Renewable Energy Saving Texas' Ass Right Now

[Captainant 27,970]

Just now, Trey3216 said:

Hey, as long as it's your business getting the freebies all is good, amirite?  

Lol feel free to not engage with my cited facts and stick to your "hundred other -ly's" and "people are saying" rhetoric.

What do you mean my business getting the freebies? I provided a specific instance of our state taking recent and specific action to disadvantage renewable energy providers relative to dinoburners, which you disagreed with by waving your hands.

Can you elaborate by what you mean? Preferably with actual concrete facts and not just your feelings?

[kibbles 70]

I do solar in Texas. If you wanna be part of the solution, dm me

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[gmr548 16,635]

By investment, Texas is anything but anti-renewables.   Fucking stupid ass comment 

That was very much the implication given the qualifier “By rhetoric.”

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,619]

26 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I'm not going to get into a Cloaky conversation.  It's a fucking stupid ass comment because legislatively, monetarily, electrical generationally, and a hundred other -ly's, it's not even in the realm of reality.  So it's a fucking stupid ass comment.  

LOL

[Neonmoon 38,130]

38 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I'm not going to get into a Cloaky conversation.  It's a fucking stupid ass comment because legislatively, monetarily, electrical generationally, and a hundred other -ly's, it's not even in the realm of reality.  So it's a fucking stupid ass comment.  

This doesn't make any sense. So even if Texas can be proven to be anti-renewable rhetorically, you don't believe it should be said because Texas is pro-renewable monetarily.  As others have already pointed out, the legislative claim is factually untrue, and the monetary claim is not Texas money but private money. 

Texas produces a large amount of renewable energy. As you have already agreed, it's a good thing. Rhetorically, Texas is against renewable energy. I agree, it's rather stupid when you think about it. 

[Trey3216 15,380]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This doesn't make any sense. So even if Texas can be proven to be anti-renewable rhetorically, you don't believe it should be said because Texas is pro-renewable monetarily.  As others have already pointed out, the legislative claim is factually untrue, and the monetary claim is not Texas money but private money. 

Texas produces a large amount of renewable energy. As you have already agreed, it's a good thing. Rhetorically, Texas is against renewable energy. I agree, it's rather stupid when you think about it. 

Has Texas inhibited private money from investing in Renewables?  No.  Has Texas inhibited private money from investing in O&G?  no.  Now ask that question about elsewhere or federally.   

[Harrison Bergeron 1,798]

Has anyone studied the impact the growth of electric vehicles has on the grid? I think 99% of people charge them overnight and not during peak demand hours but curious how they impact demand and the overall impact on capacity. My friend said his increased his monthly bill by ~10%.

[maninblack 7,975]

2 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Has anyone studied the impact the growth of electric vehicles has on the grid? I think 99% of people charge them overnight and not during peak demand hours but curious how they impact demand and the overall impact on capacity. My friend said his increased his monthly bill by ~10%.

The mining necessary isn't environmentally friendly either

[Planet Houston 4,943]

7 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

By investment, Texas is anything but anti-renewables.   Fucking stupid ass comment 

But his quote said by rhetoric, not by investment.  Fucking stupid ass comment

[elfenix 34,385]

3 hours ago, immamac said:

and if you leverage thorium it's incredible. 

thorium fission is almost fusion levels of "it's right around the corner"

[Captainant 27,970]

37 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Has anyone studied the impact the growth of electric vehicles has on the grid? I think 99% of people charge them overnight and not during peak demand hours but curious how they impact demand and the overall impact on capacity. My friend said his increased his monthly bill by ~10%.

It's actually not that complex to calculate out:

a Ford Lightning has a 98kWhr battery that will need to be topped up probably around 25kWhrs every few days, assuming city usage of the car (equivalent to using a quarter tank of gas over the course of a few days). So every two or three days the car will siphon off 25 kWhrs of juice from the grid. The average home electric dryer uses around 3-4kWhr of energy per hour of "on" time.

