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

171–180 of 397 posts

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

#171

Post by ThomPete »

skookumchuck wrote: post #166
ThomPete wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I might be wrong but as far as i know they were added while there were still lead in the gazoline. Anyway it didn't hurt the normal person it helped them because techonology.

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by nawitus »

radicalbyte wrote: post #87
craftyguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and have changed my mind. > I hope not. Care to explain why you have changed your mind?

The alternatives are better. Nuclear is expensive even before you factor in the decommissioning costs. With those costs factored in it just doesn't make any sense. Invest that money in geothermal, hydro, solar, wind and eventually tidal power and you get far more bang-for-your-buck. Convert coal plants to burn biomass combined with carbon capture and geological storage and you get power which - whilst more expensive…

>The alternatives are better. Nuclear is expensive even before you factor in the decommissioning costs.

Nuclear is very cheap for producing the base load. You also shouldn't compare the price of different energy sources in isolation. If an electricity market goes 100% solar and wind for example, it will get power outages soon. Storing the energy of varying power generators is expensive with current technology.

>Given these developments, why build new nuclear plants?

You can create cheap and clean eletricity.

>If (when?) we can design nuclear plants which are both economical, safe and don't have the externalized decommissioning costs then it would also be foolish not to include them in the mix.

Nuclear plants are economical and safe.

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

#174

Post by danepowell »

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…

I don't see what about front-loading washers would make them especially prone to standing water or mold. I would expect that vertical washers could just as easily have standing water. Worse, it's probably out of sight behind the drum where you can't clean it.

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

#175

Post by wang_li »

llukas wrote: post #101
wang_li wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

2017. The charts you linked to end in 2014. In 2017 the US reduced carbon emissions[1]. The EU increased their emissions[2].

1 - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-... 2 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-carbon-climatechange/e...

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

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)

[deleted]

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

#177

Post by reaperducer »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #163
dahdum wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

assistance to the people and communities affected negatively by decarbonization

The utilities could just build the new power plants where the old ones were. Same result, without an overt handout.

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

#178

Post by jedberg »

merpnderp wrote: post #141
washingtub wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yeah, I have yet to see a side loading washing without the moldy ring on the side of the door. I'm unsure how this is in any way a net improvement, as whatever action people take to fix the mold problem is likely to more than make up for the energy saved processing the water.

We leave ours open when it's not in use. No mold for years.

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

#179

Post by knowaveragejoe »

ghouse wrote: post #37

For those who think data is beautiful, here is real-time information regarding the majority of California's grid: http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx

Very cool, though I'm curious about the classification of large hydro(and maybe even nuclear) outside of renewables?

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

#180

Post by reaperducer »

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.

Like all policy change, it will create winners and losers

Translation: It sucks to be poor. And an indian. Where did I park my Tesla?

Post reply on HN