41
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
41 points (95.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5394 readers
245 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nothing in this article makes any logical sense to me whatsoever.
TL;DR - CA needs more storage to better enable renewables growth, but otherwise the article is a bit of a solar hit piece.
The article muddies the waters by trying to connect cost savings in neighboring states who buy CA excess solar as "lost" revenue for CA ratepayers.
In some cases, negative prices do count as a small loss in the budgets, but generally, just because CA excess solar is cheaper than NM fossil fueled power does not mean anyone is "losing".
The article does mention Wall Street speculators profiting off of the energy market, which is a loss for ratepayers, but it's a problem with existing forecasting models, not solar. If utility modeling was better than Wall Street, there would be no profit for outside investors.
This is partially very helpful. Thank you.