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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
Utilities are publicly owned for a good reason. Your bill would otherwise shoot up sky high the very moment your provider became a monopoly, and utilities are natural monopolies.
Many of our collective bills would go down if we pushed for more public ownership of natural monopolies and let go of the failed conservative dogma that beneficial competition is what happens when there are no rules. Comcast is what happens when there are no rules and natural monopolies are allowed to be privatized.
I made a similar switch around January or so. I haven't really notice much of a change in the bill.
It wasn't a particularly high bill to begin with, and I haven't really compared the actual price per kwh.
So overall I'm still pleased even if it hasn't been noticeably cheaper. All my power is on renewable, and my bill hasn't gone up.
this is a pretty tangible demonstration that renewable power really is cheaper than fossil fuels.
I'm not sure that the complex tariff web in CA allows for this conclusion. There are tons of market inequities baked into the rate structures, and the convoluted RECS schemes that allow for "100% renewable" are far from transparent at the system level. This option is just a regulatory construct, not anything that represents the broader market. As long as the IOUs are still allowed to earn the same profits courtesy of the CPUC, this just changes who's left holding the bag, which is why equity is such a huge focus for them now. That being said, you're still right but the TX free-for-all model illustrates this most simply.
Yeah, I was afraid that they were meeting their 100% renewable claim through credits, I’m going to have to look into that. I do have solar, but not enough for 100% self-generation, even if I had a battery system.
Ultimately we must do the best with what's available to us, just like you're doing. Electrify everything, get the most efficient stuff you can, and vote and trust your regulators are decarbonizing the grid. I'm in CO and although I am on track to overproduce on an annual basis with my 8 kW system, I'm not even close to matching my usage daily and especially not seasonally (good luck in January when my heat pump is cranking and I have a foot of snow on the panels). I'm able to retire my own RECS for my production so at least Xcel doesn't get to use my solar to meet their targets, but I'm clearly very heavily dependent on their grid.
We're maybe a decade behind CA in solar adoption and although I'm aggressively compensated by our current rate structure, that will surely change when the duck grows a belly here and solar is worth jack shit at high noon. It's a fascinating industry.
I generally agree. However the fossil fuel alternatives have an equally labyrinthine network of subsidies. Half the national defense budget could arguably be allocated to that bucket.
Remember to try to avoid using power 4-9 pm if possible. Because it's peak hours, and the sun is setting, fossil fuels kick in to meet demand, even if you aren't directly hooked up to them. Later at night, wind/hydro power can supply enough because demand is lower.
Yeah, a bit long-winded of me, but California’s electric utility arrangement can be confusing for non-residents. I found the wholesale/retail analogy helpful to describe the relationship between electricity generators and the utilities. In that analogy, CCAs are like a separate buyer using the retail store space to put their own products on the shelf for us to buy.