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

371–380 of 397 posts

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

#371

Post by opo »

craftyguy wrote: post #102
opo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission p…

> can and should be recycled Well, it's not, and there doesn't seem to be much focus by the DoE to do so. Therefore storage of waste is still a major problem if you want to generate electricity with nuclear power plants in the US.

The amounts of hi-level waste generated are manageable and no one is claiming we are in danger of imminently running out of space. Long before this becomes a problem we will either recycle the waste or use most of this "waste" to generate electricity. While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry some people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least.

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

#372

Post by Dylan16807 »

WalterGR wrote: post #362
Dylan16807 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. That's not at all how people use it colloquially. Nobody is claiming that bumper stickers, Priuses, statements of "thoughts and prayers," or changing one's Facebook profile picture magically fix any problem. And yet those are the exact things that get labeled virtue-signalling. In…

Okay, I've thought about it a bit more, and I think I figured out how to word things precisely.

A bumper sticker signals "I care".

A prius, in theory, signals "I am actively helping, a lot".

They're both kinds of "virtue signalling", but they're very different in scope.

The 'maddening' thing is not when people signal they care a little bit. It's when people signal they care a lot, but their actions contradict that.

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

#373

Post by laurentMiguel »

icebraining wrote: post #41
laurentMiguel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are metal/chemical batteries “ clean ” though? In the atmospheric climate context, possibly. But if we optimize only for that, is there not a potentially serious trade off in the likelihood of irresponsible disposal?

You can greatly reduce the danger of improper disposal by implementing a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit-refund_system

That is an honor system. Hope. Promises, promises.

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

#374

Post by pkaye »

henrikschroder wrote: post #369
adrianN wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden is a lot colder than California, it's not surprising that better insulation is required.

Is triple glazing common, standard, or required in any part of the US? Is double glazing?

Double glazing is common for all new installs. And people will tend to use them for retrofits unless they are trying to cheap out. As for California, it doesn't get cold enough here to pay the premium for triple glazing.

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

#375

Post by Fins »

washingtub wrote: post #129
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…

> 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…

Strange. I have yet to see a top-loader that washes anywhere near as well as a drum machine. Front-loaders are also much more gentle on the fabric.

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

#376

Post by gambiting »

st26 wrote: post #357
gambiting wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure - but on paper it's better in every regard than the 1.0L, better mileage, better CO2 emissions, and it's the one that gets the "Bluemotion" badge which traditionally was only given to particularly efficient vehicles. Yet the smaller 3 cylinder engine is the one that is far more efficient here.

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

#377

Post by icebraining »

laurentMiguel wrote: post #373
icebraining wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can greatly reduce the danger of improper disposal by implementing a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit-refund_system

That is an honor system. Hope. Promises, promises.

Honor? No, it's based on cold, hard cash; you charge upfront a fee (as if the person had dumped it illegally), then refund that fee if they properly dispose of it.

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

#378

Post by village-idiot »

clairity wrote: post #307
ibrault wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Requiring a furnace is weird.

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

#379

Post by ThomPete »

x220 wrote: post #359
agumonkey wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

$10 per week? What food are you thinking of?

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

#380

Post by acdha »

strictnein wrote: post #347
acdha wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_.

Again, you have to look at the actual data to avoid being mislead by that statement since it doesn’t have any context to let you know that the US is still significantly further behind. A single year which is within the range of normal year to year variation doesn’t invalidate a long-term trend.
Post reply on HN