Map of electricity generation mix in United States
 

The Washington Post publishes this somewhat useful but very pretty map today:

Mapping how the United States generates its electricity - Washington Post

For us, at least, it updates some figures on the energy mix in different areas of the country. Plug in an electric in California and you are likely powering it largely with Natural Gas. Move to Maryland with the same car and it the energy going into your car might make it effectively a coal powered car. [EDIT: In Ky or WV you would really likely be driving an almost 100% coal powered Tesla. Yikes.]

I suppose solar generation development in the future could displace a lot of these more polluting sources.

At the Orange County auto show here in Cali this weekend I heard on the radio that there is a concept car, from maybe Mitsubishi, that is a PHEV that uses hydrogen fuel cells. That would be kinda cool.

Coal and wind power here.

By comparison texas generates more than enough wind power to power the entire state of New Mexico.

From the article:
"There are 99 reactors at 63 nuclear electric plants in the U.S. They have generated 20 percent of the nation’s electricity this year."

Seems like we should look into this one a little more.

Vermont:

Hydro: 493GWh
Wind: 159GWh
Solar: 28GWh
Natural Gas: 1GWh

Are there any other states with 99.8% clean energy?

EDIT: The US Energy Information Administration disagrees with these numbers:

Yes. The numbers seem possibly to be tracking different things. The WaPo story seems to track generation within a state, and link you posted tracks consumption which can come from out of state, of course. I think that's prt of the difference (only time for a quick read).

Nuclear is the way to go.

Corrected it for you...:rolleyes:

This is the attitude that causes coal fired power plants to continue to be built.

They can build a nuke in my backyard if they want. I'll gladly collect the monthly lease from them too.

Concerns about safety are unfounded. If people were really concerned about safety, they would do something about their weight problem so that they don't fall victim to the #1 most dangerous thing; heart disease.

I recently ran across an article on nuclear reactors that suggested thorium reactors rather than uranium reactors. No melt downs and other advantages that I do not remember.

I worked for 11 years in the Navy's nuclear power program. They have a long spotless record of nuclear power using 1/2 drunk or hungover, underpaid, 21 year old social misfits. Just put them out in the desert in geological stable areas away from major population centers by 10 miles or so. Also store all waste that can't be recycled on site. It's not rocket science (which has killed way more people).