California Renewable Energy Targets are Working

California has one of the most aggressive renewable energy targets of any state in the U.S. The type of standard California uses is called a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). What this means is that all investor owned utility companies, such as PG&E or SMUD, must get a certain percentage of their electricity from a renewable energy provider. That source could be a privately held 3rd party energy company such as a hydro-electric plant, solar farm or wind farm operator. It could also come from solar or wind farms that are owned directly by the utility.

In 2011 California passed Senate Bill 2 (SB-2) which raised the portfolio standard from 20% renewables to 33% by 2020. This move was seen as exceedingly ambitious by many renewable energy critics and was quickly discounted as just a political ploy. However, what these critics failed to grasp is that RPS standards actually work! This week PG&E, California's biggest investor-owned utility announced that it is making significant progress towards meeting this demanding target. PG&E stated that for 2011 it had generated more than 19.4% of its energy from completely renewable energy sources including wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydro-electric sources. Furthermore, PG&E says that it is completely on track to hit the 33% RPS target by 2020.

Since 2002 PG&E has signed more than 110 contract for energy from renewable energy contractors. That's about 10,000 Megawatts of energy! Moreover, PG&E has been able to do this without having to increase the price it pays for energy. Many citizens do not realize that in 2012 modern renewable energy power plants such as wind farms and solar farms are completely cost competitive with polluting fossil-fuel sources such as coal and natural gas when a long-term contract is used. That's because the cost of renewable energy sources are already low and going down, and fossil-fuel and nuclear sources are steadily going up in cost. PG&E has done the math and has seen how much solar and wind sources have come down in cost. For them renewable energy is a win-win. They get the positive public image of supporting non-polluting renewable energy and they completely avoid the risk of price spikes because they have locked in the price with a long-term RE contract. Most fossil-fuel providers won't sign long-term contracts because they know fossil-fuel prices will inevitably increase in the future as supplies begin to dwindle or as speculation drives up the cost (as we are seeing right now with Iran).

The progress California is making towards its RPS goals is incredibly good news. Think about it! The country's largest, most energy hungry state will be getting one third or more of its energy from renewable energy in less than 8 years. This would be an enormous step forward for California and would clearly give it a huge economic advantage over competing states. In terms of GDP California is the fifth largest economy in the world. If California can do this, nearly any other country in the world could do this to. And that, my friend, is the whole point! Renewable energy is real, its big, and its working now, not just in some distant future.

The great success states like California and Colorado have had in using aggressive RPS standards leads to the obvious question of why not have a national RPS, not just a state-by-state standard. National level RPS standards have worked wonderfully for countries in Europe so why not in the United States. This week Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, a bill that would try to set nationwide standards for large retail utilities. Unfortunately, the bill does not limit sources to truly renewable energy sources, but includes coal with carbon capture and nuclear power.

We think the idea of having a national RPS is a good one but it needs to be limited to truly renewable sources, not just less polluting sources. Nonetheless, it is a start and it will be interesting to see how it fares in Congress. At least it will get the discussion started and hopefully in a few years our entire country can begin chasing and achieving a national RPS target. Let's go for it!!

Fukushima USA

When I'm not busy being an environmental activist and an unrepentant liberal,I actually attempt to have a life, which I must admit is a whole lot easier to do since I retired out here on the central coast.  Last weekend I was out at one of my favorite wineries, Sculpterra, listening to music from my friend Steve Key, a local music promoter, performer and songwriter who performed a new song which was so completely perfect for what I wanted to write about that I requested and got his permission to include his lyrics in this post.

The song is called Fukushima USA and you can hear him perform it on his Web site by clicking on this link. In the song Steve is referring to the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California which is located not only right on top of a geological fault line, but just 20 miles from the city of San Luis Obisop, here in the wine country.  Here's a bit of the lyrics:

Local wines by the bottle or taste
Pools filled up with nuclear waste
Nowhere to send it, so it’s here to stay In Fukushima USA
The sunshine and the skies so clear
How could anything bad happen here?
That’s what the Japanese used to say Now it’s Fukushima USA

They had reactors built by GE
All the latest technology
A nineteen foot high seawall
Wasn’t much protection at all

But don’t think about that distant land
Things are safer here than in Japan
Relax and sip a little chardonnay
In Fukushima USA

At a time when the rest of the more or less sane world is running away from nuclear power like it was, well radioactive, the United States appears headed in the opposite direction. Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Company to build two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. This represents the first approval of a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in over 30 years.

The one silver lining in the vote was that it was the Chairman of the NRC,Gregory Jaczko , who cast the dissenting vote.  Jaczko said "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened. I believe it requires some type of binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements that are currently projected and currently planned to be made would be made before the operation of the facility." Sounds like common sense to me, too bad the rest of the commission didn't show any.

