Even in Texas, the Green Revolution (Abbott: costs, storage, bills)

[Cida]

I didn't realize the economics had become so favorable.


Even in Texas, You Can’t Stop the Green Revolution
This is one fight in one state legislature, but it marks a much larger phase shift. Clean energy provided about 25 to 30 percent of Texas power last year, up from less than 1 percent in 2002. So Republicans in the State Legislature, following the lead of the climate skeptic Gov. Greg Abbott, launched a counteroffensive, putting forward a series of bills to undermine renewables, prop up fossil fuel production and effectively kill clean energy in the state.
Solar power is already as much as 33 percent cheaper than gas power in the United States, according to an analysis from last year; onshore wind may be nearly 45 percent cheaper.
https://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/202...en-revolution/

[SDbp]

Google "wind power production by state". I was surprised to read some months back that Texas was no. 1 in capacity by a wide margin over no. 2 Iowa.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Cida

I didn't realize the economics had become so favorable.


Even in Texas, You Can’t Stop the Green Revolution
This is one fight in one state legislature, but it marks a much larger phase shift. Clean energy provided about 25 to 30 percent of Texas power last year, up from less than 1 percent in 2002. So Republicans in the State Legislature, following the lead of the climate skeptic Gov. Greg Abbott, launched a counteroffensive, putting forward a series of bills to undermine renewables, prop up fossil fuel production and effectively kill clean energy in the state.
Solar power is already as much as 33 percent cheaper than gas power in the United States, according to an analysis from last year; onshore wind may be nearly 45 percent cheaper.
https://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/202...en-revolution/

I doubt that they have any intention of killing green energy so much as ensuring that energy reliability remains balanced in retrospect that certain greenies don't go running awry changing everything to green energy at the sacrifice of grid reliability.

Solar may be cheaper than fossil fuels on the surface but when you add backup storage and the fact that it does not reliably produce during all periods of time, fossil fuels come out to have the better advantage.

Solar:

• Cannot produce at night
• Significantly weakens on cloudy days, overcast, or rainy weather
• Requires 'overproduction' to recharge any kind of backup storage necessary to maintain grid stability. Keep in mind that this will likely only happen during sunny days

The last bullet point meaning that, unlike fossil fuels, you have to produce more than you actually use in order to have enough energy in reserve for weather related incidents, night time, or outages.. ..and after any of those three you still need to overproduce again to recharge the energy losses from storage. The same is not true for fossil fuels.

They are not direct comparisons. Green energy is not yet reliable enough to replace fossil fuels, even if the direct installation costs are cheaper.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I doubt that they have any intention of killing green energy so much as ensuring that energy reliability remains balanced in retrospect that certain greenies don't go running awry changing everything to green energy at the sacrifice of grid reliability.

Solar may be cheaper than fossil fuels on the surface but when you add backup storage and the fact that it does not reliably produce during all periods of time, fossil fuels come out to have the better advantage.

Solar:

• Cannot produce at night
• Significantly weakens on cloudy days, overcast, or rainy weather
• Requires 'overproduction' to recharge any kind of backup storage necessary to maintain grid stability. Keep in mind that this will likely only happen during sunny days

The last bullet point meaning that, unlike fossil fuels, you have to produce more than you actually use in order to have enough energy in reserve for weather related incidents, night time, or outages.. ..and after any of those three you still need to overproduce again to recharge the energy losses from storage. The same is not true for fossil fuels.

They are not direct comparisons. Green energy is not yet reliable enough to replace fossil fuels, even if the direct installation costs are cheaper.

Oh, they (state oil entities and beneficiaries) are ABSOLUTELY trying to hamstring green energy. In many ways. It is about money, not grid reliability.

Anyone with half a brain knows that a stable grid can be comprised of renewable and fossil fuel sources and we have plenty of 'room' for more renewable - no need to 'replace' currently. That is not the driver. And the fact that some investment funds have a 'green' component in them infuriates the people that are heavily invested in O&G. It could hurt their dividends and share prices!

And long-term, as 'green' evolves and matures as a market, it does have the potential to become more sustainable. I.e. my company is involved in the early stages of hydrogen production projects that will be built around non-peak usage hours. Essentially, excess wind and solar can be used to produce hydrogen instead of idling wind capacity. The hydrogen becomes a sort of 'chemical battery' which can then be used for hydrogen turbines or other uses. I am not involved in that part of our business, but I do now that a large amount of wind capacity in Texas cannot always be used due to grid constraints, and these plants would be nearer the wind source. Also, the wind in Texas is fairly high at night and can also be used.

There are other approaches that are being pursued, but the general conversation around grid reliability is always over-simplified.

[Dopo]

How about a "Solar revolution"?
If you wonder anything about it .. go outside for 1/2 hour after lunch and you'll get the idea.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Dopo

How about a "Solar revolution"?
If you wonder anything about it .. go outside for 1/2 hour after lunch and you'll get the idea.

Yeah, there is a bit of energy hitting the ground. Solar is way behind wind, though, due to a multitude of factors - footprint required, more variable than wind (clouds, rain, night, etc), high cost of installation and manufacture (and some nasty chemical processes are needed to make), recycling at EOL, and other issues. But distributed solar has the advantage of individual financing and incremental expansion.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Oh, they (state oil entities and beneficiaries) are ABSOLUTELY trying to hamstring green energy. In many ways. It is about money, not grid reliability.

Anyone with half a brain knows that a stable grid can be comprised of renewable and fossil fuel sources and we have plenty of 'room' for more renewable - no need to 'replace' currently. That is not the driver. And the fact that some investment funds have a 'green' component in them infuriates the people that are heavily invested in O&G. It could hurt their dividends and share prices!

And long-term, as 'green' evolves and matures as a market, it does have the potential to become more sustainable. I.e. my company is involved in the early stages of hydrogen production projects that will be built around non-peak usage hours. Essentially, excess wind and solar can be used to produce hydrogen instead of idling wind capacity. The hydrogen becomes a sort of 'chemical battery' which can then be used for hydrogen turbines or other uses. I am not involved in that part of our business, but I do now that a large amount of wind capacity in Texas cannot always be used due to grid constraints, and these plants would be nearer the wind source. Also, the wind in Texas is fairly high at night and can also be used.

There are other approaches that are being pursued, but the general conversation around grid reliability is always over-simplified.

Most O&G companies today see the writing on the wall as far as oil dependency is concerned and are (slowly) shifting more into the renewable energy market, by no means will they be an outlier to any profits, while they may or may not be the top beneficiary of any profits in terms of renewables today, they definitely have their stake in the market as well. Although off topic, Shell and BP have already begun to acquire EV charging stations. BP is also investing into wind and solar. It would be silly for them to continue to grapple hold of fossil fuels for profits sakes only as governments globally are mandating this change due to climate mandates that will force these companies to eventually operate much differently than they do today due to forecasted reduced global O&G demand. The scope of these companies should largely mirror that of global policy which is vastly pushing green energy.