In its never-ending war to demonstrate political correctness in the era of “climate change,” California lawmakers are demonstrating their ignorance of economics and resource allocation and angering voters across the nation in the process.
Just last year, the California legislature enacted a law that requires the state to obtain all of its electricity from “clean” sources – wind, solar, hydro – by 2045, with a shorter-term goal of 60 percent renewable by 2030.
One has to wonder how the state is going to meet what promises to be a massive increase in energy demand just 25 years from now.
The California Energy Commission estimated that the state will consume 301,525 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity in 2020 – and that’s the lowball estimate!
Just four years ago, the Golden State was importing a third of its electricity, and 44 percent of its electrical energy generation was from oil, coal, and natural gas.
California, however, is still the nation’s third-largest producer of oil and natural gas. One wonders if and when the state will stop issuing operating permits for these facilities, which generate significant revenues and provide thousands of jobs for Californians.
Also in 2018, Assemblyman Phil Ting (D, San Francisco) introduced a bill that would have banned the sale and registration of new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks powered by internal combustion engines beginning in 2040.
Though that bill died, the 2020 state budget empowers the California Energy Commission to conduct a study of how to move the state toward 100 percent electric vehicles by 2040.
Currently, only about 3 percent of the 26 million passenger vehicles in California are personal electric vehicles. How is California going to generate enough electricity within 20 years to power 23 million more personal vehicles?
The California Energy Commission notes that 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline and 4.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel were sold in the state in 2015. That’s a boatload of energy that will have to be replaced with wind and solar electricity.
Moreover, while some believe these bans will result in Californians driving existing internal combustion engines as long as they can be operated, one wonders at what point in time California will ban the SALE of gasoline and diesel fuel.
Earlier this year, progressive Berkeley banned the construction of natural gas lines to single-family homes, townhomes, and small apartment buildings starting in January 2020.
The ban will be extended to commercial buildings and larger residential structures once the state develops regulations. Several other California cities have followed suit, and the trend is likely to continue.
Jacques Leslie, who was a war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times during the Vietnam war, stated flatly in an LA Times op-ed that, “California has set a climate mandate of 100% clean, renewable energy by 2045. It won’t reach that goal unless it eliminates natural gas from buildings.”
Leslie went on to assert that, “Now that regulations aimed at the 2045 mandate are in place for cars, trucks, and coal-fired power, natural gas has to be next. The popular image of gas cooking and heating — clean, cheap and reliable, a “bridge fuel” from coal to renewables — requires drastic revision. Natural gas is in fact the new coal.”
According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, about 12 million California homes have gas stoves and/or furnaces.
Natural gas consumption in the state in 2018 totaled 2,136,907 million cubic feet (Mcf), of which 614,722 Mcf went for electric power generation, 766,415 Mcf to industrial users, 423,915 Mcf to residential users, and 248,012 to commercial users.
That is a whopping amount of energy that will have to be replaced with wind and solar electricity.
To jumpstart the state’s intoxicating goals for zero emissions, California in November announced it would no longer buy sedans powered solely by internal combustion engines and will purchase only plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles.
SUVs, trucks, and certain public safety vehicles are exempt – for now. The state further announced it would only purchase vehicles from automakers that recognize the California Air Resources Board’s authority to set tough greenhouse gas standards for vehicles – Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, and Honda.
This decision is a declaration of war against General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, Toyota, and other automakers that are seeking to become a party to a legal battle between the Trump administration and California over whether the state can set auto emission rules for itself.
Curiously, one week after this announcement, California motorists reported they had to wait in a half-mile-long line for hours to recharge their ZEV Teslas at the Kettleman City recharging station halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco on Interstate 5, even though the station has 40 individual charging points.
A day earlier a video entitled ‘Tesla Energy Crisis’ revealed a sizable line of 15 Teslas waiting for their turn at a supercharger station in San Luis Obispo on Thanksgiving Day.
But if you think waiting in line for hours just to get home from a weekend outing is tough, imagine trying to recharge your electric vehicle during one of Pacific Gas & Electric’s intentional rolling blackouts, one of which reportedly affected 700,000 California households – and which PG&E promises may be needed for years to come as part of their fire prevention plan?
