10 ms·

I always find laughable when governments are scolding or limiting peasants for basically nothing, while ignoring the elephant in the room. * You need to conser

I always find laughable when governments are scolding or limiting peasants for basically nothing, while ignoring the elephant in the room. * You need to conserve the water, California peasant! Ignore the fact that 80% of water in California is consumed by agriculture and we are not going to do anything about it. * You need to stop using your gas stove, peasant! Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants.

tlogan 4y ago
Sad but true. This is all about politicians are trying to be “woke/progressive” without actually trying to solve the problem. Would keeping Diablo nuclear plant and focusing on replacing other plants with clean energy help global warning? Yes! But that is hard.
D13Fd 4y ago
- throwaway27727 4y ago
  If you really want to optimize for the long term, obtaining goodwill by not making the forced habit changes first would be better.
  - D13Fd 4y ago
    That doesn’t obtain goodwill, it just delays the inevitable while we continue putting these gases into the atmosphere.
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      Populations of insects have collapsed, fish stocks have collapsed, biosphere is polluted by millions of tons of forever chemicals dumped into the Pacific ever year. Chemicals that keep accumulating in every life form. Earlier puberty in girls by several years, lower testosterone in men by more than 50% in two generation. Intersex fish. Some species are even reproducing asexually which for some was thought impossible. This is NOW. TODAY. CO2 has become such a convenient misdirection device that the industry uses to keep your attention away from rather current things that can very well implode life as we know it well before any "climate problems" actually become disruptive as these all other pollutants are today. Why else do you think Exxon is rated 100% ESG compliant? Yes! They bought some credits or whatever, but still dump a few million tons of actual pollutants that destroy life TODAY. Just keep everyone spinning on the carbon hamster wheels. It's the green way.
      - DFHippie 4y ago
        Two things can be bad at the same time. The people trying to do something about CO2 are the same people trying to do something about PFAS. And not doing something about CO2 doesn't cause something to be done about PFAS.
      - vegetablepotpie 4y ago
        You’re right about the acute pollution from the fossil fuel industry. The affects are not distributed evenly. We need to solve that. Climate change is already affecting us, we’ve lost a lot of agricultural productivity because of it, and it’s going to get worse faster than it has in the past. Both these issues have their roots in fossil fuel extraction. If we can eliminate the extraction, we solve both issues.
        kodah 4y ago
        In California (which this article and thread are about) agriculture is actually up in terms of productivity and down in terms of water utilization. The problem is the solvency of Ag's GDP value on the state register, which went from 5% to 2%, is not up. I'm not sure agriculture is really affected as much by fossil fuels as it is by economic pressure and water cost/benefit ratios given the economic pressure.
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        Fossil fuel again is a misdirection. Neonics, BPA, DDT and all sorts of other fun stuff would exist without fossil fuels. Semiconductor manufacturing gaves is few superfund sites in the US. Nothing to do with fossil fuels either. The big problem is total lack of liability. You can dump millions of actual toxins and poison literally billions and no jail time for anyone involved, not even a token patsy.
  - tootie 4y ago
    People can stop burning fossil fuels any time they want and yet they don't. 72M voted for a climate denier in 2020. We absolutely have to start telling everybody what to do.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  > I don’t care how small or large it is. Good for you. I care and maybe you should too, because there is a credibility cost to this kind of action. This ban is obviously purely performative, and though you may see value in performative actions like this, others are turned off by them which leads to distrust of institutions and non-compliance.
  - rhacker 4y ago
    Especially when you feel like the makers of the rule changes did not first ask you. That's the biggest issue.
taylodl 4y ago
Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants. That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life. Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible. Without getting into it, in essence the U.S. has lost the ability to construct nuclear power stations. People cite the regulatory nightmare, but that's not the real issue - that's an excuse. The real issue is much more complicated. Note: I work for a U.S. utility that tried to build a nuclear power station due to go online in 2009. We had to abandon the effort and turned the plant into a Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant. It was brought online shortly after President Obama made the statement there will be no more coal plants opened in this country. I still get a chuckle out of that (we've since shuttered several of our coal units and have reduced our CO2 output by 50%). I know of at least two other U.S. utilities that ended up building IGCC plants for the same reasons. All of us already had nuclear generators in our fleet, so we all know how to work with the NRC. Given all the problems we've experienced trying to build new nuclear generation stations I seriously doubt we'll see any new nuclear generation stations built for some time. The last nuclear generation station brought online was in 2016 and took 43 years to build! It also cost billions of dollars. Nobody has the appetite for that kind of endeavor.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life. I doubt that is true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#2021_Stanford_&_MIT_assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#2021... talks about a report that states "that keeping Diablo operating until 2045 would save the state a cumulative $21 billion," and I doubt they'd make a projection like that if the plant would be worn out in 2025. It's probably not end of life, it probably just needs maintenance and recertification. This nuclear plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generatin...) has some reactors that were built earlier, and are apparently now licensed to operate for a total of 80 years. > Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible. Without getting into it, in essence the U.S. has lost the ability to construct nuclear power stations. People cite the regulatory nightmare, but that's not the real issue - that's an excuse. The real issue is much more complicated. You make this claim, but you don't really support it. Why is this a "lack of ability" rather than a lack of political will?
