- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
California is set to hit its green-energy goals a decade early
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:39 pm
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:39 pm
quote:
California is both the nation's leading renewable-energy proponent and one of the few states to actually put its power where its mouth is. In November, the California Energy Commission released its annual Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) report which found that the state's three investor-owned utilities -- Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric -- are on track to collectively offer 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020. That's a full decade faster than anyone had anticipated.
Reports like these have been used to promote clean-energy production throughout the US and the rest of the world since the 1970s. However, it wasn't until 2002 that California codified the practice. But despite being in effect for only 15 years, California's mandatory reporting has become a potent tool in fighting greenhouse-gas emissions throughout the state.
As of last year, 32.9 percent of PG&E's power came from renewable resources, as did 28.2 percent from SoCal Edison and a whopping 43.2 percent from San Diego Gas -- granted, SDG&E is by far the state's smallest investor-owned utility.
And, despite critics' complaints that moving to renewables would stymie economic growth and increase the electric bills of customers throughout the state, it's actually been quite the opposite. In the last seven years, California has seen a massive construction boom in the solar- and wind-energy sectors. The price of solar power has dropped to under $30 in 2016 from around $136 per megawatt-hour in 2008, while wind power prices have fallen to $51 in 2015 from $97 per megawatt-hour in 2007, per the report. Over the same period, the state has seen greenhouse-gas emissions from electricity generation decrease nearly every year.
LINK
If there is an Enron-California joke here somewhere, I don't see it. Good for California, I guess.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:42 pm to rickgrimes
Great. Let's see them run their autos and 18-wheelers on solar and wind.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:42 pm to rickgrimes
quote:
California is set to hit its green-energy goals a decade early
I'll tell you what it means, electricity is expensive in Cali and is only going to get more expensive.
This post was edited on 12/26/17 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:44 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Great. Let's see them run their autos and 18-wheelers on solar and wind.
What does that have to do with anything?
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:45 pm to bhtigerfan
You oil and gas baws are so triggered by renewables
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:46 pm to rickgrimes
Let green energy come naturally through the market.
Let consumers decide when they want to switch to green energy.
It isn't right to prop up ANY industry that consumers do not vote for with their wallets.
Let consumers decide when they want to switch to green energy.
It isn't right to prop up ANY industry that consumers do not vote for with their wallets.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:46 pm to rickgrimes
That article reads a lot like they’re out of money and looking for new investors. Maybe that’s just me.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:47 pm to rickgrimes
Cue the weird downvotes and irrational anger. This board gets upset when something is good in clean energy and cheers when Tesla doesn’t make money. Can anyone explain that?
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:48 pm to rickgrimes
quote:If you lived here, you'd be singing a different tune. I have to pay AMONG THE HIGHEST for energy usage of any state in the country. I don't mind because I have a stable income, but it hurts the poor immensely, and you don't give a shite, because muh green.
Good for California, I guess.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:48 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
It isn't right to prop up ANY industry that consumers do not vote for with their wallets.
It is when one is killing the environment we live in
This post was edited on 12/26/17 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:50 pm to rickgrimes
I have nothing against renewables but I would like to have seen them find their way into the economy without any government subsidies.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:52 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Let green energy come naturally through the market.
Let consumers decide when they want to switch to green energy.
It isn't right to prop up ANY industry that consumers do not vote for with their wallets.
So you are saying the Oil and Gas industry never benefitted from any government subsidies or perks? With every post you are inching ever closer to the CptBengal, JJDoc and SirWinston tier of Poli Board posting. It's pathetic, really.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:54 pm to olddawg26
There aren’t any success stories for clean energy. Just one failure after the other propped up by government subsidies. Green-energy is another control mechanism masquerading as a helpful government program.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:54 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
is when one is killing the environment we live in
Care about the environment eh? That's cool.
Think humans are destroying the environment eh? That's cool.
So let's reduce the earth's population to that of 100 years ago.
Returning to that population would do far more good for the planet than any regulation will.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:56 pm to iPadThai
quote:I have never ever supported ANY subsidy to any industry.
So you are saying the Oil and Gas industry never benefitted from any government subsidies or perks? With every post you are inching ever closer to the CptBengal, JJDoc and SirWinston tier of Poli Board posting. It's pathetic, really.
When you choose to take your business somewhere, you are essentially "voting" for that business.
When the state, through force, takes the money of consumers and gives it to industries that the consumers on their own would not have chosen, it is akin to altering/stealing their votes.
I am perfectly fine with green energy, but don't sit there and glorify it's cost reductions without including the billions of dollars it gets in subsidies each year.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:58 pm to beerJeep
quote:
So let's reduce the earth's population to that of 100 years ago.
What does that have to do with anything? Still would have the same problems.
Posted on 12/27/17 at 12:02 am to crewdepoo
Here is what happens when a country goes full on green energy without first letting it naturally evolve to the point where consumers are willing to buy it.
I don't think people quite understand how harmful it would be to the finances of poorer households in America if we went full on green energy. It's an additional hundreds of dollars a year, if not thousands.
quote:
the cost of electricity is so high that many Germans call their energy bill their “second mortgage.” In 2004 residential electricity was about 23 cents (U.S.) per kilowatt-hour; by 2015 it was 35 cents. A significant portion of this cost increase stems from a “renewable energy surcharge” added to electricity bills to cover the price tag of those key green subsidies. Given the whimsical nature of power generation as dictated by weather, utilities are sometimes faced with too much prosumer flow which they must turn away or overload the grid—yet they still must pay for it. The green energy surcharge alone is nearly 70% of the average total electricity bill in the United States. This has real impact. Every year for the past six years some 300,000 Germans have had their electricity shut off because they were delinquent on their bills.
I don't think people quite understand how harmful it would be to the finances of poorer households in America if we went full on green energy. It's an additional hundreds of dollars a year, if not thousands.
Posted on 12/27/17 at 12:05 am to crewdepoo
quote:
What does that have to do with anything? Still would have the same problems
Uh.... Really? What would knocking out roughly 5 BILLION people do? Uhhhhhh.... Well... It would knock out a frick ton of pollution and all those horrible things us humans do.
"Humans cause global warming!"
"If we knocked out 75% of the earth's population we would still have the same problems!"
What?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News