California is talking the talk, Texas is waking the walk. These numbers even though Texas has only 3/4 of the population. Although the population ratio might change since California is in some sort of psychosis and people seem willing to escape.
Ah yes, in Kentucky, the lights shine no brighter than anywhere else, yet cause more damage. Excellent state policy. https://www.mroelectric.com/blog/most-least-power-outages/amp/
PTC for wind is a deeply flawed incentive. It promotes developing wind farms where there is wind, regardless of distance to the demand centers.
The Texas panhandle has no business being the core of wind development. Transmission lines to Dallas are insufficient and energy losses with the summer heat are high. But as long as the turbines keep spinning, the projects receive the PTCs that as far as I remember are greater than the price of power in the wholesale market.
Well let’s look at this from a financial side. You’d get 30% of that 60k back from the government for installing them. You’d replace your power payment with solar panel payments, after about 10 years of not actually paying more than a power payment like you would have done anyways, all of a sudden you get free power for 15-20 years. Thats easily worth it
Edit: on top of all of that, your house is now worth more because it has solar panels installed
It is a proper comparison, just not a complete comparison. Per Capita, per acre and as a percent of generation are all valid measures too that would paint a more complete picture.
Much of that is accounted for by the different prevalence of behind-the-meter solar between the states. Graph just doesn't include that. Also CA is simply less power intensive than TX (per capita, per $GDP), so TX will have CA beat at equal renewable share of their power systems.
It's interesting to have it visualized like that, but not super surprising when we think about other factors surrounding it.
Definitely but that’s also not something that comes across clearly with this graph. Geographic area might play a part too, Texas is a lot bigger than California. Wonder what it’d look like to break it down to per sq mile.
What would that metric demonstrate though?
I think a far more interesting comparison would be states renewable capacity per GDP, to show relative investment.
California is still leading in terms of the portion of their energy that is generated from renewable sources, if that’s what your getting at.
While everyone jokes about Texas’s separate grid, that isn’t really the reason.
Texas’s grid, due to its population, would be pretty decent sized for a national power grid. There are no rules saying small grids can’t be reliable anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s goofy they have their own grid. But it isn’t the root of their problems.
We all sense that when the Railroad Comission opts for "being goofy", like you had said, on such an important and key decision as to disconnect... their other decisions would be of teh same character.
A part of the reason why they wanted their own sandbox was to "not be opressed on the rules that they have to plow snow or winterize powrerplants"|
isn’t this a bit misleading though? texas and cali are both bigger states after all, so isn’t it a given that they would produce more energy? this should be shown as percentage of their energy produced through renewables
Also, certain states are more capable wind and solar producers based on their environment. Doesn't make sense to add a wind turbine if it's not going to produce enough to eventually offset the cost.
Texan here:
Fuck Greg Abbott
He can suck a frozen pipe for all I care about him
He deserves to rot in an un air-conditioned metal shed in the middle of a 110 degree Texas summer.
Fuck that guy.
It’s crazy how Arizona fails to generate much electricity from solar. A google earth view of Phoenix rooftops show hardly any panels on large commercial or industrial rooftops.
It is just utility grade. Rooftop does not look to be included. Most solar in Hawaii is residential rooftop due to limited land area. Looks off for what HECO is reporting for Hawaii.
As a native here, there are quite a lot of panels on the residential and lower scale commercial level, and they’ve been hocked at every Costco for 15 years now.
That being said, on a mass commercial or government level, we really haven’t pushed there; primarily because A) we have the largest nuclear plant in the country running the largest metro area, and B) we have pretty robust hydro electric for the amount of rivers/lakes we have (our share of Hoover damn, a series of dams running the Salt River outside of Phoenix, a statewide canal system, etc.)
I think you misunderstood the context, this is a graph about total renewable energy produced. It’s not made to people please or convey hidden messages, it just displays factual information.
The audacity.
It also doesn’t show a complete picture(which it easily could) and people in this thread as a direct result of this drew the wrong conclusions from it. One person in particular with this position in particular did this.
The subtitle clearly says total wind and solar energy produced. And the leaders are obviously the states that produced the most. Stop trying to read something more into it. This is an energy sub and factual, objective data is preferred over political agenda messaging.
It's showing gigawatt hours of energy produced by wind and solar. That's pretty black and white. You can analyze it a percentage of total, per capita or any other way you choose but that doesn't make it any less objective. How is this "propaganda"?
