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

91–100 of 397 posts

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

#91

Post by hueving »

Alex3917 wrote: post #44
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.

> Nuclear waste is not an actual problem If you're comfortable eating food grown in the soil grown around uranium processing plants then by all means go ahead.

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

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

#92

Post by coolspot »

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…

+ heated ceiling instead of floor in many apartments.

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

#93

Post by snowwindwaves »

gregable wrote: post #32
Tuxer wrote: post #6

Once again, making me proud to pay CA taxes. If they do not take large hydro into account when calculating this 100%, I wonder what we'll do with the dams. Destroy them to let the rivers free-flow again? Dams would have been a great store of energy for this project by pumping the water up during the day using solar/wind. Tesla Energy must be salivating at all those batteries that will need to be constructed.

Unfortunately, dams really don't represent that big of an energy store in practice.

If you ever see the level in the reservoir behind the dam go up then energy is being stored. If the level goes down then stored energy is being released.

The level of your favourite reservoir over time is probably available on line. Is there a massive annual pattern of high levels in spring and lowering level in fall and winter?

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

#94

Post by wang_li »

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…

Compared to Europe the US is doing better on carbon reduction seeing as the US went down and Europe went up. I'm not disagreeing that everyone should try to improve and the items you mentioned can be looked at, but comparing to Europe the US looks pretty good.

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

#96

Post by tedsanders »

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.

Sometimes, sometimes not.

One example of judges not taking a law literally is the Aereo case. Aereo was a company that aimed to provide over-the-air TV as an on-demand internet service. They tried to get around paying retransmission fees by hosting small personal antennas that would transmit to small personal receivers for each customer. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that since they were basically performing the same services as a cable company, the retransmission fees applied, regardless of the pointless technical setup with individual antennas and receivers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In....

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

#97

Post by blang »

pastor_elm wrote: post #19
Tuxer wrote: post #6

Once again, making me proud to pay CA taxes. If they do not take large hydro into account when calculating this 100%, I wonder what we'll do with the dams. Destroy them to let the rivers free-flow again? Dams would have been a great store of energy for this project by pumping the water up during the day using solar/wind. Tesla Energy must be salivating at all those batteries that will need to be constructed.

Meanwhile, NYC's plan is a measly 80% reduction in carbon emissions in city run operations alone by 2050. We'll be going backwards once Indian Point is decommissioned.

Though to be fair the state of new york has lower per capita carbon emission than California, though I think that mostly has to do with the density of new york city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...

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

#98

Post by hueving »

radicalbyte wrote: post #87
craftyguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Nuclear is only expensive because the current climate from anti-nuclear movements buries each plant in red tape and makes them all one off designs.

Windmills would be extremely expensive as well if each one was designed with a custom generator and custom blades.

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

#99

Post by mattygh »

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…

Compared to the rest of the USA (low bar), California is a saint. They started doing Energy Efficiency in the 70s, currently spend $1Bn / year on EE. Energy consumption as a whole in the state has flatlined since they started doing EE (1). All that to say, they're trying. It's crazy how much of a difference culture makes.

1: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-is-p...

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

#100

Post by dublin »

sannee wrote: post #57
Alex3917 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear waste is not an actual problem If you're comfortable eating food grown in the soil grown around uranium processing plants then by all means go ahead.

I am fully comfortable with that (not parent though) and have even done so on several occasions. You do realize we can detect contamination by radioactive elements in quatities many orders of magnitude lower than could conceivably cause any harm right? On the other hand, I live in Europe and our local government has yet to produce a complete environment monitoring fail such as the Flint incident in the USA.

It's worth keeping in mind that Flint was the result of more than a half-century of embedded Democratic corruption. This was a failure of accountability and integrity in local, not a national, or even state politics. Sadly, Flint is still under the same corrupt politicians that led to this in the first place, so don't expect anything to change...
Post reply on HN