zionic 4y ago
gas stoves vent toxic fumes into the house, run the risk of blowing your house up, and are inferior to induction stoves in almost every way. Any time this comes up I love to singe the praises of induction!
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
  Induction stoves are seriously inferior to gas, in every way. They are slower to heat. They are more expensive to operate. They are more fragile. They rely on complex electronics vs. simple mechanics. They require specific cookware made out of only certain materials. They require direct contact with the "burner" to work. In what possible way are they superior?
  - cecilpl2 4y ago
    They are faster to heat than gas since they can deliver all energy directly to the pan, whereas gas wastes ~75% of the energy heating the surrounding air. They boil water much faster than even an electric kettle for this reason. Pot handles don't get hot from the hot air going up the side. They are much easier to clean. Spills don't get burnt onto the cooktop. There's no risk of fire or burning oneself. No risk of a gas leak from bumping a knob. No harmful pollutants emitted by combusting fossil fuels in an interior space.
    - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
      That's not even mentioning that you can simply by steel discs the size of the burner and use whatever kind of cooking vessel you like.
    - briandear 4y ago
      And when there is a power failure, what then? I live in hurricane country and being without power is a real concern. I happen to have a backup generator which runs on natural gas. But electrical outages are a real thing.
      - 4y ago
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Yep... BP can cause a huge maritime catastrophe (deepwater horizon spill), but let's blame Johnny Average here for drinking soda by using a straw. The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...
- gruez 4y ago
  >The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?
  - TurkTurkleton 4y ago
    You think that "the dirty industry" will voluntarily work to reduce negative externalities if they aren't regulatorily required to do so and if doing so is less profitable than mounting a PR campaign to draw attention away from them would be?
  - kelnos 4y ago
    They do it because it's more economical in the short term to do it, and our economic system values short term metrics more than long term. On top of that, our governments are full of cowards who won't create policies that make it more expensive to destroy the planet than to save it.
  - spaetzleesser 4y ago
    "you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?" Yes, for fun and profit.
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      Profit from whom? All these industries ultimately sell the resulting end products to people. This idea that Exxon Mobile is solely to blame for gasoline emissions or that a factory owner is the only one responsible for the emissions from their factory, rather than the person who purchases and uses those products is quite frankly absurd.
UnpossibleJim 4y ago
I hate to be that guy (I honestly do) but should we even mention the carbon footprint of America being in a near constant state of war/"police action" somewhere in the world since ~1967 (the argument could be made for earlier, but there was a break there, I guess). Carbon study from 2017: https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tran.12319 https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tran.123...
- Ekaros 4y ago
  War could be effective in reducing carbon production, but sadly not enough combatants die on the continental soil, a few million dead combatants there each year would do wonders for cutting down emissions.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    People like you are really sick. Mass murder is not a solution to anything.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Now if only world population would agree and did something with those who engage in it...
epistasis 4y ago
> switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants. This is not true, it will be replaced with zero carbon generation, including geothermal. For intermittent zero carbon generation, there needs to be matched storage, which will consist both of "regular" lithium storage, and some newer less tested tech for longer duration storage. This is mandated specifically by law, so if it doesn't happen then somebody is violating the law. It was senate bill 1090, passed in 2018: https://www.powermag.com/press-releases/california-gov-brown-signs-historic-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-bill/ https://www.powermag.com/press-releases/california-gov-brown... And two years before the law mandating it, the zero carbon replacement was part of the original closure announcement: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pge-to-replace-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-with-100-carbon-free-resources https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pge-to-replace-... However, I see this false claim repeated again and again, and some weird nuclear lobbying group has performed SEO to have their misinformation be high up on the search results: https://www.ans.org/news/article-3835/four-clues-that-diablo-canyon-will-be-replaced-by-wyoming-coal/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-3835/four-clues-that-diablo... I spend most of my hobby time researching energy, and find that nuclear proponents are often the lowest information contributors on forums, repeating dates talking points, and in the rare cases that they have data, it's far out of date. I really wonder where these whisper campaigns come from, because its really clear when a new bit of talking points has been released through the propaganda networks.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Seems like it would still be better to switch off a gas plant and replace that with geothermal, etc. IF the nuclear staton is still in good working order of course.