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

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

#341

Post by st26 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #160

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…

> 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…

Right, so the key is California's housing stock is rather old on average, at least from what I can tell.

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

#342

Post by acdha » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 1:40 AM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #150

acdha wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a cite for that? It's common in lobbying circles but they studiously avoid mentioning that the US was starting from a substantially higher baseline so EU consumption was still considerably lower. See for example the chart through 2014 here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-bi...

One source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-carbon-iea/global-... > "Most major economies saw an increase in carbon emissions, though Britain, the United States, Mexico and Japan experienced declines. The biggest drop came from the United States, where they were down 0.5 percent"

That’s exactly the dynamic I was talking about: the US percentage dropped more but that only made us less far behind the EU than we used to be. That’s not how almost anyone is going to interpret a statement that the US is doing better than the EU.

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

#343

Post by almost_usual » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 1:47 AM UTC

ancarda wrote: post #120

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…

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…

As long as the truck isn’t your daily driver I don’t think it’s a big deal.

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

#344

Post by alexnewman » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

I’d bet 10x harder than 99% and 100x harder than 95% and 1000x harder than 66%

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

#345

Post by adventured » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

st26 wrote: post #341

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…

Right, so the key is California's housing stock is rather old on average, at least from what I can tell.

That's not correct. California's housing stock falls into something closer to the US median. The oldest housing stock in the US is in the North East and Midwest (which tends to be well insulated for Winter purposes). Those regions saw large waves of high population expansion and housing development previously (50+ years ago), which put down an unsurprisingly large base of housing stock.

California's development by contrast has overwhelmingly occurred in the last 50-60 years (their population has increased four fold since 1950, from ~10m to ~40m today). Compare that to Ohio, which has seen a nearly flat population for coming up on 50 years. New York State's population has only slightly increased in 50 years.

The newest housing stock is in the Idaho/Nevada/Arizona region, Texas and the South East (Florida to North Carolina).

The US generally - and much of California - also aggressively uses air conditioning (central or otherwise) and has for a long time, which has further spurred efforts toward maximizing insulation.

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

#346

Post by TheTrotters » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:03 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #170

washingtub wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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…

That's another reason why California's housing policy is so egregious. Ceteris paribus living in California is more environment-friendly than living in the Midwest, so it's a shame that local governments' policy severely limits new construction.

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

#347

Post by strictnein » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:08 AM UTC

acdha wrote: post #342

strictnein wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-carbon-iea/global-... > "Most major economies saw an increase in carbon emissions, though Britain, the United States, Mexico and Japan experienced declines. The biggest drop came from the United States, where they were down 0.5 percent"

That’s exactly the dynamic I was talking about: the US percentage dropped more but that only made us less far behind the EU than we used to be. That’s not how almost anyone is going to interpret a statement that the US is doing better than the EU.

The US is currently doing a better job cutting emissions than the EU is. You're purposefully misreading the original statement which is very clear:

> "Compared to Europe the US is doing better on carbon reduction seeing as the US went down and Europe went up. "

The US is doing a better job on _carbon reduction_.

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

#348

Post by martythemaniak » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:13 AM UTC

ancarda wrote: post #120

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…

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…

Of all the major issues, this one is the simplest - EVs. In fact, the best EVs in the world are made right in California. It helps that EVs aren't just better for the environment, but better cars overall.

Of large cars, Tesla makes a 7 seat SUV and will make a giant truck in about 2 years. Other manufacturers will follow them 2-3 years after that.

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

#349

Post by twothamendment » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:19 AM UTC

msisk6 wrote: post #333

ancarda wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might have to take you up on that offer. It's been too long since I visited Texas.

Look me up when you make to Austin. I live and work about 25 miles east at the place that runs the power grid for Texas.

Visiting the place the runs the grid sounds much more fun than driving a Ram.

I like mine, but I only drive it when I have to. I don't understand people who commute in a pickup.

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

#350

Post by adventured » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:25 AM UTC

village-idiot wrote: post #319

Findeton wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's at least a 30-40 year trend that everyone who studies demographics was aware of, not a 10 or 20 year trend that suddenly came out of nowhere. Japan's population stopped increasing meaningfully 30 years ago. There's no surprise or sudden jolt to their population declining over the coming decades. They'll have had a half century warning on the problem by the time meaningful decline sets in.

As a recent example, by the time China's population begins flat-lining on growth and or declining in an estimated six years or so at the current trend, we'll have known for 35-40 years that China was set to age rapidly.