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)
I think you mean catalytic converter? Which don't remove lead but do mitigate NOx/CO/Hydrocarbons and the like
California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
231–240 of 397 posts
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#232I 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…
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misleading chart. It's showing the average across the EU and not the total.
Why should we care about the total? EU and US are different sizes to begin with. Per capita seems to be appropriate here.
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#235Earlier 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…
> 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…
In So Cal, I didn't have A/C for 10+ years and rarely used the heater (a desktop computer can double as a heater haha).
In the midwest, the A/C or heater is on pretty much 24/7 because even when the temperatures look favorable, there is humidity.
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#236I 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…
But then again, from that report, most are fossil fuel producing companies. So one would imagine that less fossil fuel demand would reduce the impact of those companies and have an even more important effect on CO2 emissions
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#237Earlier 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…
This sort of thing is why I sort of hate energy star everything. Take dishwashers, for example. You can regulate the energy and water usage all you want, but it long ago got to the point where dishwashers that meet regulations basically fail to clean the dishes. Which is fine, it just causes the consumer to wash the dishes by hand either instead of or in addition to using the dishwasher. So now the dishwasher uses le…
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'll never understand people that worship fossil fuels.
So, like all issues, it's not black and white, but many shades of gray. Our jobs are not who we are, and we need systems in place to help transition those who are in industries that are harmful and in their sunset period to industries that have a future, while ensuring these new jobs provide enough compensation that people can live.
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#239I 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…
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.