11–20 of 187 posts
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bi...
Don't really trust something advocating for deregulated energy markets to not mention the elephant in the room.
Gimme a break. Compare China's centralized economy's solar/wind/nuclear production to the entirety of the west's decentralized, privatized economy. not even close.
In China, the government has the goal of deploying as much energy as possible as cheaply and fast as possible, and promoting their own industries too. Which means tons and tons and tons of renewables.
Well Texas seems to be planing to put in regulation on the electricity market. Seems like the current administration is out to completely gut any kind of cost savings for american businesses. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bi...
I am sure businesses that follow the administration's wishes will get government contracts, tax rebates, tariff exceptions, and other favorable treatment. I am not worried, the vast majority of businesses will learn within a few months that it is financially profitable to bend the knee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they are saying that if they'd followed California's policies they'd have a higher percentage of their power from renewables and they wouldn't be so wasteful with the energy they do generate. Because that's the point of this article isn't it? To follow Texas policies, not California's, by pointing to absolute numbers of renewables. If they looked at absolute numbers on coal and gas they'd look worse.
California is not plummeting in total emissions either, which is the point of the plots in there. The only thing that could move this along faster is to shut down fully running and functional fossil fuel facilities, which means that the huge capital assets are stranded and a big loss to the people who paid for them. There, Texas's approach of private investors bearing the cost of that poor investment will fare much b…
At first I was like, isn't that great EVs are the more expensive car but then I realized you meant that the electricity costs as much as the equivalent gas. Oof. Yikes. That's really bad.
The price competitive producers were all stable fossil fuels, natural gas and coal.
They failed to take into account unreliable low cost producers forcing reliable but marginally more expensive producers out of the market.
If solar/wind producers had to guarantee power 24x7 at fixed rates the cost would vastly exceed natural gas costs.
They just need to change the contract requirements to match reality.
In my country healthcare, child support, energy, national railway, postal services, public housing, banking and more have all been privatized.
I worry about this. Not for now, but for 20 years in the future, where all energy is managed by companies and the government can no longer control the market due to being 'too big too fail' and because it gave all control away.
As a counterpoint, I recommend this article: https://ketanjoshi.co/2024/08/12/texas-builds-clean-power-bu... It looks into the numbers for the Texas renewable buildout, and there's a very important caveat: the amount of renewables you build is not the relevant metric. Emission reduction is. And Texas does not succeed there.
Power in California is from the Western Interconnect, which is regulated by WECC.
Power on the Western Interconnect is only 8.7% solar and 10.4% wind.[0]
Texas in the same year was 7% solar and 24% wind.[1]
[0] https://wecc-spdp-weccgeo.hub.arcgis.com/pages/power-generat...
[1] Annoyingly the data is in an excel spreadsheet in a zip file https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2021/03/10/FuelMixReport_Pr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they are saying that if they'd followed California's policies they'd have a higher percentage of their power from renewables and they wouldn't be so wasteful with the energy they do generate. Because that's the point of this article isn't it? To follow Texas policies, not California's, by pointing to absolute numbers of renewables. If they looked at absolute numbers on coal and gas they'd look worse.
California is not plummeting in total emissions either, which is the point of the plots in there. The only thing that could move this along faster is to shut down fully running and functional fossil fuel facilities, which means that the huge capital assets are stranded and a big loss to the people who paid for them. There, Texas's approach of private investors bearing the cost of that poor investment will fare much b…
Asking google AI:
"California emmisions rate" gave:
"California has seen a decline in greenhouse gas emissions, with a 20% reduction since 2000, while its economy has grown significantly. The state aims to reduce emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2045 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045"
Then asking "Texas emissions rate" gave:
"Texas is a major emitter of carbon dioxide in the United States, producing 13.4% of the nation's total in 2022, with transportation being a significant source of emissions"
followed by:
"Emissions Leader: In 2022, Texas produced 663 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, more than double that of California, the second-largest producer"
As a counterpoint, I recommend this article: https://ketanjoshi.co/2024/08/12/texas-builds-clean-power-bu... It looks into the numbers for the Texas renewable buildout, and there's a very important caveat: the amount of renewables you build is not the relevant metric. Emission reduction is. And Texas does not succeed there.