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    First, they are also adding far more generation to get rid of gas, that's part of the IRP process that's happening right now, and the law SB 100 mandated a fast changeover. The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant does not meet old laws on the use of once-through-cooling, laws that grandfathered in existing licenses, but required new operating licenses to meet the environmental rules. 15 years ago, the utility started evaluating the cost of fixing the cooling situation, and found that it was not economical. Which led to the 2015 decision to not extend the license, and replace DC with renewables, geothermal, storage, and hydro. Even if it were cheaper to retrofit the cooling, there's a strong technological argument to instead invest in new technologies. Every bill on dollars invested in these new technologies makes them cheaper and drives down prices for future installs. However spending billions on cooling does nothing to improve future construction efficiency. Nuclear power is less a technology than it is a construction project. We do not gain efficiency in construction when we build more nuclear infrastructure.
tootie 4y ago
The solution has to be both. LA city government can't replace the grid or set national energy policy. National policy is held hostage by climate deniers who refuse to lift a finger on anything that would have any actual scale. Saying we can't act locally because there's not enough action globally is nonsequitar. We have to do both. People using gas stoves and overwatering lawns has to stop regardless of anything else. We can't just wait for everyone else to go first.
- epistasis 4y ago
  LA actually has their own eléctrica utility, and could set their own generation choices. Unfortunately the politics are completely attached to dirty energy transmitted from other states, due to jobs and weird Union personalities.
trgn 4y ago
Upvoted since I agree with the sentiment, although at some point, real changes do start in our own lives. Less driving, smaller homes, abandoning those trashy free plastic bags in stores (wtf - I'm so sick of seeing plastic bag litter stuck in shrubs, why do we even have them!). Problem is, most people are incredibly defensive about making any sort of change, even if it means being better stewards of our neighborhood. Anyway, this stove one is sad, it really removes one of those tiny luxuries. Like no more quick roasting of some greasy naan bread on the stove. That's a real loss.
sakopov 4y ago
I was driving home the other day and heard on the radio that the LA city government implemented a ban on plastic utensils at city events. This is what happens when you cannot perform at your job and you just do anything which can be persuaded with little effort to show that you're not just fucking around all day at work. Watching local government operate is a sight to behold. I don't even know on what merits these people get elected. They are absolutely incapacitated and inadequate.
kodah 4y ago
I'm going to be a bit pedantic because I do think it's important that folks get a full understanding of what the water situation in California is that doesn't sound cherry-picked or narrative driven. https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ 80% of human consumption is by agriculture and most of that agriculture is not satiating the needs of Californians. It's also important to note that farms are doing significant work on this: > Higher-revenue perennial crops—nuts, grapes, and other fruit—have increased as a share of irrigated acreage (from 16% in 1980 to 33% in 2015 statewide, and from 21% to 45% in the southern Central Valley). This shift, plus rising crop yields, has increased the economic return on water used for agriculture. Farm production generated 38% more gross state product in 2015 than in 1980, even though farm water use was about 14% lower. The rest of the economy is outpacing these efficiencies though, so it pales agricultures value to the GDP year over year. Urban water usage is also falling: > The San Francisco Bay and South Coast regions account for most urban water use in California. Both rely heavily on water imported from other parts of the state. Total urban water use has been falling even as the population grows. Even before the latest drought, per capita water use had declined significantly—from 231 gallons per day in 1990 to 180 gallons per day in 2010—reflecting substantial efforts to reduce water use through pricing incentives and mandatory installation of water-saving technologies like low-flow toilets and shower heads. In 2015, per capita use fell to 146 gallons per day in response to drought-related conservation requirements. Much of the recent savings came from reducing landscape watering, which makes up roughly half of all urban water use. Per capita use has since rebounded slightly, but a new state law will require further long-term reductions. Big takeaway here, large urban centers are not in our best interest. Environment use is split into four categories: - Water in rivers protected as “wild and scenic” under federal and state laws - Water required for maintaining habitat within streams - Water that supports wetlands within wildlife preserves - Water needed to maintain water quality for agricultural and urban use > Half of California’s environmental water use occurs in rivers along the state’s north coast. These waters are largely isolated from major agricultural and urban areas, and their wild and scenic status protects them from significant future development. In dry years, the share of water that goes to the environment decreases dramatically as flows diminish in rivers and streams. At the height of the 2012‒16 drought, the state also reduced water allocations for the environment to reserve some supplies for farms and cities. I think environment needs to be split out into its own categories, one is very farm adjacent, two have to do with maintaining habitats that (our own) interactions have devastated or made dependent on artificial means, and the last is basically "untapped" water. Fixing water in California isn't going to be as simple as sweeping changes in agriculture, though that is needed as well. It also means dismantling dense urban centers and making them more sustainable and establishing criteria for when we support a habitat artificially and for how long.

