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

111–120 of 397 posts

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

#111

Post by mattygh »

wlesieutre wrote: post #107
mattygh wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.ener…

That's probably been the main driver over time

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by acdha »

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.

Do you have a cite for that? It's common in lobbying circles but they studiously avoid mentioning that the US was starting from a substantially higher baseline so EU consumption was still considerably lower. See for example the chart through 2014 here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-bi...

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

#114

Post by chairmanwow »

close04 wrote: post #85
nostromo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%…

Even 2035 is still beyond most current politicians' terms. 100% clean energy will take a lot of work and more importantly determination. The closer you get to the goal, the more it takes to cover another percent. And you never know who comes next and decides to kick all the plans to the curb and subsidize coal (hypothetically speaking o_O). You need to add some buffers. Another problem is that nobody else (at this sc…

Wow. Thanks for contextualizing this goal. Great example.

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

#115

Post by gameswithgo »

jaredhansen wrote: post #75
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.

> It's not so easy to understand the real agendas here. The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers) than it does with costly and difficult initiatives like figuring out how to meet the world's energy requirements in a sustainable way.

I have a prius and I don't care about my neighbor's opinions. It was just available cheap to em used and doesn't use as much gas.

How have you decided you can speak for all prius owners? If people ARE trying to "keep up with the Joneses" by buying priuses instead of SUVs and Corvettes that would be a great agenda.

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

#116

Post by dublin »

village-idiot wrote: post #80
toomuchtodo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is at a bit of a tipping point. It has so much renewable energy, it has to pay other states to export their excessive energy because they don't have enough storage [1]. So you have to decide if you're going to subsidize utility scale energy storage to help drive it below the cost of fossil and peaker generators (which, it appears, California is prepared to do). It also helps that renewables are quickly app…

I won't shed many tears for the death of fossil fuel power plants.

Your face may be dry, but it will be in the dark. There is quite simply NO KNOWN TECHNOLOGY that can cost effectively meet peak demands other than fossil fuel plants. The people that build the natural gas peaker plants that California will MUST have for grid stability will make a fortune, and be painted as the "bad brown energy guys" even though they'll actually be saving the entire grid from collapse.

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

#117

Post by hodgesrm »

nickik wrote: post #39
godzillabrennus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

You can't dismiss the waste problem out of hand given the environmental problems at places like Hanford [0] and the costs of safely decommissioning old plants, especially damaged ones like Fukushima [1]. There's abundant evidence that it's a costly, poisonous mess if done badly.

Personally I don't think this is the biggest problem with nuclear power, and it's certainly not in and of itself a reason to switch to alternatives. But it's not an issue to ignore either.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/03/24/national/estima...

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

#118

Post by Alex3917 »

hueving wrote: post #91
Alex3917 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Appeal to irrational fear. Are you comfortable with radio towers blasting you with radiation?

> Are you comfortable with radio towers blasting you with radiation?

Nope. I always keep my phone in airplane mode when I'm not using it.

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

#120

Post by ancarda »

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…

On the topic of large cars, what is the solution here?

I can imagine forcing people to replace A/C units won’t be so objectionable, especially if it’s free to do so, but there may be some real opposition to requiring people to drive different cars. Nobody gets attached to an A/C.

I don’t drive right now - I take public transport everywhere - but I’d love a large car (a Dodge RAM). If I try to buy something small to be conscious of my carbon footprint and energy usage, I think I will end up buying the large car a few years later.

Is there anything at-all I can do to drive a large car while not being part of the problem? I’m looking into carbon offsetting, but that’s all I am aware of for the time being.

I wish Dodge would make an electric RAM 1500, that could make this much easier.

Post reply on HN