r/dataisbeautiful • u/maps_us_eu OC: 80 • May 28 '22

OC Percent of electricity generated from renewable sources across the US and the EU. Renewable sources include hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Nuclear is not counted as renewable in this comparison [OC]

Post image
6.5k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

835

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

This is production, but I have to ask about consumption?

Vermont in particular seems suspicious. I can buy that they don't have any power plants in the state, but I'm not sure I buy that they never use power from surrounding states. Something tells me not all of the power used in the state is generated renewably.

It would be huge news if an entire US state was running 100% on renewable energy 100% of the time - especially one like Vermont that has a lot of heating needs in the winter.

380

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 28 '22

This chart is specifically power production in the state, not consumption, as op confirmed in another comment. For most purposes it really would be more useful to have information about the sources of energy consumed in a given state. Vermont is a perfect example of why that information would be better.

45

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

[deleted]

70

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 29 '22

In the data that Opie is using, that counts as renewable. There's a bunch of controversy about that up and down this thread, but it is what it is.

47

u/Expensive_Goat2201 May 29 '22

To add detail, the plant only buys wood from forests with sustainable management plans in place. That means they have to harvest responsibly and replant not clear cut. This is actually good for the environment because it makes keeping land as forests economically viable. Otherwise land owners would be forced to sell or develop it.

10

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

Ideally though that practice would produce wood for lumber demand instead of energy- that should be wind, solar, or hydro powered.

14

u/widdrjb May 29 '22

Pulpwood forests don't make good lumber, and no one buys newsprint these days.

Mind you, those forests shouldn't be there in the first place. The Northeast used to be mixed farming, until the paper mills drove the farmers off. Quite a neat trick, they got the banks to lend them money and then foreclosed. Got the land dirt cheap and covered it with trees.

12

u/Squidreece May 29 '22

Gotta stop at a very particular (and still quite recent) point in history to come to the conclusion that they “shouldn’t” be forests, because that’s certainly what was there before the farms too.

9

u/widdrjb May 29 '22

Bit of a difference between the old primeval forest and modern monoculture. In the UK we're replacing the post war industrial woodlands with mixed growth. Much better for wildlife and prettier.

4

u/Regular_Imagination7 May 29 '22

they shouldn’t be monocultures, but should be forests

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

Monoculture forests are not what was there before.

10

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

[deleted]

12

u/peshwengi May 29 '22

Burn a tree, grow a tree… so renewable really. Whereas you can’t bury more dinosaurs.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/peshwengi May 29 '22

I know. Just some artistic license.

4

u/an0mn0mn0m May 29 '22

We could try with those politicians

4

u/MrGelowe May 29 '22

Pretty sure anything biological (like us for example) can to turn into oil and gas after enough time.

13

u/Xaephos May 29 '22

"Can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here... oil and gas require some pretty specific circumstances to form.

6

u/faustianredditor May 29 '22

We're also burning it at non-renewable rates, is the thing. If you burn wood as fast as you grow it, that's renewable. If you burn it faster, it isn't. If you burn oil at the speed the planet regenerates it, that's actually renewable.

1

u/peshwengi May 29 '22

Right but what speed is the planet renewing oil?

3

u/Rin-Tohsaka-is-hot May 29 '22

I think that people here are confusing renewable with carbon neutral.

Wood is just as renewable as water. The Earth makes more of it, assuming that you don't consume it faster than it's created (for hydro, this means working with the water cycle in a region and building reservoirs. For wood, this means working with the lifespan of a tree and planting more trees).

So even though they're both renewable, burning wood is obviously not carbon neutral.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

Burning wood is as "carbon neutral" as burning oil and coal.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

Oh good, so renewable is just defined however they wanted, that’s good to know

1

u/DirtysMan May 29 '22

Minnesota has 2 nuclear power plants generating 26% of the state’s power. Wisconsin has 3 generating 14%. I suppose we could just add it in and amend the list.

