5 ms·

As a counterpoint, I recommend this article: https://ketanjoshi.co/2024/08/12/texas-builds-clean-power-but-it-isnt-a-climate-champion/ https://ketanjoshi.co/202

by hannob 2y ago

As a counterpoint, I recommend this article: https://ketanjoshi.co/2024/08/12/texas-builds-clean-power-but-it-isnt-a-climate-champion/ 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.

jandrese 2y ago
> Emission reduction is. And Texas does not succeed there. Are you saying they would have released less CO2 had they installed natural gas power plants instead?
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  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.
  - epistasis 2y ago
    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 better than California's approach of letting the utility bill customers for their poor decisions. (I say this as a Californian absolutely INFURIATED at our toothless public utility commission allowing six whole rate increases in the past year, making electricity for a heat pumpfar more expensive than burning gas for heating, and making charging an EV about the same cost as fueling gas car, instead of much cheaper.)
    - Spivak 2y ago
      > and making EVs about the same cost as a gas car 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.
      - epistasis 2y ago
        Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity, I hopefully edited for better clarity! The other problem in California is that most heating is done via natural gas, and though heating needs are fairly low if houses had any sort of insulation, there's basically zero insulation in all homes. Which means that every winter, people experience massive natural gas bills that should be close to zero, making it very problematic to switch some of the utility cost burdens from the electricity side to natural gas side. Meanwhile, PG&E profits are at the very top of the utility stock list for its profit margins...
        baggy_trough 2y ago
        > there's basically zero insulation in all homes. This is completely false.
        epistasis 2y ago
        Well all I can talk about is the 1970s-era boxes that dominate in the Bay Area, which is the major population center that PG&E serves. If your experience with these homes is different somehow, let me know. But go to SF, go to the peninsula, and you'll find that most homes barely stop air coming in and out of the house, much less have proper insulation. A blower test for SF homes would shock most people in the modern world.
        baggy_trough 2y ago
        Yes, my experience is that you are simply wrong.
        2y ago
- hannob 2y ago
  They would have released less CO2 if they had regulated CO2 emissions.
epistasis 2y ago
> Emission reduction is. And Texas does not succeed there. If we're talking about the impact of a particular tech, choosing the proper baseline is important, otherwise it's easy to reach fallacious results in counterfactual reasoning. Emission reduction versus what? Per-capita emissions reductions? Per-kWh emissions reductions? Compared to whose usage? Plotting total emission and saying "we've failed!" actually hides a lot of what's going on, it's only one aspect, and increased population can hide that overall emissions are trending in the right way.
buckle8017 2y ago
Articles that try to compare Texas with California almost always miss that California is not it's own grid. 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-generation 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_PreviousYears.zip https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2021/03/10/FuelMixReport_Pr...
M3L0NM4N 2y ago
Emission reduction measured how?

by hannob 2y ago

jandrese 2y ago

> Emission reduction is. And Texas does not succeed there. Are you saying they would have released less CO2 had they installed natural gas power plants instead?

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
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.
- epistasis 2y ago
  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 better than California's approach of letting the utility bill customers for their poor decisions. (I say this as a Californian absolutely INFURIATED at our toothless public utility commission allowing six whole rate increases in the past year, making electricity for a heat pumpfar more expensive than burning gas for heating, and making charging an EV about the same cost as fueling gas car, instead of much cheaper.)
  - Spivak 2y ago
    > and making EVs about the same cost as a gas car 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.
    - epistasis 2y ago
      Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity, I hopefully edited for better clarity! The other problem in California is that most heating is done via natural gas, and though heating needs are fairly low if houses had any sort of insulation, there's basically zero insulation in all homes. Which means that every winter, people experience massive natural gas bills that should be close to zero, making it very problematic to switch some of the utility cost burdens from the electricity side to natural gas side. Meanwhile, PG&E profits are at the very top of the utility stock list for its profit margins...
      - baggy_trough 2y ago
        > there's basically zero insulation in all homes. This is completely false.
        epistasis 2y ago
        Well all I can talk about is the 1970s-era boxes that dominate in the Bay Area, which is the major population center that PG&E serves. If your experience with these homes is different somehow, let me know. But go to SF, go to the peninsula, and you'll find that most homes barely stop air coming in and out of the house, much less have proper insulation. A blower test for SF homes would shock most people in the modern world.
        baggy_trough 2y ago
        Yes, my experience is that you are simply wrong.
        2y ago
hannob 2y ago
They would have released less CO2 if they had regulated CO2 emissions.

epistasis 2y ago

> Emission reduction is. And Texas does not succeed there. If we're talking about the impact of a particular tech, choosing the proper baseline is important, otherwise it's easy to reach fallacious results in counterfactual reasoning. Emission reduction versus what? Per-capita emissions reductions? Per-kWh emissions reductions? Compared to whose usage? Plotting total emission and saying "we've failed!" actually hides a lot of what's going on, it's only one aspect, and increased population can hide that overall emissions are trending in the right way.

buckle8017 2y ago

Articles that try to compare Texas with California almost always miss that California is not it's own grid. 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-generation 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_PreviousYears.zip https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2021/03/10/FuelMixReport_Pr...

M3L0NM4N 2y ago

Emission reduction measured how?