7 ms·

Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy, but they are building wind like crazy as well. Look at the City of Austin and the amount of renewab

by lykr0n 8y ago

Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy, but they are building wind like crazy as well. Look at the City of Austin and the amount of renewables year over year: https://data.austintexas.gov/Utilities-and-City-Services/Generation-by-Fuel-Type/ss6t-rumq https://data.austintexas.gov/Utilities-and-City-Services/Gen... You can see a real-time chart of energy mix here: https://austinenergy.com/ae/about/environment/renewable-power-generation https://austinenergy.com/ae/about/environment/renewable-powe... Most days renewables are 50% of electricity consumes. I pay a bit extra for 100% wind- and it's not that much more than 50/50. I could easily see Texas being a majority renewables while at the same time exporting more and more Oil.

nicolaslem 8y ago
Isn't that what Norway has been doing for years?
- einarvollset 8y ago
  Yes, but mostly hydro for power generation.
- tacos_supreme 8y ago
  I mean, sure. But Texas produces almost 3x as much as Norway.
buboard 8y ago
It makes sense. Like how the Gulf countries invest in solar. It's because they have the interested parties (Energy industry) on the phone every day.
sk5t 8y ago
Isn't it typical for each economy to export the thing it is best at producing? Also look at Norway--huge petroleum wealth, lots of Teslas because oil is dirty.
- 2trill2spill 8y ago
  Depending on where you get the electricity to charge your Tesla it could be worse than oil. But seeing as Norway gets almost all of it's electricity from renewable energy that's not the case there.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    There is no electrical generation source that is worse than oil, for any electric car. Only 12-30% [1] (EDIT: replaced 1% after correction from nradov) of energy makes it to the wheels when burning petroleum to propel a vehicle forward. Your electric car will get cleaner over time (90-95% of new generation coming online each year are renewables), your petrol vehicle will burn petrol forever. [1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
    - nradov 8y ago
      You're way off. Modern cars turn about 30% of the energy in gasoline into forward motion. However, electric cars do have a lower carbon impact in almost all cases.
    - 2trill2spill 8y ago
      > There is no electrical generation source that is worse than oil, for any electric car. Only 1% of energy makes it to the wheels when burning petroleum to propel a vehicle forward. What? You say "there is no electrical generation source that is worse than oil" then say "Only 1% of energy makes it to the wheels when burning petroleum to propel a vehicle forward." A gasoline powered car is not an electrical generation source so I'm sure what your saying, especially because coal is a much dirtier source for generating electricity. Also a quick google search shows that gasoline powered vehicles have a tank to wheel efficiency around 16%[1][2] which is much higher then the 1% you stated. And my original point was, If a electric vehicle is being charged from a dirty source like a coal plant then it can be more polluting then driving an efficient petroleum car. Coal is more polluting then Oil when burned and converting the heat to electricity is a huge hit to efficiency. Only about 30% of the energy from coal is turned into electricity. Plus you have transmission loss from getting the electricity from the power plant to the EV. [1]: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/10/electric-car-myth-buster-efficiency/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/10/electric-car-myth-buste... [2]: https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/ https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-whee...
crwalker 8y ago
This sounds like a preeminently practical strategy.
CodeSheikh 8y ago
Don't forget that Texas is also one of the largest producer of nuclear energy in the nation.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Lots of people in Texas have gotten good at making money from producing energy. Simple as that.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
    It is probably the most innovative place in the world for energy production. Hydraulic fracturing was invented there. Well, not invented, but innovated upon enough to the point where it was basically invented there. Without discussing the environmental problems that came with its onset, it’s easy to acknowledge how that one technique completely transformed the natural gas industry and the overall energy industry in the last 20-30 years.
- kakarot 8y ago
  We're also the largest electricity consumer, so that might not mean anything special.
liftbigweights 8y ago
> Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy Texas had always pumped a lot of oil. Texas was the oil capital of the world for a long time before saudi arabia came around. > but they are building wind like crazy as well. That's because one of the wealthiest men in the world has been a big fan of wind energy. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19231397/ns/us_news-environment/t/texas-oil-tycoon-plans-largest-wind-farm/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19231397/ns/us_news-environment/t/... > I could easily see Texas being a majority renewables while at the same time exporting more and more Oil. No major state or country is going to be renewable majority for a very long time ( if ever ). Least of all texas. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/primary-energy-consumption-by-source-history.png https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/primary-en...
- tomrod 8y ago
  Look up information on the PUCT's "CREZ" project.
- stjohnswarts 8y ago
  Now if we would only take on smart modern nuclear reactors, but I'm afraid the greenies in the USA will keep killing that and eventually we'll be buying advanced modular nuclear power from the Chinese in about 10 years.
syntaxing 8y ago
A couple year ago, they were the highest producer of energy of any form in the US (including oil, coal, solar, and wind).
pathseeker 8y ago
> Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy, but they are building wind like crazy as well. There isn't really anything contradictory about that. Oil has a vastly different set of use-cases than wind energy. There are no electric alternatives for most long distance transportation, which is a huge chunk of our energy consumption. Gaining independence from OPEC by supporting local oil extraction while simultaneously moving as much of the grid to renewable as possible is a completely rational choice.
