Here in France I pay 0.138c (€, thus 0.15c in $) for 100% renewable elec. That's like twice as much in CA... for what I guess is not environment-friendly by a long shot?
I'd really have thought with the USA fracking their soil like it's apocalypse tomorrow, and pulling out of any carbon commitment on top of that, at the very least it would yield considerable short-term domestic advantages, i.e. cheap elec. I'd have thought you guys paid like 5 or 10c kWh. Next thing you're gonna tell me you pay more than $1.2/L ($4.6/gal) of diesel fuel.
Actually just checked, diesel fuel is $3/gal, regular petrol slightly less in general (~$2.5) but more in CA.
There are parts of the US where electricity is cheap, and a few parts of California where unleaded premium fuel is at or near $4.99 per gallon. The pricing doesn't make much sense to me.
California has a different gasoline mix with the seasons for emissions reasons. And every time we switch between winter and summer mix, the few refineries here always seem to have mysterious maintenance emergencies. Not sure why they always need to shut down for a few days right then, but it sure makes for a supply crunch and a price bump.
Surprinsingly enough, the French nuclear electricity costs about as much as hydrocarbons. It seems the "almost free electricity!" slogan of the 1960's was less than accurate in its predictions.
Lots of valid reasons though, I don't know that we've been particularly bad at this. Nuclear fission is just not the insanely cheap producer economic theory would suggest on paper, at least not in all configs/countries.
CA has much higher electricity rates than most other parts of the US. For example, in Texas electricity costs about $0.11/kWh; Washington it costs about $0.09/kWh; and the average in the US is ~$0.13/kWh.
Probably the disparity is in part because of how likely it is in CA for power lines to burn down entire towns, thanks to a dry climate with many large forests adapted for fires; CA is so naturally fire-prone that some native Californian tree species, like redwoods, require large forest fires as part of their reproductive cycle. So more line maintenance is required (although PG&E has probably not done enough...).
Redwoods do not require forest fires for reproduction, and no native species require large forest fires.
There are plenty of native plants that need fire to reproduce, but they do better with smaller fires that produce heat to open seeds but don't damage topsoils.
The large fires we have now are the result of climate change, long-term fire suppression, and unsustainable forest management. It's not normal for California, even though there are fire-dependent habitats here.
I agree that CA is much more at risk of fire now than it naturally is, thanks to short-sighted human endeavor; I was only meaning to point out that it isn't correct to compare CA electrical rates to France as a measure of U.S. vs French rates, since CA's are so much higher than the U.S. average due to fire risk.
In New Zealand I pay ~29c US/kWh for 80% renewable generation during the day. 11pm-7am it runs about US10c/kWh. Handy for charging the car. I live ~500km from the main generation source as well, until a larger local geothermal plant comes online.
WHAT?
Here in France I pay 0.138c (€, thus 0.15c in $) for 100% renewable elec. That's like twice as much in CA... for what I guess is not environment-friendly by a long shot?
I'd really have thought with the USA fracking their soil like it's apocalypse tomorrow, and pulling out of any carbon commitment on top of that, at the very least it would yield considerable short-term domestic advantages, i.e. cheap elec. I'd have thought you guys paid like 5 or 10c kWh. Next thing you're gonna tell me you pay more than $1.2/L ($4.6/gal) of diesel fuel.
Actually just checked, diesel fuel is $3/gal, regular petrol slightly less in general (~$2.5) but more in CA.
Still baffled at the cost of electricity.