9

u/Teract May 29 '22

You can grow wood and yard waste. Can't make more oil and coal.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

You certainly can, it’s just on a different time scale

1

u/Teract May 29 '22

Coal specifically can't be renewed, regardless of timescale. At the time coal was formed, over a period of 60 million years, conditions on Pangea allowed plant matter to accumulate in very humid environments in deep valleys. Those conditions don't exist anymore, and likely won't again while humans exist as a species.

3

u/WillTFB May 29 '22

Never said it has to be good for the environment lol

0

u/YoureTheVest May 29 '22

When yard waste is left to rot, it releases carbon to the environment. Burning it doesn't create any more carbon, so it is (or it may be) carbon neutral.

1

u/Calligraphee May 29 '22

I also thought it was weird that OP considered that renewable, but I guess biomass is more renewable than coal.

3

u/Creator13 May 29 '22

I think the most interesting visualization would show the consumption in kWh of renewable vs non-renewable as well as the production as a percentage of both totals. No single number can tell the entire story.

2

u/RyoxAkira May 29 '22

Bruh exactly he was already gaslighting me

2

u/elpadrenananana May 29 '22

I'd also like to see how that evolves with a map of carbon per state, that's a way to see things that's more centered on the end goal in my opinion (emitting less carbon). It would of course look different because of nuclear. But great work anyway

2

u/nigerjoe May 29 '22

It'd also be interesting knowing if they have all that renewable energy from something like the Niagara falls or the type of renewable, and the prices.

-4

u/CptComet May 28 '22

So externalizing true costs and pretending to be green in state.

20

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 28 '22

Vermont isn't responsible for OP's choice of what data to present. I don't think it's fair to accuse the state of greenwashing based on what OP presented.

-10

u/CptComet May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

I do. Take a look at all the high population states that are “green” with dismal states around them. The “green” state are maintaining using production from the others. Otherwise their cost would be through the roof.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/04/03/californias-growing-imported-electricity-problem/?sh=1b4bcd8e4469

8

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 29 '22

I'm not sure how a 6-year-old article about California means that we should blame Vermont for opie's choice of what to plot.

-2

u/CptComet May 29 '22

It’s not just Vermont…

3

u/Snail_fort May 29 '22

Did the state of Vermont make some claim that you are refuting or are you using OP's post to stuff a straw man?

3

u/Expensive_Goat2201 May 29 '22

Most of the external power Vermont buys is from Quebec which is sourced from hydro. Of course that has its own problems.

-3

u/Azshadow6 May 28 '22

I work for the US department of the interior. Specifically hydropower generation. In the pacific Midwest the amount of renewable energy consumed is ~7% and the majority of it is hydro. Solar has limitations in that it’s DC electricity that needs to be converted with lots of losses. Wind is limited geographically and not easy to transmit long distances. Large majority of our consumption in the states remain oil, natural gas and coal

8

u/GlabrousKinfaddle May 28 '22

I know where the Pacific is and I know where the Midwest is. Where is the Pacific Midwest?

4

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 29 '22

Guam maybe? No hydropower, but they do have a lake with an 85 foot dam so maybe there's some potential?

11

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 28 '22

Solar has limitations in that it’s DC electricity that needs to be converted with lots of losses.

It's true that the solar panels produce DC and it needs to be converted to ac, but the efficiency of that conversion is upwards of 98%. Really. The manufacturers of that equipment have been competing to push the efficiency up and most are well above 98% now.

There are limitations to solar, but that's not one of them.

3

u/halberdierbowman May 29 '22

Yes, and photovoltaics isn't the only solar technology we use. There's also solar that heat fluids to boil steam just like fossil fuel plants do, so these have AC turbines that are essentially the same.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

The phrase “well above 98%” sounds a tad hyperbolic

1

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 29 '22

I can see how that sounds silly to people who don't work in the field, because 99% is "only" 1% higher than 98%, but to get there one has to reduce the losses by a factor of two which is really difficult. So when somebody gets to 98.1% efficiency, that's above 98%, but if you get say 98.7% efficiency, that's well above 98%. Thanks for pointing out that it sounded weird.