So in this example, it's equivalent to running your dryer seven or eight times. Your buddy's estimate sounds about spot on for the net increase in electricity usage assuming he had a whole house on his bill already. So in terms of total impact to the grid, I'd bet it's noticeable but not a major scalability issue. The nice thing is that people tend to charge their cars overnight, when electricity demands and costs are lowest so it may actually help to better utilize the grid

33 minutes ago, maninblack said:

The mining necessary isn't environmentally friendly either

And yeah this lol. Not to mention that a single BTC ASIC miner burns 3kWhr of juice an hour for zero real-world utility, while charging an electric car up gets you places.

EDIT: just realized you meant raw materials mining lol, derp. This is a fair criticism, but it's not like the current dino-burning cycle for cars is all that great either. It just spreads out the impact over time and dilutes the pollution so it's easier for an individual to ignore their impact in the whole

Edited June 15, 2022 by Captainant

[elfenix 34,385]

3 hours ago, hullabelew said:

According to a couple of the land owners I talked to, they cut the blades in half, loaded them on trucks and drove them to NM to bury them. 

did they find E.T.?

[Dahobbs 17,804]

25 minutes ago, maninblack said:

The mining necessary isn't environmentally friendly either

No industry is going to be completely environmentally friendly. But mining for battery material is a lot more environmentally friendly than the infrastructure built around oil. And efforts are being made to quickly address the humanitarian and environmental concerns (e.g., switching to battery chemistries without cobalt). 

[Dahobbs 17,804]

34 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Has anyone studied the impact the growth of electric vehicles has on the grid? I think 99% of people charge them overnight and not during peak demand hours but curious how they impact demand and the overall impact on capacity. My friend said his increased his monthly bill by ~10%.

Yes.

Quote

 

Tom Baker, managing director and partner with Boston Consulting Group (BCG), told POWER: “We expect that a representative U.S. utility [with two to three million customers and baseline electricity sales of about 40,000 GWh], with 1.1 million EVs in service by 2030 [roughly 15% of all vehicles in such a utility’s service area], would need to invest between $1,700 and $5,800 in grid upgrades per electric vehicle (EV) through 2030. Differences in customer charging patterns, or the degree to which charging happens when and where the grid is constrained, drive the range of grid upgrades needed.

“E-mobility will increase the demand for both energy and grid capacity, but we expect the impact to be larger on grid capacity than on energy,” Baker said. “Assuming 15–20% of all vehicles in a representative utility’s service area are EVs by 2030, and that the utility is somewhat successful at optimizing when and where EVs are charged, we expect a 5–10% increase in energy demand but a 25–33% increase in demand for grid capacity. The actual increases for a specific utility will depend on local EV penetration, the extent to which EV charging happens when or where the grid is already constrained, and the mix of charging infrastructure installed.”

Baker said utilities “in general” are “not yet” prepared for the loads EVs will bring to the grid (Figure 2). “Many utilities are taking the right first steps of planning for grid expansions and building the capabilities to shift new load to times and places where the grid is best equipped to handle it. Utilities should use their network maps to identify where grid requirements will be needed, create a blueprint for investments, and prepare the regulatory filings needed to recoup their investments.”

Added Dillon: “With EVs, you’ll see a clustering effect. You could effectively double the load of a feeder with EVs, and those feeders weren’t designed for that. Utilities need to stay in close contact with customers, to understand their plans and their thinking.”

 

https://www.powermag.com/driving-change-on-the-grid-the-impact-of-ev-adoption/#:~:text=“Assuming 15–20% of,in demand for grid capacity.

More sources:

Distribution grid impacts of electric vehicles: A California case study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8749456/

Impact of uncoordinated plug-in electric vehicle charging on residential power demand: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0074-z

Effects of Electric Vehicles on Power Networks: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235197892030932X

Electric Vehicle Grid Impacts: https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/electric-vehicle-grid-impacts.html

 

[Chewbacca 7,793]

By investment, Texas is anything but anti-renewables.   Fucking stupid ass comment 

Yeah, there are wind and solar developments going on ask over Texas. It's booming right now.

