Thu
Jan 25 2007
05:06 pm
California bans coal power
By: R. Neal

California has banned the purchase of electricity from coal-fired power plants.

According to the article, there are practically no coal-fired power plants in California but they get up to 20% of their electricity from coal-fired plants in other Western states.

Topics:
Les Jones's picture

Does anyone know the makeup

Submitted by Les Jones on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 6:06pm.

Does anyone know the makeup of California's energy plants? I'm curious what energy sources they're using for electricity.

www.lesjones.com

Number9's picture

Might be...

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 6:17pm.

Does anyone know the makeup of California's energy plants? I'm curious what energy sources they're using for electricity.

Squirrel wheel.

Anyone think the law of unintended consequences will kick in this summer? California thought Enron was a good idea.

redmondkr's picture

There is a tremendous amount

Submitted by redmondkr on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 6:25pm.

There is a tremendous amount of energy in their mudslides, earthquakes, and wildfires if they can just figure out how to tap it.

Come See Us at

The Hill Online

rikki's picture

California thought Enron was

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 7:34pm.

California thought Enron was a good idea.

Actually, California thought a deregulated free market in electricity was a good idea. Enron thought it was another great opportunity for white-collar theft.

R. Neal's picture

http://www.energy.ca.gov/elec

Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 6:31pm.

(link...)

Coal 20.1%
Large Hydro 17.0%
Natural Gas 37.7%
Nuclear 14.5%
Renewables 10.7%

Andy Axel's picture

They could probably reach

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 6:33pm.

They could probably reach much of that 20% through efficiency gains.

The cheapest megawatt is the megawatt not produced.

There's even a theoretical market solution that's been in the agitprop for some time...

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Les Jones's picture

Thanks, Bubba

Submitted by Les Jones on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 7:18pm.

That's why I say you're the new Google. :-)

So California gets 20% of its power from coal? No way they're planning on replacing 20% of their power. Surely not all of that 20% is affected by this decision.

Andy: you say link whore like it's a bad thing.

www.lesjones.com

Andy Axel's picture

L'il ol' me? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 7:26pm.

You make an ass of u and mption.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

smalc's picture

Hmm, 17% from hydro. TVA

Submitted by smalc on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 9:30am.

Hmm, 17% from hydro.

TVA gets only about 10% from hydro. Imagine that.

R. Neal's picture

I thought it was more like

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 9:37am.

I thought it was more like 6%. And their "green" (renewable) output is less than 1% (i.e. an unmeasurable rounding error.)

smalc's picture

Maybe so, I was just going

Submitted by smalc on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 10:22am.

Maybe so, I was just going from memory. Last I remember it was 70,20,10 and <1 (coal,nuclear,hydro and renewable).

R. Neal's picture

So was I (going from

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 10:26am.

So was I (going from memory). I guess it fluctuates with the rain, though.

OK, just checked. You are correct:

(link...)

Fossil fuel plants produced about 62 percent of TVA’s total generation in fiscal year 2005.

Nuclear power produced about 28 percent of TVA’s generation, and hydropower produced 10 percent.

TVA’s combustion turbines and renewable energy program, Green Power Switch, also contributed to TVA’s generation mix.

Sven's picture

Forget coal, looks like they

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 9:19pm.

Forget coal, looks like they need a substitute for water:

Climate models predict that California's average temperature will increase 3.6 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. For every 1.8 degrees of added warmth, snow level in the Sierra is expected to move 500 feet higher.

Even at the low end of that range, snow level would rise about 1,000 feet, cutting the state's snowpack in half, according to one simulation by climate scientists. In the worst case, the Sierra snowpack could shrink by as much as 90 percent.

Factchecker's picture

Heavywater Cal

Submitted by Factchecker on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 9:25am.

So California gets 20% of its power from coal? No way they're planning on replacing 20% of their power. Surely not all of that 20% is affected by this decision.

Unless I'm misunderestimating, they're allowing 20% and they've reached that, so no more coal/no less = no new coal. (?) (It's hard to interpret from the article--It seems to depend on whether it's cleaner or dirtier-produced.)

[EDIT: NPR's report today implied that some of the existing coal plant providers will either have to clean up to remain in the supply line or they'll be replaced by cleaner plants (but still outside Cal.). That is all.]

Renewables 10.7%

That's amazing! Guessing that's 2-10 times better than the rest of the country, though they do have less severe HVAC needs.

Negawatts. Last week's New Yorker had an article about Armory Lovins, who coined the term. Unfortunately the article doesn't seem to be online.

Les Jones's picture

Factchecker

Submitted by Les Jones on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 9:38am.

So you're saying it's actually a cap. That makes more sense than what the linked article implied.

www.lesjones.com

Factchecker's picture

Les

Submitted by Factchecker on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 12:44pm.

I don't think the new law is a cap. It just puts limits on how dirty a coal plant selling power to the state can be.

From the wording of this as the "greenhouse gas emissions performace standard," I think the utility regulators just adopted a bill that Ahnault signed in September, which according to the San Diego Union-Tribune (can't copy text and you have to answer a question to enter, so they don't get a link), states that investor-owned utilites cannot enter into or renew long-term contracts with electricity producers that emit more CO2 than modern natural gas plants (however much that is).

Excerpt:

This bill doesn't say "no" to electricity from coal, but it puts the coal industry on notice that it needs to use much cleaner and more efficient technologies if it wants California financing.

So, presumably some plants will upgrade, others will lose their contracts to cleaner plants. Maybe non-coal or negawatts will be take up some slack.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives