Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

40% of US electricity is now emissions-free

⁨930⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨boem@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/40-of-us-electricity-is-now-emissions-free/

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It is cheaper to operate and that has been it’s selling point for the last years.

    source
    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      In case you’re ever wondering, this is an example of your tax dollars at work. Thirty years ago solar and wind generation had to be heavily subsidized with government grants to make them viable in the energy market. Now the technology of both has advanced to the point that it’s undercutting all of the other forms of electricity generation, without subsidization.

      Government subsidies work. They’re effective for getting new technologies off the ground.

      source
      • Pretzilla@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Good thing we still subsidize petroleum

        Good for the oil companies and legislators they own, anyway

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        They are great. As long as they don’t end up like corn.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • DanglingFury@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Everything I find shows them as still being subsidized and receiving the lions share of energy subsidies, which is fine in my book.

        …wikipedia.org/…/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_S….

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • joyjoy@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So now the coal and oil power plants require government subsidies.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It is now. But only after we invested in it.

      This is a great example of investing in tech even when it’s not practical in the present day. It can pay off later down the line.

      source
      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Well that and the US fracked a shit ton of natural gas which became the goto fuel to burn.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • SeaJ@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      A good chunk of that is nuclear which is not cheaper to operate.

      source
  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s worth pointing out that the renewables break down as such (% of all electricity):

    • Solar: 6%
    • Hydro: 6%
    • Wind: 10%
    • Nuclear: 18%

    Nuclear energy is providing more than any other individual source, making up 45% of all renewable electricity.

    Next time you hear someone “concerned about global warming” also fearmonger about nuclear energy, it’s worth considering where their allegiances lie. Most people are misguided, but when it comes to politicians, it says a lot about how much they actually care about sustainability.

    source
    • Thrashy@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There have been studies (this one, for example that suggest the total radioactivity-related health impacts from coal power exceed that of nuclear power by an order of magnitude. That’s not all pollution-related deaths for coal – just those associated with radon exposure inside of mines, and radioactive materials embedded in coal going out into the environment. For all the fear-mongering about nuclear, it’s hard to find a less dangerous source of base load generation using present-day technologies. Maybe once grid-scale batteries are available at scale, they could replace nuke plants, but that’s a solution ten years too late for an environmental problem we have to fix right now.

      source
      • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        radioactive materials embedded in coal going out into the environment

        They should put it beyond the environment.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • siririus@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Nuclear has been at that supply level since the 1970s. Other parts of the world have much higher renewable mixes in their energy inputs. For example, Germany:

      reuters.com/…/germany-likely-pass-50-mark-renewab…

      Nuclear is not necessary to meet climate change targets. In fact, it’s so damned expensive to deploy and maintain, it will harm meeting those targets.

      source
      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        www.destatis.de/EN/Press/…/PE23_090_43312.html

        And because they shut down their nuclear plants, they had to start burning coal again, which is about as bad an energy source you can get when it comes to emissions and pollution. Their coal use % went up from 2021 to 2022. They may have a higher renewable mix, but they’ve also increased their emissions. Not to mention, they also significantly reduced their energy imports from France – the majority of which is generated by nuclear energy. They are replacing clean energy with coal.

        France is actually a significant counterpoint as well. They’ve got 65%+ nuclear energy, and renewables just add to the percent of clean energy sources. Considering they’re doing much better than Germany in terms of not using fossil fuels, I believe they are an example to follow over Germany – which means nuclear is critical to meet our climate goals.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      i wonder where the world we be today if we didnt stop funding nuclear, if gen 4 designs actually had proper money pushing them forward.

      source
      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        We’d be better suited to reduce emissions, that’s for sure.

        source
    • Ibex0@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Dying forget geothermal. California has a little of that

      source
      • misophist@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Geothermal - 0.4%

        Geothermal is not quite to the point where we can represent it with a whole number percentage value, but it’s getting there! If we’re going to include sub-1% generators, burning wood has geothermal beat out at 0.8%. Geothermal is cool, though!

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Image Hmmm… This pie needs more nuclear.

    source
    • GooseFinger@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Why? Nuclear power is the most complex and expensive option of any clean energy source from what I know.

      source
      • FireTower@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Nuclear power is good for its consistent output that’s independent of outside factors like wind, clouds, or drought. Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn’t particularly expensive.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Eximius@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        And yet, after many decades of solar, wind construction. It is the energy source in that pie chart that is sizeable (just as much as all wind and solar) and extremely stable (probably for the last 50 years), without any major construction in the past 30 years minimum.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That’s a good thing. It means lots of hours of well paying engineering and construction work.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        modern gen 4 plants are MUCH simpler, foregoing PWR loop entirely in favor of liquid metal/salt type reactors, with various different design choices that are all much simpler, and cheaper to build/maintain.