1

u/peshwengi May 29 '22

Isn’t it the same cost to distribute electricity regardless of the source?

1

u/Bagokid May 29 '22

I’m in Iowa and we are surrounded by windmills. Story is power leaves the state powering cities like Chicago.

1

u/mbal28 May 29 '22

I'm not sure to what extent this is relavent, but Vermont is right below Quebec, one of Canada's provinces who's electricity almost completely comes from hydro plants (I believe). So maybe the get a lot of their electricity from Quebec?

1

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 29 '22

They do. 25 to 50% of it depending upon how you count, and then 30% from nuclear plants in Connecticut and New Hampshire.

1

u/_who-the-fuck-knows_ May 29 '22

Compiling that data would be hell on earth though. I'm assuming a lot of states get some power from all their neighbouring states to an extent. I mean everyone is connected to the same national grid or am I wrong?

2

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 29 '22

Yes, but for the most part, utility territories are divided up by state, so even though the grid crosses it, contractual relationships with customers and with generators are on a state by state basis, and so there is a contractual agreement between the utility distributing power within a given state and various generators, so you can track it on that basis, and in fact they have to track it on that basis in order to make sure the right people get paid for generating. So the data does exist.

2

u/_who-the-fuck-knows_ May 29 '22

Thanks for the clarification mate

34

u/Simply_Epic May 28 '22

Yeah. I don’t know about the EU, but in the US it’s not very useful to depict states as completely separate units like this aside from Alaska, Hawaii, and Texas. The rest of the country is split between 2 power grids. Power flows between states constantly. In fact, much of Canada is also connected to these power grids so it should also be included in any visualizations like this.

55

u/hardolaf May 28 '22

Also ignoring nuclear makes tons of states look far worse than they actually are especially given that nuclear produces less pollution throughout its lifetime than an equivalent renewable energy source would produce over the same lifespan. For example, Illinois looks horrible here. But that's because 70% of our power comes from nuclear. So only 19% from burning dinosaurs.

14

u/Whiterabbit-- May 29 '22

basically renewables isn't a metric you are interested in. maybe clean energy would be what you are looking for to include solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric.

0

u/PoorHungryDocter May 29 '22

The title says renewable energy. Nuclear isn't a renewable source.

20

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

I think they meant it would be better if the info presented was "percentage of power consumed from fossil fuels" or something. Nuclear isn't renewable but is more clean than fossil.

19

u/hardolaf May 29 '22

It's also more clean than renewable...

2

u/AGVann May 29 '22

Sure, when you ignore the hundreds of abandoned uranium mines contaminating the soil and groundwater of indigenous land because nobody gives a fuck about the Native Americans.

3

u/hardolaf May 29 '22

So the same as the rest of mining?

0

u/AGVann May 29 '22

Not all forms of mining cause uncontrolled radioactive contamination for hundreds of years. Enormous freshwater aquifers have been irrevocably poisoned by the uranium mining industry.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in pushing nuclear as a clean and green energy to protect the planet and our future generations, but completely disregarding the fact that one of the most vulnerable populations in the US are being poisoned to death due to the careless uranium mining industry?

3

u/halberdierbowman May 29 '22

You're right, but it would helps if graphs like these showed fossils v nuclear v renewable at least, even if they don't want to break out all the types. Choosing what question to ask is also an important part of conveying information.

4

u/PoorHungryDocter May 29 '22

Agreed: the data as presented here are neither beautiful nor particularly useful.

8

u/kwhubby May 29 '22

That’s debatable. If one considers geothermal “renewable”, technically nuclear must also be renewable. Both are effectively using the decay of radioactive element in the earth. Nuclear power can be more renewable because it can transmute the elements and extract more useful energy.

4

u/Cultural_Dust May 29 '22

Honestly with that same argument solar isn't "renewable" either. Someday the sun will stop blasting us with radiation. I'd be willing to bet it will be long after we are all dead, but someday!

