Live data from Hacker News

California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045

bloomberg.com

301–310 of 397 posts

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

#301

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.

Always be suspicious when politicians pass legislation that doesn't take effect until after they leave office.

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

#303

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.

I think "realistic" kind of depends on your goal. If you want to make it under 2C, I don't believe this is particularly realistic (i.e. not soon enough). If you want to avoid controversial actions and major changes to people's loves, sure it maybe too soon.

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

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

To be fair, if it hits 50 around here people start installing snow chains and dying of hypothermia.

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

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 softwa…

That's fair.

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

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a fly fisherman, I sure hope we can eliminate some of those dams. They can be useful, but we've also overdone it a bit.

>As a fly fisherman, I sure hope we can eliminate some of those dams. They're not all bad. Some of the best gold medal sections in the country are tailwaters. It's some of the most challenging, technical fishing you'll ever do as well. Landing a 10lb trout on size 24-28 nymphs and 8X tippet is an art itself.

I agree, they're not all bad. It's the salmon run ones that bother me the most.

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

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

a heater, but not a/c, is part of the building code in LA.

my apartment has a heater and no a/c, but has a flow-through design that naturally keeps it cool in the summer. my heater and my portable a/c unit each get used about 2 weeks a year. the weather is really that great here.

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

#308
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2017. The charts you linked to end in 2014. In 2017 the US reduced carbon emissions[1]. The EU increased their emissions[2]. 1 - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-... 2 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-carbon-climatechange/e...

The EU emits 50% as much per capita. A 0.5% reduction for the US isn't better than the EU in absolute terms.

So? Is 6.8 tons per person carbon neutral? No? Then Europe needs to be cutting, not increasing, their emissions.

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

#309
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…

They make high-efficiency top loader washing machines that use the same amount of power of frontloaders. I have one, it's much slower(45 to 90 minute wash times) than traditional top loader but is almost completely silent.

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

#310

Is nuclear part of the bill? It is clean but I don't see any mention of it either way in the article other than in the graph of current sources.

It's sad, but no.

At this point, people have, apparently rightly, concluded that the need for profit is fundamentally incompatible with running a nuclear reactor.

San Onofre is a good example. It has been plagued by operational and mechanical problems over the years simply because nobody is willing to spend enough money to do it right. Given that, shutting it down is pretty much the only option.

Post reply on HN