NationStates Jolt Archive

I see the effect being higher energy prices in CA more than outside companies "seeing the light".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_re_us/dirty_power

California bans dirty power sources

By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer 53 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - California regulators approved rules Thursday banning power companies from buying electricity from high-polluting sources, including most out-of-state coal-burning plants.

The rules _ aimed at reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming _ could have a far-reaching effect on the energy market across the West.

I see the effect being higher energy prices in CA more than outside companies "seeing the light".
Doubtful. California and Texas constitutes the two 800 pound gorrilas in the US. When you have that many people and that much money, companies are usually loth to lose your buisness.

Why do you think the auto makers when bananas after California passed its own millage and emitions laws? Because they knew that if they lost California, they'd be looking for new jobs.

Doubtful. California and Texas constitutes the two 800 pound gorrilas in the US. When you have that many people and that much money, companies are usually loth to lose your buisness.

Why do you think the auto makers when bananas after California passed its own millage and emitions laws? Because they knew that if they lost California, they'd be looking for new jobs.

Sure, but changing car emissions is a whole different animal than building new power plants using clean methods of generation. We're talking 10 years at the minimum.

Nah, California will just build more wind, solar, and natural gas. Coal power in the West is pretty rare; it's simply not common because most of the power plants built there are newer and consist mainly of hydro, nuclear, natural gas and sources like that. A few years from now, they'll probably be buying and producing geothermal, biomass, and tidal energy and constructing offshore wind turbines. If anything, this is a highly progressive move that will hasten development of alternatives.

Fossil fuels are rapidly approaching total obsolescence...laws like this just hasten their end.

Sure, but changing car emissions is a whole different animal than building new power plants using clean methods of generation. We're talking 10 years at the minimum.
True, but what do you think the power companies are going to start scambling to do now? It will probably also force them to stop building coal fired plants.

Nah, California will just build more wind, solar, and natural gas.
No, California just attempts to get them built in other states. People in Northern Nevada have been fighting a proposed coal plant that would supply power to San Francisco.

This will probably kill the project though.

I AM dirty energy. :D

Apparently I'm banned in CA. :(

No, California just attempts to get them built in other states. People in Northern Nevada have been fighting a proposed coal plant that would supply power to San Francisco.

This will probably kill the project though.

Probably. IIRC, Nevada has a lot of geothermal and solar potential; you could become the energy baron of the West Coast if you developed it. Not to mention high tech would attract a lot of jobs and further enhance your economic growth.

True, but what do you think the power companies are going to start scambling to do now? It will probably also force them to stop building coal fired plants.

Actually, in the Midwest, there are several prototype coal-plants being built that are "clean". Illinois alone has a huge reserve that can now be successfully used.

Building a plant tends to follow the NIMBY principle. Sure, the companies may start scrambling, but it's still going to be 10+ years before the types of plants/facilities are decided on, locations are scouted and bid on, EPA regs are followed, and the plants are actually built and producing. I'ld bet that most of the contracts that the CA companies are on now will run out before then.

In the longterm it's cheaper, so it will all work out. The fossil fuel plants will have to be replaced eventually, better to do it now instead of waiting for the fossil fuels to drive up costs as well.

No, California just attempts to get them built in other states. People in Northern Nevada have been fighting a proposed coal plant that would supply power to San Francisco.

This will probably kill the project though.



Got a linky. Never heard of that.

How do you stop an electricity distributor from buying electricity from an electricity producer? From my understanding of national grid systems such a move would be impossible. Electricity distribution and production just doesn't work the same way as food distribution and production.

Whoops, that's distributors, producers and suppliers. From my understanding of the system...

You buy electricity off a supplier. They pay a producer somewhere for the amount of electricity you have consumed. For all you know the power plant could be the other end of the country and you will never so much use a single electron of what is produced. Somewhere along the line a distributor is paid to make sure the demand for electricity is pretty much exactly met. If there is too little then electricity is taken from the national grid, if too much electricity is produced locally then the excess is shunted on to the national grid. Distributors have to work in collususion to make sure there are no dips or surges in the power supply.

How do you stop an electricity distributor from buying electricity from an electricity producer? From my understanding of national grid systems such a move would be impossible. Electricity distribution and production just doesn't work the same way as food distribution and production.

I imagine they would have to renegotiate their contracts, or reroute the sources of their electricity. Unfortunately, I only have a vague knowledge of how the electricity industry works when it comes to buying power, so I'm not sure.

Nah, California will just build more wind, solar, and natural gas.

Not likely, California already doesn't have enough in-state power plants to run the state as it is.

Not likely, California already doesn't have enough in-state power plants to run the state as it is.

That's true, but most of the capacity they buy probably doesn't come from coal power anyways. Even so, they've put a lot of money in to developing alternatives so we'll have to wait and see.

