Skip to main content

How Clean is the Electricity You Use?

The Environmental Protection Agency developed a power profiler that:
  • Determines your power grid region based on your ZIP code and electric utility,
  • Compares the fuel mix and air emissions rates of the electricity in your region to the national average, and
  • Determines the air emissions impacts of electricity use in your home or business.
To start, all you need is a zip code, check it out. Hat tip to Nick Loris.

Comments

Matthew66 said…
My problem with this site is that of the green energy options offered for my zip code, none allows me the option to purchase 100% of my electricity from nuclear (even though Indian Point supplies 50% of the electricity for my zip code).

If the nuclear utilities would offer consumers the option to purchase 100% of their electricity from nuclear, it would at least provide some data on how many people actually favor nuclear power enough to use it as their exclusive source of electricity.

Maybe they could call it Blue Power, blue for clean skies, blue for Cerenkov radiation.
Karen Street said…
Unfortunately, EPA doesn't consider upstream costs. Does anyone know of a site where I can use my zip code to find my greenhouse gas emissions from electricity including these upstream costs?
Anonymous said…
The superstition that CO2 causes global warming is alive and well at this EPA site. Anybody that still buys into that is willfully ignorant of the science (and the 31,000 scientists who disagree as well.)

CO2 def. from EPA site:
"A naturally occurring gas, and also a by-product of burning fossil fuels and biomass, as well as land-use changes and other industrial processes. It is the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas that affects the earth's radiative balance. It is the reference gas against which other greenhouse gases are measured and therefore has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1."
Matthew66 said…
I am not an atmospheric scientist so cannot attest to the truth or otherwise of global warming. What I do know is that burning fossil fuels for energy severely degrades the air quality in the surrounding areas, and the bigger the plant the larger the area.

I believe that when we make decisions about human activity, we should always favor those options that permit satisfactory advancement of the human condition with the least environmental impact possible. There will always be tradeoffs, but I don't think that we should be destroying mountain ranges to extract coal when a viable alternative is available that does not require the destruction of large swathes of the countryside.
Anonymous said…
This "profiler" has serious limitations. It asks for a specific ZIP code, and confirms which specific utility you are using, but then just presents (outputs) the generation mix for the entire "region", the "region" being a very large, multi-state area.

Try entring a Chicago-area ZIP code. The profiler will confirm for you that your utility company is Commonwealth Edison (which is over 80% nuclear). Then the profiler will tell you that your "region" gets 73% of its power from coal, which is higher than the national average. It goes on to report that, therefore, our Chicagoan's emissions of CO2, SO2, etc.. are higher than the national average.

Useless.

Beyond useless, in fact. Certainly for the Chicago case. Since it's giving out info that is literally the opposite of the truth, it is better to not know anything at all.

Jim Hopf
Anonymous said…
% Long Island
5 non-hydro renewables (trash burning?),
0 hydro,
0 nuclear,
58 oil (!!!),
35 gas (!),
0 coal.

Fundie antinukes and their BS around Shoreham NPP obviously *increased* out oil dependency!

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…