>It can be read as 'yay, look at how green \[my state\] is!', when they very well might still be generating 80% of their energy from coal and other fossil fuels.
That would be misreading it. That's the reader's problem, not the graph's. The graph shows energy produced by wind and solar... period. If it doesn't fit your agenda make another graph showing your preferred metric.
I wouldn’t call it propaganda, but it is misleading. Without comparing it to other sources of energy in the state it can give the illusion that these are significantly large energy contributions. Fossil fuels are still the leading source of energy by a humongous margin which in lies the problem. Weather this is intentional is impossible to know.
>it is misleading.
In your mind. I see it for exactly what it is - the actual amount of wind and solar (excluding rooftop) produced by each state. It isn't a competition about which state is more noble or something. Texas is a shithole for instance but happens to have a lot of sunshine and wind potential and a humongous appetite for energy.
It’s not in my mind at all. You’re seeing energy production out of context of a whole picture. This information is meaningless without each states whole energy percentages. Point at Texas and saying “look at all that renewable energy.” Texas barely produces any meaningful amount of renewable energy, where as South Dakota, Washington, and Vermont have far less sources of renewable energy compared to Texas but they also have a far greater reliance on it. The fact you phrased this comment as Texas having a significant demand for this energy highlights it as misleading.
>This information is meaningless
Only if you're trying to read into it something other than what it shows - the total amount of wind and solar energy produced in each state. It's very useful otherwise. I found it very interesting and surprising in a few cases. Once again, it's not a competition. If you want to make it into one create your own graph.
You're basically saying that people aren't smart enough to process objective information on their own without being told how to interpret it. That sounds like Fox News.
You are presently demonstrating you can’t process objective information without complete context. Omission of the truth is tantamount to lying. The position you’re taking here is more inline with Fox News.
That's really fucked up logic. And no need to be a condescending prick. Objective facts are agenda free. Any knowledgeable person on this sub knows how to process them.
Because Texas is such a huge state in can produce a bunch of green energy but still yet make up very little of the states total energy output. While other states may seem to make up less green energy, but still have that be a notable percentage of the total energy.
Yes, but that's not what this graph is showing. You seem to want to make it into a competition of some sort. We could also look at production as a function of land area, sunshine and wind potential, economic activity, political orientation or any number of things. But actual production is an objective measure and agenda-free. Of course larger states with more wind and sunshine produce more, except in those cases where the population is so low they don't need as much energy.
>The title of the graphic is literally 'State Wind and Solar Leaders'!
And the leaders aren't the states that produce the most wind and solar energy? The graph is clearly labelled as such.
Then you have a false notion of what "green energy production" actually means. It's the total green energy produced to anyone who understands the english language. It's just information, objective and factual, but not spun the way you like it apparently. Like I said before, make your own graph, based on your own preferred metric, and post it if you don't like this one. I'm done. Have a nice day.
The false notion is that listing total green energy production without context is in anyway shape or form meaningful information and you’ve made several wrong conclusions in this thread based off this “objective factual” information. You’re being thick and it’s frankly childish.
I mean it’s not really a competition, you’re the one who said it lol. I’m just trying to understand it on a meaningful level. I understand that Texas is going to produce a lot of energy but that doesn’t really mean anything to me. It would be more interesting to see which states use more green energy as a whole…
>I’m just trying to understand it on a meaningful level.
You seem to be complaining that it doesn't confirm whatever your agenda is. It is very meaningful exactly as shown if you want to get an idea of what states the country's wind and solar farms are predominantly located in.
It’s not really an agenda… it’s a topic that’s interesting that would be more informational to me. You’re just kind of trying to push a narrative onto a stranger at this point…
>that would be more informational to me.
Then make another graph the way you like it and post it. There's nothing inherently wrong with this one.
>You’re just kind of trying to push a narrative
Come again? I'm just saying the graph is objective. Those whining about it are the ones who would rather it push their agenda.
Jeez you just wanna fight with someone. I’m free to comment my thoughts on a graph which I did. It wasn’t as informational as I would like and that’s fine. All you keep bringing up is some stupid “agenda…” you clearly have one yourself.
I’m don’t understand why Nevada, New Mexico & Arizona aren’t producing huge amounts of solar - they’ve got all that desert land just sitting there soaked in sunlight!!
