California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045 • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by agumonkey » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

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…

any articles about new ideas on this topic ? even if new means using old ways again

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

#202

Post by gowld » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:07 PM UTC

wang_li wrote: post #175

llukas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The EU emits 50% as much per capita. A 0.5% reduction for the US isn't better than the EU in absolute terms.

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

#203

Post by nradov » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #145

ancarda wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The move is towards nearly as powerful, smaller, turbocharged engines that are getting close to 30mpg. Not bad for a 5,500 lb vehicle.

Those smaller, turbocharged engines are designed to game the fuel efficiency tests. Real world experience has shown that they often burn more fuel than larger naturally-aspirated engines of equal power. They are also likely to break sooner due to higher complexity and tighter tolerances, which isn't good from a total life carbon emissions standpoint.

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

#204

Post by stefan_ » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #160

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 what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units, Are you living in a particularly new region? Every time I've seen this come up, the data actually says the opposite: the median US home is better insulated, more recently built and more efficiently climate-controlled. Which is unsurprising, because they're newer, basic…

I've pulled up a random "YouTube star" "building my dream house in california" video and that looks all the world like a single glazed window, in 2018:

https://youtu.be/OWglKkE-0a8?t=2m17s

It also seems to be a wooden construction.. so frankly I don't know what to think. I'm sorry if this seems like very unconventional evidence but then going from building codes to what people are actually building out there is a whole different story, and then you didn't actually provide any data, either.

Though you are spot on with the ridiculously oversized buildings, like a 3 door garage that is so intimately integrated into the structure you're climate controlling it year round.

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

#205

Post by lostcolony » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

mattygh wrote: post #111

wlesieutre wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The effects are felt elsewhere, too. Most manufacturers aren't going to design two versions of a model for two regions, the energy efficient one, and the less energy efficient one. They'll just work to make one that fits the more stringent one. California has been one of the biggest drivers of EE nationwide because of that.

It's interesting to see it in practice too; if you move to California and bring a car, part of the registration process is to check the car and make sure it indicates it meets California requirements in design and build (not just smog testing; they do that too, but the actual registration/titling will involve them popping the hood and checking the car has the right markings). And basically every modern car does.

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

#206

Post by nradov » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

phil248 wrote: post #109

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

Only because Californians have outsourced most of their manufacturing and other heavy industry to other states and countries. If we factor in the total energy or carbon emissions cost of stuff we import then California doesn't look nearly as good.

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

#207

Post by ghouse » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

vondur wrote: post #167

dmode wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Intermountain will be converted from coal to gas: http://www.ladwpnews.com/information-regarding-proposal-to-r...

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

#208

Post by skookumchuck » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

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…

Just build a fence around Fukushima and ignore it. It's hardly worse than all the toxic coal dumps.

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

#209

Post by lostcolony » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

ancarda wrote: post #196

justinator wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 my…

Rent one every few months, drive it for the weekend. Cheaper on every front, scratches that itch, and minimal effect on the environment.

I do that with my wife for convertibles. She loves them, so any time we're on vacation and need a car I try to get one. It's just a couple hundred more for a week's vacation, at the time we'd get the most enjoyment out of it.

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

#210

Post by michaelchisari » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:12 PM UTC

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…

Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it

Luckily, we're looking at a very real possibility that we peak at 9 billion and then start to shrink from there. Which creates a whole host of other social issues, but at least gross overpopulation isn't one of them.