- nradov 8y ago
  Natural gas is an alternative to oil for long distance transportation, although both are still fossil fuels. Progress is being made on algae biofuels. If electricity gets cheap enough it can be used to make synthetic hydrocarbon liquid fuels.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    But again, if electricity is cheap enough, why not electric trains like we do in Europe? Or hydrogen if you need some energy storage on board? See http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-trains-be-the-future-of-rail http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-train... I bet that this would be much better for the environment than algae.
    - ac29 8y ago
      >why not electric trains like we do in Europe? While electrification of the US freight rail network certainly may happen, you have to remember the US is twice as large as the EU (9.1M sq km vs 4.5M sq km) and only a quarter the population density (33 vs 117 per sq km). Long distance passenger train routes don't really make sense (electrified or not, very few people want to spend 2 days on the train when a flight is 4 hours), meaning rail in the US is almost entirely freight.
      - ip26 8y ago
        I haven't gone deep into the economics, but I've found rail cost several times as much for a 30 hour ride with nowhere to sleep, compared to the 2 hour flight or 20 hour drive. So of course ridership is low. Some intersection of actually-competitive pricing and higher speed tracks, and it seems like rail would have the potential to be plenty competitive. Lower vehicle purchae, maintenance & fuel costs, greater comfort. If I could make a 2 hour flight in 4 or 6 hours by train for 90% of the cost, I'd probably never fly again.
hourislate 8y ago
I'm curious whether they see some kind of writing on the wall and realize that while they embrace renewable energy and lead the nation in Wind Power they also need to pump hard so this vast resource of oil (1 trillion barrels) is not left stranded when/if the day ever comes where oil is not required (in vast quantity). They are incredibly smart business people and a State Gov that is incredibly business friendly, which has made Texas an energy powerhouse from renewable energy, oil, natural gas, refining capabilities and the infrastructure to move it all to market.
hnphillipj 8y ago
You should know that oil is hardly used for elec. gen in developed countries. They are only indirect competitors - through the automobile.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  I do know that. I'm commenting on the fact that Texas is investing in renewables while at the same time investing nonrenewables at the same time.
  - kthejoker2 8y ago
    Renewables are primarily for domestic consumption, oil is an export good.
- munk-a 8y ago
  You in fact shouldn't know this as the EIA reports that 3,239,699 barrels of petroleum products were consumed in august of this year alone for electrical generation in the US (source https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.03B#/?f=M&start=200001 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T... )
  - hnphillipj 8y ago
    I'll change my comment from not -> hardly. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 While your number seems like a lot, it's really just a drop in the bucket. The US consumes close to 8 billion barrels of oil annually. I was, however, surprised that it was still as high as 0.5%.
    - tropo 8y ago
      Hawaii likes to generate power that way. Northern parts of Alaska do too.
- technofiend 8y ago
  >You should know that oil is not used for elec. gen in developed countries. Eh? When I worked for a United States generation company our coal-burning plants could and would be switched to bunker fuel if the price was right. To be fair it's not much (less than 5%) depending on how you slice it, but in their 2016 annual report [1] Dynegy reported 2.6 TWh (terawatt hours) sold into the wholesale market and .7 TWh into retail. Be careful about blanket statements unless you're an expert in the area because other HN readers are experts. [1] = https://www.dynegy.com/sites/default/files/Dynegy_2016_Annual_Report.pdf https://www.dynegy.com/sites/default/files/Dynegy_2016_Annua...
kakarot 8y ago
At my last apartment, I was paying only about $40/mo for 100% wind/solar. It's incredible what a little government-mandated competition can do.
pasbesoin 8y ago
Make no mistake: Big oil, coal, etc. will move to "green" energy. However, this is how they want to do so: - Maximize returns on existing investments: Mineral rights and leases and options and equipment. - Maintain and gain control. Renewable energy is just fine, then, as long as they are in control and profiting from it. The problem is, this screws over a lot of people and environments, in the meantime. Slows investment -- the U.S. has already lost much of the technology lead and even more of the manufacturing lead, to overseas. And, it vests the least progressive elements of our society with control over our energy future. Oh, and environmental pollution -- not just CO2, but the outfall of CO2, heavy metals, radioactive byproducts (yes, from fossil fuels), continued support of authoritarian and criminal regimes... Oh, yes, they can actually slow deployment, as well. Such as trying to get state legislatures to "outlaw" self-sufficient home deployments. Fighting, as they did for some time, end user feeds back into the grid (that can require grid upgrades to handle, at scale). Anyway, these are not the people and organizations I want in control of our future energy production and distribution. Nor, in my opinion, do they deserve to profit from it. But that's their goal.
exabrial 8y ago
The only funny thing about it is people learn their world view is incorrect. Texans are capitalists: if there was a dollar to be made pumping water uphill, there'd be the world's largest salt lake in West Texas. Oil is an important automotive fuel, but it's a chemical stock for everything that's touching your skin at the second. Hilariously, we should probably start wondering if our plastics come from oil sourced from "ethicality regulated states" or something.
programmarchy 8y ago
Another interesting thing about Texas is that it has an independent power grid.

