Editor,
I want to thank Jennifer Normoyle for writing her letter, “No more greenwashing,” published Friday, March 29, in response to a CalMatters article published earlier in March on an alarming report from Next 10 that the state was failing to meet the greenhouse gas reductions mandated by Senate Bill 32, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2016, to take up where the state’s landmark climate legislation, AB 32 (2006) left off.
She appeared to question the intent of that legislation, and then went on to express her strong opposition to “wood pellets” as a biofuel used for power generation.
The SB 32 goals are deadly serious. Suggesting that they are “political theater” does a disservice to Sen. Fran Pavley who wrote the bill (as well as its predecessor, AB 32), the legislators who approved it, and all the environmental groups and other concerned residents who worked hard to get it passed because they believe that California should provide an example to the nation that states must address climate change.
As for wood pellets and biofuels, Narmoyle misses one of the main takeaways from the CalMatters article, that “electricity generation was responsible for some of the biggest increases in emissions between 2020 and 2021.”
Natural gas remains the single largest source of power for the state, comprising over 36% in 2022, according to the California Energy Almanac, while biomass, a renewable fuel, comprised a mere 2.15%.
Let’s take climate change, and the state legislation to address it, seriously.
Irvin Dawid
Burlingame
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(5) comments
Sorry, Mr. Dawid, but it’s difficult to take climate change seriously when folks who attend climate conferences over the years have taken thousands, if not tens of thousands of private jets to attend COP conferences. If they’re willing only to talk the talk and not walk the walk, why would anyone listen to them? It’s obvious they don’t feel climate change is an issue. Meanwhile, any recommendations on how to reduce our natural gas reliance? I see only the percentage of natural gas usage going higher as more locales attempt a silly all-electrification experiment.
Re, "Meanwhile, any recommendations on how to reduce our natural gas reliance?"
Fortunately, the state is already going in that direction with wind, solar, and energy storage (largely battery) facilities. A good example reported by Canary Media on April 4:
"This California city is trading an old gas plant for a giant grid battery: Calpine’s billion-dollar, 680-megawatt project in Menifee will be one of the biggest batteries in the U.S. when it comes online this summer."
Initial 2 paragraphs:
"MENIFEE, California — For a decade, twin smokestacks loomed against the bright blue skies of Menifee, in Southern California’s Inland Empire. But the old gas combustion plant came down, and on the flat industrial site it left behind an army of batteries is now being assembled.
When it comes online this summer, developer Calpine’s Nova power bank will store more electricity than all but one battery plant currently operating in the U.S. The billion-dollar project, with 680 megawatts and 2,720 megawatt-hours, will help California shift its nation-leading solar generation into the critical evening and nighttime hours, bolstering the grid against the heat waves that have pushed it to the brink multiple times in recent years..."
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/batteries/this-california-city-is-trading-an-old-gas-plant-for-a-giant-grid-battery
Thanks for the response, Irvin D. In regards to this battery storage facility, will we ever obtain a “green” return on investment? It must be noted that the article ignores the cradle and grave components of a battery life-cycle. How do the carbon emissions created to manufacture and transport these batteries as well as the hazardous waste disposal from expended batteries subtract from supposed savings in net carbon emissions from these batteries? As for other “green” endeavors and why they won’t cut the mustard to push us into an all-electric world (and this is just California)…
https://californiaglobe.com/articles/examining-californias-renewable-energy-plan/
https://californiaglobe.com/fl/ringside-half-of-californias-energy-comes-from-crude-oil/
https://www.ocregister.com/2024/03/21/state-failing-to-meet-costly-climate-goals/
I think that energy storage is the most important challenge in reducing GHG emissions from power generation. Wind and solar are key components, but they are intermittent sources, creating the need for "dispatchable" electricity generation that usually turns out to be natural gas. That Calpine, one of the largest NG power plant operators in the nation, is building this battery plant is a really good sign.
Thanks for response and clarification on wind and solar, Irvin D. Energy storage can harness the sun’s energy and add to our energy portfolio but let’s be honest, this option, nor any other (save for nuclear) will not reduce overall GHG emissions, especially with China, India, and other developing countries increasing their use of fossil fuels, as well as the GHG emissions emitted during the cradle-to-grave battery life-cycle. As for Calpine, why wouldn’t they want to get in on “free” taxpayer handouts for “green” projects? It’s the same reason gas station/mini-marts/fast food joints are trying to get their hands on “free” taxpayer handouts to build electric charging stations on their property. When folks are sitting around waiting for a recharge, the hope is that they’ll patronize the mini-marts and fast food joints. Have you seen the large number of Tesla chargers at the Burger King near Hillsdale? I’m sure BK has reaped some business from folks waiting for a recharge.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.