The timing of this announcement also strikes me as completely out of step.  The Obama administation has just gone through a year of getting beat up about providing loan guarantees to Solyndra, a solar energy company.  And so just when they are being scrutinized about the economics of their energy policy they approve the first nuclear plant in 30 years.  Good gracious, nuclear plants are practically the poster children for cost overruns! They are guaranteed to cost the public exorbitant amounts of money even if there isn't a nuclear accident.  (And by the way nuclear accidents are not exactly cheap. Experts estimate the Fukushima accident will end up costing Japan over $257 billion dollars!).

If you want to see proof of this you need to look no further than this handy little table provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It shows a chart of the cost overruns at nuclear plants to date. The data is not pretty!

Cost Overruns for Nuclear Plants

Year Begun	Number of Plants	Projected Costs(thousands per MW)	Actual Costs (thousands per MW)	Cost Overrun %
1966 to 1967	11	612	1,279	109%
1968 to 1969	26	741	2,180	194%
1970 to 1971	12	829	2,889	248%
1972 to 1973	7	1,220	3,882	218%
1974 to 1975	14	1,263	4,817	281%
1976 to 1977	5	1,630	4,377	169%
Overall Average	13	938	2,959	207%

There is a reason we stopped building nuclear plants and it wasn't the one most people think. It wasn't 3 Mile Island, or nuclear waste disposal, or nuclear accidents, it was the fact that nuclear energy plants proved to be ridiculously expensive. So here we are in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression, at a time when wind and solar energy have never been cheaper, and our government wants to support the development of more nuclear plants?

We have often been very supportive at EB of the progressive energy policies of the Obama administration, but on this one they just got it wrong, very wrong! Nuclear energy is too expensive and we still have no solution on how to handle nuclear waste! Moreover, there should be a complete moratorium on nuclear plants until we fully understand the implications from Fukushima. Now is not the time to build Fukushima USA!

True Costs

The last twelve months have been a critical and hopefully enlightening period in the energy world. It has been a period when the true costs of our current energy policies became abundantly clear. Let's take a quick look back at three events that occurred in the last 12 months which should impact our thinking about energy policy:

The Gulf Oil Spill

On April 20th in 2010 the BP oil platform called Deepwater Horizon which was drilling a well at about 5000 feet under the water erupted in a huge explosion which killed 11 men and seriously injured 17 others. Within a couple of days the well platform had melted and collapsed into the ocean. However, a piece of equipment called a blowout preventer which was supposed to cut off the oil flow in the event of a catastrophe such as this failed to work and oil began to spew from the wellhead. The preventer had never been tested at these depths.

For weeks, then months, the world was transfixed by videos showing oil pouring from the wellhead into the ocean. The amount of oil leaking from the well became a topic of much contraversy with BP, for obvious reasons, radically underestimating the true amount of the spill. At a minimum, according to the Department of Energy, the well was probably leaking around 2,600,000 gallons of oil per day and this went on from April until July 15th when the well was finally capped. The spill devastated the gulf fishing industry and covered more than 320 miles of coastline with oil slicks and tar balls. The cost of this spill is impossible to determine. To BP alone the combination of payouts, law suits and stock leases is estimated to be over $50 billion dollars. The impact on gulf fishing and tourism is estimated to be at least $4 to 10 billion dollars. Its hard to put a price tag on the ecological impact of the spill but millions of plants and animals were killed and hundreds of miles of coastline massively impacted.

San Bruno Pipeline Explosion

The 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion occurred at 6:11 p.m. PDT on September 9, 2010, in San Bruno, California, a suburb of San Francisco. The accident occurred when a 30inch diameter steel natural gas pipeline owned by Pacific Gas & Electric exploded in flames in the Crestmoor residential neighborhood 2 mi (3.2 km) west of San Francisco International Airport near Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue. The death toll was eight people. It took more than 200 fire fighters to bring the fire under control. The ensuing fire destroyed more than 38 homes and seriously damaged many others. The fire damage was estimated at in excess of $38 million dollars. PG&E will probably be in court for years to come with law suits.

The Fukishima Nuclear Accident
On March 11, 2011 a devastating earthquake struck northern Japan followed by an even more devastating tsunami. The combination of the two caused massive failures at several of Japan's nuclear plants, particularly the coastal Fukushima nuclear plant. As of this writing four of the plant's nuclear reactors have experienced significant damage. At this time reactor number #3 is leaking significant amounts of highly radioactive water into the ocean and into the atmosphere. The radioactivity has already impacted food supplies in the region and has the potential to spread to huge populations in Tokyo. The Japanese nuclear program is one of the most well established in the world. The plants were built with a knowledge that earthquakes are frequent in the area and Japanese nuclear experts said the plants were built with multiple backup systems and could withstand anything nature could throw at it. The nuclear experts were wrong!

