Just to give an example: Detroit. If people wanted to change the dynamics of power generation and distribution, wouldn’t it make most sense to start in a place which is already in the pits, and where it wouldn’t make economic and political sense for the power companies to spend big political bucks on a political fight since they aren’t making much money (in Detroit) anyway? I’d say so.

Such a strategy would simply be a modern version of Mao’s strategy of using the villages to surround the cities. Just as with the Internet, I suspect that change will come from the edges, not the power centers of today. And that’s because the power centers of today know that they won’t be the power centers of tomorrow.

I regret the 20% error that went out originally and corrected it the following day. I have verified the 15% figure on PG&E’s web site and linked it to the source.

All of my articles may be freely distributed.

Cheers,
–C

Also, some of PG&E’s hydropower is already counted toward their renewable portfolio; state law allows hydropower facilities under 30 megawatts to “count” as renewable. It also allows efficiency upgrades of small hydro facilities to count as renewable, even if this pushes them over the 30 megawatt limit. Small hydro accounts for 20% of PG&E’s renewable energy, according to the charts you link to.

As for nuclear, the reason it is not called renewable is because it is not in fact renewable, at least not for the current reactors in the US which generally have a “once-through” fuel cycle. Uranium is a mined product, just like coal, petroleum and natural gas. While we will never “run out” of uranium per se, we will sooner or later run out of easily and cheaply mined uranium, for exactly the same reason we will run out of cheap and easy fossil fuel. Uranium reactor waste can be “recycled”, but only at a steep price and with a large escalation of security and safety vulnerabilities.

Great article; thanks for writing this. I do have some additional comments on the comparison between PG&E and MEA. It looks like you corrected one of them–the fact that MEA is offering 25% renewables out of the gate and not just 20%. Unfortunately the 20% figure went out the gate in some email distributions that I saw. Also, PG&E’s renewables is down between 13% and 14%, not 15%. So, combining these corrections: MEA will double the amount of renewables compared to PG&E, not just add 1/3 as originally implied. Another important point is that MEA and San Francisco have both voluntarily set CCA targets of 51% renewables, far higher than required by the state; while PG&E has consistently offered reasons for delaying implementation of even the minimum legally required amount of renewables.

It would be great if you would allow a version, with these few corrections, to be freely distributed.

There is really no way to increase supply from large hydropower – those are legacy assets.

I have a long list of reasons why I do not believe that new nuclear plants are practical in California, and waste is at the bottom of that list. Financing, insurance, accurately counted construction and maintenance costs, permitting and siting are the more important issues. I have not written on that subject yet because it’s a complex, difficult, and technical topic, but I do intend to at some point.

Why doesn’t PG&E’s hydroelectric power count as green and renewable? I understand their mix is 50% hydro. Don’t you think nuclear energy may be the way to go despite the long term waste management problems since it has a low carbon emission rate?