SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (960)7/25/2008 2:08:14 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 86355
 
I Would LOve to See This Happen

San Francisco has a ballot initiative this November to seize all PG&E transmission lines and assets in the city such that all city power comes from a new government owned utility. Further, the initiative would require that this new entity get 100% of its power from renewables, particularly wind and solar, by 2040. It is similar to a 2001 initiative.

All due respect to PG&E's private property, but I would love to see this happen. If I were governor, I would be seriously tempted to encourage them to proceed, with the only proviso that no one else in California be allowed to sell electricity to San Francisco on the hugely unlikely possibility that there might be a day without sunshine in San Francisco. (I find it hilarious that San Francisco's solar future is trumpeted in the "fog city journal.") This might actually be a big enough disaster that even the media would have trouble ignoring its spectacular failure. It would also do wonders for the Arizona and Nevada economy, as major industries would move our way.

I am sure San Francisco is well on their way to success. After all, the city just completed its largest ever solar project.

"The solar system is expected to generate 370,000 kilowatt hours of electricity annually, enough to power 80 San Francisco homes."

Wow. It can power 80 whole homes, as long as its not night time or winter (when it is seldom sunny in SF).

coyoteblog.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (960)7/25/2008 4:44:10 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86355
 
You are jumping to the conclusion that if we can't ramp up coal plants, the default is natural gas. First of all, that isn't the case. If we diversified, we could use solar, wind, geothermal, ocean wave power, as well as nukes as alternatives to coal or natural gas.

Secondly, natural gas usage is not expected to grow much. See the DOE report:
eia.doe.gov