[Chewbacca 7,793]

So, I work in O&G and obviously have a vested interest, but I just don't get the shit I see on LinkedIn from other people in O&G that don't simply harbor doubts about renewables but actively discourage them and point to them as the source of all of our energy woes. The argument is basically that every cent invested in "failed" renewables is a cent that was stolen away from reliable O&G. 
 

Shell just bought a renewable developer and is cranking up development of wind and solar. The smart O&G companies will follow suit.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

Has Texas inhibited private money from investing in Renewables?  No.  Has Texas inhibited private money from investing in O&G?  no.  Now ask that question about elsewhere or federally.   

I agree. So it’s pretty stupid that Texas is rhetorically anti-renewables, don’t you agree?

[Chewbacca 7,793]

I do solar in Texas. If you wanna be part of the solution, dm me

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You do utility scale, or behind the meter stuff?

[Grimas 671]

57 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

7 hours ago, Storm the Field said:

So, I work in O&G and obviously have a vested interest, but I just don't get the shit I see on LinkedIn from other people in O&G that don't simply harbor doubts about renewables but actively discourage them and point to them as the source of all of our energy woes. The argument is basically that every cent invested in "failed" renewables is a cent that was stolen away from reliable O&G. 
 

Shell just bought a renewable developer and is cranking up development of wind and solar. The smart O&G companies will follow suit.

Huh? Only appearing "smart" with a gun to their heads... If you are a European-based O&G company, you are forced to have 2030 and 2050 plan related to ESG's and all things "green" or you can't get any financing... 

Want to borrow a billion for that platform to produce that oil you just spent $200+ million on to discover but can't produce a drop for 7+ years while you wait for the platform and infrastructure to be built?  Good luck with that without a "green" plan... 

See the recent offer from Hamm to buy back the outstanding shares of Continental Resources ($4.3B cash of the 17% he didn't already own, IIRC) so they could go back to being private and not have to worry about equity associated with restrictions in financing due to renewables... 

[Ag with kids 581]

6 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

The challenge with nukes is that they require billions of upfront expenditure and damn near a decade of operation to reach breakeven and start turning a profit. America does not like long-term delayed gratification when shareholders want a profit next quarter and not a decade from now.

The latest gen nuke reactors (gen 4) are passively safe and have relatively benign waste, but the economics are going to kill nukes without a subsidy or guarantee from the federal government

In the past, a HUGE part of the cost in the upfront expenditure was fighting legal challenges.  There were a number of "green" or "anti-nuke" organizations that employed lots of oppositional legal action to prevent them.  One of the biggest was the Union of Concerned Scientists.  They had been VEHEMENTLY opposed to ANYTHING nuclear since the late 60s...

Three Mile Island (which released ZERO radiation), Chernobyl (Russian fuck up) and Fukishima (Bad, but not really).

However, in the past few years, they apparently have seen the light and are promoting nuclear power.  Which makes me very happy that they came to their senses.

Things like this will go a long way to lowering the costs for nuclear to implement new plants. 

[Captainant 27,970]

Just now, Ag with kids said:

Three Mile Island (which released ZERO radiation)

I'm a proponent of nuclear energy, but this is incorrect - they released quite a bit of radioactive gas into the atmosphere. The recently released netflix docuseries on TMI is some pretty solid factual reporting too that highlights how everyone was on edge because of the recent release of The China Syndrome that had an eerily similar incident starting with a turbine trip

We've come a loooooong way in understanding power coefficients and passive safety, but for the foreseeable future there's going to be justified concerns and skepticism around nuclear because of the stakes - not the risks. New reactor designs are passively safe without outside power, and once a nation-state perfects the tech (probably the French...) I'd imagine that they come back into fashion after a looooooong PR campaign

[smoky 842]

How's Austin Energy's biomass plant in Nacogdoches doing?

Are we getting anything out of that yet?

