Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil. The clean burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation.
Although by year 2021 California has made remarkable progress in generation of electricity by Wind (14,216 GWh) and solar (31,614 GWh) they are still very reliant on Natural Gas (97,350 GWh) out of a total instate generation (193,569 GWh). As there is only one nuclear power plant, nuclear contributed only (16,477 GWh) in 2021,
Nationwide the use of natural gas for electricity generation in 2020 is 269% the amount for the year 2000. In California natural gas generated electricity is down 17% in 20 years.
In February 2022 the average price of a MWh of residential electricity is:
$255.90 California
$131.80 Nevada
$126.90 Arizona
$109.20 Oregon
$105.90 Utah
$100.30 Washington
$97.50 Idaho
The decision has already been made to end nuclear generation in California by the year 2025. But do you think the law to end production of electricity by natural gas by the year 2045 should stand?
The decision has already been made to end nuclear generation in California by the year 2025. But do you think the law to end production of electricity by natural gas by the year 2045 should stand?
Ending support for nuclear energy is counterproductive, if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions by as much as possible, as nuclear energy produces no CO2 emissions. Solar farms and wind turbines destroy thousands of acres of nature and kill tens of millions of birds, each year, not to mention the environmental impact of the production and disposal of solar panels and wind turbines. Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly source of energy.
But, to answer your question, I do not believe the law to end production of electricity by natural gas should stand, as I do not believe it is the government’s job to mandate what kind of electricity can and cannot be used in their state. Let the free market decide.
Ending support for nuclear energy is counterproductive, if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions by as much as possible, as nuclear energy produces no CO2 emissions. Solar farms and wind turbines destroy thousands of acres of nature and kill tens of millions of birds, each year, not to mention the environmental impact of the production and disposal of solar panels and wind turbines. Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly source of energy.
But, to answer your question, I do not believe the law to end production of electricity by natural gas should stand, as I do not believe it is the government’s job to mandate what kind of electricity can and cannot be used in their state. Let the free market decide.
California government does not share your opinion. The have something called a Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) which identifies eligible resources that can be used to create electricity. The three biggest resources used for in-state generation in California not on the current RPS are (% are for 2021)
50.3% Natural Gas
8.5% Nuclear
6.2% Large Hydroelectric
To achieve the mandated 50% renewables by 2030 nuclear generation must end, but substantial custs in Hydroelectric and Natural Gas generation have to be made as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://www.energy.ca.gov/
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (Senate Bill 350)
What Does SB 350 Do?
SB 350 increases California's renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This objective will increase the use of Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and others.
SB 350 also requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. To help meet these goals and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, large utilities will be required to develop and submit integrated resource plans (IRPs). These plans detail how utilities will meet their customers’ resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and ramp up the use of clean energy resources.
SB 350 also transforms the California Independent System Operator (ISO), a nonprofit public corporation, into a regional organization, contingent upon approval from the Legislature. The bill also authorizes utilities to undertake transportation electrification.
This system is not going to remain unique to california as other states will certainly adopt similar laws.
Yes, I think the law should stand. Just because NG is a "relatively clean" burning fossil fuel doesn't mean we shouldn't stop using it when cleaner alternatives are available.
Quote:
The California Air Resources Board released a draft climate plan that would require homes built in 2026 and onward to be powered by all-electric appliances in order for the state to reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, a move that would see the state make a drastic transition away from fossil fuels. The proposal recommends cutting 91% of state oil and gas usage by 2045 while utilizing carbon capture and storage to cover the remaining emissions. (The Associated Press)
Ending support for nuclear energy is counterproductive, if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions by as much as possible, as nuclear energy produces no CO2 emissions. Solar farms and wind turbines destroy thousands of acres of nature and kill tens of millions of birds, each year, not to mention the environmental impact of the production and disposal of solar panels and wind turbines. Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly source of energy.
But, to answer your question, I do not believe the law to end production of electricity by natural gas should stand, as I do not believe it is the government’s job to mandate what kind of electricity can and cannot be used in their state. Let the free market decide.
Is nuclear energy the most environmentally friendly......when one considers that it is just not the fuel rods that need to buried. Or is it the most, compared to other means.....but there are still many, many headaches.
Ending support for nuclear energy is counterproductive, if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions by as much as possible, as nuclear energy produces no CO2 emissions. Solar farms and wind turbines destroy thousands of acres of nature and kill tens of millions of birds, each year, not to mention the environmental impact of the production and disposal of solar panels and wind turbines. Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly source of energy.
But, to answer your question, I do not believe the law to end production of electricity by natural gas should stand, as I do not believe it is the government’s job to mandate what kind of electricity can and cannot be used in their state. Let the free market decide.
Except for all the nuclear waste it produces. No one's solved the safe-disposal problem yet.
And while using natural gas may be fairly clean overall, developing it has resulted in tremendous releases of methane into the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2.