tlogan 4y ago

Sad but true. This is all about politicians are trying to be “woke/progressive” without actually trying to solve the problem. Would keeping Diablo nuclear plant and focusing on replacing other plants with clean energy help global warning? Yes! But that is hard.

D13Fd 4y ago

throwaway27727 4y ago
If you really want to optimize for the long term, obtaining goodwill by not making the forced habit changes first would be better.
- D13Fd 4y ago
  That doesn’t obtain goodwill, it just delays the inevitable while we continue putting these gases into the atmosphere.
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    Populations of insects have collapsed, fish stocks have collapsed, biosphere is polluted by millions of tons of forever chemicals dumped into the Pacific ever year. Chemicals that keep accumulating in every life form. Earlier puberty in girls by several years, lower testosterone in men by more than 50% in two generation. Intersex fish. Some species are even reproducing asexually which for some was thought impossible. This is NOW. TODAY. CO2 has become such a convenient misdirection device that the industry uses to keep your attention away from rather current things that can very well implode life as we know it well before any "climate problems" actually become disruptive as these all other pollutants are today. Why else do you think Exxon is rated 100% ESG compliant? Yes! They bought some credits or whatever, but still dump a few million tons of actual pollutants that destroy life TODAY. Just keep everyone spinning on the carbon hamster wheels. It's the green way.
    - DFHippie 4y ago
      Two things can be bad at the same time. The people trying to do something about CO2 are the same people trying to do something about PFAS. And not doing something about CO2 doesn't cause something to be done about PFAS.
    - vegetablepotpie 4y ago
      You’re right about the acute pollution from the fossil fuel industry. The affects are not distributed evenly. We need to solve that. Climate change is already affecting us, we’ve lost a lot of agricultural productivity because of it, and it’s going to get worse faster than it has in the past. Both these issues have their roots in fossil fuel extraction. If we can eliminate the extraction, we solve both issues.
      - kodah 4y ago
        In California (which this article and thread are about) agriculture is actually up in terms of productivity and down in terms of water utilization. The problem is the solvency of Ag's GDP value on the state register, which went from 5% to 2%, is not up. I'm not sure agriculture is really affected as much by fossil fuels as it is by economic pressure and water cost/benefit ratios given the economic pressure.
      - forum_ghost 4y ago
        Fossil fuel again is a misdirection. Neonics, BPA, DDT and all sorts of other fun stuff would exist without fossil fuels. Semiconductor manufacturing gaves is few superfund sites in the US. Nothing to do with fossil fuels either. The big problem is total lack of liability. You can dump millions of actual toxins and poison literally billions and no jail time for anyone involved, not even a token patsy.
- tootie 4y ago
  People can stop burning fossil fuels any time they want and yet they don't. 72M voted for a climate denier in 2020. We absolutely have to start telling everybody what to do.
macspoofing 4y ago
> I don’t care how small or large it is. Good for you. I care and maybe you should too, because there is a credibility cost to this kind of action. This ban is obviously purely performative, and though you may see value in performative actions like this, others are turned off by them which leads to distrust of institutions and non-compliance.
- rhacker 4y ago
  Especially when you feel like the makers of the rule changes did not first ask you. That's the biggest issue.