[Chewbacca 7,793]

Huh? Only appearing "smart" with a gun to their heads... If you are a European-based O&G company, you are forced to have 2030 and 2050 plan related to ESG's and all things "green" or you can't get any financing... 
Want to borrow a billion for that platform to produce that oil you just spent $200+ million on to discover but can't produce a drop for 7+ years while you wait for the platform and infrastructure to be built?  Good luck with that without a "green" plan... 
See the recent offer from Hamm to buy back the outstanding shares of Continental Resources ($4.3B cash of the 17% he didn't already own, IIRC) so they could go back to being private and not have to worry about equity associated with restrictions in financing due to renewables... 

There's a lot of money to be made with renewables. Do O&G companies not like making money?

[Captainant 27,970]

9 minutes ago, smoky said:

How's Austin Energy's biomass plant in Nacogdoches doing?

Are we getting anything out of that yet?

Waste Management actually does that already at all of their landfills. They fuel their fleet with natural gas tapped from landfills and they contribute a little over a megawatt of power to the grid from each generation site

[J.R. 150]

The shortsightedness here is the assumption that there are limited investment dollars for anything that makes economic and reliable sense. While I would say the investment landscape is tilted somewhat in favor of renewables (probably wise) trust me when I tell you that Americans are very industrious and if there is some nook or cranny anywhere in this giant economy that hasn’t been exploited like an instagram model on Pee in Her Butt, they will find it soon (fossil or renewable) with TONS of newly printed capital to follow. It is really amazing to watch. 

[Grimas 671]

1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

3 hours ago, Grimas said:

Huh? Only appearing "smart" with a gun to their heads... If you are a European-based O&G company, you are forced to have 2030 and 2050 plan related to ESG's and all things "green" or you can't get any financing... 
Want to borrow a billion for that platform to produce that oil you just spent $200+ million on to discover but can't produce a drop for 7+ years while you wait for the platform and infrastructure to be built?  Good luck with that without a "green" plan... 
See the recent offer from Hamm to buy back the outstanding shares of Continental Resources ($4.3B cash of the 17% he didn't already own, IIRC) so they could go back to being private and not have to worry about equity associated with restrictions in financing due to renewables... 

There's a lot of money to be made with renewables. Do O&G companies not like making money?

Most of the money I've seen is all based on subsidies in the renewable space.  Don't get me wrong, I've got issue with developing alternative sources of energy where it makes sense...  Nuclear sure does... 

Dong Energy (now Orstad) was the first integrated company to decide to go "all in" on renewables 7 years ago and took advantage of all the subsidies available. (Most the the windmills you see in the North Sea are theirs.) The sold off their O&G division to Ineos and the stock at the time was around $20/share and is currently $30/share and dropping...  (it did hit a high in the 70's during COVID but has been screaming downward since everything opened back up...)  Ineos isn't publicly traded but I'm sure they are printing money right now like everyone else in the integrated O&G business.

Do you know that over 90% of the world's O&G is controlled by National Oil Companies (NOC's)?  Even if all the "majors" went away tomorrow, the NOC's will keep pumping as for most of them, it's their primary source of income... (Dubai runs out of their oil in around 20 years which is why they have pumped so much into development so they can survive once the oil runs out.)  The only real place left to make real money for E&P is in the US (at least for now).  XOM or Chevron may be in Saudi or Iraq but they basically are acting as sub-contractors to the NOC.  They get to recover their costs and make a few bucks a barrel.  Oil at 50/bbl?  Here is your 3 bucks.  Oil at 120?  Here is your 3 bucks... Guess who gets to profit? The NOC's... 

Only in the US and somewhat Canada allows the companies to profit from the upside (and take the losses on the low prices). I know companies who reformed their companies to only work in areas where they can make money at $50 oil and $3 gas.  Divested anything that didn't meet that criteria.  They are printing money now but 2 years ago, they were laying off staff and cutting to the bone just to keep the lights on.  There is a big stink of XOM making something like $24B in profit this year but it isn't mentioned that they lost something like 22B last year... How did "big pharma" do last year? Why aren't they paying windfall profits tax?

Edited June 16, 2022 by Grimas

[maninblack 7,975]

11 minutes ago, Grimas said:

Nuclear sure does... 