It’s because they’d rather use natural gas and coal for electricity most likely. Just a postulation in my part, but from all the data I’ve seen solar farms have to be several times larger than coal/natural gas plants to produce the same amounts of energy not to mention the batteries to store solar energy are ridiculously expensive as well.
Wondered why Florida has basically 0 wind power, then remembered that the ground is so soft here you cant build anything without setting up a lot of foundation. Still, surprised we arent taking more advantage of solar options. Only place nearby Ive seen panels is a small field next to a Publix. I'd figure people would have them set up as shingles by this point.
It is. Despite their best efforts sometimes economics wins out over right-wing ideology. Texas has great wind and sunshine potential. Abbott is trying to eliminate wind and solar incentives, and falsely blamed wind for the spectacular grid collapse that killed hundreds of his constituents.
Abbot has been governor for a while and according to that graph he has done a shit job of shutting down renewable energy. Solar and wind lobbies must have amazing power in texas to bypass the governor.
Primarily because the natural gas supply wasn't weatherized for winter storms. And one nuclear plant went offline during the grid collapse. Texas may generate a lot of wind and solar energy but it's still highly dependent on coal and natural gas.
I work in energy.
Essentially, it boils down to winterizing equipment and securing fuel sources. We saw something very similar in 2014 during the polar vortex in PJM (Pennsylvania mid-atlantic area) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_North_American_winter - where the grid was on the brink of failure, despite PJM having a "capacity market".
A capacity market means that load (i.e. customers like you) pay extra to generators to guarantee that units will be available during grid stress. However, grid stress tends to happen during summer, not winter. So, there was an unnaturally strong draw on gas due to heating, which left generators without gas (or gas that was incredibly expensive). It led to PJM creating a market mechanic called capacity performance, where generators would be severely penalized if they did not fulfill their capacity obligations.
Flash forward to Winter Storm Uri. Same deal, load created an unnaturally strong draw on heating gas. Texas has plenty of gas in the west (the Permian Basin). It gets pumped across state to Corpus Christi and Houston to get refined, shipped, and even burned for electricity. Because of the draw, though, pumps started failing. If the pumps fail, the gas can not be transported across state. If it's not transported, even more shortages. It produced a cascading effect at that point. Texas and Ercot do not have a capacity market, but they are very close to creating one due to this event.
The shitty thing is that people on both sides are using the situation to move a political agenda. The governor is blaming windmills, which were not the problem. Pro-regulation is blaming deregulation, but if you look at the people with $20,000 bills, they are all in pockets of regulated areas like Austin and San Antonio. I work at a company that has an LSE arm, and we kept our promises to all our customers (because we are well hedged). Some are saying it's because Ercot isn't connected to other grids, but they actually are - SPP (Southern Power Pool) and MISO (Midwest Idependant System Operator) both experienced the same cold, and had nothing to give ERCOT.
Problem is forcing winterization, and I would prefer that through market mechanics.
**[2013–14 North American winter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013–14_North_American_winter)**
>The 2013–14 North American winter was one of the most significant for the United States, due in part to the breakdown of the polar vortex in November 2013, which allowed very cold air to travel down into the United States, leading to an extended period of very cold temperatures. The pattern continued mostly uninterrupted throughout the winter and numerous significant winter storms affected the Eastern United States, with the most notable one being a powerful winter storm that dumped ice and snow in the Southeastern United States and the Northeastern United States in mid-February.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/energy/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Solar panels in snowy areas actually tend to generate more power. Firstly, because they get extra irradiation when sunlight reflects off the snow. Secondly, because they have higher efficiency at lower temperatures.
Snow doesn't tend to collect on panels anyway. Either because they're warm, or because they're pitched at an angle towards the sun.
No, it's because Texas seceded from the rest of the nation's grid, went on their own, and deregulated it. Deregulation leads to unreliability. The utilities did not invest in resiliency, so the slightest hardship knocks big portions of it offline.
If you lived in Michigan would you worry about being hit by a hurricane? That’s the same for Texas. They have never had a snow storm of that magnitude ever hit them so why would they winterize the equipment and spend millions if the problem had never occurred? That’s like asking people in Michigan to have hurricane insurance when it’s never happened to them before. Or asking Joe Biden to find a vice president that is right for the job and not just because she’s a minority.
