100% “renewables” will fuel poverty and homelessness in California

By Ronald Stein.

In pursuit of the emissions crusade, the Governor, Senate, and Assembly have demonstrated their lack of understanding of basic math, with Governor Brown signing Senate Bill 100 into law that now sets California on a path toward 100% renewables and “zero-carbon” sources in electricity by 2045.

For wind farms that generate about 3 watts per square meter, to replace either the closed San Onofre 2,200 megawatt plant, or the to-be-closed Diablo Canyon’s 2,160 megawatts of power in 2024, would require land area 6 times the size of San Francisco for each closed plant!

The emissions crusade goals (and costs) to reduce California’s one percent contribution to greenhouse gases have already increased the costs of electricity and transportation fuels to be among the highest in the nation and may be very contributory to California having the largest percentage of homelessness and poverty in the nation.

California households are already paying about 40 percent more than the national average for electricity according to 2016 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Continuation of that emissions crusade at the expense of our 40 million citizens, and further funding for the Choo Choo train, will further fuel the growth of our homelessness and poverty populations.

In addition, Californians continue to pay almost $1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country due to a) the state sales tax per gallon which are some of the highest in the country; b) refinery reformatting costs per gallon; c) cap and trade program compliance costs per gallon; d) low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs per gallon; and e) renewable fuels standard program compliance costs per gallon. More costs onto fuels are projected by 2030 from cap and trade and the low-carbon fuel standard that may add ANOTHER $1.00 to $2.00 per gallon to fuel.

With California energy and fuel costs among the highest in the nation, the State is leading the nation in the numbers of homeless and those on poverty:

Basic math tells us that intermittent electricity from the huge land mass requirements of wind and solar is not, and will not, be running the California economy. SB100 will further fuel the growth of our homelessness and poverty populations.

While California has chosen to have no zero emission nuclear power capacity, while the world is steadily increasing its nuclear power generating capacity with more than 50 reactors currently under construction. China has launched the most aggressive nuclear program on the planet, with plans to add about 150 new nuclear reactors to its fleet, and about 300 more are proposed.

Today there are about 450 nuclear reactors operating in 30 countries. Additionally, there are 140 nuclear powered ships that have accumulated 12,000 reactor years of “safe” marine operation.

Closing PG&E’s Diablo Canyon’s 2,160 megawatts of power in 2024 which will eliminate 9% of today’s electricity from the grid.  Thus, California ratepayers’ electrical needs will more heavily rely on procuring power from other States, usually at a premium, or rely on unreliable, intermittent electricity from solar and wind to meet our energy requirements.

An understanding of basic math by our elected officials should be obvious that displacing fossil fuel consumption within California would virtually:

  1. Shutdown the military operations in California.
  2. Shutdown the aviation industry at 145 California airports(inclusive of 33 military, 10 major, and more than 100 general aviation) that has a daily need for 13 million gallons/day of aviation fuels.
  3. Shutdown transportation that has a daily need for 10 million gallons/day of diesel fuels, and 42 million gallons/day per day of gasoline to support its 35 million registered vehicles.
  4. Shutdown the Ports of San Diego, Long Beach, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
  5. Shutdown the cruise liner industry calling on California ports.
  6. Raise the costs of materials of 6,000 products from petroleumused by every infrastructure that are made from the chemicals and by-products that are manufactured from crude oil.
  7. Stymy the 90 percent of our population that cannot afford an EV, leaving them without transportation.

The future economic viability of the California economy will be dependent on our citizens electing representatives that have an understanding of basic math.


Ronald Stein is founder of PTS Staffing Solutions, a technical staffing agency headquartered in Irvine, CA.


Compare electricity rates by state

Electricity Rates in Your State


Jerry Brown’s plan for ‘negative’ CO2 emissions is based on ‘science fiction’

California Today: Tackling Climate Change, Without Trump – NYT

1 reply
  1. Richard Willson
    Richard Willson says:

    California, and for that matter all mankind, can have no significant impact on global climate change. The carbon dioxide (CO2) anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is a hoax, a pseudo- science rationale to justify the reduction in the use of fossil fuels. It’s cynically perpetuated for different reasons including those who make money from cap and trade, government ‘green’ energy subsidies or are peddling an environmental ideology that has no basis in reality.

    Conservation is a good thing when implemented with good science and common sense. But the absurd preoccupation of California government with global warming is a mindless misappropriation of time, money, expertise and resources that should be spent on issues that actually need it. like water storage and distribution, that are important to a prosperous and flourishing California populace.

    Satellite observations during the past several decades have shown that global climate change is primarily driven by cyclic variations in the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives from the sun, not the accumulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Historical climate data derived from Antarctic ice cores has shown that global temperature changes precede corresponding changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. In other words, the CO2 content of the atmosphere is primarily a response to climate change, not a cause of it.

    Even if CO2 were a major player in climate change, human CO2 generation is responsible for only about 7% of atmospheric CO2 at any given time since the ocean dominates its continuous exchange between ocean, atmosphere and landmass biota. Partial control of the 7% by suppressing human fossil fuel use would have trivial consequences for climate and California’s contribution would be a tiny fraction of that!


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.