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

101–110 of 397 posts

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

#101

Post by llukas »

wang_li wrote: post #94
jwr wrote: post #88

I think another great move would be to start dealing with excessive energy consumption. Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units, vertical-drum washing machines (!!!), poorly designed gas stoves, oversized cars, monstrous gas-guzzling trucks, energy waste is all over the place. People behave just as if energy we…

Compared to Europe the US is doing better on carbon reduction seeing as the US went down and Europe went up. I'm not disagreeing that everyone should try to improve and the items you mentioned can be looked at, but comparing to Europe the US looks pretty good.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

Looks pretty good on what metric?

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

#102

Post by craftyguy »

opo wrote: post #81
craftyguy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission p…

> can and should be recycled

Well, it's not, and there doesn't seem to be much focus by the DoE to do so. Therefore storage of waste is still a major problem if you want to generate electricity with nuclear power plants in the US.

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

#103

Post by tedsanders »

tathougies wrote: post #72
amluto wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really see how California could practically kick out PG&E’s monopoly. There won’t magically be a bunch of competitors that string is their own power lines. CA could potentially take over entirely and run its own system, which might not be totally crazy. Some cities (e.g. Palo Alto and Los Angeles) already do this.

The legislature directly controls PG&E's pricing. They can legislate it out of the market, or at least legislate out this particular pricing snafu.

The legislature does not control PG&E's pricing.

Periodically, PG&E submits rate cases to the CPUC. The outcomes of these rate case submissions dictate what PG&E is allowed to charge customers.

The CPUC is a quasi-executive agency established by the state constitution:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Public_Utilities_Commissi...

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

#104

Post by fdr »

jwr wrote: post #88

I think another great move would be to start dealing with excessive energy consumption. Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units, vertical-drum washing machines (!!!), poorly designed gas stoves, oversized cars, monstrous gas-guzzling trucks, energy waste is all over the place. People behave just as if energy we…

That may well happen. Keep in mind California doesn't have full control as a regulatory state: consider the special EPA waiver that came in, along with EPA itself, during the Nixon era. Many regulations one is accustomed to from the Federal government require such special permission to act. We might see a bevy of tax credits or the like over time to do the lifting.

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

#105

Post by jorblumesea »

tathougies wrote: post #69
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.

Many US states are comparable in size to typical nations, so its not clear to me why this localized response is worse

Climate change is a national/global issue and requires a national/global response.

California going green while Virginia stays with coal while Florida floods is objectively bad for the nation. The carbon footprint of the nation isn't going to be balanced by only a few states taking serious measures.

We are a union under the federalist system and we're all in this together, despite what people seem to think.

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

#106

Post by dublin »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #84
tedunangst wrote: post #68

Hypothetically, if I build a big coal power plant across the border to power a giant light array shining on solar cells on the CA side, does that count?

Nope >The bill would require the PUC and the Energy Commission, in consultation with the state board, to take steps to ensure that a transition to a zero-carbon electric system for the State of California does not cause or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions increases elsewhere in the western grid. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

No but due to the horrendous grid instability this policy must induce, CAISO will have to bring in a lot of power from other regions at pretty premium prices if they don't want all CA customers to find out the hard way that the only thing worse than rolling blackouts is non-rolling blackouts....

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

#107

Post by wlesieutre »

mattygh wrote: post #99
jwr wrote: post #88

I think another great move would be to start dealing with excessive energy consumption. Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units, vertical-drum washing machines (!!!), poorly designed gas stoves, oversized cars, monstrous gas-guzzling trucks, energy waste is all over the place. People behave just as if energy we…

Compared to the rest of the USA (low bar), California is a saint. They started doing Energy Efficiency in the 70s, currently spend $1Bn / year on EE. Energy consumption as a whole in the state has flatlined since they started doing EE (1). All that to say, they're trying. It's crazy how much of a difference culture makes. 1: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-is-p...

California's appliance efficiency regulations (Title 20) are much stricter than to anywhere else in the US, as far as I know. http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/

EDIT - for an example, their clothes washer energy/water requirements got stricter in 2015 and then again in 2018 https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IC95DA848BDAD48929...

They also have the strictest building energy codes (Title 24). https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/

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

#108

Post by mattygh »

anfedorov wrote: post #65
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?

Also, what does "Clean Electricity" mean? I signed up for CleanPowerSF which only cost me 2¢/kWh more, if I remember right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanPowerSF

It's relatively easy for one person to source clean power themselves, just means that technically your payment goes to a wind farm instead of the grid as a whole, but really doesn't change much for the grid. It's much harder for everyone to get clean power, then you get very advanced issues balancing the variable nature of renewable generation.

In this case I believe it means carbon-free, so Nuclear is still technically viable though very unlikely any new Nuclear will be built. Will be mostly existing hydro, nuclear and geothermal with new solar & wind phasing out gas plants.

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

#109

Post by phil248 »

jwr wrote: post #88

I think another great move would be to start dealing with excessive energy consumption. Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units, vertical-drum washing machines (!!!), poorly designed gas stoves, oversized cars, monstrous gas-guzzling trucks, energy waste is all over the place. People behave just as if energy we…

There is no doubt room for improvement, but California is already among the most energy efficient states.

https://database.aceee.org/state/california

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

#110

Post by tedsanders »

rhacker wrote: post #12
ebikelaw wrote: post #2

Why not 2025?

I would assume it would be better to use 30%-40% effecient panels that will come out in 10 years than forcing everyone on the current 23% tech.

It is extremely unlikely that commercial cells will be high-efficiency multijunction in 10 years.

Silicon has been dominant for decades, and its lead in cost-effectiveness has only grown.

Post reply on HN