by lykr0n 8y ago

nicolaslem 8y ago

Isn't that what Norway has been doing for years?

einarvollset 8y ago
Yes, but mostly hydro for power generation.
tacos_supreme 8y ago
I mean, sure. But Texas produces almost 3x as much as Norway.

buboard 8y ago

It makes sense. Like how the Gulf countries invest in solar. It's because they have the interested parties (Energy industry) on the phone every day.

sk5t 8y ago

Isn't it typical for each economy to export the thing it is best at producing? Also look at Norway--huge petroleum wealth, lots of Teslas because oil is dirty.

2trill2spill 8y ago
Depending on where you get the electricity to charge your Tesla it could be worse than oil. But seeing as Norway gets almost all of it's electricity from renewable energy that's not the case there.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  There is no electrical generation source that is worse than oil, for any electric car. Only 12-30% [1] (EDIT: replaced 1% after correction from nradov) of energy makes it to the wheels when burning petroleum to propel a vehicle forward. Your electric car will get cleaner over time (90-95% of new generation coming online each year are renewables), your petrol vehicle will burn petrol forever. [1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
  - nradov 8y ago
    You're way off. Modern cars turn about 30% of the energy in gasoline into forward motion. However, electric cars do have a lower carbon impact in almost all cases.
  - 2trill2spill 8y ago
    > There is no electrical generation source that is worse than oil, for any electric car. Only 1% of energy makes it to the wheels when burning petroleum to propel a vehicle forward. What? You say "there is no electrical generation source that is worse than oil" then say "Only 1% of energy makes it to the wheels when burning petroleum to propel a vehicle forward." A gasoline powered car is not an electrical generation source so I'm sure what your saying, especially because coal is a much dirtier source for generating electricity. Also a quick google search shows that gasoline powered vehicles have a tank to wheel efficiency around 16%[1][2] which is much higher then the 1% you stated. And my original point was, If a electric vehicle is being charged from a dirty source like a coal plant then it can be more polluting then driving an efficient petroleum car. Coal is more polluting then Oil when burned and converting the heat to electricity is a huge hit to efficiency. Only about 30% of the energy from coal is turned into electricity. Plus you have transmission loss from getting the electricity from the power plant to the EV. [1]: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/10/electric-car-myth-buster-efficiency/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/10/electric-car-myth-buste... [2]: https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/ https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-whee...

