I have been trying to verify the cost comparison. When you take away subsidies, and look at actual obtained output and equipment lifespan, and energy storage, I don’t think solar or wind hold up well as far as cost. But I would love to be proven wrong.
1 Like
There’s no way they’re not going to walk this back sooner or later. Isn’t that what happened with that ambitious zero-emission vehicle mandate of 1990?
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/background.htm
1 Like
It was in reply to a post that said it was not realistic.
Setting a goal of a two percent reduction in non-renewable energy every year would not only be more realistic, it would have the advantage of being able to evaluate every single year what is working and what is not.
You’ll never see politicians doing that though, because it shows the voters the scorecard at the next election, and the next, and the next. Politically far safer to set a target for a generation from now.
Anything that can not realistically be achieved, by definition can not be “necessary” because it… well, because it won’t happen.
“Come back, San Onofre! All is forgiven!”
Also, that is the kind of thing that is better handled by the executive branch, due to their subject matter expertise. Elected officials shouldn’t dive into the details of execution, but rather set the goal. It’s up to the regulators to work directly with the stakeholders to develop a plan and implement it.
At what level would you consider this effort a failure? 99% emission-free electricity? 92%?
Trying to decide whether you, @MrToad, or @Jorpho most deserve this:
2 Likes
The real goal is steady movement towards clean energy. If you set unrealistic goals, people can get discouraged and just give up.
You win!
If you don’t set goals, nothing gets done.
5 Likes
No, the fact it’s not realistic says nothing about its necessity. If you need a cancer treatment to not die, that’s necessary. If it doesn’t exist, that’s unrealistic. The concept is important and common enough that we have a mood to cover it.
4 Likes
If you set a goal far enough into the future, few people will bother starting any time soon. Three percent per year, starting in 2019.
“Come back, San Onofre! All is forgiven!”
1 Like
Trump and his oil/coal producer overlords hate California for this sort of thing. How dare CA work for a clean environment!
1 Like
This is where Deming and football converge: To have the best chance at achieving an ideal situation (e.g., meeting a design goal, or making a field goal) shoot for perfection. If one goes balls-out for 100% of something and falls short, that shortfall would be less than if one didn’t go balls-out and shoot for the Moon. Wanna make a field goal? Shoot for the exact point between the posts; if you’re off even a few feet… you can still make the goal. Wanna achieve what some may say is an “unrealistic” goal of emissions-free by 2045? Okay, go for it, shoot for that top goal and mean it, and if you’re off, there’s nothing wrong with, say, 75% free by 2050. That’s a hell of a lot better than what we have now. And I’d wonder about the motivations of anyone who sniffed at that result; I sure wouldn’t welcome them on my team.
3 Likes
“Emissions-free” and “renewable” are not actually the same thing. We’d have to see exactly how this is written.
If the law requires “renewable” then nukes aren’t allowed. I don’t think that a mandate for “renewable” allows fusion either.
Of course, on a long enough time scale solar isn’t “renewable” either.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
