4 ms·

Are you trying to say building more solar is a bad idea, and building more of something else would be better? What would that be, specifically? Texas needs a b

by marze 4y ago

Are you trying to say building more solar is a bad idea, and building more of something else would be better? What would that be, specifically? Texas needs a bunch of solar, a bit of battery, that would cover peaks due to air conditioning. More insulation specified in residential building codes wouldn't hurt. Once most Texans have EVs that charge with solar, and plug in at night and feed to the grid, the solution is even more obvious.

pfdietz 4y ago
Texas also should expose real time variations in rates to all consumers.
- StillBored 4y ago
  More than this? https://www.ercot.com/mktinfo/prices https://www.ercot.com/mktinfo/prices edit: As I post it, there is a prime example of how people wave away transmission issues when talking about green energy. The wind farms on the coast near MX have a negative price (-11 to -33) while most of the state is sitting at ~90, and there is a problem in the west/central part of the state where its $180.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    I believe retail customers are not being exposed to those spikes. Correct me if I'm wrong? Solar can be placed almost anywhere in Texas, and in particular can be placed near where demand is expected. Transmission costs for it should be less than for large central power plants.
    - StillBored 4y ago
      You wouldn't build a solar farm particularly close to any of the major TX cities which sprawl for long distances because the land is worth more than the solar panels.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        A 10MW+ solar installation costs > $100,000/acre. You can find land within 200 miles of the major cities of Texas for far less than that (and probably much closer than 200 miles). Or you can go far to the west to get land at maybe $1000/acre, but then transmission cost goes up. If land cost ever were a serious constraint on solar, solar would have become so cheap that it would already have destroyed all the competition.

by marze 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

Texas also should expose real time variations in rates to all consumers.

StillBored 4y ago
More than this? https://www.ercot.com/mktinfo/prices https://www.ercot.com/mktinfo/prices edit: As I post it, there is a prime example of how people wave away transmission issues when talking about green energy. The wind farms on the coast near MX have a negative price (-11 to -33) while most of the state is sitting at ~90, and there is a problem in the west/central part of the state where its $180.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  I believe retail customers are not being exposed to those spikes. Correct me if I'm wrong? Solar can be placed almost anywhere in Texas, and in particular can be placed near where demand is expected. Transmission costs for it should be less than for large central power plants.
  - StillBored 4y ago
    You wouldn't build a solar farm particularly close to any of the major TX cities which sprawl for long distances because the land is worth more than the solar panels.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      A 10MW+ solar installation costs > $100,000/acre. You can find land within 200 miles of the major cities of Texas for far less than that (and probably much closer than 200 miles). Or you can go far to the west to get land at maybe $1000/acre, but then transmission cost goes up. If land cost ever were a serious constraint on solar, solar would have become so cheap that it would already have destroyed all the competition.