taylodl 4y ago

Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants. That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life. Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible. Without getting into it, in essence the U.S. has lost the ability to construct nuclear power stations. People cite the regulatory nightmare, but that's not the real issue - that's an excuse. The real issue is much more complicated. Note: I work for a U.S. utility that tried to build a nuclear power station due to go online in 2009. We had to abandon the effort and turned the plant into a Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant. It was brought online shortly after President Obama made the statement there will be no more coal plants opened in this country. I still get a chuckle out of that (we've since shuttered several of our coal units and have reduced our CO2 output by 50%). I know of at least two other U.S. utilities that ended up building IGCC plants for the same reasons. All of us already had nuclear generators in our fleet, so we all know how to work with the NRC. Given all the problems we've experienced trying to build new nuclear generation stations I seriously doubt we'll see any new nuclear generation stations built for some time. The last nuclear generation station brought online was in 2016 and took 43 years to build! It also cost billions of dollars. Nobody has the appetite for that kind of endeavor.

tablespoon 4y ago
> That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life. I doubt that is true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#2021_Stanford_&_MIT_assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#2021... talks about a report that states "that keeping Diablo operating until 2045 would save the state a cumulative $21 billion," and I doubt they'd make a projection like that if the plant would be worn out in 2025. It's probably not end of life, it probably just needs maintenance and recertification. This nuclear plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generatin...) has some reactors that were built earlier, and are apparently now licensed to operate for a total of 80 years. > Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible. Without getting into it, in essence the U.S. has lost the ability to construct nuclear power stations. People cite the regulatory nightmare, but that's not the real issue - that's an excuse. The real issue is much more complicated. You make this claim, but you don't really support it. Why is this a "lack of ability" rather than a lack of political will?

zionic 4y ago

gas stoves vent toxic fumes into the house, run the risk of blowing your house up, and are inferior to induction stoves in almost every way. Any time this comes up I love to singe the praises of induction!

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
Induction stoves are seriously inferior to gas, in every way. They are slower to heat. They are more expensive to operate. They are more fragile. They rely on complex electronics vs. simple mechanics. They require specific cookware made out of only certain materials. They require direct contact with the "burner" to work. In what possible way are they superior?
- cecilpl2 4y ago
  They are faster to heat than gas since they can deliver all energy directly to the pan, whereas gas wastes ~75% of the energy heating the surrounding air. They boil water much faster than even an electric kettle for this reason. Pot handles don't get hot from the hot air going up the side. They are much easier to clean. Spills don't get burnt onto the cooktop. There's no risk of fire or burning oneself. No risk of a gas leak from bumping a knob. No harmful pollutants emitted by combusting fossil fuels in an interior space.
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    That's not even mentioning that you can simply by steel discs the size of the burner and use whatever kind of cooking vessel you like.
  - briandear 4y ago
    And when there is a power failure, what then? I live in hurricane country and being without power is a real concern. I happen to have a backup generator which runs on natural gas. But electrical outages are a real thing.
    - 4y ago

