Much like an Arthurian knight setting out on an epic quest, the state of California has recently embarked on a similarly epic and arduous course. In September, California governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100 (or SB 100), which officially put into law a statewide goal for the Golden State - to totally phase out all reliance on fossil fuels by the year 2045. To the state of California, a longtime world leader in green technology development and adoption, ridding itself totally of reliance on fossil fuels seems as ultimate a goal as slaying a dragon or finding the Holy Grail...and potentially, just as perilous.
In light of the effects carbon-heavy fuel sources have had on the world environment (at time of writing, it’s currently 87 degrees Fahrenheit in Chicago, in October), it’s an absolutely worthy goal to attempt to stop an entire U.S. state’s worth of carbon emissions from being released into the atmosphere...especially if that state is California. The state consumes an average of 206 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per year - that’s more than the entire population of Indonesia. Californians pay for it, too - residents of the state pay on average 50 percent more for electricity than the U.S. average, a third of which comes from burning natural gas.
There has never been a better time to get rid of fossil fuels. The coal industry is declining, fast; meanwhile, the wind energy industry is thriving, especially in Europe and North America. Thanks in part to the rise in demand for electric vehicles, lithium batteries are becoming cheaper. Solar energy is also thriving, which is good for California, a state that is mostly covered in deserts and mountain ranges - ideal environments for solar panels.
Still, the process of getting rid of fossil fuels creates scores of challenges the state will have to deal with. Under the new laws specified in SB 100, up to 40 percent of state’s power can still come from non-renewable energy sources - so long as those operating such energy sources “capture” their carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere, and dispose of them in an environmentally-friendly way. That process adds to the cost of producing energy this way, and - ironically - requires energy. SB 100 also prohibits Californian companies or municipalities from getting their energy from non-carbon-neutral sources. With all of its non-renewable energy sources gone, something will have to replace them.
The current game plan is to replace the state’s primary energy sources - which rely on fossil fuels - with sources that rely on wind, solar, and geothermal energy. 30 percent of California’s current energy production already come from these sources, but expanding them is far more easily said than done. For one thing, finding sites for geothermal or wind energy production facilities and equipment is a tricky task in California. The issue isn’t a lack of physical space - it’s a lack of physical space to put energy facilities that wouldn’t negatively interfere with native wildlife and residential areas, or even other energy production facilities. That includes California’s shoreline; offshore wind turbines are not only difficult to construct, but there are only so many places these turbines can be built, due to California’s wildlife protection laws.
According to two papers published in Environmental Research Letters and Joule, Harvard researchers recently discovered that, not only will expanding wind energy in the U.S. cause a significant increase in the mainland’s average surface temperature, but building the number of turbines required to meet rising energy demands would require between 5 and 20 times more physical land than previous studies have predicted. Part of the reason for this is that wind turbines need to be spaced a certain distance apart; besides safety considerations, turbines create what Harvard professor David Keith calls “wind shadows,” or areas in which the wind behind a turbine is slowed by the movement of the turbine’s rotors. These “shadows” can interfere with nearby turbines, making them less efficient at generating energy. The only way to prevent this is making sure the turbines are a certain distance away from each other.
California to totally eliminating its reliance on fossil fuels would no doubt help reduce harmful emissions even more - but they won’t get rid of them entirely unless the entire state begins using zero-emission vehicles. Currently, two-thirds of the state’s total emissions come from cars, buses, trains, and ships.
Still, if anyone can pull it off, it’s California. The state’s efforts up to this point have led to a demonstrable decline in the state’s environmental carbon dioxide output; according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), in 2016, the state’s greenhouse gas output was 429 million metric tons - the lowest it had been since 1990. In fact, the 2016 rates were 3 million metric tons less than the 1990 rates.
Improving California’s system of power grid management may also help make the way the state consumes energy more efficient. Currently, all of the energy produced in the state is distributed by the California Independent System Operator (ISO), which assigns power to different regions based on demand. Occasionally, California ISO borrows surplus power from other states - sometimes even from regions in Canada and Mexico. This is not a streamlined process by any stretch, perhaps it can be improved upon; a 2015 study by California ISO found that if the West Coast created a regionalized grid system for its power supplies, the state of California alone would save $1.5 billion annually, and create almost 20,000 jobs as well. This would be another massive undertaking, of course, given the vast nuances in labor, energy, and environmental laws and practices between different states in the region.
The British knights from Arthurian legend risked life and limb for their country, their pride, and their king. The state of California may not necessarily be risking lives by pursuing total freedom from fossil fuel reliance, but the stakes are still high. Besides the question of whether or not the goal can be met, there are other considerations that need to be made to make sure the state and its people will be able to adapt successfully to a post-fossil fuel-reliant California. That will involve proactively creating laws, government programs, and statewide initiatives in collaboration with local and international businesses. Hopefully, the government of California will be able to meet and account for each item on the extremely expansive list of things that need to be done to reach a 100 percent green future by 2045. If not, the consequences could have deep, substantial, far-reaching effects on the economy of California, as well as its environment.
(Originally published in Electrical Apparatus Magazine. Print only.)