Live data from Hacker News

California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

bloomberg.com

231–240 of 397 posts

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

#231
post #186

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

Yup you are right, i confused the words. Thanks for the correction.

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

#232
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…

What would be the numerical impact of those efficiency gains (accounting for the cost of manufacturing new units to replace less efficient ones that may work just fine)

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

#233
post #116

Earlier 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.

I'll never understand people that worship fossil fuels.

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

#234

Earlier 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.

Then compare EU against US states individually - I'd wager the US result will drop significantly when you average the per capita results by state.

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

#235
post #170

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…

> 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…

As someone who has lived in both So Cal and the Midwest, I can confirm this.

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

#236

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…

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

Sure, it still doesn't change that households really can't do much and it's very expensive (and IMO stupid) to put it on the consumer. Instead, make rules for the companies that are much easier concentrating efforts there.

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

#237
post #216

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…

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…

That hasn't been my experience at all. Our new Bosch dishwasher is exceedingly more effective than the water-guzzler it replaced.

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

#238
post #116

Earlier 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.

In America, there is a perception that our self-worth is dependent on our jobs. To you, fossil fuels are filthy and environmentally dangerous (they are). To those who work in the industry, it's a way of supporting themselves, their families, and it's a craft (and associated skills) they might be proud of (roughnecks on an oil field, product pipe installers/maintainers, coal/steam/natural gas installers/maintenance techs/operators).

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

#239
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…

As someone who lived in 3 Chicago apartments heated by radiator heat and had visible gaps in every single window, I'd be inclined to disagree with this assessment.

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

#240
post #203

Earlier 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.

I own two 50mpg on longer journeys in that car, while the 1.2TSI is more like 35-40mpg.
Post reply on HN