3 ms·

Just so that I'm sure I've understood this right. California decided to save the environment by shutting down "unclean" power within the state, with the idea th

by AwaAwa 5y ago

Just so that I'm sure I've understood this right. California decided to save the environment by shutting down "unclean" power within the state, with the idea that other states will provide them with their "dirty" generated power?

mensetmanusman 5y ago
Yes
- achenet 5y ago
  Not actually solving the problem, just shifting it elsewhere. Nice.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    Yes, we're talking about California.
jfoutz 5y ago
Excess power from any source. California has imported power from hover dam forever, for example.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Yes! Scream it from the roof tops. Most think California is green. What they did was outsource energy production to other states. This allowed them to move "dirty energy" from their balance sheet. But moving your coal plant to another state does not reduce GHG production. It only moves it across state lines. EDIT: [1] Here some context with a link about the different types of GHG measurement methods. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28714396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28714396 EDIT: the gist being that if we moved to "B. (Absolute) GHG footprint accounting" we wouldn't be creating policy based on false accounting and those "loopholes" would be obviously misguided.
toast0 5y ago
A large amount of California environmentalism is air quality, as measured in California; moving to cleaner sources within the state and dirtier sources outside the state helps tremendously with air quality as measured in the state. Of course, it doesn't help air quality near those other sources, and global measures aren't helped by simply moving coal plants elsewhere. It's also not great for grid reliability to increase the watt miles used (is there a real term for that?).
- everybodyknows 5y ago
  It's a bit worse than that, from a GHG perspective, because of additional waste in transmission line losses. Mid-single digit percentages are typical.

by AwaAwa 5y ago

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Yes

achenet 5y ago
Not actually solving the problem, just shifting it elsewhere. Nice.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  Yes, we're talking about California.

jfoutz 5y ago

Excess power from any source. California has imported power from hover dam forever, for example.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Yes! Scream it from the roof tops. Most think California is green. What they did was outsource energy production to other states. This allowed them to move "dirty energy" from their balance sheet. But moving your coal plant to another state does not reduce GHG production. It only moves it across state lines. EDIT: [1] Here some context with a link about the different types of GHG measurement methods. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28714396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28714396 EDIT: the gist being that if we moved to "B. (Absolute) GHG footprint accounting" we wouldn't be creating policy based on false accounting and those "loopholes" would be obviously misguided.

toast0 5y ago

A large amount of California environmentalism is air quality, as measured in California; moving to cleaner sources within the state and dirtier sources outside the state helps tremendously with air quality as measured in the state. Of course, it doesn't help air quality near those other sources, and global measures aren't helped by simply moving coal plants elsewhere. It's also not great for grid reliability to increase the watt miles used (is there a real term for that?).

everybodyknows 5y ago
It's a bit worse than that, from a GHG perspective, because of additional waste in transmission line losses. Mid-single digit percentages are typical.