Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

utilitydive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 200 posts

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#151

Post by jonstewart »

throwaway9870 wrote: post #123
gregwebs wrote: post #10

We can have 100% clean energy by 2035 if we assume the US is China and the state can build whatever it wants despite any local objections. And assume we increase battery supply by 40x (even though lithium price is going up dramatically now). And assume that clean power is actually 100% clean. It's good to have a vision for clean energy though that is shared with the country that we start working towards. I can see th…

I have a real problem with statements like "100% clean energy by 2035". What does that even mean? You will have electric aircraft by 2035? Completely electric ag? Electric trains and trucks? No, not a chance. The article used the term "power" and when you click through to the energy.gov site, it is clear that it is referring to the electric grid. But you said energy and when people make that mistake I often wonder if…

At a certain point, it's just an argument about semantics. They mean the grid.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#152

Post by wankle »

lazide wrote: post #112
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm confused that they can put a time frame on a problem they have no idea how to solve yet. You are writing on a developer forum, they work in Agile and ruotinely provide estimates or work to deadlines when business does not even know the requirements of their system, let alone how to build most of it.

If a developer tells you they can deliver by x, and they also don't know how to do it, what is the level of confidence you have that will occur?

As a developer, the ugly truth about Agile is that something (TM) is delivered and fallout is labeled Technical Debt.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#153

Post by lazide »

epistasis wrote: post #142
lazide wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where we have no idea of how expensive or not y will be, or how long it will take to do it. Like saying ‘The UI will be ready in 6 months if the backend is figured out’. Also not a realistic projection. Don’t get me wrong, it’s something . But the error bars are larger than the graph.

I'm sorry, but that characterization of 90% versus 100% is not remotely fair. "Only 90% unless people let us buy enough land" is a far cry from not having any clue at all.

It isn’t just land though, it’s also storage and other tech. Aka ‘the backend’.

Or ‘the other 90%’

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#154

Post by wankle »

epistasis wrote: post #22
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think what they want is a solution to switch over to renewable energy sources that can meet or exceed current demands at comparative costs. No, they just want to get rid of fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if the new system can meet the demand at all, or how much it will cost. Look at California. Banning lawn mowers and ICE cars. Their power grid can't even support EV charging, and they're sending out notices as…

That does not represent anything in the article. > Their power grid can't even support EV charging, This is categorically false, and a ridiculous thing to say.

Actually it's true: https://youtu.be/ptI6BRVC1Kw?t=145

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#155

Post by throwaway9870 »

ajross wrote: post #150
throwaway9870 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a real problem with statements like "100% clean energy by 2035". What does that even mean? You will have electric aircraft by 2035? Completely electric ag? Electric trains and trucks? No, not a chance. The article used the term "power" and when you click through to the energy.gov site, it is clear that it is referring to the electric grid. But you said energy and when people make that mistake I often wonder if…

> What does that even mean? Uh... the linked article actually discusses exactly that. Do you disagree, or did you not read it?

Yes, and I even clicked through to the energy.gov article. The article does not define what "100% clean energy" is. It doesn't even use the term 100% clean energy except in the subtitles of a couple of graphs. It uses the term "100% clean power", which again, is very sloppy. Do you understand the US uses a lot of energy besides electric? Is that going to be clean or not? If not, what does the term "100% clean energy" mean?

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#156

Post by Jedd »

gregwebs wrote: post #10

We can have 100% clean energy by 2035 if we assume the US is China and the state can build whatever it wants despite any local objections. And assume we increase battery supply by 40x (even though lithium price is going up dramatically now). And assume that clean power is actually 100% clean. It's good to have a vision for clean energy though that is shared with the country that we start working towards. I can see th…

> And assume we increase battery supply by 40x (even though lithium price is going up dramatically now).

It sounds like you're assuming at large scale, Lithium is required for storage (it's not - consider pumped water), and at small scale Lithium is required for storage (it's not - consider flow batteries).

Point being, increasing storage by 40x is not infeasible because of any constraints around Lithium cost / availability.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#157

Post by ajross »

throwaway9870 wrote: post #155
ajross wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does that even mean? Uh... the linked article actually discusses exactly that. Do you disagree, or did you not read it?

Yes, and I even clicked through to the energy.gov article. The article does not define what "100% clean energy" is. It doesn't even use the term 100% clean energy except in the subtitles of a couple of graphs. It uses the term "100% clean power", which again, is very sloppy. Do you understand the US uses a lot of energy besides electric? Is that going to be clean or not? If not, what does the term "100% clean energy"…

No post body was provided.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#158

Post by pythonaut_16 »

wankle wrote: post #141
BitwiseFool wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our local library wanted to put in an automated drop-off bin that patrons could drive up to and return books into. It was bitterly contested because the adjacent home owners association was worried about the increased noise and traffic. Keep in mind they were already living next to this library and it already had a parking lot. The city paid to construct a high wall as a compromise. It wasn't terribly expensive, but…

> I really do think there is such a thing as "over democratizing" our development process. Sometimes you really do just need to tell someone "this is getting built" and they can get bent if they don't like it. If they pay me market value plus 35% for being unexpectedly uprooted, that's OK. If the gov wants to steal it, things will get interesting.

That's more of a NIMY - Not in My Yard kind of thing.

I think the parent post is referring to the library example. At a certain point you don't get to keep the land around you from being used in any way other than it was exactly when you moved in.

Eminent domain is a different issue that should have a much higher barrier to use, and has likely been abused historically.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#159

Post by pythonaut_16 »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #128
epistasis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100%. You may like this article, that has academic research to back up your thoughts— Not Everyone Should Have a Say; To speed up permitting for energy projects, we’ll need to rethink community input: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/environmen... This sort of "participatory democracy," where the most motivated can dominate those with less time, can be traced back to the New Left, which was cr…

The commoner should have a say, unless they oppose the ideas of Those Who Know Best. The bureaucracy is made of Those Who Know Best. The commoner wants Things to be Better but is worried that changes will make their lot worse. The commoner has few choices: find other commoners with reasonably similar concerns and use the power of numbers (and perhaps law) to represent their concerns to The Powers That Be (union, HOA,…

> the power of numbers

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but isn't that the point of democracy? If enough people agree with your view then that's what gets implemented. The point of the parent is that you can't let people with the loudest voices and most free time abuse the system.

Post reply on HN