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

191–200 of 397 posts

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

#191

Post by war1025 »

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…

FYI, RAM got spun out of Dodge a few years ago. So now all the trucks are made by RAM, rather than Ram being the model name.

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

#192

Post by close04 »

MattHeard wrote: post #133
close04 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

TLDR: "This bill would state that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045." Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

> retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies

From this I take they don't plan to necessarily eliminate all carbon emitting energy sources but rather just the ones used to produce electricity. This would make the goal a little more achievable but also makes it a moving target. As different industries move from burning carbon based fuel to electricity the demand also increases which will still affect the balance between clean and dirty energy.

There are plans to ban ICE engines and other fuel burning applications so the demand for electricity will see a sharp rise. It's more that achievable to be 100% green in 2045 assuming the energy consumption trend of the past. But the future will probably see that trend go from relatively linear to something exponential for at least a few decades until the switch is done. Covering that difference will be the real challenge.

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

#193

Post by blake1 »

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…

This already happens in at least two ways.

First way is called demand response, and entails the operator asking some users “how much is the next MW worth to you?” If no one can supply that MW at that price or less, the customer can agree to not consume that MW. It is significant for some operators, but by design of the market, is only an option for industrial customers, really.

Some utilities also offer a limited form of this, where you can allow them to shut off your AC, receiving a discount on your bill, generally.

Both work, in their way. Would have a much larger effect if they were more universal, and of the price signal were felt more strongly by consumers. Which I think was your point.

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

#194

Post by oceanplexian »

hodgesrm wrote: post #117
nickik wrote: post #39

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.

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 alter…

You can't bring up the externalities of Nuclear and then ignore the externalities of literally every other clean energy source. How many people in China were killed building Hydro plants, how many poisoned by heavy metals manufacturing solar equipment?

Nuclear has its issues, but everything else does too.

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

oceanplexian wrote: post #189
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…

I'm not against energy efficiency, however, conservation is fundamentally the wrong approach. What is the future going to look like? - Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it - These people, if we don't screw up and start another war, will want a house, air conditioning, a car, air travel, lots of kids, and more - Human will inhabit more parts of the Earth that are uninhabitable (Antarctica, Sibe…

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by ancarda »

justinator wrote: post #169
ancarda wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

All I can really say is I want one because from the moment I saw one on the road, I just knew I had to drive it. I really love the appearance. I've never been interested in cars, but I can't help myself looking at pickups on the road driving by -- especially RAMs. Maybe I'm just a big kid, I've always liked big stuff.

Still... I know they aren't good for the environment, which means I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I just drove one without greatly reducing or eliminating it's impact.

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

#197

Post by gowld »

danepowell wrote: post #174
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…

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.

Because the door is below water level, it needs to be sealed. There is a rubber gasket submerged in water that molds. Top-loaders don't need a rubber gasket.

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

#198

Post by xahrepap »

danepowell wrote: post #174
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…

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.

I'm not entirely sure what it is. But it's actually a common problem with front-loaders. If we're not extremely diligent in hand drying the washer and leaving the door open, our clothes will smell REALLY musty. It's really bad. The internet is full of anecdotes.

I've never had the same problem with top-loaders. My next machine will most definitely be a top-loader.

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

#199

Post by toyg »

garmaine wrote: post #156
hodgesrm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alter…

The output of a nuclear reactor isn’t waste, it is fuel for a different kind of reactor. If we built those reactors (called a breeder reactor) then we could safely and economically use that fuel, recycling so much that the actual waste would go from tons of material filling Olympic class swimming pools, to a few barrels. Nuclear power, done properly, is the cleanest source of energy we have. Why don’t we? Politics an…

> the lack of military uses

As opposed to all those military uses of dams and wind turbines. Right. And of course, I wonder what the fuss is all about with Iran, then...

The reason nuclear is in decline is the track record of spectacular disasters: Three Mile, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima. Get at least a generation without massive failures, and people might be willing to give nuclear a chance; but there have been 3 in my lifetime alone!

(Plus, in any country not as big and isolated as the US, any plant is a massive weakness from a defense perspective...)

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

#200

Post by johnmsd »

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…

Dodge is making strides towards that, releasing a mild-hybrid version of the ram for 2019

https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-ram-hybrid-could-hit-a-decent-...

Post reply on HN