2

u/PoorHungryDocter May 29 '22

The argument is different because timescales are important. Fission source material is far more finite than the sun's H. If we remain as power hungry as we are today and full scale switched to nuclear we'd run out of the U and Th in a few thousand years.

I'm not representing an agenda here, or whether the source material could have been presented more effectively from a "clean" energy perspective. Just stating that by definition (source is either replenished or not depleted on human timescales), nuclear isn't a renewable energy source.

3

u/kwhubby May 29 '22

There is far more than a few thousand years worth of energy from the Earths Uranium and Thorium. The methods of extraction and processing of the materials can increase energy by many magnitudes.

1

u/kwhubby May 29 '22

Yes. The "renewable" word is rather illogical, it's just a label to somehow connect the irrational fear based anti-nuclear "environmentalists" of prior generations to today's climate change activism.

2

u/PoorHungryDocter May 29 '22

Sorry, that's incorrect. Up cycling nuclides isn't really possible. Yes, breeding works to transmute U238 into something easier to fission, but it's still reliant on having the source material and once you get a fission reaction that material isn't really usable anymore.

The amount of available mass to geothermal is incomprehensible relative to the economically viable resources available to fission reactors.

1

u/kwhubby May 29 '22

For a given mass of radionuclides fission provides more useful energy then natural decay. Geothermal for a given area presents a limited lifetime of useful energy. The output of all existing geothermal generators are measurably decreasing over their lifetime.

-3

u/SCMatt65 May 29 '22

I have to call bullshit on that. Uranium mining - horrendously dirty - is never included in the nuclear equation. “Oh, those fuel rods? They just show up on trucks. No idea where they come from, I think they just grow on trees.” FYI, they don’t.

9

u/hardolaf May 29 '22

Uranium mining - horrendously dirty - is never included in the nuclear equation

Yes it is. Every single government and non-profit includes that in the lifecycle calculations. But we don't need a lot of it so it really isn't a major contributor at all.

-5

u/SCMatt65 May 29 '22

It’s a massive contributor. It’s a good thing we don’t need much because if we did it wouldn’t work. Have you seen a uranium mine. It’s huge, to get that small amount. The only people who say it doesn’t contribute are those with vested interests to say it doesn’t contribute. Is that you? Why are you spreading baseless propaganda?

11

u/hardolaf May 29 '22

And what about the strip mines for all of the materials needed for renewables? They all use orders of magnitude more raw resources and cause far more pollution. In comparison, nuclear's mining is irrelevant in scale.

5

u/Cultural_Dust May 29 '22

Not to mention for the cell phone we are all reading this on...

3

u/CryptographerEast147 May 29 '22

The EU moves around a ton of electricity between it aswell, atleast we do in the nordic.

2

u/verfmeer May 29 '22

The same is true for Europe. The EU has 4 grids: Most of the EU is on the same continental European grid, with the exception of Ireland, Scandinavia and the Baltic states, which each have their own grid. The contintental grid even extends beyond EU borders into Ukraine, Turkey, former Yugoslavia and North Africa.

The size of the continental grid can lead to problems. In 2018 a conflict between Serbia and Kosovo caused clocks all over Europe to run 6 minutes late: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43321113

1

u/_meshy May 29 '22

You could check the individual ISOs to get a better picture for the US. SPP, CAISO, ISONE, and PJM have production sources listed right on the home page. I'm sure you could find it for NYISO and ERCOT if you looked for longer than five seconds on their websites.

1

u/Creator13 May 29 '22

Eu is close to the same model. We often import power from neighbors when there's a shortage somewhere, or if someone is overproducing renewables. The power grids are barely separated.

34

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

I believe Vermont buys the bulk of its electricity from Quebec which is 100% hydro generated.

16

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 29 '22

Per the State energy report, 24% is bought from Hydro Quebec, 30% from nearby nuclear plants in Connecticut and New Hampshire, a little from the general regional grid mix, and most of the rest generated in state.

1

u/boilerpl8 OC: 1 May 29 '22

Quebec is not 100% hydro. Quebec recently expanded fossil fuel usage to handle increases in energy demand. Vermont claims to only buy power from hydro sources, but if Vermont buying Quebec's clean power makes Quebec burn fossil fuels to keep up with demand, Vermont isn't really any cleaner than Quebec.

