[adrianN]

Well the alternative to more renewables is, realistically, more coal and gas. I think that covering up one or two percent of even the most valuable biomes with solar panels is no where near as destructive as climate change.

[yostrovs]

You conveniently forgot nuclear and your percents are off.

[adrianN]

I support nuclear but it's impossible to build enough in the current political climate and it takes too long to build and is terribly expensive.

I don't think my percentages are off https://www.energy.gov/eere/solarpoweringamerica/solar-energ... 0.6% according to that article, so probably in the single digit percentages in real life.

[squozzer]

Another alternative is reducing energy consumption. I'm sure the people of California have no problem with the consequences of that.

[danans]

California already has some of the lowest per capita energy consumption in the US [1]. A good part of this is due to the mild climate where most Californians live, but some part of it choices people have made, like the widespread adoption of residential PV in cooling load dominated inland areas.

EVs are also taking hold faster in CA due to their better economics and broader cultural appeal in CA.

All these trends will lower the per capita energy consumption further without negatively affecting lifestyles.

1. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/...