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

Yep... BP can cause a huge maritime catastrophe (deepwater horizon spill), but let's blame Johnny Average here for drinking soda by using a straw. The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

gruez 4y ago
>The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?
- TurkTurkleton 4y ago
  You think that "the dirty industry" will voluntarily work to reduce negative externalities if they aren't regulatorily required to do so and if doing so is less profitable than mounting a PR campaign to draw attention away from them would be?
- kelnos 4y ago
  They do it because it's more economical in the short term to do it, and our economic system values short term metrics more than long term. On top of that, our governments are full of cowards who won't create policies that make it more expensive to destroy the planet than to save it.
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  "you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?" Yes, for fun and profit.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    Profit from whom? All these industries ultimately sell the resulting end products to people. This idea that Exxon Mobile is solely to blame for gasoline emissions or that a factory owner is the only one responsible for the emissions from their factory, rather than the person who purchases and uses those products is quite frankly absurd.

UnpossibleJim 4y ago

I hate to be that guy (I honestly do) but should we even mention the carbon footprint of America being in a near constant state of war/"police action" somewhere in the world since ~1967 (the argument could be made for earlier, but there was a break there, I guess). Carbon study from 2017: https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tran.12319 https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tran.123...

Ekaros 4y ago
War could be effective in reducing carbon production, but sadly not enough combatants die on the continental soil, a few million dead combatants there each year would do wonders for cutting down emissions.
- mlindner 4y ago
  People like you are really sick. Mass murder is not a solution to anything.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Now if only world population would agree and did something with those who engage in it...

epistasis 4y ago

> switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants. This is not true, it will be replaced with zero carbon generation, including geothermal. For intermittent zero carbon generation, there needs to be matched storage, which will consist both of "regular" lithium storage, and some newer less tested tech for longer duration storage. This is mandated specifically by law, so if it doesn't happen then somebody is violating the law. It was senate bill 1090, passed in 2018: https://www.powermag.com/press-releases/california-gov-brown-signs-historic-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-bill/ https://www.powermag.com/press-releases/california-gov-brown... And two years before the law mandating it, the zero carbon replacement was part of the original closure announcement: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pge-to-replace-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-with-100-carbon-free-resources https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pge-to-replace-... However, I see this false claim repeated again and again, and some weird nuclear lobbying group has performed SEO to have their misinformation be high up on the search results: https://www.ans.org/news/article-3835/four-clues-that-diablo-canyon-will-be-replaced-by-wyoming-coal/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-3835/four-clues-that-diablo... I spend most of my hobby time researching energy, and find that nuclear proponents are often the lowest information contributors on forums, repeating dates talking points, and in the rare cases that they have data, it's far out of date. I really wonder where these whisper campaigns come from, because its really clear when a new bit of talking points has been released through the propaganda networks.

nicoburns 4y ago
Seems like it would still be better to switch off a gas plant and replace that with geothermal, etc. IF the nuclear staton is still in good working order of course.
- epistasis 4y ago
  First, they are also adding far more generation to get rid of gas, that's part of the IRP process that's happening right now, and the law SB 100 mandated a fast changeover. The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant does not meet old laws on the use of once-through-cooling, laws that grandfathered in existing licenses, but required new operating licenses to meet the environmental rules. 15 years ago, the utility started evaluating the cost of fixing the cooling situation, and found that it was not economical. Which led to the 2015 decision to not extend the license, and replace DC with renewables, geothermal, storage, and hydro. Even if it were cheaper to retrofit the cooling, there's a strong technological argument to instead invest in new technologies. Every bill on dollars invested in these new technologies makes them cheaper and drives down prices for future installs. However spending billions on cooling does nothing to improve future construction efficiency. Nuclear power is less a technology than it is a construction project. We do not gain efficiency in construction when we build more nuclear infrastructure.

