Quake3World

http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/powerprofiler.htm

Something useful from the EPA these days, amazing!

It lets you see from what sources your power company gets its energy, and the percentages compared to the national average. Also gives emissions compared nationally as well.

I knew my area would be bad:
non-hydro renewables: 0% vs 2% national
hydro: 1% vs 7% national
nuclear: 23% vs 20% national
oil: 0% vs 3% national
gas: 2% vs 17% national
coal: 73% vs 50% national

my area get's 49% of it's energy from hydro. because of that everything else is below the national average and we have relatively low emissions as well. it's nothing to really brag about though because instead of emissions we screw over natural habitats and wild life with our dams. gg salmon.

45% Coal
38% Nuclear

hmmm

Forgot mine!

Gas: 46%
Hydro: 15%
Nuclear: 14%
Coal: 14%
Non-hydro renewables: 10%
Oil: 1%

Living in Quebec right now. Can't give you the exact percentage, but I know for sure that almost all of the power in the province is produced through hydro. Every river is dammed up here..

40% nuclear, 51% coal, the rest negligible. Not too bad, but nowhere near good enough.

Nuke - 27%
Hydro - 26%
Coal - 25%
Gas - 13%
Oil - 7%
------------------

What's really fucked up about the above is that i can see Niagara falls from my house.
but those figures are only for the general grid, we pay extra to get 100% renewable.

Shame this doesn't work in Europe, i have no idea where the power comes from here. Gas, probably.

you don't get a breakdown on your billing statement? (i do)

It could be, i've never checked... bill gets paid automatically every other month.

Silly question probably: is the energy market in the US privatised or public?

Non-hydro renewables: 2%
Hydro: 5%
Nuclear: 16%
Gas: 2%
Oil: 1%
Coal: 75%



Ugh... pretty awful, considering it is MN and I live not far from the St Anthony Falls dam on the Mississippi and one of the major midwest nuclear plants is about 45 minutes away. But then again, Northern States Power is a notoriously terrible power company (see my post about them blocking wind power here).

Non-Hydro 2%
Hydro 49%
Nuclear 4%
Oil 0%
Gas 11%
Coal 34%

I guess Hydro would be the best out of all of those options. I win.

Fender wrote:I knew my area would be bad:
non-hydro renewables: 0% vs 2% national
hydro: 1% vs 7% national
nuclear: 23% vs 20% national
oil: 0% vs 3% national
gas: 2% vs 17% national
coal: 73% vs 50% national

same

Denz wrote:Non-Hydro 2%
Hydro 49%
Nuclear 4%
Oil 0%
Gas 11%
Coal 34%

I guess Hydro would be the best out of all of those options. I win.

Technically, I think non-hydro would be the best, but you get brownie points anyway.

Ryoki wrote:Silly question probably: is the energy market in the US privatised or public?

Generally they are very heavily regulated private companies. I believe co-ops are becoming more popular, where all the citizens of the city are part owner, or something like that.

Baltimore

Coal: 45%
Nuclear: 38%
Gas: 10%
Oil: 3%
Hydro: 2%
Non-Hydro: 1%

Cooldown wrote:45% Coal
38% Nuclear

hmmm

America - fuck yeah!

Hydro power ain't exactly a winner either. Wind and solar seem to be the best long-term solutions. I think wind is the most interesting one

Non-Hydro renewables - 5%
Hydro - 0%
Nuclear - 0%
Oil - 58%
Gas - 35%
Coal - 0%

Dave wrote:Hydro power ain't exactly a winner either. Wind and solar seem to be the best long-term solutions. I think wind is the most interesting one

and what exactly is the bad side of the Niagara Hydro Facility?

Probably the fact that niagara falls only exists in one place. I think his point was aimed at "hydro as a general solution", meaning that to get more hydro power in more places, things would have to be affected.

Aye. Generally, hydro is harnessed via damming, and that can have a number of detrimental effects.
In terms of the Niagara Hydro project, I don't know many of the details, but doesn't that also operate as a dam? Also, I seem to remember hearing about some population displacement occurring.