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

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

#351

Post by henrikschroder » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:37 AM UTC

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?

> What fraction of apartment buildings in California have double-pane windows?

One thing that amazed me when moving to California a couple of years ago was reading ads for apartments where the text would gush about the apartment having double glazing!!!1!!

Meanwhile, in Sweden, triple glazing has been the required minimum since the 90s, and older buildings were forced to install a third pane or retrofit new windows or somehow bring it up to code.

These days you can get quadruple glazed windows, but they offer only a very small improvements to triple glazed, so there's not much use.

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

#352

Post by ulkhf » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:38 AM UTC

twtw wrote: post #216

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…

This sort of thing is why I sort of hate energy star everything. Take dishwashers, for example. You can regulate the energy and water usage all you want, but it long ago got to the point where dishwashers that meet regulations basically fail to clean the dishes. Which is fine, it just causes the consumer to wash the dishes by hand either instead of or in addition to using the dishwasher. So now the dishwasher uses le…

My Miele dishwasher works very well.

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

#353

Post by tankerdude » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:58 AM 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.

The pace is already going to beat that legislation at it’s current rate.

This codifies that they don’t drag behind.

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

#354

Post by adventured » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:59 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #202

wang_li wrote: post #175

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.

Total output is what really matters, not just the per capita. The earth has a carrying limit for total emissions.

The EU has nearly 200 million more people than the US, roughly 60% more, squeezed into an area less than half the size of the US. Whose fault is that population density? The total EU emissions are ~80% as high as the US in ~45% of the land area (a drastically worse rate of emissions per km2), due to that population density. How do you think that emissions concentration impacts the local environment? Population matters, it's why we wouldn't have to care much if Iceland had 2x the per capita emission output of the US.

If your nation has three billion people - ie vast over-population - you shouldn't have the same per capita emissions considerations or concerns as a nation with three million. I understand that sounds unfair. The earth sets the real limitations and it doesn't care about perceived fairness.

If a country like Nigeria or Indonesia somehow rapidly expanded to five billion people, would it be acceptable for them to have the same per capita emission output of the EU? Obviously not. It'd be an environmental disaster for the planet due to the overall output. Population is the other critical factor in emissions (eg in China's case their emissions would be catastrophic at US per capita levels with 1.4b people in that small of an area).

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

#355

Post by st26 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:03 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…

What do you like about large cars? The ability to haul cargo? The style? Are you problematically tall?

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

#356

Post by st26 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:10 AM UTC

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…

IMO California suffers from pride/nationalism on a state level. I grew up there, and everybody took it for granted we were the best at the environment. The most efficient, the most conservation minded, the works. But I left ten years ago and as I travel the states, I realize CA is not always the best. Not even most of the time. But due to this mindset, CA is never challenged to up their game by the good work other states do.

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

#357

Post by st26 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:11 AM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #240

nradov wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those smaller, turbocharged engines are designed to game the fuel efficiency tests. Real world experience has shown that they often burn more fuel than larger naturally-aspirated engines of equal power. They are also likely to break sooner due to higher complexity and tighter tolerances, which isn't good from a total life carbon emissions standpoint.

I own two 50mpg on longer journeys in that car, while the 1.2TSI is more like 35-40mpg.

The 1.2TSI is presumably designed to replace a naturally aspirated 1.6L or 2.0L, not to compete with the 1.0L.

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

#358

Post by st26 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:14 AM UTC

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…

You underestimate how much efficiency we've gained. Have you looked up what old fridges used to use? Or compared a 56% AFUE furnace against a 96% unit? Trucks used to get like 6-8mpg, now some get 30mpg.

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

#359

Post by x220 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:16 AM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #271

x220 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That said, I'm sure most of the western world is in blind oppulence. Do you want to know how I know you're out of touch?

In France, reports are quoting 30% of edible food thrown away. Is it much better elsewhere ? I suppose not

At least in America, food is basically free. If you are fine with eating the same food over and over again and have time to cook, you can eat for $10 per week in most places. Rent and higher education, on the other hand...

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

#360

Post by x220 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:20 AM UTC

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…

I support not virtue signalling. I would be happier if people said what they meant and didn't virtue signal. I do not virtue signal; I don't care much what people think about my political opinions. I think I'm internally consistent in this regard.