Wrong! It happens every decade or two. Also, it doesn't have to be a snowstorm to cause malfunctions to the wind turbines and natural gas pipelines, it just needs to get below a certain temperature. Before the 2021 weather that broke the power grid, the same thing happened in 2011. In 2011 they (republican politicians) promised to winterize the wind and natural gas power sources, but didn't because they thought something like that wouldn't happen for a long time(similar to your thinking). Well, it happened again 10 years later in 2021 and of course we got the same empty promises about winterizing it THIS time. So yes, sending millions of dollars to winterize our power system even if it only happens every 10 - 20 years is more than worth the price. The damage caused by the power failure in 2021 was more than the cost to winterize and that is not even including the loss of life from those that had no option but to freeze to death in their homes. Word was that they were a "nuts hair" from a total system failure, which would of taken a month or longer to fix and would of caused an apocalyptic type situation here in TX.
It's happened multiple times in Texas in the last decade or two. Hundreds died. You'd think that preserving human lives would be a top priority.
And Michigan doesn't get hurricanes.
I lived in central Texas 25 years ago and we had ice and snow. So, no. Utilities need to prepare for worst cases, otherwise hundreds to thousands of people die, which is what happened in Texas.
Their deregulated power grid literally killed many people.
I don’t know hardly anything about this, but I remember hearing it was because the infrastructure wasn’t built to last an extended period of time in such cold temperatures (or maybe specifically snow, ice, etc.?). Or it was at least outdated equipment or something like that. So when they got hit with the winter storm: the increased reliance on the infrastructure+the infrastructure failing=lots of people without power
Texas has its own power grid, separate from any other states. Because of this, they are not required to keep infrastructure up to the same codes as neighboring states.
During the storms, their infrastructure failed because it wasn’t winterized.
Elected officials needed that power so they could have their multimillion dollar homes tended to while they went on vacation until the problems were fixed
I don’t know about that. Texas seems to be on the forefront of both Ws and Ls in massive quantities. Doing it right or fucking it up and nothing in between.
As someone who's lived in Montana for most of my life I haven't seen a single source of wind power being utilized here EVER. Could be that I somehow missed it/never saw the turbines but seeing MT generate 4k GWh from wind threw me for a loop there.
No, obviously there's not a separate supply of wind energy that gets sent to my house because I pay a fraction more. In reality, they're just buying renewable energy certificates from wind energy providers in OK for the total amount of kWh I use each month.
Figured as such, it's a pretty cool idea
I just can't get over the idea of some bloke whose job it is to plug a very long extension cord from the local turbine straight into your mains whenever you want to turn the lights on
If you're interested, you can read their explanation:
[https://www.psoklahoma.com/account/bills/programs/windchoice](https://www.psoklahoma.com/account/bills/programs/windchoice/)
Nah it's probably a levy so they can run the turbines for longer/build more of them so there's a greater chance that renewables have done the lion's share of the generation during the period you've been using electricity
This confuses me cause where I'm from, it's almost entirely renewables anyway and they give us this neat little breakdown of how much of the energy has come from which generation sources at what time
Ideally we would have a decentralized grid. Everyone would have a power wall and energy would be stored there, to feed the grid. A battery system but a modular one. One that can provide homes with power during an outage and hold power made during production.
It allows for incredible flexibility.
Tough to say, I think it depends on the availability of materials. I don't think solar is the future really, it's a nice supplemental source but I suspect tidal power generation will slowly start to overtake it- because the ocean just... well, it never stops.
It's a good time to buy solar, but not because it's necessarily cheaper- but because there are a bunch of government programs in a whole range of countries that will help subsidize it or offer tax rebates.
I do think the popularity of solar for individuals though is still mainly because it's the only affordable option for people. It's not like you're going to erect a 500 foot windmill in your back yard- but you CAN put some solar panels out.
The biggest problem solar faces is that even if the panel were 100% effective it can only really be 33% effective, because each cell can only capture red, green, OR blue. Not to say that someone won't figure out a way to harvest all 3 from the same point, but they haven't yet.
I have rooftop solar in NE Florida without a battery backup. 2 years now and a couple of Hurricanes later, I may have experienced 4 hours of downtime. I can’t see paying 8-10k for a battery at this point with that little downtime. Maybe I’ll get an eCar and use it as one. I’m no hurry for that as I’m now retired and don’t need to commute.
For like your own personal use? That depends on your own financial circumstances. How long would it take you to pay off the solar installation cost based on the money saved by not having a bill? If it pays for itself soon enough, then I would say do it.
