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

81–90 of 397 posts

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

#81

Post by opo »

craftyguy wrote: post #50
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.

No, it actually is a problem. It has to be stored for millennia, and in a way that does not leak/contaminate surroundings (including ground water). Very little technology /materials can meet those requirements[0], and the current situation is a damn mess[1]. 0. http://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/synopsis-of... 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/0...

Right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amounts generated are manageable and in a relatively short amount of time we can use most of this "waste" to generate electricity. (The same can't be said for coal waste - like just about everything else associated with burning coal, coal waste is an environmental diaster.)

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

#82

Post by EduardoBautista »

chrisseaton wrote: post #77
tedunangst wrote: post #68

Hypothetically, if I build a big coal power plant across the border to power a giant light array shining on solar cells on the CA side, does that count?

These kind of 'I'm technically correct' arguments don't work with the law as they do in programming - Judges just say 'that's obviously not what is intended'.

Are you sure? If that was the case, legal loopholes wouldn't be as effective as they are now. Laws are taken literally. You follow the letter of the law, not the spirit. At least that's the case in the USA.

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

#83

Post by overcast »

ghouse wrote: post #71
tedunangst wrote: post #68

Hypothetically, if I build a big coal power plant across the border to power a giant light array shining on solar cells on the CA side, does that count?

IANAL, but fairly certain that the solar must be powered by the sun. That said, the solution you propose would be much more expensive than using the free light coming from the sun.

I mean technically coal is powered by the Sun. Also what an unfortunate acronym.

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

#84

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

tedunangst wrote: post #68

Hypothetically, if I build a big coal power plant across the border to power a giant light array shining on solar cells on the CA side, does that count?

Nope

>The bill would require the PUC and the Energy Commission, in consultation with the state board, to take steps to ensure that a transition to a zero-carbon electric system for the State of California does not cause or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions increases elsewhere in the western grid.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

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

#85

Post by close04 »

nostromo wrote: post #59
jzoch wrote: post #16

I understand this is amazing and totally love my state for doing it, but man seeing 2045 is always a little dismaying as I wish we could be even more aggressive. 2035 for example. I realize I am being too ambitious, but we went to space in a decade why not 100% clean energy in 1.5?

Politicians generally tend to choose deadlines that are beyond their terms. They get the approval of their voting base today without actually having to do much of anything to reach the goal itself. I'm reminded of Bush calling for the US to return to the moon by 2020 -- a proposal Obama quietly nixed. I'd much rather we say, "We're going to increase renewables by X% every year, starting now, to reach the goal of 100%…

Even 2035 is still beyond most current politicians' terms. 100% clean energy will take a lot of work and more importantly determination. The closer you get to the goal, the more it takes to cover another percent. And you never know who comes next and decides to kick all the plans to the curb and subsidize coal (hypothetically speaking o_O). You need to add some buffers.

Another problem is that nobody else (at this scale at least) got there so it's hard to anticipate all the challenges. Germany, normally at 36% renewable energy, managed to reach that magic 100% figure on a winter early-morning this year. But nothing close to sustained generation. And they plan to get to 100% in 2060+. So California, currently at ~44% renewable energy, could be the first to hit the sustained 100%.

Another problem is that everyone defines "100% clean energy" in different ways, by leaving some sectors out of the count. Will this target cover electrical power or also aims at replacing all non-renewable sources of power for all applications?

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

#86

Post by test6554 »

overcast wrote: post #83
ghouse wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but fairly certain that the solar must be powered by the sun. That said, the solution you propose would be much more expensive than using the free light coming from the sun.

I mean technically coal is powered by the Sun. Also what an unfortunate acronym.

most unfortunate indeed.

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

#87

Post by radicalbyte »

craftyguy wrote: post #47
radicalbyte wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until recently I was extremely pro nuclear, but in the past months I've been researching renewable energy and have changed my mind. I hope not. For a similar cost you can actually turn coal power into massive carbon storage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_captu... This is actually pretty ingenious, if it works at industrial scale then it's better than even wind and solar power.

> and have changed my mind. > I hope not. Care to explain why you have changed your mind?

The alternatives are better. Nuclear is expensive even before you factor in the decommissioning costs. With those costs factored in it just doesn't make any sense.

Invest that money in geothermal, hydro, solar, wind and eventually tidal power and you get far more bang-for-your-buck.

Convert coal plants to burn biomass combined with carbon capture and geological storage and you get power which - whilst more expensive - removes carbon from the air. The more you use it the more carbon it removes.

Given these developments, why build new nuclear plants?

Closing down plants which are still viable on the other hand seems like pure madness.

If (when?) we can design nuclear plants which are both economical, safe and don't have the externalized decommissioning costs then it would also be foolish not to include them in the mix.

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

#88

Post by jwr »

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 were free.

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

#89

Post by chrisseaton »

EduardoBautista wrote: post #82
chrisseaton wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kind of 'I'm technically correct' arguments don't work with the law as they do in programming - Judges just say 'that's obviously not what is intended'.

Are you sure? If that was the case, legal loopholes wouldn't be as effective as they are now. Laws are taken literally. You follow the letter of the law, not the spirit. At least that's the case in the USA.

Yes there's a lot of 'reasonable person's interpretation' of things, such as 'solar power'. A Judge would just say no reasonable person would interpret that as a solar power.

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

#90

Post by wyattk »

jzoch wrote: post #16

I understand this is amazing and totally love my state for doing it, but man seeing 2045 is always a little dismaying as I wish we could be even more aggressive. 2035 for example. I realize I am being too ambitious, but we went to space in a decade why not 100% clean energy in 1.5?

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this is like comparing apples to pitbulls. Both of these goals are big milestones, but fundamentally different.

With space, everything that was created and invested was brand new. There was not too much worrying about existing infrasture. Often, there would be thousands of people working to make 1 individual mission happen. Energy in the US is a lot different. For instance, you have to keep the massive machine that is the electricity transmission and distribution grids running.

Here's a scope of the challenges of 100% renewables, for anyone without a background in this (one should view challenges as opportunities):

First, there's a lot of existing generation that would need to be sunsetted and even more that would need to be created. In fact, given the intermittency of renewables, there would need to be a multiple more of capacity than there is now given the capacity factor, usually divide 1/CapacityFactor (see more on that here: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57582.pdf). So, 4 GW of installed wind capacity is really only expected to output ~1 GW at any point in time, given the intermittencies.

Second, there will have to be a lot of upgrades made to the transmission grid (sending power long distances from large scale renewable generators to population centers), and the distribution grid (sends power to all the buildings and homes in a city). The distribution grid upgrades to be made will have to help it handle a lot more rooftop solar, home batteries, and electric vehicles.

Third, there will have to be a lot more storage installed. Electric vehicles can have a large impact here, but there will still be a need for in-home and grid-scale batteries. Batteries are also just getting to the point where they're economically-feasible in some uses. There is still a ways to go for batteries to be economical enough to be widespread, especially grid-scale. Physical storage of electricity will likely have to grow too (think: pump to a higher lake when prices are low, and let it flow back down and turn a turbine when it's needed).

Fourth, and this is definitely my opinion (and what I'm working on), is that we are going to have to make everything work together more. We can't have all these batteries, solar panels, and other connected appliances and thermostats do whatever they want at the distribution level. We will have to change to time-varying rate structures for end-consumers, but this won't be enough either. Communication and coordination will yield the best results.

I tried to be brief. If anyone has any more questions or thoughts about this, I would love to hear them!

Post reply on HN