GM Volt Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
People wonder if they are using coal to power their Volts and other EVs (and thus being less than green when driving an EV). Here is a way to check this by state (but not specifically by energy supplier).

Energy sources – dirtier versus cleaner states

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html


Some highlights from the graphs:

Places where coal is over 50% of the source of energy used (dirtier energy states):

Small states: North Dakota is 64% coal, Utah (70% coal), Wyoming (96% coal), Nebraska is 66% coal, New Mexico is 54% coal

Large States: Ohio (57% coal), Vest Virginia (98% coal), Wisconsin (70% coal), Colorado is 54% coal, Indiana is 95% coal, Kentucky is 95% coal, Missouri is 80% coal

Cleaner states : Oregon (61% hydroelectric), Vermont (57% hydroelectric), Washington State (71% hydroelectric)

Most improved: Tennessee (61% coal in 2001 to 39% today), Virginia (51% coal in 2001 to 12% today)

Cleaner energy states : Iowa is now 37% wind energy, California is now 16% solar, Idaho is 77% hydroelectric, Maine is 30% hydroelectric, 20% wind, NY is 23% hydroelectric and 0% coal, Oklahoma is 32% wind
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
This article is less than informative. Showing EIA production estimates from 2001-2017 (in the case of my state) is irrelevant and doesn't properly address how things are today. For a more accurate view just go directly to the EIA and select your state from the drop-down box.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,521 Posts
This article is less than informative. Showing EIA production estimates from 2001-2017 (in the case of my state) is irrelevant and doesn't properly address how things are today. For a more accurate view just go directly to the EIA and select your state from the drop-down box.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IL
The Horse's Mouth said:
In 2017, about three-quarters of Maine's net electricity generation came from renewable energy resources, with 30% from hydroelectricity, 26% from biomass (mainly wood products), and 20% from wind.
Unless the remaining 24% is from secret coal power plants, I think we're OK here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
It's from 2015 though, so could use an update.
The same can be said of some of the EIA data, where a lot of this stuff comes from. For my state I can look at net electricity generation by source for 2018, but other data tabs are for 2016.

One thing I like about the EIA page is that you can look at what kind of plants are in which location. The first time I looked at this page was right after Fukushima, and I found the same type of nuclear reactor 25 miles south of here (coincidentally the evacuation radius in Japan at the time). I'm not too concerned though since there's no threat of a tsunami hitting Illinois.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Unless the remaining 24% is from secret coal power plants, I think we're OK here.
It's always nice when you have the opportunity to have a good share of hydroelectric power. We flatlanders don't have that option. But don't skip the other points:

Nearly 90% of Maine is forested, and wood products, including biomass fuels, are an important part of the state's rural economy.

Maine had the lowest average electricity price in New England in 2017, in part because of the state’s low average industrial sector power price that reflects the use of less costly wood and wood waste as a generating fuel.

Nearly two-thirds of Maine households use fuel oil as their primary energy source for home heating, a higher share than in any other state.
Too bad you can't convert your primary energy source for home heating to natgas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,426 Posts
Unfortunately Maine and Vermont have been standing in the way of MA buying hydro power from Quebec. So called environmentalists have blocked the power line because it would involve clearing a path a couple of hundred yards wide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
For a more accurate view just go directly to the EIA and select your state from the drop-down box.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IL
Thanks for posting this link. Do you know if this information is new? I knew USDOE gathered these statistics but didn't think they posted it publicly online.

I'm fine with the NYT publishing dumbed-down graphics, (I don't think the average person can interpret the DOE data or would have the attention span to try.) but it does shock me that they didn't mention a source (that I saw) for their data/information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
Why not run the transmission line thru New Hampshire, then?
Unfortunately Maine and Vermont have been standing in the way of MA buying hydro power from Quebec. So called environmentalists have blocked the power line because it would involve clearing a path a couple of hundred yards wide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,426 Posts
Why not run the transmission line thru New Hampshire, then?
New Hampshire rejected it, it's going to the Supreme Court.

https://www.nhpr.org/post/supreme-court-accepts-eversource-appeal-northern-pass-rejection#stream/0

In Maine the outgoing Republican Governor was in favor of it, the incoming Democratic Governor is opposed. NYMBYism triumphs over supposed environmentalism. MA is finally getting some off shore wind power but we could have had it 10 years ago. The Cape Wind project, which would have put wind mills between Cape Cod and Nantucket, was killed because Ted Kennedy and John Kerry didn't want to look at wind mills from their compounds in Hyannisport and Nantucket respectively. Vermont, which everyone thinks of as a very green state, has stopped all future wind projects because people don't like the sound of the wind mills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Thanks for posting this link. Do you know if this information is new?
Welcome. I don't know if I understand your question. As stated above, not all of what's posted in the data tabs is current to 2018. I imagine that the map is current (enough).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I knew Illinois used a lot of coal, but I didn't know about the nuclear. So it's about 50/50. Well, if I plan to stay in this state I'm going to have to get solar panels to be green. I suppose it's not enough to become a vegetarian in 2019, but now I got to get a solar roof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,519 Posts
Why not run the transmission line thru New Hampshire, then?
The problem is getting the transmission lines through the White Mountains. The best route is via I-89 through Vermont. On the flip side, Massachusetts has a lot of wind power potential off the Atlantic coast, but the wealthy land owners there refuse to allow off-shore wind farms, even when they're over the curve of the horizon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
Your original post mentioned Maine and Vermont not wanting your transmission lines, so I figured NH was the way to go. I guess oif Teddy and John don't want to look at windmills and transmission lines, then you can't blame other states not wanting to look at those lines crossing their states.
New Hampshire rejected it, it's going to the Supreme Court.

https://www.nhpr.org/post/supreme-court-accepts-eversource-appeal-northern-pass-rejection#stream/0

In Maine the outgoing Republican Governor was in favor of it, the incoming Democratic Governor is opposed. NYMBYism triumphs over supposed environmentalism. MA is finally getting some off shore wind power but we could have had it 10 years ago. The Cape Wind project, which would have put wind mills between Cape Cod and Nantucket, was killed because Ted Kennedy and John Kerry didn't want to look at wind mills from their compounds in Hyannisport and Nantucket respectively. Vermont, which everyone thinks of as a very green state, has stopped all future wind projects because people don't like the sound of the wind mills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,993 Posts
I know this was for a "State" but in British Columbia our grid is 93% green most of that comes from hydro as we have lots of mountains, water and (in the interior) snow not to mention the site C dam which when complete will supply BC with electricity for the next hundred years (their figures). For States that don't have this, Mother Nature has usually provided other sources (solar, wind or tidal). Yes you have to invest in infrastructure (a dirty word in the US) which may be more expensive than last century technology but then ask Floridians how they feel about their State disappearing under the ocean. :p Then there is nuclear which when everybody talks about it, they are referring to 60's technology and not the new stuff that is available now (safer, cleaner, less down side) not to mention the way the US did it where each reactor is different from the others (and as a consequence was very expensive) unlike France where the reactors where the same so you had an assembly line approach to building them which made them safer and cheaper. We need coal to make steel (carbon content) and oil to make a thousand different products but we don't need it to make electricity.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top