California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

Post by village-idiot » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:40 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…

Post by philipkglass » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:41 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #177

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by village-idiot » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

michaelchisari wrote: post #210

oceanplexian wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by BrandonMarc » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

Post by kart23 » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 8:48 PM UTC

SllX wrote: post #142

radicalbyte wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Geothrenal is limited geographically. Iceland has plenty but a tiny population. California has a lot but it’s largely tapped out and what we do have is sufficient only for the communities nearby to the plants. Your hypothetical biomass burning coal plants are still that: hypothetical. If they work at scale, add that to the list. Damming up rivers has its own problems, but this is largely moot: the majority of lakes i…