Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Can California Save the World's Climate?

By Peter Asmus, Author
October 30, 2006   |   18 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
California can save the world's climate. But in order to do so, state regulators need to abandon perfection and get back to the radical embrace of new technologies that was the hallmark of Democrat Jerry Brown's Administration over two decades ago.

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

18 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 18
October 30, 2006
Regarding Peter's comment about Texas - what does he have to say about Texas fast-tracking new coal-based power plants in the next 2-5 years. Estimates are that the new plants would emit 78 million tons of carbon-dioxide (CO2) pollution per year (source: newstandardnews.com - Aug06). How much of a deficit is CA really at when Texas is negating their gains with these kinds of actions?
Comment
2 of 18
October 31, 2006
California's role in this process will be primarily symbolic in my point of view - the per capita energy usage and amount of greenhouse gases we Californian's create are minor compared to other parts of the US. I think the focus needs to be on the economic advantages to 'going green' as thats the hardest sell - even to those who believe in reducing greenhouse gases.
Comment
3 of 18
November 1, 2006
Using GDP to compare energy usage by companies in different countries is totally absurd.
Just allow interest rates to change , which will alter exchange rates, and voila, you get a different comparison. It also completely ignores the obvious fact that energy usage per company depends almost entirely upon what the company does, and ignores the fact that the US and Europe have nowhere near the same mix of companies.
As a statistician and experimental scientist, I've never seen a more inappropriate and silly metric
to use for comparison of energy usages. It was obviously chosen because so little effort is required to punch out a number. What you must do is to compare equivalent companies in both the US and Europe and look at their energy usages, matching on the basis of climate. I
don't think you'll find that GE 's lightbulb manufacturing plant uses more energy than
Philip's plant does.
Comment
4 of 18
November 1, 2006
Jeff Anderson is right on target. The crux of the problem is how, when and what will make renewable energy economically feasable.
Comment
5 of 18
November 1, 2006
What will make a real differance in promoting clean energy is when the customer demands it. Because if customers demand it buisnesses will supply it. The real sustainable force for a expanding renewable energy market is demand. But for customers to demand it, It must first make economic sence.
Comment
6 of 18
November 1, 2006
It has been said that "when saving the environment becomes profitable- our problems will be solved"... what better way to effectively focus the Republican forces? As well as others!

Effective legislation will be crucial so mistakes from the 70's don't get repeated like rebates on solar equipment purchased - but not installed, or installed ineffectively. The lesson was to reward the energy produced not the product purchased. Fortunately there are many more models worldwide to reference when coming up with our local or federal incentives.

As far a carbon sequestering.... I just attended a lecture from a PH.D Chemist at our local university who has been studying fossil fuels for 30 years. Sequestering carbon in the ground acidifies the ground and leaches out metals and heavy metals into the ground water. Not such a good idea, unless we want to further pollute our water sources, but no on is talking about this side-effect yet.
Comment
7 of 18
November 1, 2006
I believe that Peter is right on the target. This will be a boon to Clean Tech firms in CA. The Chamber of Commerce should be jumping for joy.

I was recently at the Solar Power conference in San Jose. I saw Silicon Valley's entrepenurial engine getting excited about vast growth, innovation, financing and profit potential of solar.

Silicon Valley has been bored for the last few years - they seem to be getting excited again.
Comment
8 of 18
November 1, 2006
Since California is an agricultural state, has anybody discussed the http://www. Eprida.com system of cleaning up coal fired gases and sequestering the CO2 underground? California appears a natural for introducint this Eprida technology??????
Comment
9 of 18
November 1, 2006
You all make good points. Marylou, I half suspect that Texas is so gung-ho on the wind projects because the RECs generated will faciltate meeting the state's RPS even with the new coal generation. Let's hope the new coal generation is as clean as the utilities say it will be (they're saying that with the added coal generation they will cumulatively reduce the emissions from all plants in their fleet. Kudos if they pull it off.)

