SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
New York to Approve One of the World's Most Ambitious Climate Plans
New York lawmakers have agreed to pass a sweeping climate plan that calls for the state to all but eliminate its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, envisioning an era when gas-guzzling cars, oil-burning heaters and furnaces would be phased out, and all of the state's electricity would come from carbon-free sources.
Under an agreement reached this week between legislative leaders and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act would require the state to slash its planet-warming pollution 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and offset the remaining 15 percent, possibly through measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
If the state manages to hit those targets, it would effectively create a so-called net-zero economy, the ultimate goal of environmentalists and others seeking to slow the pace of global warming.
[...] The challenges of reaching such goals are daunting. New York has so far only managed to reduce its emissions 8 percent between 1990 and 2015, according to the most recent state inventory.
"New Yorkers are going to pay a lot for their electricity because of this bill," said Gavin Donohue, the president of the Independent Power Producers of New York, whose members produce about three-quarters of the state's electricity. "There's no doubt about that."
There are also numerous questions about whether the energy, real estate and business communities can adapt by 2050, and how much it would cost to do so. Business groups in the state had derided the bill as impractical and potentially disastrous for companies forced to move to green energy sources.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday June 23 2019, @04:43PM (3 children)
I *WILL* be costly. Replacing infrastructure is always costly. But the increased costs may well not be ongoing. (Note: I'm talking costs, not prices. When prices go up, they rarely come back down.)
OTOH, if one of the several companies promising fusion power within 5 years is successful, even the prices could drop. I think New York is far enough North that solar will probably prove impractical, even with a huge storage system. I don't know their status WRT wind power, but I wouldn't estimate (working in ignorance) that they would find that practical either. So their choices seem to be either nuclear or importing their power. In that case they need to invest in plants that can use the spent fuel rods from other reactors as fuel. (I believe that there are a couple of choices. I think molten salt is the one most highly developed.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23 2019, @06:15PM
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Workers make most of their money from wages so capitalists pay them in wages. Repeal the Corn Laws.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 23 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)
Germany is also far enough north and gets 6.2 - 6.9 [wikipedia.org] of its entire power (about 20% of its renewable power,) from PV-es without storage.
While not a major percentage, I wouldn't call it trivial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 24 2019, @04:47AM
The problem is efficiency. Closer to the equator (other things being equal) solar will be more efficient. That's why in California (a long thin state with a North-South axis) PG&E has been building solar plants in the Mohave desert, not near Sacramento. The Mohave is a LOT further South. (Well, the land is cheaper too, but I expect maintenance is higher.)
So, yes, you can use solar power far into the North. But half the year it's going to be quite inefficient. And even at its best it's going to suffer less insolation.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.