← Back to context

Comment by chasd00

4 months ago

Texas is about as red as it gets and leads the nation in renewable energy including solar. Red or blue, if the gov can setup a situation where renewable energy is profitable then nature will take its course.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/texas-tops-us-states...

There's a very specific reason (or quirk) as to why Texas leads the nation in renewable energy -- ERCOT. Basically, 90% of Texas' electric load is serviced by in-state assets, and they have very few interconnections to the rest of the grid. The electricity dispatch curve is priced on the margin, on the cost to operate the last-fired generator (natural gas), and ERCOT has moved to grow solar as a way to reduce prices.[0]

ERCOT has also had a number of spectacular -- and costly -- failures.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Reliability_Council_o...

  • What's their argument against interconnects though?

    Especially as you install more wind and solar, capturing (or sending) generation across a wider geographic area should regress-to-the-mean production and consumption better without turning on peaking plants that may be on for only hours a year. Or get natgas generation from areas where the natgas infra hasn't frozen solid.

  • It makes fantastic sense in Texas too because air conditioning is such a high portion of demand. Clean energy production reaches its peak at midday when everyone has their AC going flat out.

Yup, my home state of Idaho also has a shockingly green energy portfolio. All of the PNW is like that because it's on a shared grid that has been primarily powered by hydro for as long as I've been alive.

And still, we've seen a massive amount of green energy installed here. Both windmills and solar farms.

  • For what it's worth Oregon and Washington are pretty much at the bottom of new renewable installs: https://www.propublica.org/article/oregon-washington-green-e...

    • Yup, Idaho's on that list as well.

      But when you look at a grid map you pretty quickly understand why that's the case.

      https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-NW-IPCO/live/fif...

      Right now, about 6% of my power comes from natural gas. That's the only fossil fuel power I'm currently using. Everything else is solar/hydro/wind. Not sure why nuclear isn't listed, I thought we had an active plant here. But you get the picture.

      For my grid, new solar or wind is simply not needed so why would we be anywhere near the top of installation? Batteries is what we actually need.

      There is a point where it's a bad idea to install more renewables.

  • Idaho Power’s local generation is quite clean. But…during the summer in Idaho, almost a third of energy comes from Wyoming and Utah where coal is still a substantial part of generation.

    • Idaho power has been working at installing batteries across the state I believe for this very reason.

      They have a plan to be 100% renewable by 2030 and I believe they'll actually hit that target given how close they already are.

I lived in texas before & the first time I saw massive wind farms alongside oil pumps was in texas.

wind turbines are wonderful things to look at. but yeah some of those were constructed in the years there was a "blue" admin n I guess market forces took over too.