Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/17/2019 Item 5, Schmidt From:Richard Schmidt < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Agenda Item 5 Sept. 15, 2019 nd RE: Reach Code 2 reading Dear Council Members: Below are 3 very simple-to-understand slides to once again try to persuade you the time is not right for an all-electric reach code. They speak for themselves. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt, “The most radical environmentalist in the world.” (Thank you, SLO Chamber, for that honorific title.) The fantasy of “100% carbon-free” power from MBCP MBCP’s Power Mix • 34% renewables • 66% large hydro The 2/3 that’s hydro comes from decades-old hydro plants. Before their output was MBCP’s, it was someone else’s. 1 Our “allocation” of this clean hydro is merely an accounting change, not new carbon-free power. All MBCP’s purchase of this power does is change who gets credit for having carbon-free power. This provides the fantasy of reducing GHG emissions, when in fact it doesn’t. California’s Power Mix – what comes out of our sockets and plugs We don’t actually get MBCP’s “100% carbon-free” power. We get the California Mix (2017), what’s actually in our state’s power lines: • 38% fossil fuel (34% gas, 4% coal) • 29% renewable • 15% large hydro • 9% nuclear • 9% unidentified The largest source we use is fossil-fueled power. It’s likely some of the “unidentified” power is also fossil fuel sourced. Shifting to all-electric construction will increase the use of electricity, about 40% of which comes from fossil fuel combustion = GHG emissions. Thus the reach code will increase emissions, not reduce them. 2 Understanding natural gas electricity’s thermal inefficiency compared to using gas directly How electricity gets made with gas: • 100% of natural gas’s energy is delivered to power plant, and is combusted. • Typical gas plants have efficiencies around 35%. Meaning: about 2/3 of the energy in the natural gas going into the plant is lost in making electricity. (Think waste heat, for example.) Only about 1/3 of the energy going in comes out as electricity. Electricity arriving at your home has even less -- about 32% of the energy content of the original gas used to make the electricity. (Think transmission loses.) Converting such electricity back into heat at your home thus consumes about 3x the energy as making heat on-site with natural gas. With about 40% of our electricity coming from fossil fuel sources, this inefficiency becomes a significant GHG- emission issue. All-electric conversion might make sense if we had 100% carbon-free electricity – plus serious conservation and energy generation rules to radically reduce energy demand. However, we don’t. Thus the reach code will increase, not decrease, GHG emissions. 3