This is the one people should be clamoring for

[Harrison Bergeron 1,798]

If we lived in a mildly intelligent country not run by mentally retarded fucktards fully bought by special interest groups elected to office by mouth-breathing retards who cannot count to 10 ... we'd have a bunch of nuclear plants. It makes too much sense to actually happen.

[Hornius Emeritus 12,496]

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

thorium fission is almost fusion levels of "it's right around the corner"

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/05/world/iter-nuclear-fusion-climate-intl-cnnphotos/

[FartingMonk 3,608]

Everyone loves nuclear power until it is in their backyard.  The NIMBY dudes will bankrupt it in litigation.

[FartingMonk 3,608]

And actually Texas is very friendly to renewables and the funny reason is they don't give a shit about the environment.  You wanna build a windfarm. Have at it.  You wanna build solar be our guest.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

8 hours ago, maninblack said:

This is the one people should be clamoring for

I agree. As well as solar and wind. Anything to reduce our dependence on foreign energy 

[DigglerontheHoof 21,273]

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

Everyone loves nuclear power until it is in their backyard.  The NIMBY dudes will bankrupt it in litigation.

Wouldn't bother me but, yeah, any Karen in the vicinity will raise hell and make us "think of the children". 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Texas isn't doing the investment. Private entities within Texas are doing that, driven by the superior economics of renewables. The government of Texas is pretty clearly anti-renewable based on its rhetoric. Fortunately, that rhetoric hasn't really resulted in substantial anti-renewable legislation (although there has been some), largely I suspect because Texas is also very pro-business. 

So they're supporting it, but not while hugging a tree?

The dogma isn't there, so it doesn't count.

[Dahobbs 17,804]

39 minutes ago, slorch said:

So they're supporting it, but not while hugging a tree?

The dogma isn't there, so it doesn't count.

That's not what I said. There is a distinction between support and not actively getting in the way.  The Texas government is mostly doing the latter (minus some recent legislation that actually does try and get in the way).  The economics of renewables are doing the heavy lifting in getting private entities to invest in them. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17,804]

The most accurate way to put it is that the Texas government is hypocritical with regards to renewables. Fortunately, that hypocrisy has mostly favored their development. 

And, to be fair, there has also been direct support in the form laws that allow local taxing entities to waive/defer school taxes on developments that will increase the local taxing base.

The anti renewable rhetoric and legislation is a more recent development.  

[Homercles 10,206]

How much is it the interconnection between business/law makers (what the government controls), vs the fact that Texas physically is very conducive to renewables…ie the open flat land available combined with abundant sun/wind (Texas itself)?

[phdhorn 6,224]

17 hours ago, Captainant said:

Counterpoint: our state has frequently taken direct action to counter federal renewable subsidies. In fact, our state imposed new fees last summer that target renewables and charge them when not producing (when the sun isn't shining or wind isn't blowing) to put their thumb on the scale in favor of fossil fuels.

I do agree that market economics are what's driving our energy policy, but it's certainly not free market economics.

I believe that legislation (both your links refer to the same thing, SB3) allows ERCOT the ability to charge fees for renewables.  To my knowledge no fees have yet to be charged.  I agree that in part this is a bad bill - but like most governmental things, it's meant to scour money to put back into the system.  However that was last year, and over the last 12 months the government has changed its tune somewhat, in a new biofuels project and similar initiatives.

However my main point is that Texas has led the country (even flying past California) in the pace and amount of renewable growth the past several years - in a suppsedly "hostile" political environment for non-fossil fuels, which brings me back to the point:  renewables have been a ripe market in Texas, with cheap costs and lots of affordable and profitable opportunities, and the market far eclipses the governmental influence so far on their development.  And even the bill you cited hasn't impacted it - at all as far as I know (if someone can find an instance of fees levied by ERCOT on renewable companies, post it thanks).

The problem now is that the infrastructure is still old and even the massive spike in renewable energy production is hampered by ways to get that power to people.  That's where most of the $$ will be needed.  Some of it (and hopefully most of it) will be borne by the companies themselves as the ramp up.

