The Impact Of Renewable Energy

Beginning January 1, 2017, at least 3% of the aggregate amount of bulk transportation fuel purchased by the state government must be from very low carbon transportation fuel sources. Beginning January 1, 2018, the required amount of very low carbon transportation fuel purchased will increase by 1% annually until January 1, 2024. California is doing their part by trying to minimize pollution until a safer alternative fuel has arrived. Yet, if

Global warming and climate change is one of the most pressing issues in the contemporary society given its continued impacts on human life and the world’s ecosystem. The considerable effects of this issue have raised huge concerns among policymakers, governments, and the public. As a result, various initiatives have been developed in attempts to lessen global warming or climate change, especially those related to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases to the Earth’s atmosphere. Governments across the globe including the United Kingdom government have adopted various policies that focus on dealing with the issue. There are various policies that help in dealing with the issue including lessening greenhouse gases emissions, adapting to the effects of climate change, and geo-engineering of the climate system. The attempts by the UK government to address this problem require an understanding of the increasing energy demands and its future impact and use of suitable renewable energy sources.

As we know, California is fighting to have an emission standard implemented on the state

Pursuant to energy efficiency policies, controversy swirls as climate changes are experienced in the U.S. and around the globe. When energy efficiency steps are put into place, economic outlooks turn positive. Obama’s policymaking in this arena makes “critical investments in advanced vehicle and fuel technologies, public transit, and high speed rail” (United Press International). With new fuel efficiency standards that will improve fuel economy by 2025, and other initiatives that he enacted, “12 billion barrels of oil will be saved and American consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump, and greenhouse gas emission standards for commercial trucks, vans, and buses for are projected to save over 500 million barrels of oil and save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs” (United Press

In 1994, the state produced more than 458 million tons of CO2 equivalents.” (Wilkinson and Rounds, 1998, 35) Emissions are expected to increase in California, as well as other states. By 2010, it was predicted by the California Energy Commission to increase 15 percent. According to the document about 85 percent would be from fossil fuels. In 2012 according to California’s Environmental protection agency air resources board “Total California greenhouse gas emissions were 459 million metric tons (or tonnes) of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). This represents a 1.7 percent increase in total GHG emissions from 2011 and the first emissions increase since 2007.” (California Air Resources Board, 2014, i) The percentage of greenhouse emissions has increased tremendously since

California Governor Jerry Brown has a plan to put 1.5 million zero-emission cars on the state roads in the next decade and has signed 11 bills related to global warming. Some of these efforts include 15,000 permits for clean-air cars to use car-pool lanes, requirements for counties to speed up permits for residential solar-power installations, and rebates to lower income resident to buy more fuel-efficient cars. He enacted a law that requires California power companies to get at least a third of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020. One of the largest incentives that Jerry Brown has put into place has been rebates for upgrading to more fuel-efficient cars, where the state of

Efficiency at a power plant is determined by energy conversion rate. This is rate is measured by the input energy source, in this case coal, in proportion to the output, which is the power generated. The less fuel that is required for power generation, the more efficient it is. Efficiency is very sensitive in relation to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted. A single percentage increase in the efficiency of a coal fired power plant yields a 2-3% reduction in the carbon dioxide levels emitted by this plant. The power stations on the upper side on the scale of efficiency may emit up to 40% less carbon dioxide than the average power stations currently installed. The efficiency of power plant improvements include the most cost effective and shortest lead time actions for reducing emissions from coal fired electricity. This is especially true in developing and lower-economy countries

CAP and Trade is a cost-effective method for reducing emissions. The world’s largest implementation of Greenhouse gas trading system is the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and they have been environmentally ineffective. The result of price crash non-stability in California and Quebec are also environmentally ineffective. In 2016, the emphasis was on EU ETS’s fourth phase (2021-2030) which was what the European Commission, presented changes for. The purpose of the presented changes is to bring the cap into line with the EU's 2030 objective, reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions to at least 40% nationally by 2030. The EU provides a better goal of free allocation rules and further supports low-carbon innovation and energy sector transformation. To meet the legal requirements and to compensate for excess pollution EU ETS should reduce GHG emissions, and buy emission allowances in the carbon market. They could also reduce GHG emissions

