high penetration of clean energy are including mixtures of hydro imports from Canada and "bio-mass," the latter of very debatable environmental progress.

2. The mid-west states have a tremendous wind source that was developed by outsiders. Denmark, Germany and California did the heavy lifting. In the United States California stands alone in developing an integrated clean energy economy that includes research, development, manufacturing, deployment and a supportive regulatory framework. You can always cherry pick something or another to debate but that has not interest for me.

3. The data you highlight does not include behind the meter production.

 

[SageBrush]

So you want to discount hydro-electric generation and then not mention that TX leads CA in renewable generation by 20% in that case? And that this is true even though the population of CA is about a third larger than that of TX?

Texas made one VERY smart decision: the state financed the build of a transmission line from W. Texas that has great wind resource to the population centers. Every state should emulate that decision to finance transmission infra-structure to clean energy rich areas. Other than that one brilliant move Texas is a pathetic laggard.

 

[iPlug]

Agree with intrastate transmission upgrades.

Would like to see this taken a step further with increasing interstate grid ties.

One particular State may have predominantly rainy or cloudy skies on any given day or be nearly windless. But during the day the sun is always shining well upon some other State and the wind resources would then be better somewhere else. Thus distributed solar and wind resources would be advantageous. There is a cost to everything and here as well. But this would be more cost effective than large battery storage for now which is still years away from being ready for prime time heavy duty lifting.

In the mean time extending time of use (TOU) pricing to the more general population is a solution that can be implemented now. Currently many solar and plug-in vehicle customers do this which helps balance their grids. But TOU pricing would also encourage general electricity consumers to use their appliances more wisely, such as running pool pumps, dryers, clothes washers, dish washing machines, etc. during off peak hours. Commercial and industrial users could also likely bend their electricity consumption somewhat with the correct TOU financial incentives.

 

[GRA]

Agreed that we should care, but that's only because it's important from our point of view, not because it's likely to be of cosmic importance.

What, you don't think the rest of the universe deserves spectacular, magnificent humanity???

:lol:

 

[RegGuheert]

I have lived at least several years in both States, no special loyalty to CA.

CA vs. TX hydro was not a point I brought up, but actually a pretty convenient point now that it is mentioned. So first let's be clear on the difference between supply and demand. Population is demand side. But you are talking about supply side.

If it is of importance to discuss, let's take the 20% mentioned above as correct, and make the required supply side adjustments for:

Precipitation:
TX > CA (~1.3:1)

AND

Geographic Area:
TX>>CA (1.64:1)

TX therefore also underperforms CA on hydro.

More CA logic? By your logic, FL has virtual the same hydroelectric resources as CA due to the fact that FL has about 2.45 times the rainfall but CA has 2.48 times the land area. Yet CA produces 77X as much hydroelectric power as FL. In your view, that is due to California's exceptionalism. But the real reason is that your simplistic idea of what comprises hydroelectric resources is simply wrong. Topology is a major aspect of the real requirement, but you seem unaware of that basic fact. You see, FL has virtually NO hydroelectric resources due to the fact that it is almost completely flat. The situation in TX is better than FL, but only slightly so.

Simply put, TX does not have the hydroelectric resources that CA does, yet you think TX "underperforms CA on hydro." Utter nonsense.

The simple fact is that while CA SPENDS (much?) more taxpayers' money on so-called green initiatives than does TX, CA manages to waste more than does TX, so CA has less to show for their taxation. Maybe this is part of the reason that Californians pay about 60% more per kWh for electricity than do Texans.

 

[RegGuheert]

2. The mid-west states have a tremendous wind source that was developed by outsiders. Denmark, Germany and California did the heavy lifting. In the United States California stands alone in developing an integrated clean energy economy that includes research, development, manufacturing, deployment and a supportive regulatory framework. You can always cherry pick something or another to debate but that has not interest for me.

You're kidding, right?

TX added over 66.5 GWh of annual renewably-generated electricity to their grid since 2000, something no other state has been able to achieve. That link lists the manufacturers of the wind turbines used in the largest wind farms found in the state. The list includes the following names:
- GE Energy
- Mitsubishi
- Vestas
- Siemens
- Acciona
- Gamesa

So tell me this: Which of those manufacturers design or build their wind turbines in CA?

The facts are clear: TX is the undisputed leader in the US in adding renewable electricity to their grid.

 

[WetEV]

The facts are clear: TX is the undisputed leader in the US in adding renewable electricity to their grid.

No. Washington State is the undisputed leader in the US in adding renewable electricity to their grid. Did so back in the 1930's and 1940s.

It is all hydro, but just because you don't have big rivers isn't an excuse.

TX has wind power resources that California just doesn't have. Oh, and TX didn't do all of it. Federal subsidies... Hint hint.