WHAT?
Here in France I pay 0.138c (€, thus 0.15c in $) for 100% renewable elec. That's like twice as much in CA... for what I guess is not environment-friendly by a long shot?
I'd really have thought with the USA fracking their soil like it's apocalypse tomorrow, and pulling out of any carbon commitment on top of that, at the very least it would yield considerable short-term domestic advantages, i.e. cheap elec. I'd have thought you guys paid like 5 or 10c kWh. Next thing you're gonna tell me you pay more than $1.2/L ($4.6/gal) of diesel fuel.
Actually just checked, diesel fuel is $3/gal, regular petrol slightly less in general (~$2.5) but more in CA.
Still baffled at the cost of electricity.
You'd be wrong. CA has one of the cleanest energy mixes in the country, arguably among the cleanest in the world for it's size:
Way to go, CA. Really. I imagine it's not exactly easy given the 'context'.
Lots of valid reasons though, I don't know that we've been particularly bad at this. Nuclear fission is just not the insanely cheap producer economic theory would suggest on paper, at least not in all configs/countries.
Probably the disparity is in part because of how likely it is in CA for power lines to burn down entire towns, thanks to a dry climate with many large forests adapted for fires; CA is so naturally fire-prone that some native Californian tree species, like redwoods, require large forest fires as part of their reproductive cycle. So more line maintenance is required (although PG&E has probably not done enough...).
There are plenty of native plants that need fire to reproduce, but they do better with smaller fires that produce heat to open seeds but don't damage topsoils.
The large fires we have now are the result of climate change, long-term fire suppression, and unsustainable forest management. It's not normal for California, even though there are fire-dependent habitats here.
Thanks for explaining!