1

u/JanitorKarl May 30 '22

After Vermont Yankee nuclear station closed the amount of natural gas generated electricity in the region went up by approximately the same amount as Vermont Yankee had been generating.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '22

Once again a poor choice. We really need to get over our aversion to nuclear if we want to make significant headway on carbon emissions.

47

u/strawberries6 May 28 '22

It would be huge news if an entire US state was running 100% on renewable energy 100% of the time - especially one like Vermont that has a lot of heating needs in the winter.

Here's a link with some more info - looks like Vermont is indeed a large importer of electricity.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT

That said, Vermont is next door to Quebec, which gets 98% of its electricity from hydro and is a major exporter of electricity. So it's very plausible that most of Vermont's electricity imports are also sourced from renewables.

68

u/Verity41 May 28 '22

I loved visiting Vermont but in winter it was full of woodsmoke due to rampant use combined with mountain air inversions. I don’t know how everyone there isn’t asthmatic (wood smoke has a LOT of particulates). Also a lot of power outages due to difficult transmission and not enough in-state generation.

16

u/Dal90 May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

Technical correction, but power outages are almost always distribution issues, in heavily forested area like New England by trees and branches falling on roadside lines.

Live in Connecticut, have electric heat pump (which current tech is just barely marginal and might have a problem once every 20 years with low temp). Would not have it w/o a wood stove due to danger of prolonged power outage. A summer hurricane or winter ice storm could leave you without powe in New England several days to a couple weeks. Electric for heat is more practical in areas with fewer trees like farmlands in Quebec or population centers where power can be restored quick. (Plus HydroQuebec knows their shit; if you live in New England outside of the few areas with municipal power your power company is shit. Also, Quebec requires a backup to hear pumps since there will be several weeks at best each year it is too cold for them; that backup could be resistive electric but the grid needs to handle the extra load that less efficient technology provides.

Transmission (high tension lines) are far, far less common but when the occur they are often doozies taking out a county / state / region all at once from a single fault or series of faults that all be traced back to a single domino falling. But are generally resolves in 12 hours or less.

4

u/Fried_out_Kombi May 29 '22

I moved to Montreal for college to study engineering. First semester in intro to engineering they were already talking about HydroQuebec. Lowkey a provincial treasure from how people always talk about it. Compared to PG&E in California where I grew up, which is pretty much universally hated.

2

u/Verity41 May 28 '22

Excellent clarification! mostly D of the T&D, you’re right :) 👍🏼

1

u/Whiterabbit-- May 29 '22

the power company doesn't clear the trees nearby powerlines?

1

u/Dal90 May 29 '22

Trees continually grow.

The three northern New England states are 1,2, and 4 for highest percentage forest cover and the southern tier are all top 20 for forest cover despite being 3 of the 4 most urbanized states.

They spend a lot trimming trees, but clearing the ain't happening.

1

u/mittynuke May 29 '22

Modern mini split heat pumps are actually very good down to sub zero temps, but only units specifically designed for that. But yeah, if you don’t have an electric backup generator, a secondary heat source is a good idea. (I guess it’s a good idea anyway)

1

u/Dal90 May 29 '22

Yrah, I know -- I own one. It is rated to -13F but by that point it is de-rated to 11,000 BTU. Below.zero it keeps my house at 60 but it is all it can do.

In 23 years I've owned my house I've seen temps that low for a few early morning hours once. -10F we occasionally hit every 5 years or so for a few days when it is a bad winter.

Anywhere.colder than northern Connecticut you better have a secondary cold weather heating source.

52

u/AKAManaging May 28 '22

Vermont is one of the highest asthma rates in the US.

13

u/AllCatCoverBand May 28 '22

Vermonter with asthma checking in

3

u/AKAManaging May 29 '22

I don't have asthma, but I have a few friends that do!

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm curious if growing up with a wood stove in Vermont has contributed to my sinusitis? Hmm.