California’s commitment to 100 percent renewable electricity – no natural gas, no coal, no oil, and no nuclear power (the state’s lone nuclear power plant will sunset in 2021) — violates the maxim popularized in 1605 by Miguel Cervantes, “It is the part of a wise man to keep himself today for tomorrow, and not venture all his eggs in one basket.”
Read more at CFACT
History repeats itself. This gives us a crystal ball to see the future. There are one of two paths California could take. They could follow the German solution to climate change and continue to talk green as they build more coal fired power plants. It is more likely that they will follow the Australian path. This is after suffering the cost and unreliability of using renewable energy, there will be an election where they will throw the idiots that are in charge out.
This is tantamount to “state-mandated economic collapse” and reveals a truly astonishing degree of economic ignorance. The problem is that capital is scarce and the resources at the economy’s disposal are finite. This plan would essentially require a huge proportion of this scarce capital to be diverted to a form of energy generation that is demonstrably not economically viable. Thus capital would be withdrawn from profitable production of things consumers actually want and demand to unprofitable production of things no-one asked for or wants/needs. In short, it is triple-whammy, kneecapping the economy from every possible angle – essentially economic suicide. If these plans are actually implemented in full, I would expect the state to become depopulated very quickly, probably within a decade.
You’re redeemed, Duggan, after that silliness about wind energy last week. But why the tears?
Replacing fossil fuels is a worthy aim even if this California plan is impossible in its schedule and most likely to result in draconian measures. Internal combustion engine pollution was always a problem for the quality of life, health and environment; so, transitioning to electric vehicles is still and always will be a good idea. Forget the foolish hyperbole of climate change, we need to improve air quality. Reduce …
Particulate matter (PM).
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
Nitrogen oxides (NOx.
Carbon monoxide (CO).
Sulfur dioxide (SO2).
I have always admired the red haze of auto emissions blanketing Denver as you approach from the hills. Look at Beijing and a thousand other cities. Who wants to see it; and no one wants to breathe it.
Your one failing though is your affection for nuclear power. It’s just bad news from the get go. Too expensive per watt, to dirty and too dangerous. Remember who is funding the climate change lies and exaggerations, the folks who are benefiting from it financially: nuclear fuel cycle enterprise.
If you want to keep things diversified, use natural gas.
Private Citizen, it is refreshing that you are honest with your agenda and not trying to piggy back on the climate change movement. The air quality where we live and almost every where I go to doesn’t have a significant problem with the pollutants you mentioned. However, being forced only to use electric cars would be a problem of disastrous proportions. Electric cars including used one are so expensive that there is no way we could run as many as our family needs. My daughter is a free lance music teacher driving to each student’s home. She purchased her car for $2,100. There is no way she could afford an electric vehicle. Cleaning up the non-problem of the pollutants you mentioned would cause a very real problem of unemployment. The rest of the family is in a similar situation. For most people public transportation isn’t a good option because the extra time required. If it were a good solution they would be using it now. My family lives in the foothills and would have to drive to get to a point where public transportation is available. The entire nation shouldn’t have a disastrous plan forced on us just for certain areas. As far as Denver goes, I bet if there was a vote between keeping things the way they are and forcing everyone to use electric cars, the status quo would win.
DL … we agree for today, but the barriers of cost and no adequate charging service infrastructure will soon fade as electric vehicles go down market: cheaper manufacturing, no vehcicle maintenance costs, economies of scale and a cheaper supply chain, improved technologies (batteries, rapid recharging rates), etc. Soon there will be real middle-class solutions so your daughter and my wife just drive into one of the many locations and exchange generic batteries (no need to recharge the one it the car) at every drive-through coffee shop, fast food joint, and grocery store.
That’s the exact plan to make it so electric cars are the only option and out of reach for most people, This is the goal of ICLEI a NGO started by the UN to implement Agenda 21 ICLEI has embedded itself in every City in the US and Canada see their list here https://iclei.org/en/members-search.html under so called Sustainable Development, its goals are to reduce rural living and move people into cities in a stack and pack towers so we all walk to work or hey we could use the bike lanes that they are building all over North America.
California is a state run by the members of the Stupid Jackass Party(Liberal Democrat)and the land of smoke and mirrors(Hollywood)and Newsom is a total nit-wit with a I.Q. lower then a Goldfish