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

251–260 of 397 posts

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

#251

Post by toomuchtodo »

village-idiot wrote: post #248
toomuchtodo wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

See, as a software engineer I just can't quite identify with this. On one hand, I understand taking pride in your work. I view what I do as a craft, and I take pride in being good at what I do. On the other hand, there's nothing better than taking a weak and hobbled system out back and finishing it off. If my opinions applied to power production, I'd be proud to help decom a coal plant and install a brand spanking ne…

> If my opinions applied to power production, I'd be proud to help decom a coal plant and install a brand spanking new nuclear or solar plant

Would you feel the same way if you went from making $100k /year to $50k/year doing this? That's part of the problem. You have to be okay taking a substantial paycut, or losing your job entirely, when you decomm the previous system. Not that same as doing so when you're a software engineer.

Single income in your family and having to start out from scratch? Of course people are going to cling to their chance at a middle class life by their fingernails in a fossil industry job.

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

#252

Post by ibrault »

village-idiot wrote: post #242
kenferry wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my Pasadena place, we tried to turn on the heat once. Turned out the furnace had been busted for years.

They installed a furnace?

My apartment in Westwood last year had a heater but no AC, used the heater a grand total of zero times. Makes you wonder why they ever installed it in the first place...

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

#253

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

#254

Post by mmanfrin »

BrandonMarc wrote: post #247

Politicians giving themselves a ~ 30-year runway is a farce. Promise you'll reduce it by 10% in 3 years, and I'll take you seriously. This is garbage. Just like the return to the Moon promised by Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump ... always "15 to 20 years from now" ... and NEVER happens. By the way - 10% in 3 years would be a perfect milestone to 100% in 30 years.

California generally has a good track record of hitting longer-term environmental goals. 2045 is a long way out, but it is a length that will allow for unclean plants to see through to their end-of-life, rather than kneecapping current plants/projects. I suspect the intent was to signal to energy producers that CA won't make their current investments worthless (otherwise it would drive away developers who have put investments in to our grid).

In other words, this was a "keep investing, but new plants need to be clean" move.

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

#255

Post by village-idiot »

toyg wrote: post #199
garmaine wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I mean, if you want to talk about safety records of power production, I'd like to point out that fossil fuels kill about 3 million a year, and biofuel (wood, dung) kills about 4.3 million a year. Those estimates are from 2012.

Nuclear is nowhere close to that over the past half century of use, even if you toss in fatalities caused by nuclear weapons, which is a whole different category.

Realistically, installation of solar and wind is actually more dangerous than Nuclear, because of falls.

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

#256

Post by BrandonMarc »

close04 wrote: post #85
nostromo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians generally tend to choose deadlines that are beyond their terms. They get the approval of their voting base today without actually having to do much of anything to reach the goal itself. I'm reminded of Bush calling for the US to return to the moon by 2020 -- a proposal Obama quietly nixed. I'd much rather we say, "We're going to increase renewables by X% every year, starting now, to reach the goal of 100%…

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…

Indeed. Don't give me an amazing goal plus a far-off horizon. If you want me to take you seriously, give me a concrete smaller goal and a very soon time-frame.

Instead say, "we will drop it by 10% in 3 years." Now you're telling me some useful truth to which I can hold you accountable (ooh, politicians HATE that). Incidentally, 10% in 3 years would be a perfect milestone to 100% in 30 years, so if these politicians WERE being honest (they're not), then they should have no reason to refuse the 10% in 3 years idea.

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

#257

Post by drewmol »

Alex3917 wrote: post #118
hueving wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appeal to irrational fear. Are you comfortable with radio towers blasting you with radiation?

> Are you comfortable with radio towers blasting you with radiation? Nope. I always keep my phone in airplane mode when I'm not using it.

But how do you turn off the towers?

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

#258

Post by village-idiot »

radicalbyte wrote: post #87
craftyguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and have changed my mind. > I hope not. Care to explain why you have changed your mind?

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…

Yeah, economics is where nuclear really falls apart. Once we get our renewable storage game on point there will be no place in the world for nuclear power, economically.

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

#259

Post by BrandonMarc »

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...

Note how it's end-user consumers (and government offices). So it won't hurt CA's business users, cause them to relocate to other states.

As always, devil's in the details. In the meantime, the headline looks impressive, which is frankly all these critters care about.

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

#260

Post by BrandonMarc »

ThomPete wrote: post #148

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…

Those companies donate to political campaigns. Or if they don't, after this threat, they will. Seeing as they are the major polluters, this in the end won't push the needle very much in terms of emissions. Typical.
Post reply on HN