61–70 of 397 posts
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.
https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-20170726-BPA-set...
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.
Then they can budget cut and privatize everything while talking about "clean coal" and how climate change is a Chinese hoax and "states rights" etc etc.
It is hardly a coincidence the biggest road blockers in Congress are also the ones arguing to privatize infrastructure for their rich friends.
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'm with you. It's awesome that we're doing this and I think it will be good for future generations. Long term infrastructure investments take a long time, and it's weird to me to think that we might not even be around to enjoy the benefit, but needing to be done is needing to be done. I think this is exactly the kind of change in thinking we need, that we should take on such efforts, even if they take a long time, n…
The hard problem is the storage and peak handling, hopefully with 90% you could cover that too.
A real space-race goal - the kind that I would really have expected from America - would be to be carbon neutral within a decade. That would initially spur investment in natural carbon sinks whilst massively rewarding innovation in that area (which we desperately need - we have two centuries of carbon that needs removing from the atmosphere).
Heck, it would also be wise to investigate geo-engineering - to understand in detail how our planet works, and develop methods for altering it. Could we develop technology which would allow us to, say, counter a massive volcano (or a super volcano?).
Until California kicks out PG&E's monopoly and lets me pay the actual fair market price for my renewable electricity, I find it hard to take these initiatives as anything more than virtue signalling.
A better method for my county would be for the state to get rid of PG&E's ability to selectively charge the distribution fee. Then, private market forces would basically make everyone switch to renewables. Of course, the legislature wouldn't get the chance to appear virtuous. In fact, they'd look like villains for allowing this ridiculous pricing structure to begin with (and they really do knowingly allow it -- after talking with my state senator and representative, they told me they know this is the case, but 'the PG&E lobby is strong'.. give me a break).
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?
The problem of building enough photovoltaics to meet demand is solved. High quality 60 and 72-cell PV modules at sub $0.50/watt and massive scale cheap ground mount and roof mount systems are not rocket science. With sufficient zoning and regulatory incentives it's possible for roof mount PV in California to entirely meet the state's energy needs in megawatt-hours per day. There are a LOT of empty roofs out there.
There is also a lot of nearly useless, non arable desert land that is relatively low cost ($/acre) that can be covered in fixed ground mount photovoltaics. Go drive around out in the area around Twentynine Palms...
The problem is energy storage. Batteries need to get better and have much longer cycle lifetimes. Economies of scale driven by things like the Tesla gigafactory will help. But we will need other, new things like pumped storage hydroelectric and possibly vanadium flow batteries as well. The $/Wh stored ratio is still very high, and the cubic density for energy stored is very low (Wh per cubic meter).
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.
No, it actually is a problem. It has to be stored for millennia, and in a way that does not leak/contaminate surroundings (including ground water). Very little technology /materials can meet those requirements[0], and the current situation is a damn mess[1]. 0. http://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/synopsis-of... 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/0...
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.
Currently, I buy all my electricity from renewables. The price I pay per kwh is lower than conventional generation. However, the state of California has given PG&E a monopoly on electricity distribution, and PG&E charges me the difference between the generation charge from renewables and its own generation charge as a 'distribution fee'. This fee is waived, if i used PG&E generation. Until California kicks out PG&E's…