California has the nation's most ambitious plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Step one is to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Then comes the really hard part -- cutting the emissions by an additional 80 percent by 2050.
Can it be done? A California Council on Science and Technology report, which was produced by scientists from the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, says yes and outlines how to do it.
However, the steps that must be taken are so daunting that they raise serious doubts about meeting such an ambitious goal in just 39 years.
The report recommends a combination of efforts that would completely alter the way we produce and use most of our energy today.
At the heart of the solution is a nearly total reduction in the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with electric power, produced by renewable sources of energy and/or nuclear power.
As gasoline, natural gas and diesel oil are phased out, they will have to be replaced with a massive increase in electricity production. It will be needed to recharge battery-powered and hybrid motor vehicles, which the report says will have to replace gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
Also, all of the electricity will have to be produced without fossil fuels. That means replacing all of the plants powered by natural gas, which accounts for most of the state's electricity production today.
The scientists who
compiled the report realistically understand that wind and solar power, even with major advances, will be able to produce only a small fraction of the electricity that will be required.
The report says that it would take 30 -- yes, 30 -- new nuclear power plants to provide just two-thirds of California's electricity needs by 2050.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_19512658
Meeting California Emission Goals
Meeting California Emission Goals
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Meeting California Emission Goals
The problem with this is that more than likely there will be no money to enact this plan because there will be no taxpayers or ratepayers in California:MSimon wrote:California has the nation's most ambitious plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Step one is to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Then comes the really hard part -- cutting the emissions by an additional 80 percent by 2050.
Can it be done? A California Council on Science and Technology report, which was produced by scientists from the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, says yes and outlines how to do it.
However, the steps that must be taken are so daunting that they raise serious doubts about meeting such an ambitious goal in just 39 years.
The report recommends a combination of efforts that would completely alter the way we produce and use most of our energy today.
At the heart of the solution is a nearly total reduction in the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with electric power, produced by renewable sources of energy and/or nuclear power.
As gasoline, natural gas and diesel oil are phased out, they will have to be replaced with a massive increase in electricity production. It will be needed to recharge battery-powered and hybrid motor vehicles, which the report says will have to replace gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
Also, all of the electricity will have to be produced without fossil fuels. That means replacing all of the plants powered by natural gas, which accounts for most of the state's electricity production today.
The scientists who
compiled the report realistically understand that wind and solar power, even with major advances, will be able to produce only a small fraction of the electricity that will be required.
The report says that it would take 30 -- yes, 30 -- new nuclear power plants to provide just two-thirds of California's electricity needs by 2050.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_19512658
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_4_c ... esses.html
Oh, well that just means that the greens will have achieved their goals without doing anything. Sort of hard on those who are left in California.
In that respect we are all politicians. The difference being that some actually deliver on their promises - keep the customers happy.Aero wrote:Ask a mobster, he is a politician!MSimon wrote:More honest than politicians. A very sad commentary on the state of politics in America.Skipjack wrote: Oh you mean because of the nice mobsters there, that run that state?
Bob Dylan explained it long ago. To live outside the law you MUST be honest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffSLrB-4Rus
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Actually, decreased population in an overcrowsed state leads to benefit, not loss. California suffers from over-population in its major cities, extreme demand on its rivers (central valley is dust), over-priced real-estate, over taxed water and electric grids. By reducing said population while maintaining Silicon Valley, it's a win-win for California. Now if they could just reinstate their property tax, they'd be at a budget surplus in less than 10 years.
Now if they just were more business friendly and CUT taxes and CUT spending even more they'd be at a budget surplus in less than 10 years.ScottL wrote:Actually, decreased population in an overcrowsed state leads to benefit, not loss. California suffers from over-population in its major cities, extreme demand on its rivers (central valley is dust), over-priced real-estate, over taxed water and electric grids. By reducing said population while maintaining Silicon Valley, it's a win-win for California. Now if they could just reinstate their property tax, they'd be at a budget surplus in less than 10 years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I dunno, Silicon Valley and SF are still prime places for any computer related business. The next area on the list would be the Dallas, TX area. I just don't see Silicon Valley shrinking ....ever. As for taxes, well they were quite successful with a sudden and drastic down turn when Reagan took office. He cut taxes and the economy declined and continued to do so...even under conservative governors and a conservative state legislature. Sometimes you gotta raise taxes and sometimes you have to cut....they've been on a cutting spree since the 70s.
No one is expanding in Silicon Valley. If a start up works there when they get to success they move out of state.ScottL wrote:I dunno, Silicon Valley and SF are still prime places for any computer related business. The next area on the list would be the Dallas, TX area. I just don't see Silicon Valley shrinking ....ever. As for taxes, well they were quite successful with a sudden and drastic down turn when Reagan took office. He cut taxes and the economy declined and continued to do so...even under conservative governors and a conservative state legislature. Sometimes you gotta raise taxes and sometimes you have to cut....they've been on a cutting spree since the 70s.
I have heard some real horror stories. And the plan (working) to drive up the cost of electricity is about as stupid as they come. And that is not the only plan that is working.
Illinois is another bad state for business.
And remember NY State? It used to be the center of the electronic business in America.
Rockford - the town I live in - was once the mfg center of America or one of them. Gone.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I think you're a bit misinformed on the expansion there. Over the last 6 years, Zynga, Facebook, KlickNation (Now EA Bethesda), Netflix, xfire, Flotype, Square, iZettle, Path, Dropbox,....and this was just the smallest of searches, many being in the last 2 years even.
All recently big and moved in to Silicon Valley. Matter of fact EA is based out of Texas and is expanding further into California with the acquisition of KlickNation. There's no decline in startups or expansions. I moved here from the East specifically so I could get a tech job fitting my degree and I've been quite successful so far. This of course doesn't speak at all for those who can't afford the cost of living. By all means they should move on to where ever may be best for them.
All recently big and moved in to Silicon Valley. Matter of fact EA is based out of Texas and is expanding further into California with the acquisition of KlickNation. There's no decline in startups or expansions. I moved here from the East specifically so I could get a tech job fitting my degree and I've been quite successful so far. This of course doesn't speak at all for those who can't afford the cost of living. By all means they should move on to where ever may be best for them.
Or... http://www.ecnmag.com/Blogs/2011/12/Good-Politics/
That TechShop, where is it opening? Sorry, couldn't help myself.
That TechShop, where is it opening? Sorry, couldn't help myself.