2 ms·
> It categorically rejected Newsom’s 2035 carbon neutrality goal as too expensive, arguing that sticking to 2045 was more reasonable. "more reasonable"
by sitkack 4y ago
> It categorically rejected Newsom’s 2035 carbon neutrality goal as too expensive, arguing that sticking to 2045 was more reasonable.
"more reasonable"
- kX4A8o4mVmX8aW 4y agoIt's like they're negotiating with the planet and the sun.
- ncmncm 4y agoMoney spent on the bullet train to nowhere could have built out a hell of a lot of renewables.
- sitkack 4y agoA 100B public works program to install solar would have been an infinitely better use of that money. Done right, that could have equaled 20-30GW of peak capacity. That would cover roughly half of California's summer generating capacity. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/ https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/CA-Energy%20Sector%20Risk%20Profile.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/CA-Energ... That much solar would supply 10-14% of California's total electricity consumption.
- ncmncm 4y agoAt current cost, $100B gets you a 100GW solar PV, peak. Cost is still falling fast. That much money would better be split with wind.