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

161–170 of 397 posts

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

#161

Post by serpix »

ancarda wrote: post #120
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 b…

get a van instead if you need to move things. Those pickups are ridiculous in their energy consumption and waste of resources.

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

#162

Post by guelo »

ThomPete wrote: post #148

I am still baffled by the focus on private housholds and private consumption when it comes to the discussion of clean energy and emissions. The reality is that private households have very little to do with our problems and even less to do about them. Stop eating cow sound great but it's not going to do anything of any impact. Most emissions (70%) come from very few companies (around a 100 or some). Instead of making…

That 70% stat is not helpful because that's just the energy source companies. They're not consuming the energy, they're selling it. When you put Exxon gas in your car you are the one emitting the CO2, not Exxon.

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

#163

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

dahdum wrote: post #146
reaperducer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These sorts of transitions take a lot of time. There's a lot of infrastructure to build and a lot of infrastructure to decommission. In addition to the political problems, extensively noted by others here, there are also the social problems. Power plants and the associated industries are full of low-skill/education workers. Some can be re-trained into other industries, but some cannot. An example is happening right n…

I'm more cynical about California than most, but these policies are a positive force for environmental change and history has shown they aren't empty promises. Like all policy change, it will create winners and losers. While it's unfortunate Navajo Nation may be the latter, it shouldn't mean we stop moving forward.

Or another way of putting it, the Navajo Nation may lose in the short term, but without these transitions, they and everybody else could end up losing much more over a far longer timescale.

I do, however, believe that green power policy should include assistance to the people and communities affected negatively by decarbonization, as the pain to those folks is much higher than it is to wealthy Californians who merely pay slightly higher taxes to get the new energy production and efficiency measures installed.

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

#164

Post by ThomPete »

guelo wrote: post #162
ThomPete wrote: post #148

I am still baffled by the focus on private housholds and private consumption when it comes to the discussion of clean energy and emissions. The reality is that private households have very little to do with our problems and even less to do about them. Stop eating cow sound great but it's not going to do anything of any impact. Most emissions (70%) come from very few companies (around a 100 or some). Instead of making…

That 70% stat is not helpful because that's just the energy source companies. They're not consuming the energy, they're selling it. When you put Exxon gas in your car you are the one emitting the CO2, not Exxon.

If you start there you would probably get way more success than asking mr. and mrs. Johnson to sort their waste and not eat cow.

Not sure why this is controversial.

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

#166

Post by skookumchuck »

ThomPete wrote: post #158
abtinf wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will normal people be affected if you severely restrict the activities of those 100 companies?

That depends on how you do it. How were normal people affected by putting in carburetors in cars so they didn't spit out lead into the air? Edit: My bad I meant catalytic converter not carborators (katalysatorer in Danish)

Carburetors have nothing to do with lead emissions. Lead emissions come from lead being added to gas to raise its octane, and hasn't been added for years.

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

#167

Post by vondur »

dmode wrote: post #147
vondur wrote: post #48

I believe ever since we had the rolling blackouts in the early 2000's we've been purchasing more and more energy from power plants in Utah, as regulation in the state makes it difficult to build new ones.

I don't believe it is true. I believe CA generates more electricity than is needed and actually pays other states to take it off the grid

Looks like we buy a lot of power from Intermountain Power, who are in Utah: https://www.ipautah.com

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

#168

Post by tejtm »

abtinf wrote: post #153
ThomPete wrote: post #148

I am still baffled by the focus on private housholds and private consumption when it comes to the discussion of clean energy and emissions. The reality is that private households have very little to do with our problems and even less to do about them. Stop eating cow sound great but it's not going to do anything of any impact. Most emissions (70%) come from very few companies (around a 100 or some). Instead of making…

How will normal people be affected if you severely restrict the activities of those 100 companies?

Negligible. Large non corporal entities are structured such the vast majority of any benefit they provide is concentrated in a vanishingly small population and costs distributed over the largest population possible. That is the whole point.

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

#169

Post by justinator »

ancarda wrote: post #134
ams6110 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way Europe deals with cars is they tax the bejezus out of them, and gasoline also. In some countries, half the price of a new car is tax. That is why people drive little toy cars there. Everyone would like a nice big comfortable car but they are unaffordable for most.

Oh yeah! It’s crazy expensive :( What I’m trying to grapple with is this desire of mine while trying to be aware of my environmental impact. If there’s no way to have my cake and eat it too, I won’t get one.

Where is this desire rooted in?

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

#170

Post by ajross »

washingtub wrote: post #129
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…

> vertical-drum washing machines (!!!) There are a number of issues with front-loading washers. While they use less water, they are also worse at cleaning clothes and much worse at sanitizing them. There was a recent post here on HN where a biologist did several experiments in her own washer to show how poorly they sanitized things compared to her older one. They also tend to trap water in the bottom and it gets must…

> Moving from the Midwest, I can't believe how poorly insulated things are in CA. Our first apartment in Santa Monica had windows that didn't even seal properly when closed.

... yeah. Because it's in Santa Monica. Without even bothering to ask details about your personal temperature preference or the size or construction date of the homes, I can 100% guarantee you you're using less energy on climate control in SoCal than in "the midwest".

Trying to fix energy consumption by improving construction and code regulation in the major city least in need of climate control, like, worldwide is just a silly waste of resources.

LA is wasteful in many ways. But a city that sits at a 60-70F average basically year-round is just not in need of attention here.

Post reply on HN