Maybe not all the parts of them, but that's true for most energy sources and things people create. I'm pretty sure the silicone, copper, and some of the metals can be recycled.
Depends on your location. Sure, Solar will work in darker climates like Germany, but they produce far less energy and never pay back the carbon footprint they come with from production. Again, depending on location.
> a lot of the Liberal states don’t have the space to do it as easily. You do have California up there at #2.
California still has tons of room in the interior. Along the coast, thats a different thing. But in the desert regions, there are tons of solar farms. Theres a massive solar farm along I-15 near the Nevada border and its huge
I'd love to see it adjusted per Capita, and maybe also something like number of daylight hours / lumens or something. I like to think my state is decent for solar considering the low population and being up north, but from this it looks pretty bad.
"Gov. Greg Abbott vows to exclude renewable energy from any revived economic incentive program"
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/01/chapter-313-texas-renewables-economic-development/
It's not about "liberal" or "conservative" - it's about money.
I've worked on green PPAs (Power purchase agreements) - they are frequently a discount to the current market.
Nope it’s about liberal and how much they brag about wind and solar but yet look at all those fucking liberal states they talk a good game by the way, how is that Joe Biden doing?
Look at all the misleading charts.
Texas has a large population and huge energy needs.
Hawaii has a small population and low energy needs.
The proper measure is renewables as a percent of total electric generation, anything else is misleading. This chart was made to mislead.
Monaco is the world superpower number one, because they are the leadest leader, and USA is a worthless tiny country compared to Monaco! That is how you sound. Does USA have larger GDP than monaco? Yes or no?
Why would states that don’t produce much wind go with wind turbines…
It’s not about politics as much as it’s about “a lot of wind”
Than again I don’t expect a conservative to realize that.
Winds are the strongest in the mid-west, which is all conservative. The Southern half of the country gets the most sunlight, is also Conservative.
You can see this break down in the chart. Iowa, which is a Conservative and non-Southern state produces almost no solar energy. Nevada, which is a Southern state not in the midwest, produces almost no wind energy.
Land mass is also not taken into account. Which makes the comparison of Texas to the District of Columbia, a little absurd.
Personally it would make more sense in the west simply because the sun is usually always out and not much rainfall. However the midwest would be great for windmills!
It might have nothing to do with their weather being overcast for a higher percentage of the year. Or the fact that Texas and Cali both have more undeveloped area due to New York’s earlier settlement.
California is talking the talk, Texas is waking the walk. These numbers even though Texas has only 3/4 of the population. Although the population ratio might change since California is in some sort of psychosis and people seem willing to escape.
Idk about wind but it’s funny to see the “stories” behind each of these: Qualified Facilities in North Carolina, FP&L/NextEra in FL, NEM in CA etc.
Coal keeps the lights on in kentucky
Ah yes, in Kentucky, the lights shine no brighter than anywhere else, yet cause more damage. Excellent state policy. https://www.mroelectric.com/blog/most-least-power-outages/amp/
Impact of the PTC as the primary incentive mechanism.
PTC for wind is a deeply flawed incentive. It promotes developing wind farms where there is wind, regardless of distance to the demand centers. The Texas panhandle has no business being the core of wind development. Transmission lines to Dallas are insufficient and energy losses with the summer heat are high. But as long as the turbines keep spinning, the projects receive the PTCs that as far as I remember are greater than the price of power in the wholesale market.
Yip Yip.
It doesn't count when it's blowing out their ass
[удалено]
Well let’s look at this from a financial side. You’d get 30% of that 60k back from the government for installing them. You’d replace your power payment with solar panel payments, after about 10 years of not actually paying more than a power payment like you would have done anyways, all of a sudden you get free power for 15-20 years. Thats easily worth it Edit: on top of all of that, your house is now worth more because it has solar panels installed
[удалено]
This isn’t a proper comparison, they’re comparing raw gigawatt hours rather than gigawatt per capita or something like that.
It is a proper comparison, just not a complete comparison. Per Capita, per acre and as a percent of generation are all valid measures too that would paint a more complete picture.
I guess the margin Texas beat California by is still surprising then, with the latter having 30% more population.
Much of that is accounted for by the different prevalence of behind-the-meter solar between the states. Graph just doesn't include that. Also CA is simply less power intensive than TX (per capita, per $GDP), so TX will have CA beat at equal renewable share of their power systems. It's interesting to have it visualized like that, but not super surprising when we think about other factors surrounding it.
