4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
        jandrese 2y ago
        In LA sure, you can get away with minimal insulation. SF is a different story. That city is shockingly cold. An uninsulated house in SF is wasting loads of energy.
        triceratops 2y ago
        I read "zero insulation" as "shit-tier insulation" and that is approximately accurate for a lot of Bay Area housing.
  - sightbroke 2y ago
    I don't really know, the details of measuring energy consumption, emissions, and price is a fairly convoluted concept as far as I know. 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"
    - epistasis 2y ago
      Google AI is not really useful, but going to an actual reliable source from that such as California's emissions inventory: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-graphs https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-graphs The graphs seem to contradict those in the article, as the article has a huge annual variability not shown in the government data, and also the article does not show the decline in the "Electric Power" sector that's shown so clearly in the CA government data. I also would not agree with the article's assessment that Texas is a "disaster" based on the same sort of plot. Serving the needs of ever more people, with an ever growing GDP, but keeping emissions constant is a win environmentally.
      - sightbroke 2y ago
        Texas has both less people and lower GDP than California yet emits more. How is that not a bit of a disaster?
        epistasis 2y ago
        Well, the status is a disaster but it's an ever decreasing disaster, and when evaluating "do lots of renewables help?" I think it makes more sense to look at the direction of where the puck is going rather than where it started from before the renewables were added. (And one note, Texas' power sector emissions also include lots of "extra" emissions from fossil fuel consumption that should be attributed to the downstream consumers of those fossil fuels).
hannob 2y ago
They would have released less CO2 if they had regulated CO2 emissions.

> 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.
        jandrese 2y ago
        In LA sure, you can get away with minimal insulation. SF is a different story. That city is shockingly cold. An uninsulated house in SF is wasting loads of energy.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        I read "zero insulation" as "shit-tier insulation" and that is approximately accurate for a lot of Bay Area housing.
- sightbroke 2y ago
  I don't really know, the details of measuring energy consumption, emissions, and price is a fairly convoluted concept as far as I know. 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"
  - epistasis 2y ago
    Google AI is not really useful, but going to an actual reliable source from that such as California's emissions inventory: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-graphs https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-graphs The graphs seem to contradict those in the article, as the article has a huge annual variability not shown in the government data, and also the article does not show the decline in the "Electric Power" sector that's shown so clearly in the CA government data. I also would not agree with the article's assessment that Texas is a "disaster" based on the same sort of plot. Serving the needs of ever more people, with an ever growing GDP, but keeping emissions constant is a win environmentally.
    - sightbroke 2y ago
      Texas has both less people and lower GDP than California yet emits more. How is that not a bit of a disaster?
      - epistasis 2y ago
        Well, the status is a disaster but it's an ever decreasing disaster, and when evaluating "do lots of renewables help?" I think it makes more sense to look at the direction of where the puck is going rather than where it started from before the renewables were added. (And one note, Texas' power sector emissions also include lots of "extra" emissions from fossil fuel consumption that should be attributed to the downstream consumers of those fossil fuels).

hannob 2y ago

They would have released less CO2 if they had regulated CO2 emissions.