California Proposition 7 called for State based utilities required utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 50% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Last month I noted that Renewable generating facilities mandated by proposition 7 would be much more expensive than nuclear facilities that would produce 50% of the electricity used in California.
Proposition 7 was defeated in the November the general election by a vote of 3,294,158 (35.1%) in favor and 6,102,907 (64.9%) opposed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Nuclear Green
Posts
Comments
Some neat videos
| Nuclear Advocacy Webring Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||
3 comments:
I have a real problem with mandates for "renewable energy." When faced with such mandates, I always ask myself the question, "What is the problem we are trying to solve here with this mandate?"
The easy (and wrong) answer may be that problem is CO2 emissions. While renewables may indeed reduce CO2 emissions, the solution proposed is incorrect in that it is too limited. If there is to be a mandate, it needs to directed towards the problem (CO2 emission), but with the solution left open. While renewables may be part of the solution, they certainly are not the only possible solution, as anyone who has studied nuclear energy knows.
When I a see "renewables" mandate like this, it seems to me that the "problem" being "solved" is that of cash flowing to the pockets of the renewables industry.
I agree with you donb.
If Proposition 7 had simply advocated that 50% of California electricity be generated by non-carbon dioxide polluting technologies by 2025, I would have voted for it.
In fact, if the measure had advocated that 90% of California's electricity be generated by non-carbon dioxide gas polluting technologies by 2035, I would have voted for it.
This would have allowed California utilities to use nuclear, renewable, and maybe even carbon capture and sequestration technologies to reduce carbon dioxide pollution.
But I'm pleased and surprised that it lost by such a substantial amount.
Marcel
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
If the proposal had included a provision to lift the effective ban on nuclear power plants, then I would have voted for it. Instead, I was instantly turned off when I went to the Prop 7 website and read the words "dangerous nuclear power" on the home page.
California is having a hard enough time even reaching it's goal of 20% renewables by 2010. It is virtually guaranteed the state will not meet that goal.
Post a Comment