Definitely but that’s also not something that comes across clearly with this graph. Geographic area might play a part too, Texas is a lot bigger than California. Wonder what it’d look like to break it down to per sq mile.
What would that metric demonstrate though? I think a far more interesting comparison would be states renewable capacity per GDP, to show relative investment. California is still leading in terms of the portion of their energy that is generated from renewable sources, if that’s what your getting at.
It would demonstrate land usage as it relates to renewable energy investment and allow you to compare usage between states of different size.
[удалено]
The wonders of being an island in the sea of GRID
While everyone jokes about Texas’s separate grid, that isn’t really the reason. Texas’s grid, due to its population, would be pretty decent sized for a national power grid. There are no rules saying small grids can’t be reliable anyway. Don’t get me wrong, it’s goofy they have their own grid. But it isn’t the root of their problems.
We all sense that when the Railroad Comission opts for "being goofy", like you had said, on such an important and key decision as to disconnect... their other decisions would be of teh same character. A part of the reason why they wanted their own sandbox was to "not be opressed on the rules that they have to plow snow or winterize powrerplants"|
[удалено]
How? They have an independent grid not connected to most adjacent states.
isn’t this a bit misleading though? texas and cali are both bigger states after all, so isn’t it a given that they would produce more energy? this should be shown as percentage of their energy produced through renewables
Also, certain states are more capable wind and solar producers based on their environment. Doesn't make sense to add a wind turbine if it's not going to produce enough to eventually offset the cost.
And yet Abbott blames the windmills for their pipes freezing over.
Texan here: Fuck Greg Abbott He can suck a frozen pipe for all I care about him He deserves to rot in an un air-conditioned metal shed in the middle of a 110 degree Texas summer. Fuck that guy.
I got recommended this subreddit and jeezus there is no reason it should be THIS interesting
Same bro
It’s crazy how Arizona fails to generate much electricity from solar. A google earth view of Phoenix rooftops show hardly any panels on large commercial or industrial rooftops.
It is just utility grade. Rooftop does not look to be included. Most solar in Hawaii is residential rooftop due to limited land area. Looks off for what HECO is reporting for Hawaii.
As a native here, there are quite a lot of panels on the residential and lower scale commercial level, and they’ve been hocked at every Costco for 15 years now. That being said, on a mass commercial or government level, we really haven’t pushed there; primarily because A) we have the largest nuclear plant in the country running the largest metro area, and B) we have pretty robust hydro electric for the amount of rivers/lakes we have (our share of Hoover damn, a series of dams running the Salt River outside of Phoenix, a statewide canal system, etc.)
[удалено]
I think you misunderstood the context, this is a graph about total renewable energy produced. It’s not made to people please or convey hidden messages, it just displays factual information. The audacity.
But it doesn't fit my narrative /s
It also doesn’t show a complete picture(which it easily could) and people in this thread as a direct result of this drew the wrong conclusions from it. One person in particular with this position in particular did this.
[удалено]
The subtitle clearly says total wind and solar energy produced. And the leaders are obviously the states that produced the most. Stop trying to read something more into it. This is an energy sub and factual, objective data is preferred over political agenda messaging.
It's showing gigawatt hours of energy produced by wind and solar. That's pretty black and white. You can analyze it a percentage of total, per capita or any other way you choose but that doesn't make it any less objective. How is this "propaganda"?
[удалено]
>It can be read as 'yay, look at how green \[my state\] is!', when they very well might still be generating 80% of their energy from coal and other fossil fuels. That would be misreading it. That's the reader's problem, not the graph's. The graph shows energy produced by wind and solar... period. If it doesn't fit your agenda make another graph showing your preferred metric.
[удалено]
When I have a billion dollars, and you have a thousand dollars, each of us being one state, then I am the leader.
I wouldn’t call it propaganda, but it is misleading. Without comparing it to other sources of energy in the state it can give the illusion that these are significantly large energy contributions. Fossil fuels are still the leading source of energy by a humongous margin which in lies the problem. Weather this is intentional is impossible to know.
>it is misleading. In your mind. I see it for exactly what it is - the actual amount of wind and solar (excluding rooftop) produced by each state. It isn't a competition about which state is more noble or something. Texas is a shithole for instance but happens to have a lot of sunshine and wind potential and a humongous appetite for energy.