I do not beleive that renewables can now or ever be THE sole answer to energy needs. Renewable technology does stand a chance when coupled with vigorous conservation and time of use programs.
Comment
10 of 18
November 1, 2006
<p>
With most of the world's current power supply coming from coal and other fossil fuels, we need a transition to clean, renewable energy sources that will protect the world's health, environment and quality of life. A commitment to clean energy would reduce pollution, create millions of high tech jobs, diversify our energy sources, add to global energy security and save billions of dollars. A much-needed transition to solar, wind power and other <a href="http://www.pleiades-enterprises.bigstep.com/generic24.html" target=_blank>renewable energy</a> in every region of the world holds the promise of a better future for us, our children and future generations.
</p>
Comment
11 of 18
November 2, 2006
AB 32 will be meaningless unless the State reforms regulations that, up to now, have hamstrung investments in alternative energy. For instance, how can the Governor enforce the caps if companies aren't allow to implement solutions or get permits? In my area, we have vainly tried to change waste-to-energy legislation to encourage investment. Let's see how AB 32 changes the landscape.
Comment
12 of 18
November 2, 2006
Soon California will contribute largely towards saving the world environment. in the first place, Governor Schwarzenegger will convert the non-believers by showing the right example. this will spin actions rather than keeping on postponing to start doing something.

all teh best California.
Comment
13 of 18
November 2, 2006
As someone who works on enrvironmental and energy issues in China, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, I am looking forward to the time that a "cap and trade" system comes into effect in California. If the powers that be have the foresight, they will allow the trading of carbon credits from clean energy projects by California companies in China, as that country's carbon emissions are expected to overtake ours (US) in 10-15 years.
Comment
14 of 18
November 2, 2006
Wind, biomass etc, will not get California there in 20 years. There is only one way: build about 10 nuclear plants, change building codes to make geothermal cooling more attractive, and tax gasoline, coal, and imported coal generated power. Wind will add a bit, conservation will save more. Nuclear power may be dangerous, but driving is about 1000x more dangerous than nuclear power, and I don't see anyone driving less. There are more deaths every day in California from smog and driving than there have ever been in the US nuclear industry.
Comment
15 of 18
November 2, 2006
<p>Governator Schwarzenegger made his gravest error by vetoing the bill that would have allowed farmers to grow industrial hemp. </p>
<p>Hemp biomass grown for fuel would reverse global warming by converting CO2 into oxygen during the growing cycle. Hemp is one of the richest biomass sources, containing 80 per cent cellouse. Each acre of hemp yields 10 tons of biomass (1,000 gallons of methanol) in 4 months.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pleiades-enterprises.bigstep.com/generic139.html">Hemp Prohibition was created in 1937, not to protect society from the "evils of the drug Marijuana," as the Federal government claimed, but as an act of deliberate economic and industrial sabotage against the re-emerging Industrial Hemp Industry. -></a>
</p>
Comment
16 of 18
November 3, 2006
I agree with Miles Adam, as a UK citizen who pays heavy taxes which our government is looking to increase to reach kyoto targets on carbon emmissions in this country to benfit the rest of the world - I feel if big polluters like America and China do not contribute similarly our efforts and costs are in vain. The whole world needs to combine efforts to save our planet and as 5 % of the population and one of the top two polluters in the world we need America to try harder.
Comment
17 of 18
November 3, 2006
I disagree with Jeff Anderson that the consumer must demand green energy before it can compete with traditional sources. If we allow global warming to proceed we will have no livable planet on which to make money. If oil drilling subsidies were turned over to Solar energy development, I believe the resulting renewable power would be cheaper than power from fossil fuels.
Comment
18 of 18
November 4, 2006
I think a good start would be to educate the people at an earlier age.Corporate fleet vehicles should be switch over to bio-diesel and be given tax credits. As the bio diesel is implemented hopefully that will trickle into the private sector.
If companies who have flat roofs put solar cells on them tied into the grid, creating electricity for most companies only have occupancy during daytime hours that hopefully ease the grid not using as much carbon from power plant.
Then also to help have L.E.D. light fixtures slowing down the meter, an L.E.D. exit lamp only uses 1 watt,compared to traditional exit lamp uses 40 watts. I have saved roughly a thousand dollars a year in the building I maintain by switching.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Solar Network International GreenBrilliance HelioSage Rotork plc Talesun Solar AltEnergyStocks Krannich Solar Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters