Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 397 posts

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

#51

Post by gricardo99 »

nickik wrote: post #43
gricardo99 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sooner it shuts down the better, given the design and risks of the plant[1] 1 - https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-accidents...

Absolute bullshit. Its one of the best run and safest nuclear plants in the world. Union of concerned scientists is nothing but an anti-nuclear lobbying group the same as Greenpeace and others. All they do is spread FUD or outright lies.

Do you have any references for your assertions about "best run and safest nuclear plants in the world"?

Management of the plant does not discount the safety concerns with the plant location and design, of which there are many critics [1]

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vulne...

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

#52

Post by andromeduck »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #29
RobLach wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that's an old idea

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

#53

Post by craftyguy »

ocschwar wrote: post #34
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.

THey can build transmission lines into WA and OR and get hydrop from there.

Assuming those states want to sell power to CA. I suppose they would if CA is willing to pay for it.

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

#54

Post by meowface »

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?

Going to space probably would've taken a lot longer if there were a ton of legacy low quality low-Earth orbit spacecraft floating all over that we first had to upgrade or remove.

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

#55

Post by microcolonel »

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?

> but man seeing 2045 is always a little dismaying as I wish we could be even more aggressive

CARB thinks like this, and it has been a disaster for some people. It takes time to write policy that makes any sense, and to develop the infrastructure (including web pages, etc.) to make things work correctly. Ultimately, what you end up with is a torrent of Californians escaping to Texas and Florida because their profession has been written out of existence on an "accelerated schedule", with no grandfathering. One particularly ironic testimony on the effect of CARB policies was given by a school bus maintenance overseer, who recounts that (due to CARB policy), they end up actively regenerating their diesel particulate filters (which only regenerate in transit with sustained engine load, because they otherwise don't get hot enough) right next to the school (they don't have the budget for separate facilities), effectively releasing finer versions of the particulates the filters are designed to capture directly into the atmosphere of the schools, rather than distributed over the sprawling neighborhoods they serve.

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

#56

Post by craftyguy »

jorblumesea wrote: post #49

It's unfortunate the US response to climate change is completely localized and basically dependent on blue states. Not saying this is a bad thing but climate change is a huge global issue and requires at least a coordinated national response.

> and requires at least a coordinated national response.

The federal government has proven for at least the past decade that they are incapable of delivering a coordinated national response.

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

#57

Post by sannee »

Alex3917 wrote: post #44
nickik wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste is not an actual problem and the only reason there is no 'solution' is because it has turned into a political shit show. Worrying about nuclear waste at the beginning of the nuclear age when most of that waste is actually valuable fuel is downright idiotic.

> Nuclear waste is not an actual problem If you're comfortable eating food grown in the soil grown around uranium processing plants then by all means go ahead.

I am fully comfortable with that (not parent though) and have even done so on several occasions.

You do realize we can detect contamination by radioactive elements in quatities many orders of magnitude lower than could conceivably cause any harm right?

On the other hand, I live in Europe and our local government has yet to produce a complete environment monitoring fail such as the Flint incident in the USA.

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

#58

Post by mygo »

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?

would you be disappointed if you had 95% clean energy in 2035?

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

#59

Post by nostromo »

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?

Politicians generally tend to choose deadlines that are beyond their terms. They get the approval of their voting base today without actually having to do much of anything to reach the goal itself.

I'm reminded of Bush calling for the US to return to the moon by 2020 -- a proposal Obama quietly nixed.

I'd much rather we say, "We're going to increase renewables by X% every year, starting now, to reach the goal of 100% renewables by 2045."

Post reply on HN