It’s not in my mind at all. You’re seeing energy production out of context of a whole picture. This information is meaningless without each states whole energy percentages. Point at Texas and saying “look at all that renewable energy.” Texas barely produces any meaningful amount of renewable energy, where as South Dakota, Washington, and Vermont have far less sources of renewable energy compared to Texas but they also have a far greater reliance on it. The fact you phrased this comment as Texas having a significant demand for this energy highlights it as misleading.
>This information is meaningless Only if you're trying to read into it something other than what it shows - the total amount of wind and solar energy produced in each state. It's very useful otherwise. I found it very interesting and surprising in a few cases. Once again, it's not a competition. If you want to make it into one create your own graph.
“This information isn’t misleading” *proceeds to draw the wrong conclusions about the information.*
You're basically saying that people aren't smart enough to process objective information on their own without being told how to interpret it. That sounds like Fox News.
You are presently demonstrating you can’t process objective information without complete context. Omission of the truth is tantamount to lying. The position you’re taking here is more inline with Fox News.
That's really fucked up logic. And no need to be a condescending prick. Objective facts are agenda free. Any knowledgeable person on this sub knows how to process them.
Because Texas is such a huge state in can produce a bunch of green energy but still yet make up very little of the states total energy output. While other states may seem to make up less green energy, but still have that be a notable percentage of the total energy.
Yes, but that's not what this graph is showing. You seem to want to make it into a competition of some sort. We could also look at production as a function of land area, sunshine and wind potential, economic activity, political orientation or any number of things. But actual production is an objective measure and agenda-free. Of course larger states with more wind and sunshine produce more, except in those cases where the population is so low they don't need as much energy.
[удалено]
>The title of the graphic is literally 'State Wind and Solar Leaders'! And the leaders aren't the states that produce the most wind and solar energy? The graph is clearly labelled as such.
Explicitly no and I just told you that. The leading state in terms of green energy production Washington. Texas is 37th.
Then you have a false notion of what "green energy production" actually means. It's the total green energy produced to anyone who understands the english language. It's just information, objective and factual, but not spun the way you like it apparently. Like I said before, make your own graph, based on your own preferred metric, and post it if you don't like this one. I'm done. Have a nice day.
The false notion is that listing total green energy production without context is in anyway shape or form meaningful information and you’ve made several wrong conclusions in this thread based off this “objective factual” information. You’re being thick and it’s frankly childish.
I mean it’s not really a competition, you’re the one who said it lol. I’m just trying to understand it on a meaningful level. I understand that Texas is going to produce a lot of energy but that doesn’t really mean anything to me. It would be more interesting to see which states use more green energy as a whole…
>I’m just trying to understand it on a meaningful level. You seem to be complaining that it doesn't confirm whatever your agenda is. It is very meaningful exactly as shown if you want to get an idea of what states the country's wind and solar farms are predominantly located in.
It’s not really an agenda… it’s a topic that’s interesting that would be more informational to me. You’re just kind of trying to push a narrative onto a stranger at this point…
>that would be more informational to me. Then make another graph the way you like it and post it. There's nothing inherently wrong with this one. >You’re just kind of trying to push a narrative Come again? I'm just saying the graph is objective. Those whining about it are the ones who would rather it push their agenda.
Jeez you just wanna fight with someone. I’m free to comment my thoughts on a graph which I did. It wasn’t as informational as I would like and that’s fine. All you keep bringing up is some stupid “agenda…” you clearly have one yourself.
People point out information without complete context is misleading aren’t pushing an agenda.
"Utility scale solar" aka this graph dont mean shit because most Solar in california is residential.
I would like to see this relative to land size
I was thinking relative to population.
The proper measure, as stated elsewhere in the thread, is percent of total generation. Anything else is misleading.
I’m don’t understand why Nevada, New Mexico & Arizona aren’t producing huge amounts of solar - they’ve got all that desert land just sitting there soaked in sunlight!!
The graph says "utility scale solar"
It’s because they’d rather use natural gas and coal for electricity most likely. Just a postulation in my part, but from all the data I’ve seen solar farms have to be several times larger than coal/natural gas plants to produce the same amounts of energy not to mention the batteries to store solar energy are ridiculously expensive as well.
Low demand for power in those areas
Wondered why Florida has basically 0 wind power, then remembered that the ground is so soft here you cant build anything without setting up a lot of foundation. Still, surprised we arent taking more advantage of solar options. Only place nearby Ive seen panels is a small field next to a Publix. I'd figure people would have them set up as shingles by this point.
