Balancing California's Energy Needs and Its Environmental Goals

That was the topic of a talk by Stanford Professor Frank Wolak at the UCSD Economics Roundtable on Tuesday.

Among the initiatives on the November 4 ballot for California voters is Proposition 7, which would require all utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, with this fraction increasing to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Investor-owned (as opposed to government-owned) California utilities are already subject under existing law to the 20% goal for 2010 and 33% by 2020. Frank noted that the investor-owned utilities have so far made little progress toward that goal.

Source: Frank Wolak.

One of the challenges with meeting these goals with wind power is that available wind resources are located far from California's population centers,

Wind power density at 70 meter height. Source: ESRI.

and indeed the most promising resources are out of state:

Potential wind generation in the western United States in gigawatts. Source: Frank Wolak.

Frank's point was that meeting these goals requires not just generation facilities but also a significant investment in transmission facilities and easing of siting requirements for the latter. Another challenge is that the generation of wind power from a given location is extremely variable from day to day. This means that more reliance on wind power also requires extensive fossil fuel capabilities to smooth out the variation over time in generation and an infrastructure that encourages storage of the power and/or shifting of demand.

Daily electricity production from Tehachapi wind facilities in June 2006: average (blue) and individual days. Source: Frank Wolak.

Frank argued that a key tool for achieving the latter objectives is peak-load pricing. He described a way to make this politically more palatable based on the Anaheim critical-peak pricing experiment, which rewarded customers for conserving during system-stress hours rather than charge them extra for use at those times.

His bottom line was that, in addition to such alternatives, nuclear and coal with carbon sequestration deserved to be given more emphasis in trying to meet California's long-run energy needs.

Comments

[john s. gordon:]

CA already imports electrons by wire from WY so wot's the big deal?
> jack

2008 Oct 17 09:27 AM

[nakedjaybird:]

Final question: what's the payback period for a new $900 Billion* electric power grid, plus another $900 Billion electrified interstate hiway ferry system, offset by NOT sending $700 Billion per year offshore for crude oil??

Answer: less than a three (< 3) year simple payback!!!

At that payback level, I'd even go for a $ 2 Trillion electrified grid/ferry system.

And I would do it with the emphasis of a Manhattan Project or Moon Shot Program - time is of the essence!

* Cost of Grid according to the article.



For those of you not able to find the article/comment, here's the comment:

If Cantwell is smart, she will put the new grid in the existing interstate highway right-of-ways (above, below, between, or alongside - including widening the existing if necessary - but NOT creating fully new right-of-ways, except from the solar/wind farms to the interstates, and that should never have to be more than 50-100 miles).

And then she should electrify the interstate highways and install electrified ferries for cargo, vehicles and people. That's REAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

ARE YOU LISTENING MARIA CANTWELL?

----- Original Message -----

To: Cathy McMorris Rodgers ; Patty US Senator Murray ; Maria US Senator Cantwell ; Bob WA Senator Morton ; Bob WA Rep Sump ; [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 9:30 AM
Subject: Fw: A U.S. National Grid: Dream or Reality? - Seeking Alpha


Just in case you missed the point of the below suggestion, IT ELIMINATES 80% OF OUR DEPENDENCY ON CRUDE OIL!

It would reduce imported crude to ZERO.

NOW THAT'S REAL INDEPENDENCE. Read on.......


Maria and Boone - please read the comments about the new electrified grid at the end of the article. Thanks.

Plan on.....


seekingalpha.com/artic...

2008 Oct 17 01:39 PM

[Ferdinand E...:]

So wind is going to save the day for California. That's interesting. Every time I pick up a Danish or German newspaper I read something about how crazy it is to try to become dependent on wind. As for coal with carbon sequestration, apart from some 'pilot' installations, this is the biggest fantasy of all, at least at the present time.

No. maybe that's not right. The biggest fantasy is probably the one about wind and natural gas put into circulation by Mr Pickens.

2008 Oct 17 02:01 PM

[fran:]

FRED BANKS--

where would i find the analysis refuting the Pickens proposal?

2008 Oct 18 08:28 PM

[LADOGG:]

WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL OF THE GEOTHERMAL COMPANIES OUT WEST? THIS IS BY FAR THE BEST WAY TO GO GREEN WITH BASE LOAD ELECTRIC GENERATION. IT IS ALL ABOUT POLTICS!!! WHO GIVES THE MOST MONEY TO THE POLTIANS GET THE MOST BACK. SOME WIND BILLIONARE GAVE THE MOST MONEY, PROBABLY PICKINS

2008 Oct 19 08:24 AM

[aquakid:]

Why isn't anyone screaming GEOTHERMAL. The U.S., especially California, has more geothermal potential than any country on the planet. we could be the Saudi Arabia of geothermal. Geothermal kicks wind energy's ass!!!!

2008 Oct 19 09:32 AM