Skip to main content

View Diary: Morning Feature: Mass Transit - Our Lives and Footprints (Plus Kossascopes) (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  People in the SF area have the option of (8+ / 0-)

    buying green energy packages, but I'm not sure what percentage of overall useage is green and 51% seems high, even there.

    Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

    by FarWestGirl on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 05:50:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Here in Massachusetts... (5+ / 0-)

      "Green Energy" packages were little more than premium feel-good packages.  None of the extra revenue generated by the premium prices were being committed to the purchase of new renewable energy to replace the predominant fossil fuel sources.  Light bulb swaps and green energy education efforts were about the extent of their greenness.

      I would gladly pay a premium for a true green energy subscription; one that led directly to additional purchases from renewable sources.

      "If you do not read the paper, you are uninformed. If you do read the paper, you are misinformed."--Mark Twain.

      by ovals49 on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 07:12:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  hydro and nuclear (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, DBunn, BYw, NCrissieB, FarWestGirl

      Hydro is important for the West Coast, and nuclear contributes a significant portion as well.

      Seattle's electric power is a shade over 90% from hydro, a bit over 4% from nukes, a bit under 4% from wind,around 1% from natural gas and coal burning plants, a fraction from biomass, and a speck from solar (the PNW is not a good location for solar). So by carbon footprint definitions of green, that is 98% or better.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site