I think in 2020 renewables were something like 20% of the energy in Texas.  During last week's big heat (and record generation - over 80MW now for days running - keep in mind the peak wattage needed in The Big Chill was about 70MW(!), renewables accounted for over 33% (in 2021 it was about 25%) of the energy!

Going back to this thread topic, I agree that renewables "are saving our ass" by providing the needed icing on the energy cake But I also want to point out that this is not news to people in Texas - of all political persuasions - who are taking advantage of ripe (and so far pretty unlimited) opportunities to develop it.  The near-term answer is that we need all types (including fossils) and in the last year I think the needle has turned clearly to recognizing that fact.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, phdhorn said:

Going back to this thread topic, I agree that renewables "are saving our ass" by providing the needed icing on the energy cake But I also want to point out that this is not news to people in Texas - of all political persuasions - who are taking advantage of ripe (and so far pretty unlimited) opportunities to develop it.  The near-term answer is that we need all types (including fossils) and in the last year I think the needle has turned clearly to recognizing that fact.

Most people have reading comprehension problems. 

There are two conversations happening, and overlapping. 

1. Texas is rhetorically anti-renewables. 

2. Texas is anti-renewables. 

Many people are arguing about #2 when the article posted in OP is clearly about #1. 

Everyone needs to re-read the article posted. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/14/us/texas-energy-record-solar-wind-climate/index.html

Quote

Texans setting new records for electricity demand in the state

Experts told CNN that it's owed in large part to strong performances from wind and solar, -- close to 40% of the total needed.

Quote

"Texas is, by rhetoric, anti-renewables. But frankly, renewables are bailing us out,"

Despite the Texas Republican rhetoric that wind and solar are unreliable, Texas has a massive and growing fleet of renewables.

 

 

[Trey3216 15,380]

11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Most people have reading comprehension problems. 

There are two conversations happening, and overlapping. 

1. Texas is rhetorically anti-renewables. 

2. Texas is anti-renewables. 

Many people are arguing about #2 when the article posted in OP is clearly about #1. 

Everyone needs to re-read the article posted. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/14/us/texas-energy-record-solar-wind-climate/index.html

 

And my original point was...If you're not standing in the way of renewable or O&G investment and production vis a vis legislation, are you even rhetorically anti-xxxxx?   Look at the actions by the State rather than hear the 'rhetoric' and compare that to other states or our federal govt and then ask yourself the question again.  

[Dahobbs 17,804]

2 hours ago, Homercles said:

How much is it the interconnection between business/law makers (what the government controls), vs the fact that Texas physically is very conducive to renewables…ie the open flat land available combined with abundant sun/wind (Texas itself)?

I think the latter explains a lot of the push to build out renewables in Texas. But, the former helps in that there are also very few barriers to constructing those facilities.  

[Dahobbs 17,804]

4 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

And my original point was...If you're not standing in the way of renewable or O&G investment and production vis a vis legislation, are you even rhetorically anti-xxxxx?   Look at the actions by the State rather than hear the 'rhetoric' and compare that to other states or our federal govt and then ask yourself the question again.  

I think the problem here is that you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "rhetoric." Everyone agrees that the rhetoric and results aren't consistent. That's literally the point being made in the article. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[phdhorn 6,224]

23 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Most people have reading comprehension problems. 

There are two conversations happening, and overlapping. 

1. Texas is rhetorically anti-renewables. 

2. Texas is anti-renewables. 

Many people are arguing about #2 when the article posted in OP is clearly about #1. 

Everyone needs to re-read the article posted. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/14/us/texas-energy-record-solar-wind-climate/index.html

 

That's my point... 1) I don't think #1 is as true as it has been, and again to my point, 2) even if it were, it isn't affecting the huge investments in renewables in Texas, which means that whatever "rhetoric" (also, reading comprehension, that's one opinion in the artcle) exists, it's not doing anything to counteract the market plodding on.

