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

171–180 of 200 posts

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

#171

Post by Krssst »

zukzuk wrote: post #7
rllearneratwork wrote: post #3

"Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable source of 0-emission power. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now.

More than half of France's nuclear reactors are out of commission right now, so for the foreseeable future that "70%" is more aspirational than anything. We are obviously not going to meet all of our energy needs — especially for certain high-demand applications — from solar and wind alone, but there are some significant advantages to a decentralized power grid that the pro-nuclear folks don't seem to factor into the…

> More than half of France's nuclear reactors are out of commission right now

COVID and corrosion issues being investigated led to that, but the fact is that France has had a reliable clean electricity supply for decades before that.

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

#172

Post by wahern »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #165
wahern wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about situations like the following, "‘It’s got nasty’: the battle to build the US’s biggest solar power farm", https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-... Unfortunately, I don't think people like Connie Ehrlich are rare, especially considering that you typically don't need much money to be as obstructive as she has. Yes, there are corporate-funded "grassroots" lobbying organizations, but…

Quoted post unavailable.

> coal mine or a logging operation or a PFS factory or a highway it would still go through

Actually, all of those things are just as difficult to do in jurisdictions where the public sentiment is given so much deference. That's why they're usually built in the middle of nowhere, or in jurisdictions which don't effectively grant the public procedural veto powers. (That said, mining and chemical factories in particular tend to facially violate zoning laws, as they should. Places where they're not clearly prohibited will also tend to be places where there aren't many people, and thus new construction would be expected to receive quick approval. Existing factories were usually built away from populations, but sprawl caused populations to encroach, and then you see a lot of tension with upgrades, etc, to the existing facilities.)

This is why it's been so difficult to build a high-speed train in California, or why it can take decades to build any form of transportation, including roads, especially in populated areas.

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

#173

Post by pstuart »

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…

Biofuel or green synfuel for aircraft seems like a fair compromise.

Ag seems like it should be easy enough -- they have the space for solar or biodiesel or such.

We just have to keep adjusting the incentives so that it's a natural choice.

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

#174

Post by pstuart »

davidw wrote: post #37
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…

> local objections That's a big component of all this. NIMBYism in this country is becoming a big problem in a lot of ways. Want to build a dense, mixed use development that is less carbon-intensive than single family suburbia? NIMBYs oppose it. Build a transmission line from your green energy source? NIMBYs, again! Build a solar farm? NIMBYs will try and block it.

Parking lots should be ripe for solar canopies. Every viable roof could have panels.

There will always be obstacles but it doesn't mean we should give up trying to make it work.

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

#175

Post by anonymousiam »

Okay, so I'll assume that 2035 is their most optimistic estimate. Assuming it's true, why have we dramatically reduced our energy supply now in 2022? Has the role of our governments changed into one that forces policy upon us, even when the policy is ill planned? How does this make us stronger, better, or safer? I'm not trying to shoot it down, but shouldn't such a drastic national/worldwide government policy get some review and maybe even a vote from the people (under the democratic governments)?

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

#176

Post by jdkee »

woodruffw wrote: post #129
lazide wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why do those consumers prefer that diet? Could it be because of a history of large amounts of open plains with cheap, accessible water and grass, and easy transportation of that meat (rails)? It's quite nutritious too (in a combination with other foods). In Europe, farmland is at an extreme premium in most places given the higher population density and often unfriendly climate and geography. Even more obvious a c…

First, I want to clarify: I haven't made a value judgement like "gluttonous" or "evil." We're operating within the same framework, which is constraints (and incentives). That being said, I think it's overly reductive to chalk it up to the country's size and density. If you take any mid-sized city in the US and wind the clock back by 80 years, you'll see a very different urban structure: dense radial development built…

"Cleveland had an urban population of nearly 1 million in the late 1920s, and was one of the largest cities in the country. It's about a third of that today. That didn't take hundreds of years; just a handful of decades.

In other words: we (the US) have intentionally pursued policies and incentive structures that encourage low-density (and correspondingly high-consumption) living, as a departure from our historical arc of development."

What you are discounting is the personal preferences of most Americans. Suburban living is chosen by many people as the right balance between urban amenities and preferences for space, nature, less pollution, etc.

Also people follow jobs and the urban cores of the early 20th century were no longer as attractive once people, again exercise choice, chose to work and live where they did not need to rely upon public transportation.

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

#177

Post by lazide »

jdkee wrote: post #176
woodruffw wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I want to clarify: I haven't made a value judgement like "gluttonous" or "evil." We're operating within the same framework, which is constraints (and incentives). That being said, I think it's overly reductive to chalk it up to the country's size and density. If you take any mid-sized city in the US and wind the clock back by 80 years, you'll see a very different urban structure: dense radial development built…

"Cleveland had an urban population of nearly 1 million in the late 1920s, and was one of the largest cities in the country. It's about a third of that today. That didn't take hundreds of years; just a handful of decades. In other words: we (the US) have intentionally pursued policies and incentive structures that encourage low-density (and correspondingly high-consumption) living, as a departure from our historical a…

I think you’re confused with what I’m arguing.

People fled Cleveland because they could, when it sucked there because there were options they could use which sucked less.

Automobiles and lots of open space made it possible to do so economically in the US.

In Europe, there isn’t much of a ‘somewhere else’ to go without fleeing the entire region, and, well coming to the US. not even counting the language and legal barriers.

It’s why Germany kept pushing for ‘libensraum’, it’s tight. And why it was so terrible, because there is nowhere to go without invading a bunch of unhappy neighbors.

In the US, if Cleveland sucks, there are plenty of options. And if you can afford a car, they are cheap and easy to get to as well.

No passport required either to move between states, and the US is waaay larger than Europe.

And it’s that way because there wasn’t anyone there beforehand that could make it any other way, and there is a ton of empty space. Unlike Europe.

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

#178

Post by fulafel »

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #32

OK, fine, but to what extent will it impoverish working people or reduce their wealth? It's more important to consider human happiness and wealth, rather than sacrificing the poor on the altar of carbon emissions.

Poor people are disproportionately affected by the climate catastrophe and benefit most from mitigating it.

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

#179

Post by davidw »

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,…

Where I live in a town of about 100K, 46,000 people voted in the election for mayor.

If there's a hearing for some project, maybe 10 or 20 people show up, mostly old, wealthy people who 'got theirs' and want to complain about change.

People's votes are a far more inclusive way of letting 'the commoner' have their say than hearings at 11AM.

Post reply on HN