An excellent overview of the energy situation in California, now and in the near future.
California, unplugged
Can the Golden State reach a renewable-energy future without coal, nukes and natural gas in the short term?
By R.V. Scheide
It's official. Nobody likes global warming. Everybody wants to cut carbon emissions. Renewable energy is all the rage. A green wave is sweeping California, the country and the world. The Nobel Peace Prize goes to Al Gore.
Huzzah!
Yet as much as people dislike global warming, they love their electricity. They need their refrigerators, air conditioners and washer/dryers. They’re obsessed with watching television, surfing the Internet and playing electric guitars. Computers, printers and copy machines come in pretty handy down at the office, too. Electricity is a splendorous thing.
Unfortunately, some methods for generating electricity are among the worst greenhouse-gas offenders on the planet, especially coal-fired power plants, which supply 21 percent of California’s electricity. Other methods produce no carbon emissions, but raise their own environmental concerns, such as nuclear power plants, which supply 13 percent of the state’s electricity. California uses natural gas, which burns cleaner than coal and lacks nuclear power’s stigma, to generate 41 percent of its electricity.
But there’s a problem with natural gas: We’re running out of it. The North American domestic supply has been in decline for two decades. Gas can be imported from overseas, but it must be liquefied first, a complex process that requires special ships and infrastructure for liquefying, transporting and re-gasifying the liquid natural gas, or LNG. The United States is already years behind in building such infrastructure. Without it, industry experts predict the price of gas will skyrocket in the near future.
Global warming and resource depletion—in this case, the declining domestic gas supply—have put state policymakers in a bind: Is it possible to significantly reduce carbon emissions and still provide enough power to the people? So far, the answer to the first half of the question appears to be yes, emissions can be reduced. From a series of decisions made last spring and unfolding as this is being written, it’s not clear if the second half of the question has been asked.
Last April, when Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, introduced AB 719, a bill seeking to rescind the state’s 31-year ban on constructing nuclear-power plants, the Assembly Natural Resource Committee instantly squashed it. DeVore argued that emission-free nuclear power was necessary to help the state fight global warming and meet future electrical demand. Activists countered that nuclear power is “the most dangerous technology on Earth.” Chairwoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, noted that there are safe alternatives to nuclear power, such as solar and wind energy. The committee voted 6-3 along party lines to kill the bill.
One month later, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected BHP Billiton’s proposal to build a LNG port off the Ventura County coast. Legislators, environmentalists and media universally lauded the decision, which followed rejection of the project by the California Coastal Commission for environmental concerns that included, for the first time ever, greenhouse emissions.
In a press release, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, called the proposed LNG port “the wrong project at the wrong time for California.” Thanks to efforts to increase energy efficiency and the amount of renewable sources, he said, “There is no need to lessen our state’s commitment to a clean environment by approving the BHP Billiton terminal.”
One week after that, the California Energy Commission put into effect new state laws that forbid municipal utilities from signing new contracts with coal-fired power plants. Twenty-one percent of the state’s electricity is generated by coal-fired plants, most of it coming from out of state. That percentage will steadily decline as existing coal contracts expire over the next 20 years, replaced by renewable sources.
The three decisions, made in roughly the span of one month, had two things in common. Each decision reduced the future use of resources—nuclear power, gas and coal—that collectively generate 75 percent of the state’s electricity. In turn, each decision insinuated that renewable energy sources will fill the gap. There’s only one problem with that equation.
It doesn’t quite add up.
Seventy-five percent of California’s electricity is generated with natural gas, coal or nuclear power. Hydroelectric generation provides another 15 percent, an amount that’s fixed because most of the state’s large hydro sites have been developed already. Renewables—geothermal, biomass, wind, small hydro and solar—provide the final 10 percent of the total.
By fiat, renewables are slotted to provide a larger slice of the pie. The state’s renewable-portfolio standard, or RPS, requires utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity with renewable sources by 2010, and 33 percent by 2020. That will help reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and also greenhouse emissions. But even if utilities hit the 33 percent target, by no means a certainty, the rest of the electricity, two-thirds of the total supply, has to come from somewhere. Fifteen percent will come from hydro. The rest, more than half of the total, will be generated with gas, coal and nuclear power.