Coal fired generators reached the maximum contribution to electric generation in 1988 at 56.1% of the nation's production. It never dropped below 40% until 2011, but by 2020 was down to 19.1%. Coal is the dirtiest way to generate electricity even though it is still highly used in many states. The data below is from 2019 for coal generated electricity.
91.0% West Virginia
83.9% Wyoming
72.0% Kentucky
70.7% Missouri
64.5% Utah
61.1% North Dakota
59.1% Indiana
54.7% Nebraska
50.7% Montana
44.9% Colorado
41.8% New Mexico
41.3% Wisconsin
38.7% Ohio
35.6% Arkansas
35.4% Iowa
34.0% Kansas
32.0% Michigan
30.0% Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan
Yes, I think the law should stand. Just because NG is a "relatively clean" burning fossil fuel doesn't mean we shouldn't stop using it when cleaner alternatives are available.
Natural gas surged in popularity in the early 1970s becoming as high as 25% until nuclear power plants became more widespread. But recently with the retiring of coal plants natural gas reached 30% in 2012 and passed 40% in 2020.
Solar and wind power are certainly alternatives to any fossil fuel, but a system that 100% relies on sun and wind has to deal with the very difficult engineering problem of providing electricity when there is no sun and wind. So you are talking about unprecedented production levels of batteries, which of course has it's own environmental consequences.
There is no free lunch. The phrase “too cheap to meter” was used in a 1954 speech by the then-Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis L. Strauss. He was referring to the promise of nearly unlimited electricity generated by nuclear generation plants.
Taking a step back, each step up in energy density offers less pollution and fallout than using the less dense option.
So, biomass burning (wood) pollutes more and destroys more habitat than coal does, coal is an improvement over chopping down all the trees for the energy produced. Oil is cleaner than coal, a better combustion, less CO2, less strip mining etc... Same can be said from oil to Natural Gas, which I think is the cleanest form of fossil fuels.
Now, Fission power is done kind of sloppy at the moment, old designs, weapons treaty issues, lots of fuel left over in the rods that turns into radioactive waste etc. There IS a better way to do fusion, it just really hasn't been implemented fully and the 70s design reactors come with problems as mentioned. And of course, the holy grail is Fusion, which will happen with the advances they are making, it's just a really hard problem.
Here's the path of human energy advancement: Biomass > Coal > Oil > Natural Gas > Fission > Fusion
Where's the renewables in there? That would be a sidestep from Oil / Natural Gas. They fix the carbon problem but are worse on the habitat front and are a step down in density. They are a necessary evil / a crutch until we figure out better tech in the future on the nuclear front.
The big thing to me is that moving people from biomass to coal / oil is a gain, as much as moving from oil to renewables. Looking holistically, with habitat preservation in mind, we should be as focused on moving the developing world towards better fossil fuels and eliminate biomass completely as we are in offloading developed countries energy to renewables.
Yes. Natural gas should be used as necessary.
For that matter, I think coal should make a comeback. Coal was taken off line in order to correct for global warming. The fact is, human population will greatly decrease starting about now and properly monitored and filtered coal plants used where necessary would provide America with the energy independence it needs.
I remain in favor everything - Nuclear, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, drilling in ANWAR - all of it.
Zealots in government bureaucracies are making foolish and expensive decisions in order to please other bureaucrats, not to solve any environmental problems.
Coal fired generators reached the maximum contribution to electric generation in 1988 at 56.1% of the nation's production. It never dropped below 40% until 2011, but by 2020 was down to 19.1%. Coal is the dirtiest way to generate electricity even though it is still highly used in many states. The data below is from 2019 for coal generated electricity.
91.0% West Virginia
83.9% Wyoming
72.0% Kentucky
70.7% Missouri
64.5% Utah
61.1% North Dakota
59.1% Indiana
54.7% Nebraska
50.7% Montana
44.9% Colorado
41.8% New Mexico
41.3% Wisconsin
38.7% Ohio
35.6% Arkansas
35.4% Iowa
34.0% Kansas
32.0% Michigan
30.0% Minnesota
Natural gas surged in popularity in the early 1970s becoming as high as 25% until nuclear power plants became more widespread. But recently with the retiring of coal plants natural gas reached 30% in 2012 and passed 40% in 2020.
Solar and wind power are certainly alternatives to any fossil fuel, but a system that 100% relies on sun and wind has to deal with the very difficult engineering problem of providing electricity when there is no sun and wind. So you are talking about unprecedented production levels of batteries,which of course has it's own environmental consequences.
There is no free lunch. The phrase “too cheap to meter” was used in a 1954 speech by the then-Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis L. Strauss. He was referring to the promise of nearly unlimited electricity generated by nuclear generation plants.
Sun and wind although currently the largest, are far from the only renewable energy options. Geothermal is starting to take off as a result of a new drilling tech called Millimeter Wave (a byproduct of fusion research) that can go thru 12 miles of rock.
Batteries the current favorite, are not the only energy storage option either, particularly at utility scale.
Thermal energy storage mediums such as molten salt and molten silicon are just two of the options now getting a lot of attention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