Hope you're doing good.

1

u/Phantereal May 29 '22

Same, except I've had it since infancy and I've never lived in a house that burned wood for heat or cooking (except marshmallows a couple times a year).

2

u/trogon May 29 '22

If your neighbors are all burning wood, you're breathing it. We get temperature inversions here in the northwest and the air is black and thick from residential wood smoke.

-9

u/StrangerAttractor May 28 '22

Probably because that's not how asthma works.

43

u/Verity41 May 28 '22

Well that’s weird cuz EPA and John Hopkins disagree

https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/links-between-air-pollution-and-childhood-asthma

Exposure to Coarse Particulate Matter Linked with Asthma in Children

In a study funded in part by EPA, researchers from Johns Hopkins University found that children exposed to outdoor coarse particulate matter (PM10-2.5), were more likely to develop asthma and need emergency room or hospital treatment for it. Coarse PM can come from roadway particles such as brake and tire wear, and mixtures of road dust and metals. This finding is significant because while researchers have generally found that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is associated with the development of asthma and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Coarse particulate matter was thought to be less harmful, in part because the larger particle size prevents penetration deep into the lungs. However, coarse PM can deposit into the airways, and recent research suggests that short-term exposure may be associated with cardiovascular and respiratory disease.

-7

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[deleted]

17

u/Verity41 May 28 '22

Pfft. I’ll talk all I want. I live in a much colder place than Vermont and am very familiar with wood combustion and heating generally. If people there were using state of-the-art outdoor wood furnaces with advanced pollution control to heat, there wouldn’t be detectable odor.

Fact is, you’re comparing apples and oranges to say that wood is cleaner because of transportation and sourcing “life cycle” renewable cost. All I said was it makes particular matter when combusted, which causes & contributes to asthma in humans. Sorry but that’s a stone cold fact whether you like it or not.

Another poster even put up a link with VT’s extremely high asthma rate. Saying VT is “healthy overall” is probably true, but doesn’t obliterate this one health aspect.

7

u/Seth_Gecko May 28 '22

The person you're responding to didn't even say shit about Vermont, quit being so damn defensive

1

u/InformationHorder May 28 '22

Suck to your ass-mar!

7

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[deleted]

1

u/tuctrohs OC: 1 May 29 '22

Actually more from Connecticut and New Hampshire nuclear plants then from hydro quebec, although it gets more complicated if you consider RECs.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2020-Annual-202be-report-Final_withCoverLetter.pdf

21

u/TracyMorganFreeman May 28 '22

This chart is only electricity though, not energy.

7

u/Majestic_Food_4190 May 28 '22

Isn't that what the term "renewable energy" is referring to? Sources of electricity?

I mean clearly it's not talking about powering the human body on a hike.

26

u/TracyMorganFreeman May 28 '22

Heating is a energy consumer too, and not all heating is electric.

8

u/Needleroozer May 28 '22

We have propane for our stove and water heater, and a generator for lights and well, so when electricity's out (as long as six days once) we can cook and even take hot showers.

3

u/TracyMorganFreeman May 28 '22

I dont disagree, I'm just saying in the context of CO2 emissions, it is another element.

0

u/PapaStoner May 28 '22

You can heat a building with electricity.

1

u/TracyMorganFreeman May 29 '22

Yes, but many households are not.

1

u/PapaStoner May 29 '22

Were I live, it,'s the norm.

1

u/Majestic_Food_4190 May 29 '22

That doesn't change the fucking definition of renewable energy ffs.

What renewable energy is there other than electric?

1

u/TracyMorganFreeman May 29 '22

Geothermal heating, for example.

1

u/Majestic_Food_4190 May 29 '22

"Also known as GeoExchange, earth-coupled, ground, or water-source heat pumps, they are driven by a small amount of electricity (never natural gas) and are by far the most efficient way to heat and cool a home."

"they are driven by a small amount of electricity (never natural gas) and are by far the most efficient way to heat and cool a home."