        If we see actual development in that field it’s not hard to imagine them playing with the fossil fuels, possibly renewables as well given the base load productivity, and relative lack of waste.

        source
    • clayj9@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      ‘Natural’ gas is just gas. It’s not a clean emission free fuel. It’s better than coal but by no means a clean fuel.

      source
      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It has about half the carbon emissions of coal. Much much better, but no where close to clean.

        source
      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Better than coal is its main selling point.

        And converting coal power plants to natural gas can be a partial interim solution on the way towards larger amounts of non-polluting generation.

        source
    • frezik@midwest.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I, too, want the one that will take longer and cost more than alternatives.

      source
      • pizzazz@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I don’t think you understand what the alternatives are

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Also needs less coal.

      And after that less natural gas, but getting rid of coal should be the higher priority as it is the greater polluting fuel.

      source
      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I wonder if the chart includes the coal typically needed to make steel.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1

      interestingengineering.com/…/china-has-revealed-t…

      source
      • wikibot@lemmy.world [bot] ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

        China is one of the world’s largest producers of nuclear power. The country ranks third in the world both in total nuclear power capacity installed and electricity generated, accounting for around one tenth of global nuclear power generated. As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW. About 5% of electricity in the country is due to nuclear energy. These plants generated 417 TWh of electricity in 2022 This is versus the September 2022 numbers of 53 nuclear reactors, with a total capacity of 55.6 gigawatt (GW). In 2019, nuclear power had contributed 4.9% of the total Chinese electricity production, with 348.1 TWh.Nuclear power has been looked into as an alternative to coal due to increasing concerns about air quality, climate change and fossil fuel shortages. The China General Nuclear Power Group has articulated the goal of 200 GW by 2035, produced by 150 additional reactors.China has two major nuclear power companies, the China National Nuclear Corporation operating mainly in north-east China, and the China General Nuclear Power Group (formerly known as China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group) operating mainly in south-east China.China aims to maximize self-reliance on nuclear reactor technology manufacturing and design, although international cooperation and technology transfer are also encouraged. Advanced pressurized water reactors such as the Hualong One are the mainstream technology in the near future, and the Hualong One is also planned to be exported. China plans to build as many as thirty nuclear power reactors in countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative by 2030. By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main technology, with a planned 1400 GW capacity by 2100. China is also involved in the development of nuclear fusion reactors through its participation in the ITER project, having constructed an experimental nuclear fusion reactor known as EAST located in Hefei, as well as research and development into the thorium fuel cycle as a potential alternative means of nuclear fission.

        ^article^ ^|^ ^about^

        source
  • jabjoe@feddit.uk ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This is economics now, not politics. US can go full crazy Trump, but the grid will just keep getting greener as greener is cheapest. He can rant and rave about global warming being a conspiracy or anything else, but it’s unstoppable now.

    source
    • Katana314@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The infuriating thing to me is, renewable energy is often extremely independent. It means no reliance on foreign oil. That SHOULD be the most American thing, especially for those in the GOP who claim to be anti-government.

      Goes to remind you their main product is hypocrisy.

      source
    • Darkhoof@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No, the grid won’t get greener if Trump is elected because he WILL go full dictator. And he will revert everything that is being done currently.

      source
      • jabjoe@feddit.uk ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        He’ll struggle to make states to buy more expensive energy. If he managed, he’d put the state at a global disadvantage. Even then, he’d have to outlaw solar to stop people installing it at home.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • random65837@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      but the grid will just keep getting greener as greener is cheapest.

      Really? As somebody that works in the power space, how exactly do you figure that? Nuke aside, which people constantly complain about, the NRC doesn’t like to renew licenses, doesn’t want to grant new ones, that leaves wind and solar, both are money pits, waste more than they generate, and have a horrible environmental impact both from lost land, spent panels that can’t be recycled or thrown out as they’re toxic as hell, wind farms need never ending maintenance and again, cost more to run than they give back.

      Until modular nuke become the norm and coal plants are retro’d, standard nuke plants are the absolute best bet. There’s no consiracy to keep older coal plants alive, sorry, that’s political stupidity. Every power company on the planet would dump them if they could. They’re a nightmare to operate and keep going.

      source
      • jabjoe@feddit.uk ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Easier to recycle solar pannels and wind turbines than burnt coal or gas…

        Solar and wind are now the cheapest power. www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/ Both can be mixed with other land use. Both are still undergoing material use evolution.

