California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045 • Hacker News Board

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#21

Post by jmcgough » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

ebikelaw wrote: post #2

Why not 2025?

We probably need to make significant improvements to the grid in order to support this. Solar power doesn't feed into the grid at a consistent rate, so we need to be able to store large amounts of energy for off-hours.

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#22

Post by twright » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

Tuxer wrote: post #14

guelo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misread. Hydro will be allowed under this bill.

oh I must have, I read this sentence "The state currently gets about 44 percent of its power from renewables and hydropower." as continuing with the current thought that hydro wasn't 100% clean. Pump it up then.

Will hydro be viable if the rainfall gets worse? Lake Mead is about 40% capacity, I can't imagine other dams are doing much better.

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#23

Post by ebikelaw » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:31 PM UTC

jzoch wrote: post #16

I understand this is amazing and totally love my state for doing it, but man seeing 2045 is always a little dismaying as I wish we could be even more aggressive. 2035 for example. I realize I am being too ambitious, but we went to space in a decade why not 100% clean energy in 1.5?

I feel the same way about nearly everything in California. For example the first phase of the HSR project, which will serve pretty much no purpose whatsoever, is planned for 2029 which means realistically 2035, which might not even be in my lifetime. Meanwhile, in China, https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1034348241402265601

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#24

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:31 PM UTC

twright wrote: post #22

Tuxer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh I must have, I read this sentence "The state currently gets about 44 percent of its power from renewables and hydropower." as continuing with the current thought that hydro wasn't 100% clean. Pump it up then.

Will hydro be viable if the rainfall gets worse? Lake Mead is about 40% capacity, I can't imagine other dams are doing much better.

There is a proposal to convert the Hoover Damn and Lake Mead into pumped storage.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/los-angeles-considers-3b-pu...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/24/business/ener...

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#25

Post by RobLach » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

eikenberry wrote: post #18

Is nuclear part of the bill? It is clean but I don't see any mention of it either way in the article other than in the graph of current sources.

Whenever I ride around Berkeley, CA I see a sea of "nuclear-free zone" signs on roads filled with Prius traffic. It's not so easy to understand the real agendas here.

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#26

Post by ebikelaw » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

jmcgough wrote: post #21

ebikelaw wrote: post #2

Why not 2025?

We probably need to make significant improvements to the grid in order to support this. Solar power doesn't feed into the grid at a consistent rate, so we need to be able to store large amounts of energy for off-hours.

Do we need a quarter century to make that happen? California built Shasta Dam in 8 years with a population 7 times smaller than today's and with early Industrial Age technology. How long could it possibly take to install some pumps at Whiskeytown to pump water back into Shasta during the daytime? The Pacific AC Intertie goes right over both lakes already.

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#27

Post by urda » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

eikenberry wrote: post #18

Is nuclear part of the bill? It is clean but I don't see any mention of it either way in the article other than in the graph of current sources.

California is actually in the middle of shutting down the last nuclear source they have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Clos...

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#28

Post by justaaron » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

excellent

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#29

Post by godzillabrennus » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

RobLach wrote: post #25

eikenberry wrote: post #18

Is nuclear part of the bill? It is clean but I don't see any mention of it either way in the article other than in the graph of current sources.

Whenever I ride around Berkeley, CA I see a sea of "nuclear-free zone" signs on roads filled with Prius traffic. It's not so easy to understand the real agendas here.

Funny enough, there is a solution for more safely disposing of nuclear waste that is coming out of Berkeley.

http://www.deepisolation.com

They are a company to pay attention to IMHO.

Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

#30

Post by seanmcdirmid » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #24

twright wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will hydro be viable if the rainfall gets worse? Lake Mead is about 40% capacity, I can't imagine other dams are doing much better.

There is a proposal to convert the Hoover Damn and Lake Mead into pumped storage. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/los-angeles-considers-3b-pu... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/24/business/ener...

I thought they were already used as pumped storage? I know the grand coullee has the ability to pump water up into its reaovoir, at least they talked about this in a high school class I took 25 years ago.