tootie 4y ago

The solution has to be both. LA city government can't replace the grid or set national energy policy. National policy is held hostage by climate deniers who refuse to lift a finger on anything that would have any actual scale. Saying we can't act locally because there's not enough action globally is nonsequitar. We have to do both. People using gas stoves and overwatering lawns has to stop regardless of anything else. We can't just wait for everyone else to go first.

epistasis 4y ago
LA actually has their own eléctrica utility, and could set their own generation choices. Unfortunately the politics are completely attached to dirty energy transmitted from other states, due to jobs and weird Union personalities.

trgn 4y ago

Upvoted since I agree with the sentiment, although at some point, real changes do start in our own lives. Less driving, smaller homes, abandoning those trashy free plastic bags in stores (wtf - I'm so sick of seeing plastic bag litter stuck in shrubs, why do we even have them!). Problem is, most people are incredibly defensive about making any sort of change, even if it means being better stewards of our neighborhood. Anyway, this stove one is sad, it really removes one of those tiny luxuries. Like no more quick roasting of some greasy naan bread on the stove. That's a real loss.

sakopov 4y ago

I was driving home the other day and heard on the radio that the LA city government implemented a ban on plastic utensils at city events. This is what happens when you cannot perform at your job and you just do anything which can be persuaded with little effort to show that you're not just fucking around all day at work. Watching local government operate is a sight to behold. I don't even know on what merits these people get elected. They are absolutely incapacitated and inadequate.

kodah 4y ago

I'm going to be a bit pedantic because I do think it's important that folks get a full understanding of what the water situation in California is that doesn't sound cherry-picked or narrative driven. https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ 80% of human consumption is by agriculture and most of that agriculture is not satiating the needs of Californians. It's also important to note that farms are doing significant work on this: > Higher-revenue perennial crops—nuts, grapes, and other fruit—have increased as a share of irrigated acreage (from 16% in 1980 to 33% in 2015 statewide, and from 21% to 45% in the southern Central Valley). This shift, plus rising crop yields, has increased the economic return on water used for agriculture. Farm production generated 38% more gross state product in 2015 than in 1980, even though farm water use was about 14% lower. The rest of the economy is outpacing these efficiencies though, so it pales agricultures value to the GDP year over year. Urban water usage is also falling: > The San Francisco Bay and South Coast regions account for most urban water use in California. Both rely heavily on water imported from other parts of the state. Total urban water use has been falling even as the population grows. Even before the latest drought, per capita water use had declined significantly—from 231 gallons per day in 1990 to 180 gallons per day in 2010—reflecting substantial efforts to reduce water use through pricing incentives and mandatory installation of water-saving technologies like low-flow toilets and shower heads. In 2015, per capita use fell to 146 gallons per day in response to drought-related conservation requirements. Much of the recent savings came from reducing landscape watering, which makes up roughly half of all urban water use. Per capita use has since rebounded slightly, but a new state law will require further long-term reductions. Big takeaway here, large urban centers are not in our best interest. Environment use is split into four categories: - Water in rivers protected as “wild and scenic” under federal and state laws - Water required for maintaining habitat within streams - Water that supports wetlands within wildlife preserves - Water needed to maintain water quality for agricultural and urban use > Half of California’s environmental water use occurs in rivers along the state’s north coast. These waters are largely isolated from major agricultural and urban areas, and their wild and scenic status protects them from significant future development. In dry years, the share of water that goes to the environment decreases dramatically as flows diminish in rivers and streams. At the height of the 2012‒16 drought, the state also reduced water allocations for the environment to reserve some supplies for farms and cities. I think environment needs to be split out into its own categories, one is very farm adjacent, two have to do with maintaining habitats that (our own) interactions have devastated or made dependent on artificial means, and the last is basically "untapped" water. Fixing water in California isn't going to be as simple as sweeping changes in agriculture, though that is needed as well. It also means dismantling dense urban centers and making them more sustainable and establishing criteria for when we support a habitat artificially and for how long.