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

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

#281

Post by justinator » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:36 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…

Kinda interesting. Could you see this desire being rooted in the advertising of the truck you've been shown for years upon years? Ads for these types of vehicles show dirty, hard-working men doing hyper-masculine things[0]

[0] https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7uYI/ram-trucks-just-the-facts-faste...

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

#282

Post by snowwindwaves » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

ebikelaw wrote: post #225

snowwindwaves wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because environmental regulations and permitting, zoning, land acquisition, health and safety regulations, ensuring there is a financial return for the capital in light of the possibility of changing political environment, etc, all make it harder to get a project to the point of breaking ground. The power plants i work on are 5-10 years for permitting. Bc hydro has been studying the site C dam for 35 years and finall…

But I'm talking about a site that's already been flooded, where all the major civil engineering is already complete.

there would still be new land occupied for penstocks, pumps and power lines.

there is still the economic problem, nobody wants a line item on their bill that says "energy storage" or "premium for using as much energy as you want whenever you want".

pumped storage doesn't generate any power it just allows you to use 80% of it later. Who is going to put the money out to build something that nobody wants to pay for that we currently get for free from traditional hydro and fossil fuel plants. Those types of regulatory changes don't get sold to the public quickly.

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

#283

Post by jorblumesea » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

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.

I agree with the sentiment but this is probably a more realistic goal. Germany, which is far more organized than the US in many respects, is failing to hit its climate goals for 2020.

It's just harder than people think. Same with public projects going over budget. The budget was never realistic in the first place.

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

#284

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

jorblumesea wrote: post #62

craftyguy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and requires at least a coordinated national response. The federal government has proven for at least the past decade that they are incapable of delivering a coordinated national response.

The government incompetence is intentional. There's a coordinated effort from the Right to make sure the government doesn't function in order to make the argument that the government doesn't function. The disfunction is largely manufactured in order to serve political purposes. Then they can budget cut and privatize everything while talking about "clean coal" and how climate change is a Chinese hoax and "states right…

[deleted]

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

#285

Post by zdragnar » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #197

danepowell wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what about front-loading washers would make them especially prone to standing water or mold. I would expect that vertical washers could just as easily have standing water. Worse, it's probably out of sight behind the drum where you can't clean it.

Because the door is below water level, it needs to be sealed. There is a rubber gasket submerged in water that molds. Top-loaders don't need a rubber gasket.

I've owned both, and the brand-new front loader I just got is definitely worse in several areas with regard to collecting water.

The door gasket is pretty bad (not sloped well enough for water to completely drain away from it), but it's also got a pull-out tray for detergent which also collects quite a bit of water each time.

I did have a top-loader that got a bit musty smelling, though that was largely my own fault- living alone as a bachelor at the time (infrequent use) and habitually starting a load late at night only to fall asleep before I took it out.

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

#286

Post by ThomPete » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

skookumchuck wrote: post #276

ThomPete wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry i meant catalytic converter (katalysatorer in Danish)

Catalytic converters are ruined by leaded gasoline, hence the switch to unleaded gas.

Yes and the question I was answering was what I think the focus on industry changes rather than asking normal people to change did for those people.

The point is that the car industry moved on just fine.

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

#287

Post by ancarda » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

justinator wrote: post #281

ancarda wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Kinda interesting. Could you see this desire being rooted in the advertising of the truck you've been shown for years upon years? Ads for these types of vehicles show dirty, hard-working men doing hyper-masculine things[0] [0] https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7uYI/ram-trucks-just-the-facts-faste...

That's a good guess -- and may explain it for a number of people, but in my case it's extremely unlikely. I live in the UK, where RAM doesn't really sell vehicles here, so I've never seen any of their adverts before, and had never even heard of the brand until I saw a few on the road. When I have seen them in person, they've always been left hand drive (rather than the usual right hand drive), so pretty much always imported.

I do think love at first sight is a better explanation.

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

#288

Post by close04 » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:57 PM UTC

BrandonMarc wrote: post #259

MattHeard wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read end-users as simply customers that intend to consume the electricity in CA as opposed to those who buy it to potentially resell it across state borders. This will probably be cleared up later.

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

#289

Post by Beldin » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

function_seven wrote: post #230

stefan_ wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 who…

The wall between the garage and the house is considered an exterior wall, and is insulated the same as the other ones. Wooden construction does not inhibit insulation. Probably the opposite. It's easier to insulate the voids between studs than it is to insulate a masonry structure. Plus, "stick" building is almost a requirement for seismic reasons in California. As far as the windows are concerned, I can't tell from…

Around here, they build a stone wall, then add a layer of insulation against it, then build a brick wall against that.

That layer of insulation had been mandatory since at least mid-80s, and requirements for thickness have increased a few times since.

It's true that they're are houses with low energy labels, but from mid-80s on houses already have a C level - and that's default, with further improvements possible by owners. Currently, minimum allowed label for new buildings is A. But we're already slowly moving to "zero-rated": solar panels supply needed energy (on average, over a year).

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

#290

Post by Beldin » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 10:11 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…

I was told that the washing machine should run at max temp about once a month - specifically to sanitise the machine. Can be an empty load (but not required).

If you didn't try that before, give it a shot. Hopefully it'll help.