Subject: Brown and Bloomberg Make Bold New Pledges, which are not remotely true

Rex Weyler

From: Rex Weyler <>
Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 7:26 PM
Subject: Brown and Bloomberg Make Bold New Pledges, which are not remotely true

I’ve signed an executive order that calls for California to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2045,” Jerry Brown 
Jerry Brown knows that this is not true. For starters, they’re only talking about electricity, 16% of California energy consumption, and more significantly: California’s emissions, under this plan, will continue to increase because California continues to grow its economy:
California’s GDP growth rate last year was 4.9%, similar for the last 7 years, resulting in 40% growth in seven years. They expect to keep this growth going, so by 2045, California’s GDP will be about 4-times what it is today, which roughly translates into total energy consumption 4-times what it is today. (“Decoupling” growth from energy use is a delusion).
Since California's non-electric fossil energy use is 84% of their total energy use, then — even if they achieved their 100% renewables for electric (which is not likely) — their emissions in 2045 would be (roughly) 3.5 times their emissions today. 
Wind and solar energy do not replace fossil fuels, they just add more energy to allow more growth. Fossil energy use — and carbon emission — have increase 10-times faster than renewables since 2000. Wind and solar cannot replace conventional power plants, because they are intermittent. The IEA has calculated that 450 GW installed capacity of wind in 2035 would only produce 112 GW of power, because of the intermittent quality of wind. And worse, that power is of little use to the grid since, when the grid needs power, it needs it immediately. Wind (and solar) cannot be counted on like fossil and nuclear power on peak demand days and at peak demand hours. The IEA 2012 report calculated that wind could be counted on only 5 % of the time (“capacity credit”). That means an additional 89.5 GW (112–22.5 GW) of reliable fossil, nuclear, or biomass power is needed to back up wind power. The more you replace conventional power plants with wind, the more you depend on wind. And, the more you depend on the wind, the less you can depend on it. 
Great Britain’s office of science and technology estimated wind could be counted on reliably only 7–9 % of the time if the overall penetration of wind power ever reached 50 % (GBHP 2014). So if 25 GW of wind capacity were built to replace 25 GW of fossil and nuclear plants (life span 35–50 years), and the capacity credit of wind at peak demand was 5 GW, then an additional 20 GW of fossil and nuclear plants would be needed for backup, with nearly double the energy generation as before (45 GW). In regions where peak demand occurs in the winter, the capacity credit of solar power is zero, because peak demand occurs after dark. And thus the stark reality: “Investment in renewable generation capacity will largely be in addition to, rather than a replacement for power stations” (GBHL 2007). 
There’s more, but I won’t go into to much detail here. 
The best wind and solar areas have already been developed, so we’re already into low-grade wind and solar sites. 
Long transmission lines means that very little of the potential power that could be harvested from wind or solar will actually be realized. 
There is no way to store the scale of electricity being discussed (not enough places to put dams, even fewer places for Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES), and not enough material on earth to make utility scale batteries.
By the time the general public realizes any of this, if they ever do, the politicians who made promises for 2045 will be in their graves.
Jerry Brown knows that his statement is a hoax. I’d have more respect for his efforts if he was being honest about it. California is not remotely on a path for “zero carbon emissions.”
The true paths to lower emissions require us to contract our economies (not growth them).
You might want to let your readers know this. 
All the best, Rex Weyler.