California needs reliable delivery of electrical energy, day or night, sunny or cloudy, windy or not. California’s portfolio of electricity generation should develop toward an optimized balance of:
-A declining percentage of energy produced using fossil-based fuels
-Existing and expanded hydroelectric power
-Natural gas power plants
-Solar photovoltaic
-Wind turbines
-Geothermal production, and
-Safe nuclear power.
Hydroelectric power provides 15% of California’s electrical energy. Capital costs have already been paid. Hydro produces no greenhouse gases. Our planning for additional water storage in California should include for purposes of electricity generation.
Natural gas produces 38% of California’s electricity, and offers power on demand 24/7, with only modest greenhouse emissions.
Solar and wind account for 25% of California’s electrical energy and is growing. However, their power generation is intermittent, depending on sunny and windy days, requiring California to purchase enormous batteries.
Nuclear power has undergone extensive improvements in safety and cost. Many European countries obtain a large portion of their electricity from nuclear power, including France at 70%. It is time for California to expand safe nuclear power, adding to the existing 11% of its electricity California already receives from it.
Nuclear power has been supported by the past six U.S. presidents (both parties), including President Biden’s Administration that calls for “advanced nuclear reactors, that are smaller, safer, and more efficient at half the construction cost of today’s reactors.” Spent fuel is stored at various storage sites. A permanent underground storage location in Nevada makes the most sense geologically as the least seismically active location in the United States. This solution, however, was held up for years by Senator Harry Reid, when he was leader of the Senate Democrats.
California should support research into efficient batteries to store the electrical energy. However, the supply chains for lithium and other critical minerals are dominated by China, which has also purchased lithium mines worldwide. The U.S. must break this dependence on China by subsidizing mining, refining, and transport of critical minerals.
Similarly, energy independence from the Middle East oil producers is vital to national security.
Hydroelectric, solar, wind, and nuclear energy generate no greenhouse gases; but natural gas does. A carbon tax is a more efficient way of reducing carbon emissions than an arbitrary cap set by state government, even if the latter allows trading of carbon emission certificates.
While being a leader comes naturally to California, we must be realistic in noting that California’s contribution to greenhouse gas emission is less than 1.5% of the worldwide total. If California miraculously became carbon-neutral (at costs of trillions of dollars), greenhouse gas emission globally would continue at 98.5% of the current emission.
Climate policy must include “adaptation”, such as building sea walls, helping farmers and ranchers cope, building more reservoirs to account for reduced Sierra snow-pack, and bolstering forest management and public utilities’ efficiency improvements.
California can optimize its energy portfolio by gaining independence of foreign resources, reducing over-regulation, and establishing policy trade-offs that are common sense.
I believe that the SCAQCD is considering banning gas appliances.
Banning Gas Appliances is a Bad Idea!
It has come to my attentions the banning gas appliances in California is seriously being considered. I believe that this is a bad idea. The follow discussion includes my reasons for this conclusion. I am a retired engineer who has spent my career in the electric power industry.
• Banning gas appliances will place an untenable burden on many Californians, as discussed below, for little if any benefit. It is likely to yield unintended, negative results. Among those negative results will be the rejection of reasonable regulation and the elimination of existing laws by a skeptical electorate that cannot afford the price for the conversion. We already see this happening in on the federal government.
• The cost of converting gas appliances to electric will be substantial and fall, in many instances, on those least able to pay. The conversion in many cases would include not only replacing appliances, but upgrading electrical service and rewiring. The costs could run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Many of us are already upset about having to pay high electric rates to subsidize solar panels, electric rates, and electric cars for wealthy power wasters (welfare for the rich).
• People do not want hear their children crying from being cold or shivering or seeing their lips turning blue. Some of those that cannot afford conversion will turn to dangerous means of heating that will create carbon monoxide fumes, overloaded electrical circuits, and fires. We can look forward to tragic results from banning gas appliances.
• Climate change will already place a burden on electric supply. Increases in AC usage, electric cars and other forms of electric transportation, industrial conversion, AI, water supply pumping and sea water conversion are among the demands that will challenge our ability to provide necessary amounts of electricity. Adding millions of appliances will not help. The result will be either blackouts or purchasing coal generated electricity from neighboring states. How does that help anything?
• What are the plans for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Are batteries assumed to provide the electricity when generation isn’t available? This will require an enormous about of batteries at a staggering expense. Batteries are subject to fire and explosions that can spew toxic fumes into the atmosphere. How is that good? What happens when cloudy periods or dust in the atmosphere last longing than the battery capacity? More coal burning?
• Natural gas is a relatively clean burning fuel and more efficient for heating that electricity.
• What about hydrogen? It is a clean burning, carbon free fuel. I would guess that it would be cheaper and easier to convert gas appliances to use hydrogen than electricity.
• I believe that it would be more impactful to create a local/regional mass transit system that is economical, safe, comfortable, reliable and goes where people want to go.