Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday June 23 2019, @11:29AM   Printer-friendly
from the green-apple dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 23 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 23 2019, @11:37PM (#859186) Journal

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 24 2019, @04:47AM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @04:47AM (#859254) Journal

    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.