142
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

"...across all the state’s utilities by 2035."

Is this a good balance between ambitious and realistic timeline? 2035 is just over a decade away.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago

It's better than no mandate, and tbh 10 years for a big public infrastructure project is probably about right

I'd expect the bulk of that progress could be made by the halfway mark though

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ideally, there would be an interim target as well (say 85% by 2030) but it seems like Vermont is already on the right track at least.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Bernie is and will forever be the goat

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Anything that is far enough into the future to be the consequence of future members of government that doesn't have any targets leading to that point is just posturing.

Posturing is better than nothing, but not by much.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Vermonts electricity was 48% clean energy(renewables and nuclear). To go to 100% they need to add storage, a lot more renewable generation and upgrade the grid. All of that requires planning, ordering the parts and then building it. Doing it in a decade is a realistic, but ambitus target.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

I read that as "Voldemort" and was both confused and impressed.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Not really surprised if someone J.K.Rowling paints as evil isn't actually that bad tbh.

this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
142 points (98.0% liked)

Green Energy

1795 readers
85 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS