Comments on: California Highlights Its Environmental Progress

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 22:14:00 +0000

Utilities have a responsibility to keep the power on 24/365. They need some way to power the grid when wind and solar are not supplying enough. We simply don’t have the storage solutions right now to do away with all backup generation.

NG capacity has comparatively low capex and installs quickly which keeps finex lower. And it’s dispatchable. That makes NG a good way to ensure supply while allowing for maximum use of wind and solar when they are producing.

If we replace a coal plant with a combination of wind, solar and natural gas to fill in the gaps then we can cut CO2 emissions by a large percentage.

NG isn’t green, but it can help us get greener. And if we get to the point at which we are turning our waste stream into fuel, we could use some to run our gas plants.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:29:00 +0000

And yet California continues to approve new natgas power plants, including peaker plants in Los Angeles. AES is proposing to spend $500M for a 500MW peaker in Redondo Beach that will be in operation long past 2030. It’s marketed under the guise of being green.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:48:00 +0000

Interesting that here in the 10 month of 2013 that the GHG chart shows projections for 2011 and 2012; but no actual data. I like seeing projects from the past, but it is more interesting if you include the actual.