California regulators reject governor’s pitch for carbon neutrality by 2035

Re:California regulators reject governor’s pitch for carbon ... by sitkack on Monday May 16, 2022 @12:39PM (#31399969)

> It categorically rejected Newsom’s 2035 carbon neutrality goal as too expensive, arguing that sticking to 2045 was more reasonable.

"more reasonable"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California regulators reject governor’s pitch for carbon ... by ncmncm on Monday May 16, 2022 @04:40PM (#31402894)

Money spent on the bullet train to nowhere could have built out a hell of a lot of renewables.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California regulators reject governor’s pitch for carbon ... by sitkack on Monday May 16, 2022 @06:46PM (#31404001)

A 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.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/CA-Energ...

That much solar would supply 10-14% of California's total electricity consumption.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California regulators reject governor’s pitch for carbon ... by ncmncm on Monday May 16, 2022 @09:34PM (#31405049)

At current cost, $100B gets you a 100GW solar PV, peak. Cost is still falling fast.

That much money would better be split with wind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California regulators reject governor’s pitch for carbon ... by kX4A8o4mVmX8aW on Monday May 16, 2022 @12:57PM (#31400226)

It's like they're negotiating with the planet and the sun.

[ Parent | on HN ]