142
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

I write this from a place where electricity is provided by a crown corporation (government ran corp - SaskPower) and also have a net-zero rooftop solar system, and small scale solar like this is quite inefficient compared to grid-scale stations. I very much agree that there is some sovereignty in producing one's own power, however, grid-scale generation is much more effective, both in cost and generation efficiency.

SaskPower has really had no recent incentives for rooftop solar and they only pay about half price for power returned to the grid, effectively discouraging widespread development of rooftop solar.

They have instead proposed an interesting alternative where a homeowner could purchase a portion of a larger scale facility and be credited for the electricity that portion generates. Crowd-funded electricity generation, essentially. This is, of course, much more attractive when the provider is essentially a company owned by the public, not a private, profit seeking entity. But, I think it could be a promising alternative to enable homeowners to offset their electricity bills while being a better option for the overall grid.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago

Larger scale is cheaper, but rooftop avoids the need for long-distance transmission [in short supply right now in California] and limits the need to convert farmland into solar

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

That's true. The system can be far more robust if its decentralized. Even living in a place with cheap electricity I still plan on getting panels in the future.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
142 points (98.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6923 readers
545 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS