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

391–397 of 397 posts

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

#391

Post by wahern »

r00fus wrote: post #268
danepowell wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try WhirlOUT every month or two to remove detergent residue: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000DZBLJ6/

You still [probably] need to hand-dry the gasket, but according to my research it's what manufacturers recommend when pushed. I order a box on eBay every 1-2 years, approximately.

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

#392

Post by vilmosi »

woolvalley wrote: post #340
myegorov wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most houses in the bay area do not even have AC, and may turn on the heater for 3 months of the year. It's climate alone is a big household energy saver.

The climate also calls for AC for 3 months of the year if not more. And, compared to Europe, they actually have ACs.

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

#393

Post by yellowapple »

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #385
woolvalley wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most houses in the bay area do not even have AC, and may turn on the heater for 3 months of the year. It's climate alone is a big household energy saver.

How do they not have AC in the bay area? That seems highly implausible.

Coastal regions tend to have more stable temperatures than inland regions in general due to closer proximity to the ocean (large bodies of water tend to be slow to heat up and slow to cool down). The Bay Area is no exception.

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

#394

Post by nickik »

adrr wrote: post #78
nickik wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute bullshit. Its one of the best run and safest nuclear plants in the world. Union of concerned scientists is nothing but an anti-nuclear lobbying group the same as Greenpeace and others. All they do is spread FUD or outright lies.

I am pro-nuclear and agree that it needs to be shut down. Any nuclear power plant that wasn't built this century needs to go away, we should not be running any pressurized water reactors. The latest generation of nuclear power plants are very safe and have passive nuclear safety which requires no active measures to shut down a reactor safely which significantly reduces the risk of a meltdown. The biggest problem with…

Its insane to shut down something liek 20% of the nations power supply that is zero carbon.

The current generation has its problems but shutting down before end of life is a absolutely insane idea in every possible way.

You can't magically replace 20% of the nations energy production with GenIV reactors. That not how technology works.

GenIV reactors are great and the companies building them will hopefully do it in the 2020 but to even then, the focus should be on replacing coal not existing nuclear.

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

#395

Post by nickik »

hodgesrm wrote: post #117
nickik wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste is not an actual problem and the only reason there is no 'solution' is because it has turned into a political shit show. Worrying about nuclear waste at the beginning of the nuclear age when most of that waste is actually valuable fuel is downright idiotic.

You can't dismiss the waste problem out of hand given the environmental problems at places like Hanford [0] and the costs of safely decommissioning old plants, especially damaged ones like Fukushima [1]. There's abundant evidence that it's a costly, poisonous mess if done badly. Personally I don't think this is the biggest problem with nuclear power, and it's certainly not in and of itself a reason to switch to alter…

Hanford is a cite of nulcear production for military use and there were problems with that.

It has little to do with nuclear waste for civilian use today and is in no way comparable to civilian nuclear waste and how it is stored.

Also, Fukushima is the exception of the exception, it is a bit of land that can not be used for long while its not a lot of land and its in a nuclear exclusion zone anyway.

I don't want to ignore the issue, but I will just say that the amount of time, ink and energy spend on it is way out of proportion to how much it matters

People keep making the argument that climate change is a existential issue but then saw, well, nuclear is not a solution because of this nuclear waste problem. That is insane reasoning in my opinion.

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

#396

Post by nickik »

craftyguy wrote: post #267
SllX wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

There is already a place to store it in Finland that is going active soon.

The is a great place that has been identified, tested and evaluated in the US. Most experts agree that it is a site that would work perfectly fine.

But guess what, its insane political battles that stopped this from being used and that is still the case.

Even so, without a end solution, there is no problem with storing it in a different place for a couple 100 years as it has a tiny volume.

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

#397

Post by x220 »

ThomPete wrote: post #379
x220 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Beans and rice, bought dry in bulk. It won't be fun, but you'll live, for roughly $10 a week or even less.
Post reply on HN