Comment Log Display

Dear CARB personnel,

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to leave comments on the AB 32
Climate Change Scoping Plan.

I applaud the efforts to reduce GHG emissions and achieve carbon
neutrality in California. I do have concerns about the push towards
mass-electrification, however. Although an admirable goal, barring
some major technological advancements, I fail to foresee how full
electrification would be brought to realization without also
implementing drastic measures to reduce energy use in the state.
Replacing combustible energy sources will require other energy
sources to produce all this electricity. Wind and solar will not be
adequate for this. I can only imagine the massive and variable
power loads placed on the electrical grid under certain
circumstances such as:
1) Daily commuters charge their vehicles upon returning home in the
evening. This afternoon/early evening time frame will coincide with
2) increased air conditioning or heater use, depending on the
season, also due to people returning home. Solar will not be
functioning at large capacity in the evening, so there will need to
be massive storage solutions to collect solar energy that has been
converted to electricity during the day. That is assuming the day
was not cloudy. Solar and wind also do not provide reliable
baseload capabilities and we will therefore need adequate nuclear
capabilities, once again barring an unknown technological
breakthrough. 

Regarding transportation emissions, reducing vehicle miles will be
a good start. Light-duty vehicle electrification appears achievable
aside from the caveats I mention above regarding strain on the
electrical grid if large numbers of people choose to recharge
simultaneously. Heavy duty vehicles, both on and off-road will
likely be much more difficult to electrify, namely long-haul
trucking and locomotives. Widespread electrification or fuel cell
use in aviation might very well never be viable on a large-scale
due to low energy density of batteries and non-carbon fuels that
could be used in a fuel cell. The alternative to petroleum-based
fuels that are available currently would be biomass-based fuels
such as renewable diesel or the growing sustainable aviation fuel
interest. I am sure you are aware of the great amount of research
currently underway to increase the efficiency and reduce the carbon
intensity associated with production of these fuels. Trying to
eliminate "combustible" forms of energy misses the point, in my
opinion, as the goal should instead be to utilize the most
efficient non-petroleum source of energy for any given situation
that requires energy input. Utilizing only electricity as the
energy source under every circumstance requiring energy will lead
to inefficiencies in energy use in total. And once again doesn't
address what form of energy is going to be converted into
electrical energy to begin with. Electricity is not a magical form
of energy but instead just another form of energy acquired through
conversion of another energy source, be it turbines powered by
nuclear-power derived steam energy, conversion of the sun's photons
into electricity within a PV solar panel, or the electrical
impulses of our own nervous system generated by chemical energy
production achieved by the consumption of various food sources
combined with inhaled oxygen. 

In the end, if we want to decrease environmental impacts to our
planet through human activity, we need to either use less energy
per capita, or have less "per capita", meaning fewer people
consuming energy on this planet. This issue, of course, is not
directly relevant to AB 32, but in summary, really is the
overarching issue facing our planet. 

Thank you for your time and providing this forum for me to express
my opinions. 

Sincerely,
Josh Kehoe