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cap and trade initiative set to regulate and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from power generating facilities with an electrical capacity equal or greater than 25 electrical megawatts (RGGI, 2015). The drafting of this initiative started in 2003 when Connecticut (CT), Delaware (DE), Maine (ME), Massachusetts (MA), New Hampshire (NH), New Jersey (NJ), New York (NY), Rhode Island (RI), and Vermont (VT) showed interest in reviewing greenhouse gas emissions and a cap-trade coalition to address the emission from power plants in their territory. In 2005, the above mentioned states with the exception of RI and MA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlined the model rules for the program. Some of the topics outlined in RGGI Model Rule include: the responsibilities of the account representatives, permitting recommendations, monitoring requirements, compliance certification reports, control periods and others. The Model Rules were also the building blocks used to develop state-specific regulations supporting the goals and actions necessary to succeed as a member. In 2007 MA, RI and MD also signed the MOU (RGGI, 2015a; RGGI, 2015b). On January 1, 2012, RGGI lost one of its founding members after the governor of NJ; Chris Christie withdrew NJ’s support to the initiative. Throughout its participation, NJ received over $100 million in revenues directly from the RGGI markets. (Christie, 2011) The

It seems as humans evolve and advance, we also use nature to our advantage, and do not use any of our new-found technology to find ways to replenish those supplies which we so willingly take. Today, California is a test of our capability to adapt to human caused climate change. California’s first efforts to adapt started with the Assembly Bill 32 (the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act), which has goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Then the state later drafted its first climate

The California High Speed Rail Authority Claims about the systems environmental benefits are greatly overstated. As per Due Diligence Report, California HSR will cause very little reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions (CO2). The California Air Resources Board forecasts that the HSR would reduce CO2 emissions equal to only 1.5% of the current state objective. On the other hand the California High Speed Rail Authority has made an exaggerated claim of achieving “almost 50%” of the state objective.

The article “Stay of clean power plan should not halt Pennsylvania’s progress” discusses Pennsylvania moving forward in their course to reduce emissions of carbon. A clean power plan in every state will prove to help reduce carbon emission in the atmosphere, and provide cleaner air for all Pennsylvania and United States residents. Clean power plan for cleaner air is a state, local, and national government political

According to Plan Bay Area, the act requires each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas – including the Bay Area – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Furthermore, the law necessitates that the Bay Area and other California regions develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) - new element implemented by regional transportation plan (RTP) to elaminate greenhouse gas emissions and reach air quality standards set for each region. As Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region indicates:" The Bay Area’s target is a 7 percent per capita reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita reduction by 2035". Further development plans and strategies designed to maintain enironmental stability in Bay Area region may be find in the source. Moreover, Bay Area Air Quality Management has established rules and regulations published on its official website and continues to inform public of new laws and legal changes on air pollution

When Obama was elected President of the United States, he promised to protect the environment we live in. His Climate Action Plan set out to increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon pollution and expand of renewable energy sources. To accomplish a part of this, the government announced approval of an action plan, the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan ‘DRECP’. The DRECP is a landscape-level plan focusing on renewable energy and conservation on 22.5 million acres of California desert land. The plan stretches over seven California counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego and San Bernardino. The DRECP was developed in a joint effort by government agencies such as, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Local governments, renewable energy developers and environmental organizations were also involved. The DRECP goals could be split up into three major categories.

The state of California has set an aggressive schedule for the required amounts of renewable energy use, stepping from 20% in 2013, to 25% in 2016, and finally 33% by 2020 (DSIRE, 2011). By setting required levels of renewable energy to be used by energy companies the government leaves it up to the generator to develop the most cost effective source of renewable energy and the government faces small cost impacts because the brunt of the costs are forced on the users.