        Fission is always going to be an issue because humans aren’t grown up enough to handle the waste. scientificamerican.com/…/nuclear-waste-is-piling-…

        Let alone running them safely. …wikipedia.org/…/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_… So I’m pretty uncomfortable with standardized nuclear modules (sub reactors) being distributed far and wide.

        Maybe fusion will be different, but it always seams decades away.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Zaderade@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Quick everyone, downvote to oblivion because this guy actually is educated in the subject

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Overshoot2648@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        What is toxic in solar panels? While I’d love it if they would actually recycle the silver, copper, and 99.99% pure silicon, most of the time it ends up the same place the fiberglass turbines do: ground into industrial sand for concrete. Also the aluminum is already recycled anyway. There are several recyclers for solar panels popping up as the scale of solar increases to better take advantage of the materials, but they are already fully recycled Also coal plants are shutting down and being edged out by natural gas anyway. I don’t know what sources you are using, but they are either out of date or wrong.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Still plenty that can be done to stop it. Preventing transmission lines, giving even bigger subsidies to fossil fuels, putting large tarrifs on imported solar panels and wind turbines. Just look at California the power monopoly is in with Gavin Newsom and they created rules that protect their profits above all else and now solar installs is at 20% what it was before.

      source
      • jabjoe@feddit.uk ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You mean 120% of what it was? 20% of what it was means way cheaper, and I’m sure you mean more expensive.

        Sure but it’s self defeating, making things more expensive. Putting that whole state/country at a disadvantage against those who use cheap clean power instead of fighting it.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No. No it’s not. EOTW in a decade tops. If it ain’t hell incarnate then it’ll be a virus, bio-, tech-, software, etc., maybe that comet, whatever. Unless you FOSS everything NOW…Goodbye…forever.

      source
      • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        This guy frets

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • UristMcHolland@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Can I get that in English?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The only thing that’s keeping carbon-free power from growing faster is natural gas, which is the fastest-growing source of generation at the moment, going from 40 percent of the year-to-date total in 2022 to 43.3 percent this year. (It’s actually slightly below that level in the October data.) The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity. But its use is going to need to start dropping soon if the US is to meet its climate goals, so it will be critical to see whether its growth flat lines over the next few years.

    Uh… So, listen. I work in the Nat Gas sector. And while I’m happy to confirm that its far cleaner, easier/safer to transport, and more efficient than coal and liquid oil, I’m going to have to pump the breaks on the enthusiasm. But we are definitely not “emissions-free”. One of the larger investments we’ve made, to date, has been in detecting gas leaks along our existing lines and plugging them. And we definitely still flare off excess and lose reserves during transit as circumstances dictate.

    Way back in the 1970s a small upstart energy company known as Exxon had one of its engineering departments estimate the ecological impact of drilling into the East Natuna gas field off the coast of Indonesia. This was primarily a natural gas reserve, accessible without the modern fracking and cracking techniques used throughout the Permian and Delphi Basins.

    Senior scientist of Exxon, James Black, authored a report estimating the impact of drilling and burning off the fuel in the East Natuna reserve, and concluded it would result in a significant increase in global temperatures. This lead Exxon to commission further studies, in the late 70s and early 80s, to estimate the full impact of their drilling and refining practices. The end result was a model of climate change that has mapped neatly to current climate trends

    I say this because while natural gas is relatively cleaner, it is by no means clean. And with the increasing rate of energy consumption occurring globally, our reliance on natural gas is decidedly not contributing to an emissions free future.

    source
    • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that natural gas is emissions-free.

      6% Solar + 6% Hydro + 10% Wind + 18% Nuclear = 40% “emissions-free”

      source
      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        They certainly exist. There was a Dutch guy in another post bragging about his micro-nation being 100% emissions free because he kept seeing his government bragging being “100% green energy,” while the supermajority of their electricity was generated with natural gas (being the only significant fossil fuels they had and it being relatively easy to source from neighbors)

        The point isn’t there was one guy who fell for it, the point is there will be people mistaking natural gas for actual green energy instead of just being less harmful, or being unaware of what’s actually producing their electricity simply because there is a deliberate effort to mislead people about it.

        source
    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The article doesn’t do a good job of explaining the 40%, you have to infer it. But when you do, it isn’t natural gas, but solar + wind + hydro + nuclear.

      This is actually fantastic news. 40% renewable, 40% natural gas, and 20% coal is a huge step in the right direction.

      source
      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The article doesn’t do a good job of explaining the 40%

        I thought the chart was pretty clear. Although I guess they could’ve color coded it.