I imagine they would have to renegotiate their contracts, or reroute the sources of their electricity. Unfortunately, I only have a vague knowledge of how the electricity industry works when it comes to buying power, so I'm not sure.My knowledge is from brief discussion with Tactical Grace, who, unfortunately, no longer frequents this board. Or so he told us.

The bit I edited into my previous post explains what I understand from by talks with TG. I could be wrong though.

...So I can't power my house through masturbation and dirty jokes any more? :(

Well that's just stupid. Sure you don't see solar cells throwing out smog but they don't exactly grow on trees, now do they? Even so called 'clean' sources of power have to come from somewhere and their production usually requires something dirty like dirty power or dirty materials processing. You might be tempted to say something along the lines of "Well then we'll just have to start making windmills with wind power." The problem here is that it's slow going and still doesn't solve the problem of the materials needed to actually build the darn things. Batteries contain toxic chemicals and other toxic chemicals are used to make them but never make it into the batteries and end up getting set on the curb as industrial garbage. Electricity is also horribly inefficient when it comes to heating. Fire is not. If you think that heating your home with the power from Prometheus is going to destroy the planet (somehow), just hook up a waste-gas collection tank and a couple of pumps so the flames don't get snuffed out by the lack of oxygen. "But how will we power the pumps? If everyone did it, it would take a lot of power." And indeed it would. But fire can be used for more than just heating. It can also be used to boil water into steam to turn turbines which generate electricity that can power the pumps on your waste-gas collection tank. "But what will we do with all of that waste-gas we collect," you might ask. Well the answer is simple, send it off to agricultural greenhouses. Plants use it for food to grow and spit out oxygen we need to breath.

Now you may have noticed that we're running low on water in some parts of the country too. Well we've got a friggin' ocean just sitting there on either side of the continent. How about we run some of that sea water through those boilers mentioned above to seperate the salt and provide power? Kill two birds with one stone.

You see, the problem is not that we have CO2, it's that we're not using it. What CA did is nothing but a feel-good for politicians. It solves nothing and only serves to make life a little harder for the little guy while providing a nice, comfy PR cussion for those in power.

Good

You see, the problem is not that we have CO2, it's that we're not using it..

Actually, this is very true, although it is due more to technological constraints than any kind of resistance. Many of the next generation biofuels and other products use CO2 in the production process; in fact, one idea involving biodiesel from algae requires CO2 in order for photosynthesis to occur.

In that case, you stick a biodiesel plant next to a coal power plant and pipe the CO2 to the algae, producing fuel and eliminating most of the CO2 emissions from the plant. If the biodiesel ends up being used to transport or mine the coal, the cycle is broken even further.

Probably. IIRC, Nevada has a lot of geothermal and solar potential; you could become the energy baron of the West Coast if you developed it. Not to mention high tech would attract a lot of jobs and further enhance your economic growth.
They're working on it. The Nevada senators have been trying to get federal money for research on it and we DID have a nice state budget to start looking at it, but then we got the new gov and there it went. :rolleyes:

They're working on it. The Nevada senators have been trying to get federal money for research on it and we DID have a nice state budget to start looking at it, but then we got the new gov and there it went. :rolleyes:

Wonderful. :rolleyes:

Well, here's hoping that Congress will up funding for the programs this year; from what I've read, there is a lot of geothermal potential untapped simply because we're not funding the field enough to launch large-scale exploration.

I mean, geothermal has the stability of coal or nuclear and is environmentally friendly and renewable. It's a very good source of power.

Got a linky. Never heard of that.
I can give you a Google search link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Granite+Fox+Power+Project%22&sa=N&tab=nw

It's the Granite Fox Power Project, a coal fired plant that would have been near Gerlach, Nevada (Er, near being a relative term when dealing with the middle of Nevada). I would have given a newspaper article with it, but the Reno Gazette-Journal has decided to make all its archives paid access only (the bastards).

I see the effect being higher energy prices in CA more than outside companies "seeing the light".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_re_us/dirty_power

California bans dirty power sources

By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer 53 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - California regulators approved rules Thursday banning power companies from buying electricity from high-polluting sources, including most out-of-state coal-burning plants.

The rules _ aimed at reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming _ could have a far-reaching effect on the energy market across the West.

Oh brother. I agree. I see an increase in energy prices myself in that state.

Doubtful. California and Texas constitutes the two 800 pound gorrilas in the US. When you have that many people and that much money, companies are usually loth to lose your buisness.

Why do you think the auto makers when bananas after California passed its own millage and emitions laws? Because they knew that if they lost California, they'd be looking for new jobs.

And Ford had a record multi billion dollar loss in the 4th Quarter.