Yeah I get the subtle political point of the article - "despite ________ (party or legislature or governor or butler or dog catcher, fill in the blank) being anti-renewable in their stance (which I've disagreed with here, especially in the past year), Texas's renewables have saved our asses."  The second part is true, the first not so much.  Not wanting to gobble a shitload of "green energy solutions" to the detriment of fossil fuels is by no means "anti-renewable."  Moderation has now been the operative, and in the Texas market, it's been the driving force, especially since the Big Chill.  So it's no suprise that the renewables have "saved our asses" - Texas investors - and parts of government - are all for it.  In moderation.

No reading comprehension problems on my part.  Hope no others have it. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by phdhorn

[JesusSweatDuck 17,814]

23 hours ago, Eastwood said:

This political jousting with our energy security is exhausting, pointless, and dangerous. We need both. We need both to work well. We need both to be reliable. We need to be open to maximizing the efficiencies of both. We need to work on minimizing the environmental impact of both.

Both. Not one or the other. This isn't a winner take all cage match. For energy security and stability, we need both.

Especially with all the electric cars coming online, the demand is only going to go higher.  The answer is to invest in all sources O&G, Renewables and Nuclear.  Anyone saying we need to just invest in one is an idiot

[Trey3216 15,380]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I think the problem here is that you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "rhetoric." 

I'm not.  

 

3 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

That's my point... 1) I don't think #1 is as true as it has been, and again to my point, 2) even if it were, it isn't affecting the huge investments in renewables in Texas, which means that whatever "rhetoric" (also, reading comprehension, that's one opinion in the artcle) exists, it's not doing anything to counteract the market plodding on.

Yeah I get the subtle political point of the article - "despite ________ being anti-renewable (which I've disagreed with), Texas's renewables have saved our asses."  The second part is true, the first not so much.

No reading comprehension problems on my part.  Hope no others have it. 

Precisely 

[kevwun 15,943]

Did you fellas miss Texas politicians blaming wind and solar for the power outages during the freeze?

[texasdago 7,589]

3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Did you fellas miss Texas politicians blaming wind and solar for the power outages during the freeze?

Did you see them walk it back when it was proven to be wrong?  Nope.  They want their voting base in Lamesa, Jasper and Abilene to make anything that seems "librul" the source of all that is bad.  I'm sure they used AOC + "green new deal" or whatever while blaming renewables. 

EDIT:

Here you go... LOL

Abbott said in an interview with Sean Hannity in the middle of a crisis that “the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America.” Ignoring that experts and officials agreed that a disruption in energy powered by fossil fuels was the biggest culprit behind Texas' outages, Abbott added that losses in wind and solar energy “thrust Texas into a situation where it was lacking power in a statewide basis.”

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by texasdago

[texasdago 7,589]

Man, this was too easy...

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by texasdago

[phdhorn 6,224]

9 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Did you fellas miss Texas politicians blaming wind and solar for the power outages during the freeze?

Nope, saw it.  Not entirely true.

But did you miss the part where almost all of the wind turbines failed because they froze?

Yeah it was a dumb comment to just blame "renewable energy" in some blanket way - but it wasn't inaccurate that the structures of those energy sources failed in the cold.

That was my point in a post above = the infrastructure to deliver renewables still needs work.  Without it it don't matter a shit what kind of energy you tap.  You still need conventional means to get it to people.

So wind power failed just as much as the freezing of natural gas lines for oil and gas.

It wasn't the type of energy that led to the problem - it was the bad infrastructure. 

This is where the focus needs to go now.  Obviously "rhetoric" or much of anything else has actually stopped Texas' record investments in these sources.  There is no political environment where they're not welcome to develop.  If there are examples of where "rhetoric" has caused problems in energy investment that have actually occurred within the last year, post them.  I would love to see them (no saracsm, I really would).  

[kevwun 15,943]

And not a single one of them clarified that it was an infrastructure issue or that renewable sources unperformed much less than natural gas plants.  You guys are bent out of shape about the term rhetoric, but it's correct in this case.

Edited June 16, 2022 by kevwun