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

321–330 of 397 posts

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

#321

Post by jcranmer »

yongjik wrote: post #300
garmaine wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not how averages work.

Besides, doing that will most certainly inflate the number, considering US has many small rural states with much worse emission (per capita) than large, less carbon-intensive states like NY or CA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_... (By the way, what the hell is happening in Wyoming? 111.55 tons per person?)

Low population, but exporting coal-based power to the rest of the country? The top emissions are Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, and Louisiana, which are all big energy producers, and energy producers tend to have naturally high emissions.

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

#322

Post by megaremote »

ams6110 wrote: post #123
ancarda wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the topic of large cars, what is the solution here? I can imagine forcing people to replace A/C units won’t be so objectionable, especially if it’s free to do so, but there may be some real opposition to requiring people to drive different cars. Nobody gets attached to an A/C. I don’t drive right now - I take public transport everywhere - but I’d love a large car (a Dodge RAM). If I try to buy something small to b…

The way Europe deals with cars is they tax the bejezus out of them, and gasoline also. In some countries, half the price of a new car is tax. That is why people drive little toy cars there. Everyone would like a nice big comfortable car but they are unaffordable for most.

Do they tax the bejezus out of them, or do they just not subsidise them as much. The amount governments around the world subsidise cars is ridiculous.

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

#323

Post by garmaine »

yongjik wrote: post #300
garmaine wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not how averages work.

Besides, doing that will most certainly inflate the number, considering US has many small rural states with much worse emission (per capita) than large, less carbon-intensive states like NY or CA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_... (By the way, what the hell is happening in Wyoming? 111.55 tons per person?)

Lots of cows in Wyoming.

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

#324

Post by PopeDotNinja »

myegorov wrote: post #291
ajross wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Are you living in a particularly new region? Every time I've seen this come up, the data actually says the opposite: the median US home is better insulated, more recently built and more efficiently climate-controlled. Which is unsurprising, because they're newer, basic…

What fraction of apartment buildings in California have double-pane windows? What fraction of commercial buildings in SF/East Bay have operable windows to take advantage of natural ventilation?

My apartment in SF has operable windows, as do most older buildings I've been in. I don't have an air conditioner, and I rarely use the steam heater thingy (radiator?).

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

#325

Post by WalterGR »

x220 wrote: post #265
WalterGR wrote: post #224

Earlier 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.

"Maddening" implies discomfort. If people didn't virtue signal, it would eliminate that discomfort. You don't like the discomfort, otherwise you would have written that you find virtue-signaling being maddening an enjoyable experience. If it was neutral, you wouldn't use an emotional word to describe it. Since you don't find the feeling enjoyable or neutral, and because of the meaning of "maddening," that means you don't like it. Therefore, to prevent your discomfort, you support people not virtue-signaling.

What action are you taking to demonstrably promote the reduction of virtue-signaling?

It seems like much of the calling out of alleged virtue-signaling is virtue-signaling itself.

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

#326

Post by sofon »

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…

> - Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it

Unlikely.

> - These people, ... lots of kids, and more

Also unlikely.

> - Human will inhabit more parts of the Earth that are uninhabitable

Unlikely

> spending of billions of additional humans (iPhones, Televisions, etc)

Unlikely

> - New technologies will require orders of magnitude more energy, such as flying cars, space travel, etc.

Yes, likely.

World population is set to decrease. Birth rates in the US, UK, Japan, South Korea, China are all below replacement. This seems to be a general trend that happens when countries reach a certain level of development.

I think most models should show world population peaking, and then declining.

I agree that nuclear is probably our best bet. The high profile screw ups (like Fukushima) are annoying and decrease public trust. But we need to get better at creating/regulating safe nuclear solutions.

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

#328

Post by tkel »

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.

From the bill (sb100),

33 percent by December 31, 2020,

44 percent by December 31, 2024,

52 percent by December 31, 2027,

and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.

The commission shall establish appropriate three-year compliance periods for all subsequent years.

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

#329

Post by [deleted] »

jzoch wrote: post #16

I understand this is amazing and totally love my state for doing it, but man seeing 2045 is always a little dismaying as I wish we could be even more aggressive. 2035 for example. I realize I am being too ambitious, but we went to space in a decade why not 100% clean energy in 1.5?

[deleted]

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

#330

Post by Dylan16807 »

WalterGR wrote: post #325
x220 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Maddening" implies discomfort. If people didn't virtue signal, it would eliminate that discomfort. You don't like the discomfort, otherwise you would have written that you find virtue-signaling being maddening an enjoyable experience. If it was neutral, you wouldn't use an emotional word to describe it. Since you don't find the feeling enjoyable or neutral, and because of the meaning of "maddening," that means you d…

Virtue signalling in this context is giving the impression of doing something.

Saying "We should treat the environment better" while being honest about your own [lack of] contribution is perfectly fine.

By the same token, I can complain about a group, and as long as I don't claim that my complaints magically fixed the problem, that's fine.

Post reply on HN