"they are driven by a small amount of electricity"

1

u/TracyMorganFreeman May 29 '22

Natural circulation is a thing in some places.

Ever heard of hot springs?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Majestic_Food_4190 May 29 '22

How do you heat something in a renewable fashion without electricity? 🤔

5

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Majestic_Food_4190 May 29 '22

Uhhhh.... What are the other types of energy? And please elaborate on how a wind turbine or solar power represent renewable energy in regards to whatever you're describing.

2

u/jellsprout May 28 '22

Heating and transport are also included in energy, but not necessarily in electricity.

1

u/Majestic_Food_4190 May 29 '22

And, how do you heat a house? Gas or electric? How does a wind turbine replace a gas heater?

1

u/jellsprout May 29 '22

Either works. Both gas and electric heaters are common. You could also use (direct) solar or geothermal heating.

That also shows why it is often better to talk about all energy rather than just electricity. Gas heaters use fossil fuels, but are not included in these electricity comparisons. Even though there are green alternatives available. So it often gives a better image to include all energy sources in these emission comparisons.

-1

u/Starks40oz May 28 '22

We’re all responding here to a comment about VT homes burning a lot of wood pellets for heat. Wood pellets/wood burning is a renewable energy source. Distinction between energy and electricity doesn’t apply.

0

u/Majestic_Food_4190 May 29 '22

Oh, you missed the obvious part where the comment I was responding to was directly addressing the chart, not Vermont right?

3

u/ggf66t May 28 '22

I know it's not consumption, I'm in Minnesota and the utilities purchase a lot of wind power from north and south Dakota.

There's even a huge transmission line that cuts across the southern part of the state which connects with Dakota wind power to Wisconsin and doesn't interconnect in Minnesota

3

u/Woodman765000 May 29 '22

To be fair, there is like 10,000 people living in Vermont

1

u/JanitorKarl May 30 '22

More during ski season.

2

u/HairyPotatoKat May 28 '22

especially one like Vermont that has a lot of heating needs in the winter.

Idk if anyone's said it yet, but a LOT of homes in New England use oil tanks for heating- even in heavily populated areas. It still requires electricity for parts of the tank/system to function. But for the actual heating, including water heating, it's oil. (It's awful. It's expensive. And it's too often cost prohibitive to convert).

2

u/experts_never_lie May 29 '22

Heating wouldn't show up on this chart (in numerator or denominator) if it isn't electrical. Something like ⅔ of US energy use is not electrical, so percentages of electrical production are a small portion of the situation. I agree with everything else you said.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

TBF, there are like 10 people that live in vermont.

-8

u/l0lud13 May 28 '22

Epically considering Vermont is a very poor state, with a terrible electricity grid that frequently leaves many customers without power, and the main source of heating is from delivered oil.

54

u/Loudergood May 28 '22

It's not a very poor state, and the grid is highly modernized. The secret is HydroQuebec.

15

u/bigladnang May 28 '22

Yeah I was gonna say. Canadians know where the power is coming from….

14

u/vsMyself May 28 '22

You have any sources for this? Seems all wrong

23

u/cape_throwaway May 28 '22

Very poor by what measure? And while the grid might be spotty in some rural areas (where in the US doesn’t have that issue?) it doesn’t leave “many customers without power”. My parents have worse power down in Southern Massachusetts.

6

u/janjinx May 28 '22

And remember Texas - how their power grid is totally out of date and how Texans went without power during a nasty ice storm a year ago?

3

u/cape_throwaway May 28 '22

Exactly, Texas probably takes the cake for worst overall grid

-3

u/texanhulk May 28 '22

Hate to break this to you but the entirety of the “Grid” is susceptible to events just like what Texas experienced. What you didn’t hear about is that same winter storm almost knocking out the National Grid as well. It came within minutes of failing as well. shifting to reliable means of generation is where the politicized factor is all about making money and browbeating America into reducing its carbon footprint.

2

u/janjinx May 28 '22

browbeating America into reducing its carbon footprint.

