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

81–90 of 278 posts

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

#81

Post by icebraining »

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…

I wouldn't call it a misunderstanding; at most, it's an over-generalization:

"The bill would require all utilities serving Wyoming by 2019 to obtain their electricity from sources other than commercial-scale wind or solar operations. Utilities would be fined $10 per renewable energy megawatt hour used in a year, the amount of energy it takes to power 82 Wyoming homes."

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-01-25/wyoming-p...

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

#82

Post by davedx »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple transmission line projects in progress in the US to drag wind energy to major load centers. Solar can be produced anywhere of course. Natgas exports may increase, but it appears everyone is getting off of fossil asap. You cannot compete against an energy source with no fuel cost.

> You cannot compete against an energy source with no fuel cost Of course you can. The technology to turn photons into useful energy is heavy, complex and reliant on rare elements. In any case, one could flip the analogy by branding coal as photons freely stockpiled by dead trees and algae.

Which rare elements do mass produced PV panels need today?

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

#83

Post by mcv »

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…

> 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.

Yes they will. They get more money, so they can afford to invest in more green energy, and there's clearly more demand for clean energy, so it would be prudent to produce more of it. This is how markets work. You vote with your dollars.

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

#84

Post by masklinn »

fencepost wrote: post #29

Very amusing that the article ends with “It’s pretty slim pickings right now,” Ferguson said. “God is not manufacturing more coastal property.” Part of the concern for renewable energy folks is that you could argue that God is arranging for more coastal property, though not perhaps in ways useful to wind farmers on the Texas coast.

> Part of the concern for renewable energy folks is that you could argue that God is arranging for more coastal property

Not really though, the overall coastline length will shrink so assuming constant coastal property size, the number will go down not up.

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

#85

Post by mcv »

hueving wrote: post #67
iagovar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When the company is not producing enough energy to meet demand, it's probably required to purchase green energy elsewhere.

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

#86

Post by sremani »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #65
sremani wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That has not been true for a while, I would actually contend, that US spends more for subsidizing defense of Europe than any Middle Eastern security.

US Shale with Canada and Mexico already made North America energy independent.

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

#87

Post by opo »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #4
saryant wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are multiple transmission line projects in progress in the US to drag wind energy to major load centers. Solar can be produced anywhere of course. Natgas exports may increase, but it appears everyone is getting off of fossil asap. You cannot compete against an energy source with no fuel cost.

>...There are multiple transmission line projects in progress in the US to drag wind energy to major load centers.

If so, this cost should be considered to be part of the cost of wind energy.

>...Solar can be produced anywhere of course.

Well sunlight does fall everywhere, but in lots of places it wouldn't make sense to depend on solar for much power.

>...Natgas exports may increase, but it appears everyone is getting off of fossil asap.

asap? From the article:

>...By 2040, renewable resources such as wind and solar power will supply just as much of America’s electricity demand as gas, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance outlook.

The reality is that without some major advance in grid storage, we will, unfortunately, be very dependent on natural gas for a very long time.

>...You cannot compete against an energy source with no fuel cost.

That is kind of a silly thing to say - there is more to the expense of a power source than that of course.

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

#88

Post by jacquesm »

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.

> Natural gas energy can be transported much more easily than solar or wind.

Yes, but not easier than it is to transport electrons. And solar and wind energy can be converted into electrons and then transported across vast distances using existing infrastructure.

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

#89

Post by davidf18 »

mcv wrote: post #85
hueving wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When the company is not producing enough energy to meet demand, it's probably required to purchase green energy elsewhere.

But the energy is fungible. So that if it is purchasing the green energy from elsewhere, it is simply depriving others from that benefit meaning that ultimately is is carbon-based fuels that are used.

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

#90

Post by crdoconnor »

leephillips wrote: post #17
davidf18 wrote: post #10

I wonder what the economics would be without the federal tax incentives for wind and solar. Does anyone know? EDIT: Someone above provided a link that provides the figure I was looking for: "Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar were between 10¢ and 88¢ per kWh and subsidies for wind were between 1.3¢ and 5.7¢ per kWh. Subsidies for coal, natural gas and nuclear are all between 0.05¢ and 0.2¢ per kWh over all ye…

It's a complex question. In trying to answer it, one should keep in mind that the tax incentives for fossil fuel production dwarf the $15 billion per year or so that supports renewable energy. In addition, fossil fuels impose an estimated $200 billion/yr in social costs (external costs), in the form of pollution, etc. And it would be hard to estimate how much of our defense spending should be attributed to the need t…

Added to which the cheapest solar panels in China are often subjected a tariffs of up to 60%.

The "coal/gas/nuclear funded free markets lobby" (ALEC, etc.) who whine incessantly about hairdresser licensing went awfully quiet about that one.

Post reply on HN