crwalker 8y ago

This sounds like a preeminently practical strategy.

CodeSheikh 8y ago

Don't forget that Texas is also one of the largest producer of nuclear energy in the nation.

stcredzero 8y ago
Lots of people in Texas have gotten good at making money from producing energy. Simple as that.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
  It is probably the most innovative place in the world for energy production. Hydraulic fracturing was invented there. Well, not invented, but innovated upon enough to the point where it was basically invented there. Without discussing the environmental problems that came with its onset, it’s easy to acknowledge how that one technique completely transformed the natural gas industry and the overall energy industry in the last 20-30 years.
kakarot 8y ago
We're also the largest electricity consumer, so that might not mean anything special.

liftbigweights 8y ago

> Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy Texas had always pumped a lot of oil. Texas was the oil capital of the world for a long time before saudi arabia came around. > but they are building wind like crazy as well. That's because one of the wealthiest men in the world has been a big fan of wind energy. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19231397/ns/us_news-environment/t/texas-oil-tycoon-plans-largest-wind-farm/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19231397/ns/us_news-environment/t/... > I could easily see Texas being a majority renewables while at the same time exporting more and more Oil. No major state or country is going to be renewable majority for a very long time ( if ever ). Least of all texas. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/primary-energy-consumption-by-source-history.png https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/primary-en...

tomrod 8y ago
Look up information on the PUCT's "CREZ" project.
stjohnswarts 8y ago
Now if we would only take on smart modern nuclear reactors, but I'm afraid the greenies in the USA will keep killing that and eventually we'll be buying advanced modular nuclear power from the Chinese in about 10 years.

syntaxing 8y ago

A couple year ago, they were the highest producer of energy of any form in the US (including oil, coal, solar, and wind).

pathseeker 8y ago

> Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy, but they are building wind like crazy as well. There isn't really anything contradictory about that. Oil has a vastly different set of use-cases than wind energy. There are no electric alternatives for most long distance transportation, which is a huge chunk of our energy consumption. Gaining independence from OPEC by supporting local oil extraction while simultaneously moving as much of the grid to renewable as possible is a completely rational choice.

nradov 8y ago
Natural gas is an alternative to oil for long distance transportation, although both are still fossil fuels. Progress is being made on algae biofuels. If electricity gets cheap enough it can be used to make synthetic hydrocarbon liquid fuels.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  But again, if electricity is cheap enough, why not electric trains like we do in Europe? Or hydrogen if you need some energy storage on board? See http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-trains-be-the-future-of-rail http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-train... I bet that this would be much better for the environment than algae.
  - ac29 8y ago
    >why not electric trains like we do in Europe? While electrification of the US freight rail network certainly may happen, you have to remember the US is twice as large as the EU (9.1M sq km vs 4.5M sq km) and only a quarter the population density (33 vs 117 per sq km). Long distance passenger train routes don't really make sense (electrified or not, very few people want to spend 2 days on the train when a flight is 4 hours), meaning rail in the US is almost entirely freight.
    - ip26 8y ago
      I haven't gone deep into the economics, but I've found rail cost several times as much for a 30 hour ride with nowhere to sleep, compared to the 2 hour flight or 20 hour drive. So of course ridership is low. Some intersection of actually-competitive pricing and higher speed tracks, and it seems like rail would have the potential to be plenty competitive. Lower vehicle purchae, maintenance & fuel costs, greater comfort. If I could make a 2 hour flight in 4 or 6 hours by train for 90% of the cost, I'd probably never fly again.

hourislate 8y ago

I'm curious whether they see some kind of writing on the wall and realize that while they embrace renewable energy and lead the nation in Wind Power they also need to pump hard so this vast resource of oil (1 trillion barrels) is not left stranded when/if the day ever comes where oil is not required (in vast quantity). They are incredibly smart business people and a State Gov that is incredibly business friendly, which has made Texas an energy powerhouse from renewable energy, oil, natural gas, refining capabilities and the infrastructure to move it all to market.

hnphillipj 8y ago

You should know that oil is hardly used for elec. gen in developed countries. They are only indirect competitors - through the automobile.

lykr0n 8y ago
I do know that. I'm commenting on the fact that Texas is investing in renewables while at the same time investing nonrenewables at the same time.
- kthejoker2 8y ago
  Renewables are primarily for domestic consumption, oil is an export good.
munk-a 8y ago
You in fact shouldn't know this as the EIA reports that 3,239,699 barrels of petroleum products were consumed in august of this year alone for electrical generation in the US (source https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.03B#/?f=M&start=200001 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T... )
- hnphillipj 8y ago
  I'll change my comment from not -> hardly. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 While your number seems like a lot, it's really just a drop in the bucket. The US consumes close to 8 billion barrels of oil annually. I was, however, surprised that it was still as high as 0.5%.
  - tropo 8y ago
    Hawaii likes to generate power that way. Northern parts of Alaska do too.
technofiend 8y ago
>You should know that oil is not used for elec. gen in developed countries. Eh? When I worked for a United States generation company our coal-burning plants could and would be switched to bunker fuel if the price was right. To be fair it's not much (less than 5%) depending on how you slice it, but in their 2016 annual report [1] Dynegy reported 2.6 TWh (terawatt hours) sold into the wholesale market and .7 TWh into retail. Be careful about blanket statements unless you're an expert in the area because other HN readers are experts. [1] = https://www.dynegy.com/sites/default/files/Dynegy_2016_Annual_Report.pdf https://www.dynegy.com/sites/default/files/Dynegy_2016_Annua...

kakarot 8y ago

At my last apartment, I was paying only about $40/mo for 100% wind/solar. It's incredible what a little government-mandated competition can do.

pasbesoin 8y ago

Make no mistake: Big oil, coal, etc. will move to "green" energy. However, this is how they want to do so: - Maximize returns on existing investments: Mineral rights and leases and options and equipment. - Maintain and gain control. Renewable energy is just fine, then, as long as they are in control and profiting from it. The problem is, this screws over a lot of people and environments, in the meantime. Slows investment -- the U.S. has already lost much of the technology lead and even more of the manufacturing lead, to overseas. And, it vests the least progressive elements of our society with control over our energy future. Oh, and environmental pollution -- not just CO2, but the outfall of CO2, heavy metals, radioactive byproducts (yes, from fossil fuels), continued support of authoritarian and criminal regimes... Oh, yes, they can actually slow deployment, as well. Such as trying to get state legislatures to "outlaw" self-sufficient home deployments. Fighting, as they did for some time, end user feeds back into the grid (that can require grid upgrades to handle, at scale). Anyway, these are not the people and organizations I want in control of our future energy production and distribution. Nor, in my opinion, do they deserve to profit from it. But that's their goal.

exabrial 8y ago

The only funny thing about it is people learn their world view is incorrect. Texans are capitalists: if there was a dollar to be made pumping water uphill, there'd be the world's largest salt lake in West Texas. Oil is an important automotive fuel, but it's a chemical stock for everything that's touching your skin at the second. Hilariously, we should probably start wondering if our plastics come from oil sourced from "ethicality regulated states" or something.

programmarchy 8y ago

Another interesting thing about Texas is that it has an independent power grid.