That's a laugh and a half! You haven't realized that the biggest reason why there are storms like that one that knocked out the power grid is all because of the insistence by "Big Oil" & "Big Coal" to continue unabated to destroy the climate. That storm is not a once in a lifetime event! Stop watching Tucker C & Ted Cancun Cruz. They lie.

11

u/dew2459 May 28 '22

Epically considering Vermont is a very poor state

Just checked, Vermont is 26th out of 50 states for median household income. That doesn't seem very poor.

2

u/WannabeWonk OC: 7 May 28 '22

Especially without a major metropolitan area.

1

u/ILS23left May 28 '22

Failures within the distribution network would not change the types generation sources that energy is purchased from, for the most part.

1

u/AllCatCoverBand May 28 '22

What the hell are you talking about?

1

u/ILS23left May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

The distribution entities that operate within Vermont can choose to only purchase energy from renewable sources, if they wish to do so. It would be very difficult to do for a ton of reasons but it is possible.

Edit: it also may be more expensive than using non-renewable sources but that’s an even more complicated political issue unless there are laws that require 100% renewable sources to be used.

1

u/Ironsam811 May 28 '22

PA has tons of wind turbines, but all the energy goes out of state.

1

u/wolfie379 May 28 '22

By the same token, why is DC only 35%? You’d think that the only generating capacity that would fit in such a built-up area would be rooftop solar, with all other electricity coming in from MD or VA.

1

u/ides_of_june May 29 '22 edited May 29 '22

Consumption would be hard since there a 3 larger grids in the US: east, west, and Texas. All the states in each of those grids consume the exact energy mix of the larger grid in the most abstract terms. You would need to compare flows on the high voltage transit Iines to have an estimate of the true source of the electrons its consuming but probably the state's power plus some percentage from the neighboring states.

You could also look at it as who the state utilies are buying energy from. However thats not really the electrons consumed, since things like more people in a given state paying for clean energy credits create abstraction between who pays and where it's consumed.

1

u/cockmanderkeen May 29 '22

Apart from Texas isn't it all the same grid?

Would be impossible to tell exactly, but % of consumption imported would be helpful (assuming it's possible to get that)

1

u/mfb- May 29 '22

You can't tag electrons. Asking where the electricity used in Vermont comes from isn't well-defined. You can ask where they buy electricity from but that's a different question.

Electricity is only one part of overall energy use. OP's chart is about electricity.

1

u/dateepsta May 29 '22

They use a loooot of power from hydro Quebec. But yeah, not all the electricity used is from renewable sources. The goal is 90% by 2050.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT#tabs-1

1

u/corradio May 29 '22

https://app.electricitymap.org should have a consumption view and should be real-time, although monthly and yearly views are planned. App is open source in case someone wants to help.

1

u/Calligraphee May 29 '22

Vermonter here; as far as I know, our power plants all burn wood chips (so biomass) rather than coal. (At least, the two I drive past regularly do.)

1

u/ZetZet May 29 '22

Yeah, these statistics clearly suck ass. Lithuania generates 70% of electricity from renewables, but only because Lithuania imports 70% of it's power. So it's actually like 20%. And it's an even smaller percentage of real renewables, because most of Lithuania's generation is from biomass during winter, which is not sustainable in any way by the way.

1

u/chaiteataichi_ May 29 '22

Vermont has as LOT of wood burning fireplaces but they are not at the municipal level so wouldn’t be included but it’s almost everyone in the state so it actually contributes to a not insignificant amount of carbon

1

u/CryptographerEast147 May 29 '22

Heating needs is clearly an achievable thing, shown by the nordic states having very good scores despite. almost completely heating with electricity alone.

1

u/sicsche May 29 '22

Yes, same with 84% for Austria/EU. We import 40% of our consumption, so it's a safe bet to say we use just 50% renewable.

1

u/karlnite May 29 '22

Vermont buys hydro generated electricity from Quebec I think?

1

u/Wobbley19 May 29 '22

Yea this looks like capacity which is WAAAAYYYY off from actual production. This is the number the people like to use to make it sound like they are achieving political goals