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

261–270 of 397 posts

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

#261

Post by [deleted] »

kart23 wrote: post #246
throwaway5752 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"how many poisoned by heavy metals manufacturing solar equipment" Zero? How many people have died making manufacturing computers, tvs, toys, or appliances; all of which have all the same heavy metals as solar panels by virtue of being electronic goods? This is essentially FUD. A single PV panel can generate 5-10 Mwh over its service life, conservatively. On the low end that is equivalent to about 2 tons of coal. Sinc…

The people at Foxconn would love to talk with you.

[deleted]

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

#262

Post by mitchty »

Alex3917 wrote: post #118
hueving wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appeal to irrational fear. Are you comfortable with radio towers blasting you with radiation?

> Are you comfortable with radio towers blasting you with radiation? Nope. I always keep my phone in airplane mode when I'm not using it.

That doesn't change the amount of energy you receive from a radio tower at all...

You should be more worried about wearing sunscreen every day than the amount of energy you get from any wireless antenna. The sun puts out vastly more electromagnetic radiation than any wireless device ever will per cubic foot/meter/whatever.

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

#263

Post by philipkglass »

guelo wrote: post #162
ThomPete wrote: post #148

I am still baffled by the focus on private housholds and private consumption when it comes to the discussion of clean energy and emissions. The reality is that private households have very little to do with our problems and even less to do about them. Stop eating cow sound great but it's not going to do anything of any impact. Most emissions (70%) come from very few companies (around a 100 or some). Instead of making…

That 70% stat is not helpful because that's just the energy source companies. They're not consuming the energy, they're selling it. When you put Exxon gas in your car you are the one emitting the CO2, not Exxon.

This way lies a deep and futile chain of responsibility-diffusion. It's not the fault of the coal mining companies, it's the power plants that actually burn coal. It's not the fault of the power plants, it's the fault of the aluminum smelters that consume electricity produced with coal. It's not the fault of the smelters, it's the fault of the consumers who buy aluminum cans made with electricity produced from coal. (Never mind that aluminum-made-with-coal-electricity and aluminum-made-with-hydroelectricity are indistinguishable once they have reached the retail product level.)

You can regulate 100 big energy sector companies and drive big changes in consumption. You can't diffuse the responsibility to change across a hundred million consumers and expect anything like an equivalent rate of change.

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

#264

Post by x220 »

agumonkey wrote: post #187
abtinf wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will normal people be affected if you severely restrict the activities of those 100 companies?

We need to lay all these informations on a large map, so we don't have to speculate. That said, I'm sure most of the western world is in blind oppulence. So much shit is thrown out or spoiled for no reason it's crazy.

>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?

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

#265

Post by x220 »

WalterGR wrote: post #224
jaredhansen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not so easy to understand the real agendas here. The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers) than it does with costly and difficult initiatives like figuring out how to meet the world's energy requirements in a sustainable way.

The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers) This tired bullshit again? Yes, we understand that everyone could be doing more to help some cause, and that some people care more about appearances than improving the world, and some people do legitimately good deeds for ‘selfish’ reasons like increased self-es…

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.

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

#266

Post by Findeton »

village-idiot wrote: post #245
michaelchisari wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it Luckily, we're looking at a very real possibility that we peak at 9 billion and then start to shrink from there. Which creates a whole host of other social issues, but at least gross overpopulation isn't one of them.

Sudden population shifts are really bad for stability.

It's not sudden.

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

#267

Post by craftyguy »

SllX wrote: post #135
craftyguy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 limiting factor is politics not technology. The politics around nuclear waste are preventing the construction of reactor designs which exist today which could take waste that exists today and use it with an output with a much more manageable half-life than the waste we have just sitting around right now.

> The limiting factor is politics not technology.

Right... The only technical problem, how to store waste indefinitely, is only a problem because there's a larger political problem that prevents the waste from being recycled/reused. Since the political problem is highly unlikely to be resolved within a few decades, that leaves us with the technical problem of how to deal with the waste as we are currently generating/storing it.

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

#268

Post by r00fus »

danepowell wrote: post #174
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…

I don't see what about front-loading washers would make them especially prone to standing water or mold. I would expect that vertical washers could just as easily have standing water. Worse, it's probably out of sight behind the drum where you can't clean it.

I can confirm having owned 2 front loads. We leave the washer door open all the time while idle - sometimes blowing a fan inside to force-dry it out. Otherwise, mold city. It doesn't matter which make/model you buy, they all exhibit the same problem.

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

#269

Post by mac01021 »

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…

Why isn't a fee&dividend widely accepted as the solution here?

I don't mind if you buy and drive a dodge ram or a Sherman tank, as long as you reimburse me for the harm it does to me and my child.

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

#270

Post by dsfyu404ed »

serpix wrote: post #161
ancarda wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

get a van instead if you need to move things. Those pickups are ridiculous in their energy consumption and waste of resources.

Minivans have terrible cargo capacity in terms of weight and the cargo area is really easy to get dirty and hard to clean (does anyone even offer a vinyl carpet option?). If someone still made a RWD van with an interior actually meant to haul cargo and barn doors (because it's hard to use a forklift to load things if you've got a hatch) I'd be in the market. The Aerostar and Astro used to fill this niche but they're long gone. The Transit Connect and HHR are a little on the small side.
Post reply on HN