62% is pretty respectable for the size of California (same electricity consumption as Spain). I did not know this.
I was shocked when I saw how much batteries contribute, honestly don't hear about them much but they have scaled a lot in recent years.
Flattening the Duck Curve: batteries reach 44% of evening demand in California - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47633698 - April 2026 (5 comments)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-mix?tab=line&...
A large part of the Capex of renewables is land costs - which are high, but once you have the land you keep it. This cost is generally all financed as part of the initial build, so in 30 years everything is paid for - but you have to finance to replace only the renewables while keeping the land and so the second round is a lot cheaper.
this part of the claim is carrying a ton of weight here... Zero-carbon sources could include carbon dependent sources with paper offsets.
Nuclear 9.92%
Large Hydro 11.06%
Biomass 1.94%
Geothermal 4.60%
Small Hydro 1.52%
Solar 21.30%
Wind 11.89%
[0] https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
One can even potentially pyrolize the biomass and get biochar, giving up some energy but making it carbon negative power source.
Not correct. Biomass includes burning wood from new growth forests. If the trees were kept in the ground they would be carbon sinks rather than carbon stores, therefore the overall effect is an increase in emissions. Furthermore, there's energy expended in prepping the wood (e.g. turning the trees into wood pellets ready to burn) and in transporting the wood to the biomass power station.