Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is not how averages work.
[deleted]
California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
311–320 of 397 posts
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#312Is 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.
Whenever I ride around Berkeley, CA I see a sea of "nuclear-free zone" signs on roads filled with Prius traffic. It's not so easy to understand the real agendas here.
Berkeley is a long-standing home to nuclear physics practitioners, and there are nuclear-you-know-whats designed in the national labs.. its not a settled thing
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
have you seen mining heaters ?
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#314Earlier 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.
I can confirm having owned 2 front loads. We leave the washer door open all the time while idle - sometimes blowing a fan inside to force-dry it out. Otherwise, mold city. It doesn't matter which make/model you buy, they all exhibit the same problem.
I have an LG front loader and I don't have any problems with mold or odor.
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#315Politicians 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.
The UK has a law requiring ongoing cuts towards an 80% cut from 1990 to 2050, and we’re about half way through, and about half way there. If the government doesn’t keep to the pathway it can be sued and required to take action by the courts.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-cut-uk-emissions-61-by-2030-...
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#316Earlier 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…
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 W…
We already did that, though. Originally it was 20% of electricity by 2010, 33% by 2020, and 50% by 2030. The first two have already been met.
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers) This tired bullshit again? Yes, we understand that everyone could be doing more to help some cause, and that some people care more about appearances than improving the world, and some people do legitimately good deeds for ‘selfish’ reasons like increased self-es…
If you say you support something, but don't want to take actions that demonstrably promote what you are supporting, you are virtue signalling. It's quite simple, and it's maddening.
But they are taking actions. You're trying to complain that they're not doing enough to satisfy you.
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#318Politicians 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.
> By the way - 10% in 3 years would be a perfect milestone to 100% in 30 years.
That would be a reduction to about 35% of the original after 30 years.
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sudden population shifts are really bad for stability.
It's not sudden.
The shifts in the average age and ratio of workers to retirees in Japan and America are absolutely sudden on societal level. 10-20 years is very long for an individual, but it's lightning quick otherwise.
Re: California Moves to Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's probably been the main driver over time
The effects are felt elsewhere, too. Most manufacturers aren't going to design two versions of a model for two regions, the energy efficient one, and the less energy efficient one. They'll just work to make one that fits the more stringent one. California has been one of the biggest drivers of EE nationwide because of that. It's interesting to see it in practice too; if you move to California and bring a car, part of…
The federal government is trying to take away California's right to set their own vehicle standards. Is anything similar happening with these other energy efficiency standards? I believe there were moves to roll these back too at a federal level, eg trying to kill Energy Star:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/2...
but if California is able to retain their own standards then these federal proposals would also hopefully be ineffective.