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

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#711

Post by epistasis »

tonymet wrote: post #709
epistasis wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, me too! Trying to play semantics rather than clearly stating reality, or trying to make a picture fuzzy so that inaccurate generalizations take priority over reality, is not a a good way to run a democracy.

It’s a republic .

It's a republic and a democracy, but every person I've heard say "it's a republic" erroneously believes that the US is not a democracy, and that republics can't be a democracy, because somebody told them that once and they liked the sound of it without ever checking it.

So, who's mincing words?

Re: Banned in California

#712

Post by rerdavies »

coryrc wrote: post #554
zdp7 wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not likely since the state of California provided a grant with the purpose of manufacturing battery cells in the state. Search for GFO-24-304. You are just kidding yourself if you think California is anti manufacturing. If you can show why this is untrue, show the info. Still had a link to the grant info. https://www.grants.ca.gov/grants/gfo-24-304-california-batte...

That grant is only for nonprofits and only for "pilot manufacturing and testing", not useful mass manufacturing.

Good catch. One has to wonder how many private non-profit entities there are in the world that want to build a "pilot manufacturing and testing" plant, that

- Are able to put up $5m of their own money in order to receive $25m. - Are not associated with a university. - Are not a public non-profit electrical utility (heaven forbid!)

One, as it turns out. Who received $28m. According to the list of grants given under the program.

Smells a bit off.

Re: Banned in California

#713

Post by rerdavies »

deepsun wrote: post #463
temp8830 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA is already effectively priced out of manufacturing due to high labor costs. Doing things with the "correct choices" simply makes the impossible even more so.

Shipbuilding in particular has negligible labour costs, even for rich countries. Cost to build a ship is about 80% materials costs.

Which leaves plenty of room for a non-negligible 15% discount.

Re: Banned in California

#714

Post by deaux »

kardianos wrote: post #265
Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…

> But people don't actually care about the environment. They care about looking like they care about the environment, and sending industrial processes somewhere else. There is a difference.

This is about as true as saying "But people don't care about child sexual abuse". Sure, those partying with Epstein don't.

Plenty of people do care and indeed are today making sacrifices that align with this. Including lowering living standards. If you don't then that's on you, but speak for yourself.

Re: Banned in California

#715

Post by deaux »

expedition32 wrote: post #509
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an inconvenient truth that the better off don’t want to face up to. Your environmental impact is going to be correlated to your consumption. More spending == more damage. Something to bear in mind when you are being told environmental damage is being caused by the poor or some foreign country.

There's not much point in being better off if you don't use that money for a holiday to Japan. After all most of us work hard so that we can buy things.

You could work less hard and buy less things, spending the time and energy you save by working less hard on more enjoyable things than buying more stuff.

Re: Banned in California

#716

Post by Qwertious »

coryrc wrote: post #706
Qwertious wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a nuclear plant in Manhattan would cost far more than just building the plant in outer NY, and then running a big power line in to Manhattan. Sure, the power line would take up space, but so would the nuclear plant's cooling system.

The space heating is the cooling system.

So's a turbine. Sometimes people don't want heating, but you still need to cool down the plant. And while I'm sure the nuclear plant will have a great emergency stop button (the type where paying $1k per press is absolute peanuts), the systems used daily to turn the heat up/down will either need a buffer, or have a delay on taking the heat up/down. That'll take up space. Remind me why power lines aren't an option?

Re: Banned in California

#717

Post by tonyedgecombe »

expedition32 wrote: post #509
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an inconvenient truth that the better off don’t want to face up to. Your environmental impact is going to be correlated to your consumption. More spending == more damage. Something to bear in mind when you are being told environmental damage is being caused by the poor or some foreign country.

There's not much point in being better off if you don't use that money for a holiday to Japan. After all most of us work hard so that we can buy things.

As I said more spending == more damage:

https://iere.org/how-tourists-affect-the-environment/

Re: Banned in California

#718

Post by rconti »

mikestorrent wrote: post #687
Animats wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. In Silicon Valley, if you go to Bedwell Bayfront Park, which is behind Meta/Facebook HQ, there is, on the bay side, a small sewerage treatment plant. There's a fenced concrete-lined pond, usually empty. That is a sewerage overflow containment pond. It's next to a hiking trail, so it's easily visible to the public. That whole park, by the way, is a recycled garbage dump. So is the bay side park behind Google HQ.…

Does the area smell, or is that all captured somehow? I've been to the plant in my city many years ago and it only smelled in certain buildings.

Well, the concrete pond is usually empty. But yeah, the site kinda smells like methane. Hard to say if it's from the dump (which of course has vents), or from the sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant is always burning.. something. Maybe methane escaping from the dump? Maybe from the wastewater? I'm not sure.

Anyway, it's not bad-- I run around there all the time. It's just when the wind blows a certain way. I live a half mile from it and you absolutely do not ever smell it outside of the park.

Re: Banned in California

#719

Post by Merovius »

fsckboy wrote: post #658
Animats wrote: post #574

Plating operations are a huge headache. They have corrosive plating baths. They have to do some chemical processing on site to neutralize the corrosive chemicals and get them down to a neutral pH. Some years ago, a plating company in San Jose dumped a plating bath into the sewer system. This was so toxic that it killed the bacteria that reduce organic sludge at the sewerage plant. This knocked the whole plant offline…

a plating company in San Jose dumped a plating bath into the sewer system. This was so toxic that it killed the bacteria that reduce organic sludge at the sewerage plant. This knocked the whole plant offline, releasing untreated sewerage into the bay. The lower bay was toxic for a week toxic because of chemicals and toxic because of the release of untreated sewage (bacteria) are sufficiently different that I thought…

> it's a known problem and civilization hasn't collapsed.

Waiting for civilizational collapse to justify regulation seems like an unhelpful standard TBH. In fact, I would argue that it's one of the main problems we are having right now: that we know our current trajectory will lead to civilizational collapse, but aren't willing to change course.

Re: Banned in California

#720

Post by Merovius »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #663
cryptoneo wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this "drilling is good for the environment narrative" sounded a bit misleading. And not far down the rabbit whole one finds: The author of the study often cited by oil companies for above narrative, felt impelled to publish a clarifying statement: https://luyendyk.faculty.geol.ucsb.edu/Seeps%20pubs/Luyendyk... Maybe stricter guidelines against operational "routine" spills led to a reduction of the sticky spots,…

Per NOAA and USGS, ~20 million liters of crude oil naturally seeps into that part of the California ocean each year. That is more crude oil each year than the worst oil spill in California history[0]. You are projecting your biases. There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative. I was recounting an interesting fact about the environment there. Many of these seeps are under considerable pressure as the…

> There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative.

…

> Oil drilling actually made the water cleaner.

Post reply on HN