> The central finding is that a 15% increase in solar generation across the U.S. is associated with an annual reduction of 8.54 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2, a significant step toward national climate goals.
California has the opportunity to be a beacon in North America for environmental and climate action e.g. by expanding solar production, finishing the CAHSR, and other projects like expanding and electrifying mass transit and commuter rail networks, but they are their own worst enemy.
> In some areas, such as California, Florida, the mid-Atlantic, the Midwest, Texas and the Southwest, small increases in solar were estimated to deliver large CO2 reductions, while in others, such as New England, the central U.S., and Tennessee, impacts were found to be minimal
sophia01
When I read "map", I think "map"...
m0llusk
This kind of reasoning and technology would never have predicted the surge in popularity of patio solar in Germany.
show comments
lorenzohess
On Mercury
searine
Funded by US taxpayers via 11 grants, predominantly from NIH with additional institutional support from Harvard University.
m101
This sort of study is dumb as it misses the bigger picture.
The focus on CO2 is for climate purposes. If one is genuinely concerned about the environment then one would look at all power generation technologies, not only solar. If one did this then solar would not be a focus of concern for power generation. Articles like this one suggest that solar is an answer to climate change, when, at best, it is a distraction.
> The central finding is that a 15% increase in solar generation across the U.S. is associated with an annual reduction of 8.54 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2, a significant step toward national climate goals.
Whoa, that's really cool.
You can see the paper along with figures & regional breakdowns here: https://openpaper.ai/paper/share/1d0c6956-4820-4ee2-ac1e-12c...
Direct study link (with associated diagrams): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adq5660
California has the opportunity to be a beacon in North America for environmental and climate action e.g. by expanding solar production, finishing the CAHSR, and other projects like expanding and electrifying mass transit and commuter rail networks, but they are their own worst enemy.
GH project with a link to the data and the instructions how to process it https://github.com/NSAPH-Projects/green-energy-optimization
except there's no map!
> In some areas, such as California, Florida, the mid-Atlantic, the Midwest, Texas and the Southwest, small increases in solar were estimated to deliver large CO2 reductions, while in others, such as New England, the central U.S., and Tennessee, impacts were found to be minimal
When I read "map", I think "map"...
This kind of reasoning and technology would never have predicted the surge in popularity of patio solar in Germany.
On Mercury
Funded by US taxpayers via 11 grants, predominantly from NIH with additional institutional support from Harvard University.
This sort of study is dumb as it misses the bigger picture.
The focus on CO2 is for climate purposes. If one is genuinely concerned about the environment then one would look at all power generation technologies, not only solar. If one did this then solar would not be a focus of concern for power generation. Articles like this one suggest that solar is an answer to climate change, when, at best, it is a distraction.