        Image

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Thanks for continuing to prove why weevils are the best beetles.

      source
  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s a very cool article, I didn’t know the US was actually making the change so quickly.

    Weirdest part of the article is the included pie chart from the US Energy Information Agency showing the usage of different types of energy, but the entire pie is orange, like every slice of different energy is orange.

    They need one art guy, just one.

    source
    • themoken@startrek.website ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I didn’t mind the pie chart, the slices are labeled clearly, no need to use coloring like you have to read a legend.

      source
      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Kind of you

        source
  • ImmaculateTaste@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Wait really, no joke??

    source
    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

      source
      • NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • ieightpi@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s better than nothing. Hopefully we can speed this up in next couple of years.

    source
  • crsu@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Great except the military pollutes more than 140 countries and there are several wars ongoing. If you really want the climate to stop we need to reel in the international shipping industry, the fashion industry, and also the global war machine.

    source
    • weeeeum@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You also have to admit that the US covers for most of the worlds military. Most of nato and many Asian allies have very low defense spending, because the US will cover them. Most of the time when there is a global crisis or localized crisis the US is involved in one way or another.

      source
      • Ibex0@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        They should pay us for this service.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • SCB@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      we need to reel in the international shipping industry, the fashion industry, and also the global war machine

      Believe you mean “modernize” and not “reel in,” because ending international shipping would be catastrophic worldwide.

      source
  • NekoKamiGuru@ttrpg.network ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This makes electric cars less polluting with every passing day as this percentage increases.

    source
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Car manufacturing is, itself, a messy process. And we’d all be better off (for a whole host of reasons) if we could move to a public transit system and away from the messy, overly-complex, extraordinarily expensive highways-and-byways personal vehicle system.

      Electrified rail and Multi-family homes would dramatically reduce both energy consumption AND housing costs, if we were willing to invest in it at rates comparable to what we spend subsidizing new fossil fuel wells, road expansion/maintenance, and policing of the homeless.

      source
  • ALilOff@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s actually better than I thought.

    In my city they had everyone switch to renewable energy, they sent Mail out stating that your energy source will automatically change unless you opt out.

    source
    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      LOL how are they going to change the energy source that powers an individual house if they “opt out” ??

      Did they run separate power lines to every house that is on a switch between the power sources? It’s not like a network packet that you can route to a destination, it’s going to go down the lines the same way unless the circuit is broken.

      source
    • Whelks_chance@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Why do they need to ask? I ask as in the UK we all get our power from “the grid”, and don’t have much say over what the energy mix is there.

      source
    • Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Same AFAIK – Akron, OH.

      source
  • eya@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Finally some good news.

    source
    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There’s a lot if you look for it, recent developments in tidal are incredibly positive and we’re absolutely going to see a rapid uptake in marine electrification as existing technology progresses through the market. Most people never really think about the resources used and pollution caused by small boats but one of the big destructive forces at play is the infrastructure requirements - small boats need big boats to supply their fuel stations.

      Transitioning away from this system and instead using costal tidal generators to charge electric ferries and barges could be a total game changer in many areas, especially many of the highly trafficked and polluted tidal basins like in north Brazil, Nigeria, or island clusters like in the Philippines. Also the intercoastal waterways around the US and other leisure spots.

      We’re making great progress in many areas and I really think it’s important to acknowledge this and cheer it on least we get so caught in a false sense of doom that we just give up.

      source
    • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Its not good news at, all electricity prices have gone up a lot since this net-zero insanity took over. Morons are clapping their hands like trained seals at their bank accounts being drained by corporations and politicians.

      source
  • Eikov@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s very surprising, in a good way.

    source
  • autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    But some of the trends now seem locked in for the year: wind and solar are likely to be in a dead heat with coal, and all carbon-emissions-free sources combined will account for roughly 40 percent of US electricity production.

    Weather can also play a role, as unusually high demand for heating in the winter months could potentially require that older fossil fuel plants be brought online.

    This is in keeping with a general trend of flat-to-declining electricity use as greater efficiency is offsetting factors like population growth and expanding electrification.

    Its output has been boosted by a new, 1.1 Gigawatt reactor that come online this year (a second at the same site, Vogtle in Georgia, is set to start commercial production at any moment).

    But that’s likely to be the end of new nuclear capacity for this decade; the challenge will be keeping existing plants open despite their age and high costs.

    The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity.

    The original article contains 849 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    source
  • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’d be really curious to see the dollar per kilowatt hour on each one of these.

    source
  • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    60% of US electricity still isn’t emissions-free

    source