Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PuckSR t1_j6t08vf wrote

Reply to comment by Various_Oil_5674 in US Emissions of the World’s Most Potent Greenhouse Gas Are 56 Percent Higher Than EPA Estimates. Electric utilities are likely responsible for the nation’s higher than expected emissions of sulfur hexafluoride, a greenhouse gas 25,000 times worse for the climate than carbon dioxide. by Wagamaga

Not really. There are alternatives. SF6 is preferred because it is cheap and works well, but there is no reason you couldn't electrify the grid without it.

8

Various_Oil_5674 t1_j6t2km5 wrote

Then why don't they?

2

Maatix t1_j6t9n6v wrote

>because it's cheap and works well,

That's precisely why. If they can save a few cents, and nobody stops them, why would they change?

4

Various_Oil_5674 t1_j6tb5nk wrote

I know your answer is money, but it seems like being able to more quickly adapt the technology and making it cleaner would be good thing, leading to more customers and mo ey down the road.

1

SSLByron t1_j6tfrzm wrote

Utilities have next to zero incentive to invest in/upgrade existing infrastructure, especially if they're privatized. It looks way better on the balance sheet if they just repair it when it breaks.

4

PuckSR t1_j6tfyjd wrote

"leading to more customers".
Where are you living that you get to pick your utility service provider?

1

Maatix t1_j6tc4xh wrote

>but it seems like being able to more quickly adapt the technology and making it cleaner would be good thing

You're thinking too much like a smart person.

You have to dumb it down for them. If they change now, it costs them money, and that's bad. So they don't change. Anything in the future is "potential" even if it's highly likely to occur, so right now all it would do is cost, no matter the future gains.

0