946
40% of US electricity is now emissions-free (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
229 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (13 children)

Not in my state, we're like 10-15% emission free wind and solar), and like 60-70% from coal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Believe it or not, your state was included in the national average

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    What I think is interesting is just how variable it is. This Wikipedia article breaks it down by state. There's no obvious political explanation here, and even very similar states have very different energy production.

    For example, here's the top 10 (with 2016/2020 presidential party vote):

    1. Vermont (D) - 99.7%
    2. South Dakota (R) - 82.7%
    3. Washington (D) - 81.9%
    4. New Hampshire (D) - 71.6%
    5. Idaho (R) - 70.2%
    6. Maine (D) - 66.1%
    7. Oregon (D) - 65%
    8. Illinois (D) - 64.5%
    9. South Carolina (R) - 60.8%
    10. Kansas (R) - 60.8%

    And the bottom 10 (ignoring DC):

    41 - Massachusetts (D) - 17.8%
    42 - Ohio (R) - 17.4%
    43 - Florida (R) - 17.4%
    44 - Missouri (R) - 16.6%
    45 - Utah (R) - 12.4%
    46 - Indiana (R) - 9.8%
    47 - Kentucky (R) - 7.6%
    48 - Rhode Island (D) - 7.2%
    49 - West Virginia (R) - 5.1%
    50 - Delaware (D) - 3.2%

    So 6/10 of the top 10 are states that voted Democrat, and 7/10 of the bottom 10 are states that voted Republican. That trend doesn't really tell the story though (3 of the next 5 voted Republican), which is really interesting because it's such a political talking point at the national level (e.g. Dems are in favor of green energy, Reps are in favor of fossil fuels).

    Even some very similar, adjacent states have very different generation numbers:

    • Alabama (43%) vs Mississippi (20%)
    • Idaho (70%) vs Utah (12%)
    • Tennessee (59%) vs Kentucky (8%)

    So there's a lot of progress that can be made at the low end by pointing at their neighbors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    The states themselves are different. The state I live in (washington) is about 70% hydroelectric for example, and that just wouldn't work in a lot of other places

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Sure, WA is an outlier because of its geography (more consistent rivers), but other states that are very similar to each other have huge differences. So it's not something that's easily explained by geography or local politics.

    I see two possibilities here:

    • US stagnates at some percent because the bottom states refuse to change
    • bottom states follow their neighbors' lead and renewable adoption accelerates
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    ultimately, it's going to be economic, if for example, nuclear becomes the cheapest form of energy, it's going to become really popular, spread rapidly, develop quickly, become cheaper, safer, and eventually any state with some amount of sense in it is going to switch over, regardless of political status.

    It just doesn't make sense to support coal when energy is cheaper and safer coming from another source.

    The only other way it would go is federal regulation or subsidies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    In my area, the lack of nuclear has been largely due to FUD. I'm in Utah, and every time nuclear has been suggested, the public has shot it down, despite having the perfect geography for it. The plant could be placed on the west side of the mountains where few people live, so even if there's a disaster, it's not going to impact the populated valley, and there's a ton of space in the desert to bury the waste. Also, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste, yet we have coal plants here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    yeah, for some reason the public is just incredibly apprehensive about anything that would be beneficial if it might even moderately inconvenience them. I will never not be amused by the time that germany shut down a brand new nuclear plant before it even went online. I've made a lot of bad decisions in my life, but burning millions, potentially even billions of dollars is not one of them. Not yet at least.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wow, that's ridiculous, especially given the recent energy issues due to the Russia-Ukraine war.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [B] 3 points 2 years ago

    Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

    This is a list of U.S. states by total electricity generation, percent of generation that is renewable, total renewable generation, percent of total domestic renewable generation, and carbon intensity in 2021.

    ^article^ ^|^ ^about^

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent