Darell
Flashaholic
Howdy -
It should surprise no-one that I was responsible for driving this thread right off a cliff, and molding it into my own plaything. It was sort of lost in the forum upgrade shuffle, so I restarted it here. This is somewhat of an off-shoot of my EV thread as well, but that one is getting a bit long in the tooth.
So, to catch up, Tomas wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
I was just wondering, Darell, as I would expect the power here, mostly hydroelectric, to be quite close to the top of the list on being "clean." (Sort of a "pounds-of-crap per megawatt-hour generated" measurement.)
I realize that CA does try harder (because they used to be the worst ) and is now the leader, but the statement " ... the cleanest mix of electricity of all 50 states" raised an eyebrow.
I know that the fossil fuel plants in CA are probably the cleanest of the dirty, but I wonder if the mix of power actually generated in California and delivered to the grid is really cleaner than the mix of power generated in, for example, Washington (the state, not the black hole) and delivered to the grid.
[/ QUOTE ]
I searched far and wide, and came up with exactly ZERO hard evidence for what I've been spouting. So I'll stop spouting it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
What I did find out is that CA has by far the cleanest of the dirty generating plants. The regulations that control our coal burning plants create a situation between CA and other states that is like the difference between driving an EV and a Hummer when it comes to air and water pollution. But that alone doesn't mean we have the cleanest power mix, of course. We may still have the cleanest mix, but I have no way to verify it (so again, I'll stop saying that we do). It has been proposed to me by others that if CA has eight times as many "dirty" plants than another state, but that the CA plants are 90% cleaner (a reasonable assumption that I'm not attempting to prove in any way here) then the CA mix could still come out ahead. The other thing we always need to consider is that these calculations will always have to be per capita to level the playing field. Not that dirtier plants spread more thinly makes them cleaner....
Per capital, I'm told that we import and consume less coal than any other state. And the coal that we DO burn, is burned more cleanly than in any other state.
So, the big exciting conclusion of this opening post in this new thread is:
Oops. I shouldn't be saying what I've been saying about CA having the cleanest "mix" overall.
It should surprise no-one that I was responsible for driving this thread right off a cliff, and molding it into my own plaything. It was sort of lost in the forum upgrade shuffle, so I restarted it here. This is somewhat of an off-shoot of my EV thread as well, but that one is getting a bit long in the tooth.
So, to catch up, Tomas wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
I was just wondering, Darell, as I would expect the power here, mostly hydroelectric, to be quite close to the top of the list on being "clean." (Sort of a "pounds-of-crap per megawatt-hour generated" measurement.)
I realize that CA does try harder (because they used to be the worst ) and is now the leader, but the statement " ... the cleanest mix of electricity of all 50 states" raised an eyebrow.
I know that the fossil fuel plants in CA are probably the cleanest of the dirty, but I wonder if the mix of power actually generated in California and delivered to the grid is really cleaner than the mix of power generated in, for example, Washington (the state, not the black hole) and delivered to the grid.
[/ QUOTE ]
I searched far and wide, and came up with exactly ZERO hard evidence for what I've been spouting. So I'll stop spouting it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
What I did find out is that CA has by far the cleanest of the dirty generating plants. The regulations that control our coal burning plants create a situation between CA and other states that is like the difference between driving an EV and a Hummer when it comes to air and water pollution. But that alone doesn't mean we have the cleanest power mix, of course. We may still have the cleanest mix, but I have no way to verify it (so again, I'll stop saying that we do). It has been proposed to me by others that if CA has eight times as many "dirty" plants than another state, but that the CA plants are 90% cleaner (a reasonable assumption that I'm not attempting to prove in any way here) then the CA mix could still come out ahead. The other thing we always need to consider is that these calculations will always have to be per capita to level the playing field. Not that dirtier plants spread more thinly makes them cleaner....
Per capital, I'm told that we import and consume less coal than any other state. And the coal that we DO burn, is burned more cleanly than in any other state.
So, the big exciting conclusion of this opening post in this new thread is:
Oops. I shouldn't be saying what I've been saying about CA having the cleanest "mix" overall.