3 ms·

Who is throwing out non-green power? My electricity in the US comes from majority gas and coal as it ever has. To make a significant change over 20-50 years re

Who is throwing out non-green power? My electricity in the US comes from majority gas and coal as it ever has. To make a significant change over 20-50 years requires big investments now. Making those investments does not mean we are throwing away everything else immediately.

aj7 4y ago
In Tucson, with 350 days of Sun, until fairly recently, electricity was generated from COAL. Now natural gas.
Alupis 4y ago
I don't know what state you're in, but California is really struggling with this at the moment. You can get green energy as-is (from your utility), but it's at a premium. Which means most don't opt-in for it. This is going on while the state already struggles to keep itself energized year round. The current state of green energy will only exasperate California's problems, since storage tech still has a lot of catching up to do.
- stetrain 4y ago
  Is the root cause of California's energy issue because they are shutting down non-green energy production?
  - Alupis 4y ago
    One could make a pretty darn strong case the root of California's energy issue is because they've refused to build anything except "green" energy production facilities, despite current-day needs. No new hydro-electric dams in my lifetime. No new nuclear reactors (that I'm aware of at least) in my lifetime. Just either status-quo, or gobbles of unproven renewable tech that has yet to actually live up to expectations (affordable, always available renewable-power). People like to throw around big numbers showing CA's increased production over the years... but they don't throw around storage capacity which is really what matters for renewables. There is no storage capacity to speak of...
    - stetrain 4y ago
      I would consider both hydro-electric and nuclear to be beneficial power sources if both local air quality and global climate effects are the primary factors. I hear you that some "green" initiatives are poorly targeted but I don't think that means we should hit the brakes on regulating the things that are known climate issues (ie excess methane releases) or investment in improving our grid emissions.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      So california brought online 30GW of gas since 2000, and it's the 5GW net of renewables that's the problem? Sounds like the issue is the fossil fuel lobby. Weird that delaying new renewables by a decade to build new nuclear or hydro aligns exactly with their interests.

aj7 4y ago

In Tucson, with 350 days of Sun, until fairly recently, electricity was generated from COAL. Now natural gas.

Alupis 4y ago

I don't know what state you're in, but California is really struggling with this at the moment. You can get green energy as-is (from your utility), but it's at a premium. Which means most don't opt-in for it. This is going on while the state already struggles to keep itself energized year round. The current state of green energy will only exasperate California's problems, since storage tech still has a lot of catching up to do.

stetrain 4y ago
Is the root cause of California's energy issue because they are shutting down non-green energy production?
- Alupis 4y ago
  One could make a pretty darn strong case the root of California's energy issue is because they've refused to build anything except "green" energy production facilities, despite current-day needs. No new hydro-electric dams in my lifetime. No new nuclear reactors (that I'm aware of at least) in my lifetime. Just either status-quo, or gobbles of unproven renewable tech that has yet to actually live up to expectations (affordable, always available renewable-power). People like to throw around big numbers showing CA's increased production over the years... but they don't throw around storage capacity which is really what matters for renewables. There is no storage capacity to speak of...
  - stetrain 4y ago
    I would consider both hydro-electric and nuclear to be beneficial power sources if both local air quality and global climate effects are the primary factors. I hear you that some "green" initiatives are poorly targeted but I don't think that means we should hit the brakes on regulating the things that are known climate issues (ie excess methane releases) or investment in improving our grid emissions.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    So california brought online 30GW of gas since 2000, and it's the 5GW net of renewables that's the problem? Sounds like the issue is the fossil fuel lobby. Weird that delaying new renewables by a decade to build new nuclear or hydro aligns exactly with their interests.