Discussion for article #235540
Another great piece in this series. Kudos TPM and Gregor MacDonald.
Very well done . . . Thanks . . .
I am a lifelong resident of Los Angeles, I was born on a ranch in the middle of the San Fernando Valley in 1946. I actually rode the Red Car trolleys from Van Nuys into down town as a youngster. We now reside less than a two-minute walk to the North Hollywood portal of the Redline subway. It seamlessly whisks us to downtown in 20 minutes all the way to union station. A monthly Senior Tap pass is $20 that is good for all Metro services in the county.
Nowā¦ Six years ago ā¦ Back in 2009 Los Angeles Unified School District began āāā¦a $350-million goal of putting enough solar panels on schools and other district buildings to generate 50 megawatts of electricity by 2012 and lower its electricity bill."
As that LA Times article in the link above notes: ''That is enough energy to power as many as 50,000 homes, though the district will use it to light schools and lower its $80-million annual electricity bill."
As of now there are solar power systems in 68 schools throughout the district. And they are planning on further expansion of the program. Here are two examples of school site parking structure canopy roof-top systems that have been installed. And there are more to come.
~OGD~
1 Like
Thanks for the replies so far. Just a reminder, at 2PM EDT Iāll be answering questions on the series over in The Hive.
But just briefly, I wanted to point out an example of how careful Iāve been about the various data Iāve cited and the claims Iāve made so farā¦
Some of you will recall that in Part I, I suggested the losses from San Onofre were starting to be made up by new additions from wind and solar. I could have talked further about both sides of that equation: for example, that nuclear has a higher capacity factor (it runs 24/7) vs solar, and, I could have also mentioned that wind and solar capacity was being added so quickly, that the losses would indeed be made up.
So, just wanted to note that recent data does show that San Onofreās losses since 2010 have indeed been made up in terms of new generation from new wind and solar, in the State of CA. This was pointed pointed out by Peter Gleick in a twitter exchange today.
If anyone would like to examine that data for themselves, itās here at the State of CA Energy Almanac on electricity generation.
So I just want to reiterate what is a core theme of Part III: renewables and other policy measures are definitely suppressing the growth of fossil fuel consumption and in some ways replacing the loss of old energy capacity, and/or catching the majority share of new growth. However, that still leaves a huge quantity of existing use and capacity in legacy systems.
Gregor
1 Like
I think this piece, where it discusses transit, is premised on the notion that automobile use as a primary means of transportation is a problem to be solved, or at least diametrically opposed to the concept of energy conservation. And while I agree that fossil fuel use is very much something that we need to get away from, I disagree with the argument that we need to convince people to abandon their cars and pack onto trains and buses in order to make better use of renewables in the transportation sector. Iāll go a step further and say that trying to do so here in L.A. and southern California is a needless waste of effort. Regardless of how things were in the early 20th century, as cars became more available, the people and culture of Southern California embraced them.
Southern California is car country, not because it was duped by the evil auto manufacturers, or the oil companies, or the tire companies, or whatever boogeyman transit advocates want to blame, but because Southern Californians love to drive - yes, even in heavy traffic. A smart renewable energy advocate who wants to get the biggest bang for the buck here will spend as much, if not more effort on making cars run on renewables as they do on building out transit options.
Well you are certainly free to that opinion. Having lived in SoCal (Sherman Oaks) for more than a few years before relocating here to Portland, Oregonā¦ robust multi-modal transportation systems can and are the future for large cities, including the Los Angles metro-area.
Good for LA! Letās see other cities get 'er done.
Thanks for mentioning Red Car trolleys. I was trying to remember the exact name when you mentioned it. My grandfather talked years ago about taking the Red Car from Long Beach to Santa Monica to date my grandmother (his term was āwoo.ā).
I lived years ago in two beach towns, Seal Beach and Sunset Beach, where the right of way was maintained for years, including the tracks, but they were eventually removed and the land was used for parks.
A quick question, if you happen to know: it looks like the solar panels are used as āroofsā for a parking lot. If thatās the case, do they reasonably cool the parking lot in warm weather?
The photo of the Los Angeles basin includes four of the eight places where Iāve lived in Southern California before moving north. I donāt believe Iāve ever seen such a clear shot. Itās usually only possible in winter after a rain system has passed through and cold air follows behind. What strikes me in particular is how clean the ocean looks, particularly the water just off of Long Beach. In the late 1950s and 1960s, recreational boat fishing in that area was pointless, though a little further away fish could be caught off the piers. At least two sewers dumped in Long Beach Harbor and the Los Angeles River and the San Gabriel River poured in whatever street sludge was mixed in with the water; for years, there was always illegal dumping of one type or another. Years ago, both sewers were moved much further offshore but the material going into the ocean has also been cleaned up with various changes at treatment plants over the years.
In the 1950s, the smog was so bad that backyard garbage incinerators had to be banned. There was a steel plant in Fontana that had to be closed because of the amount of pollution it emitted. The same was true of a number of other plants that gave off emissions. This is probably not the place for it, but it would be cool to see a timeline of responses to L.A. smog and pollution. Itās been a constant work in progress since the 1930s as problems are roughly solved and new ones emerge from incinerators to lead to smog to water pollution and carbon dioxide. The modern world has consequences and weāre still learning what they are and what to do about them. But global warming is the biggest challenge yet.
Last week, my wife and I were in Paris (Iām still shaking my head; we should all be able to say that at least once in our lives). I was startled by how many small cars there are, both conventional and electric, and also by the number of small car models that are not sold in the U.S. We really do need to get moving along.
1 Like
Iām now a resident in southern California, having left Chicagoās elevated trains behind. I use my bicycle some, out in the suburbs of Temecula, but I lack the courage to share a road with 50 mph pickup trucks (a favorite in my Inland Empire town).
I think a reason people are quick to choose a car for even short trips is the intense sunlight here. Strolling along the sidewalk is not the soothing experience of a shady walk along the Seine. We donāt have New Yorkās dark canyons between skyscrapers, and since the imported palms are not really effective at shade, maybe LA could put up awnings over main sidewalks that could carry municipal solar PV panels. (This has been considered for bike paths in some places.)
Given the reliably excellent weather out here it is crazy to not be walking or biking, but there are few friendly places for either.
Iām guessing the photo is infrared; dust and smog donāt scatter the longer wavelengths.