Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 278 posts

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#61

Post by [deleted] »

exabrial wrote: post #48
refurb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take a closer look at this. If you're surprised the GOP is allowing this, then something about your assumptions are wrong. Either you're incorrectly assuming the GOP would actively legislate against wind farms or something else is happening. What do you think is the mostly likely explanation?

There's a distinct possibility your world view is incorrect then if this surprises you. The big misunderstanding the blue has about the red is who pays for things. It's not the GOP hates renewables, they just want the private industry to pay for them, not the taxpayer. Let the cheapest energy source win! Wind and solar absolutely have a great chance at doing that. That doesn't make a good story though... It just stin…

[deleted]

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#62

Post by codecamper »

saryant wrote: post #3
toomuchtodo wrote: post #2

It appears we're at the inflection point where even natural gas (in addition to coal) is getting pushed out of the generation mix. Good! About time. This may require paying natural gas generators for their ability to quickly throttle to back renewables, but only as a temporary measure until utility scale batteries fall in cost.

Natural gas energy can be transported much more easily than solar or wind. As more export capacity comes online in the US I would expect natural gas projects in the US to continue apace even if domestic consumption stays flat or declines.

Put some solar panels on your roof, run wire to home. There, you have transported your power.

Bigger issue is winter time energy, aka heating. That one will be hard with current tech (storing energy for once per year use), though solar is getting cheap enough you may be able to use use solar generated electricity to heat -- you would need overcapacity of panels in northern climates -- but that's probably cheaper than moving the world's coastal cities.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#63

Post by kbaker »

davidf18 wrote: post #50
jostmey wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. As a consumer in Dallas we get to choose which power company we want to buy from. Basically, we have to buy our share of electricity that is used from the grid.

But in this case, you are simply throwing your money away since the green producers aren't going to produce more energy because you and other consumers are paying them to. They will produce the same amount regardless. In that case, better to give the money to some charity that say, replaces incandescent bulbs with the newest LED lamps starting with your own house and office if you haven't already converted. Also, bet…

It is not throwing the money away - electricity distributors are required to buy additional portions of renewables for delivery. This increases demand and available investment funds for new renewable projects. Here's a section of the Terms of Service of my provider:

"If you elect to purchase a renewable energy product, we will ensure that the appropriate amount of renewable energy credits (RECs) is retired to authenticate the renewable energy contained in the product."

So here in TX we can actually individually vote with our wallets to make a difference in the makeup of renewable energy demands in the state. Maybe tiny steps at a time, but at least it is possible.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#64

Post by bdauvergne »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #43
majewsky wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar can be produced anywhere of course. I take issue with "of course". It will be always be wildly more economic to produce solar power in places with a lot of sun. And without checking, my ballpark guess would be that you get at least 10 times more solar energy out of a panel in Texas than a panel in, say, Canada. Our eyes are just so good at adapting to different light levels that we don't notice the different…

It would also be pretty difficult to use solar in Murmansk, Russia, for about a quarter of the year (it's within the arctic circle, so the sun is below the horizon for most (or all near the solstice) of the day during the winter. And it can actually be less efficient if there's too much sun, solar panel efficiency decreases with temperature. Solar thermal also depends on temperature differential, so if the environmen…

Noboby wants to live in Murmansk.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#65

Post by blurbleblurble »

sremani wrote: post #33
rpedela wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the economics specifically but coal, gas, oil are all subsidized too.

per kwh, they are miniscule compared to solar or wind. The scale difference between ONG and Solar-Wind is huge

A large part of the U.S. military budget is implicated in fossil fuel security.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#66

Post by hueving »

jostmey wrote: post #56
davidf18 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this case, you are simply throwing your money away since the green producers aren't going to produce more energy because you and other consumers are paying them to. They will produce the same amount regardless. In that case, better to give the money to some charity that say, replaces incandescent bulbs with the newest LED lamps starting with your own house and office if you haven't already converted. Also, bet…

Are you trying to tell me that they won't build more windmills if that's what people are paying for?

Are you suggesting the transmission company would refuse the electricity from the wind mills if enough people aren't paying for the clean option?

I'm curious how this works. What happens if you pay for clean and the wind isn't blowing at night? What happens if everyone paying for clean turns on their appliances and the demand outstrips the clean supply?

I highly doubt there are blackouts in these occasions so it seems like someone is getting screwed.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#67

Post by hueving »

iagovar wrote: post #46
davidf18 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming this is a joke since there aren't separate power lines for renewable energy. :-)

IDK in the US, but in Spain you can actually "buy" only renewable energy, by paying a company that only pays for renewable producers in the pool.

So what happens if it's night and the wind isn't blowing, does your electricity go out?

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#68

Post by ZeroGravitas »

davidf18 wrote: post #50
jostmey wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. As a consumer in Dallas we get to choose which power company we want to buy from. Basically, we have to buy our share of electricity that is used from the grid.

But in this case, you are simply throwing your money away since the green producers aren't going to produce more energy because you and other consumers are paying them to. They will produce the same amount regardless. In that case, better to give the money to some charity that say, replaces incandescent bulbs with the newest LED lamps starting with your own house and office if you haven't already converted. Also, bet…

You can actually incentivized green energy production in this way. It's also possible for cunning utilities to have a government set target for renewable power which they turn round and sell to consumers as a green tariff.

Google has lots of documents online about how they go about ensuring that their efforts to buy renewable energy actually help the grid get cleaner. "Additionality" is one buzzword that might help you locate them.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#69

Post by toomuchtodo »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #52
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely off the mark. Enough energy from the sun hits the Earth in an hour or two to power humanity for a year. It's simply a matter of scaling up. Nuclear is already dead at current wind and solar generation costs.

Did you just say "it's simply a matter of scaling up" unironically on HN? Even ignoring that, your ~4000x margin looks a lot impressive when you take into account minor details like how much of the Earth's surface is covered by water, or the response spectrum of solar panels, or thermodynamics. We get it, you're a big fan of wind and solar. Making reaching arguments to show how excited you are doesn't actually help i…

I am a big fan of wind and solar! Appreciate you recognizing that!

My reaching arguments aren't what is bringing about change, of course. It's a ruthless market for low cost energy. And renewables are delivering (as evidenced by this Bloomberg piece). That's what's driving coal, natural gas, and even nuclear out of business.

It takes a very small piece of the Earth to power all of humanity with solar alone. We must continue to deploy wind and solar as quickly as possible though.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#70

Post by rconti »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #36
rpedela wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the economics specifically but coal, gas, oil are all subsidized too.

Some fraction of the US military expense should be attributed to obtaining energy, both explicitly (eg, patrolling shipping lanes) and implicitly (as a superpower, we can get considerations other countries don't). I don't know enough about it to hazard a guess, but I'm hoping someone, somewhere, has done an analysis.

I'm sure this is also non-zero for, say, elements required to construct solar panels, however it's almost certainly (currently) dwarfed by those for fossil fuels. That may change in the future, though.
Post reply on HN