Considering True Costs

At Energy Bible we are constantly working to find accurate data which will allow consumers to make intelligent decisions about energy policy. It is often a frustrating process. Nearly all the data comes from some type of energy lobby and is designed to show that their form of energy, whether it be oil, gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, wind energy, etc. is the cheapest. Probably the most accurate data comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration which has some good charts comparing different types of fuel for home heating, but the data is still pretty limited in scope.

The challenge is that understanding the real costs of energy alternatives is not simply a matter of looking at fuel pricing charts and traditional cost comparisons. Even the best government or industry data on energy costs doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the true costs of our addiction to non-renewable forms of energy. One of the images that has stuck in my mind from the recent nuclear disaster in Japan is from an interview NBC news did of a woman pouring through the rubble of what used to be her home town in Japan. The interviewer asked her what she was most afraid of, and despite the fact she was sitting in the midst of immense devastation, her fear wasn't another earthquake, it wasn't another tsunami, it was the fear of the unseen radiation coming from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

How do we put a price on that kind of fear? How do we put a price on the millions of plants and animals destroyed in the BP oil spill? How do we put a price on the fear of millions of homeowners in California who live near a PG&E gas line? I really have no idea but it seems to me we have to try. We have to find some way to take these things into account when we make practical decisions on energy policy both locally and nationally. We have to look at the true costs of continuing our current dependence on non-renewable energy!

Natural Gas vs Heating Oil

Every now and then people write to us at EnegyBible.com with questions which strike us as the kind of thing a lot of people might be asking themselves. When that happens we will talk about the question on this blog and add them to our FAQ. Here is the question we got this morning along with our response. We hope you find it informative:


The AFUE ratings indicated a higher efficiency for gas over oil. I am about to replace my boiler. Would switching to gas make sense: economically, environmentally?


Ric thanks for your message. You are asking a very common question and unfortunately it is not all that easy to answer. You are correct that many natural gas boilers have a higher AFUE rating then some oil boilers. However, it depends somewhat on what kind of oil boiler you are talking about. Some types of oil boilers, particularly condensing oil boilers, have AFUE ratings that are as high as for natural gas boilers. Therefore, in order to make a good decision you have to look at factors such as boiler maintenance and the price of fuel going forward. Most heating and cooling experts we have talked to feel that in general oil boilers require more frequent maintenance than natural gas boilers. We have found that for most homeowners it is very important to have good regular maintenance of their boiler for both efficiency and safety considerations. A properly maintained boiler is less costly in the long run. You might want to consider a boiler maintenance plan if your utility company provides this service, and most do. You can compare service plan costs from your utility company or companies for each type of fuel. If the maintenance costs are similar then this may not be a factor but we have found that in many cases natural gas maintenance plans are less costly.

Boilers last a long time so in our opinion we think the biggest economic difference over time is probably going to end up being the cost of fuel. Therefore in order to judge which is best you are left in the unfortunate position of having to prognosticate the difference in natural gas vs fuel oil prices for the next twenty years. If you were to look at it today the pendulum would swing strongly in favor of natural gas. Fuel oil prices shot up by 97% in 2007 as opposed to natural gas which rose about 11%. As we enter the era of post peak oil we think it is likely both natural gas and fuel oil will continue to increase in price. However, we believe the competition for oil resources will be greater than for natural gas and so it is likely that the proportional increase in fuel oil prices will be greater. This is however a best guess based on limited economic data so please take this observation with a large grain of salt.

From an environmental standpoint frankly both natural oil and fuel oil are bad for the environment. They both take trapped underground carbon and release it into the atmosphere which increases global warming. Both types of fuel add to air pollution and both disrupt the land when we drill for them. All in all when it comes to fuel oil versus natural gas it is a lose-lose proposition.

There are a couple of suggestions we would make since you are considering replacing your boiler. You did not specify whether or not your boiler was for water heating or home space heating. If it is the latter then we would also recommend that you put in a new thermostats at the same time you put in a new boiler. Modern digital thermostats can provide much greater control over how you use heating in your home and are very inexpensive considering the improvement they can make in your energy costs. If you are using the boiler only for hot water heating you might also want to consider going with a solar hot water heater. These types of water heaters have improved dramatically over the last twenty years and are an extremely effective way of reducing your energy costs. In addition they do absolutely no damage to the environment. Most systems cost between $4000 and $7000 and can pay for themselves in just a few years. In addition, many states now provide tax incentives and rebates for solar hot water heaters which can further reduce the cost.

That was our response to our reader's question. Let us know what you think!