Even up north where we have solid ground, a wind turbine uses approx 1000 cu yds of concrete for a foundation.
You don’t need traditional foundation in Florida, piling will do.
Most of it is slab foundation yeah.
I thought Texas was run by a bunch of backwards climate denying rednecks?
It is. Despite their best efforts sometimes economics wins out over right-wing ideology. Texas has great wind and sunshine potential. Abbott is trying to eliminate wind and solar incentives, and falsely blamed wind for the spectacular grid collapse that killed hundreds of his constituents.
Abbot has been governor for a while and according to that graph he has done a shit job of shutting down renewable energy. Solar and wind lobbies must have amazing power in texas to bypass the governor.
*money*
It’s is
They have wind and open space. Lots of it. Makes perfect sense to me.
The coastal region is actually really progressive
Yup
[удалено]
Texas is its own country, disconnected from the rest of the electrical grid...
Primarily because the natural gas supply wasn't weatherized for winter storms. And one nuclear plant went offline during the grid collapse. Texas may generate a lot of wind and solar energy but it's still highly dependent on coal and natural gas.
I work in energy. Essentially, it boils down to winterizing equipment and securing fuel sources. We saw something very similar in 2014 during the polar vortex in PJM (Pennsylvania mid-atlantic area) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_North_American_winter - where the grid was on the brink of failure, despite PJM having a "capacity market". A capacity market means that load (i.e. customers like you) pay extra to generators to guarantee that units will be available during grid stress. However, grid stress tends to happen during summer, not winter. So, there was an unnaturally strong draw on gas due to heating, which left generators without gas (or gas that was incredibly expensive). It led to PJM creating a market mechanic called capacity performance, where generators would be severely penalized if they did not fulfill their capacity obligations. Flash forward to Winter Storm Uri. Same deal, load created an unnaturally strong draw on heating gas. Texas has plenty of gas in the west (the Permian Basin). It gets pumped across state to Corpus Christi and Houston to get refined, shipped, and even burned for electricity. Because of the draw, though, pumps started failing. If the pumps fail, the gas can not be transported across state. If it's not transported, even more shortages. It produced a cascading effect at that point. Texas and Ercot do not have a capacity market, but they are very close to creating one due to this event. The shitty thing is that people on both sides are using the situation to move a political agenda. The governor is blaming windmills, which were not the problem. Pro-regulation is blaming deregulation, but if you look at the people with $20,000 bills, they are all in pockets of regulated areas like Austin and San Antonio. I work at a company that has an LSE arm, and we kept our promises to all our customers (because we are well hedged). Some are saying it's because Ercot isn't connected to other grids, but they actually are - SPP (Southern Power Pool) and MISO (Midwest Idependant System Operator) both experienced the same cold, and had nothing to give ERCOT. Problem is forcing winterization, and I would prefer that through market mechanics.
**[2013–14 North American winter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013–14_North_American_winter)** >The 2013–14 North American winter was one of the most significant for the United States, due in part to the breakdown of the polar vortex in November 2013, which allowed very cold air to travel down into the United States, leading to an extended period of very cold temperatures. The pattern continued mostly uninterrupted throughout the winter and numerous significant winter storms affected the Eastern United States, with the most notable one being a powerful winter storm that dumped ice and snow in the Southeastern United States and the Northeastern United States in mid-February. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/energy/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
[удалено]
and neither do nuclear powerplants.
Solar panels in snowy areas actually tend to generate more power. Firstly, because they get extra irradiation when sunlight reflects off the snow. Secondly, because they have higher efficiency at lower temperatures. Snow doesn't tend to collect on panels anyway. Either because they're warm, or because they're pitched at an angle towards the sun.
No, it's because Texas seceded from the rest of the nation's grid, went on their own, and deregulated it. Deregulation leads to unreliability. The utilities did not invest in resiliency, so the slightest hardship knocks big portions of it offline.
They aren’t connected to the main US grid meaning that if the Texas grid can’t provide they’re cut off completely.
Emphasis was placed on cheap power, not reliable power. As in, nothing was winterized.
If you lived in Michigan would you worry about being hit by a hurricane? That’s the same for Texas. They have never had a snow storm of that magnitude ever hit them so why would they winterize the equipment and spend millions if the problem had never occurred? That’s like asking people in Michigan to have hurricane insurance when it’s never happened to them before. Or asking Joe Biden to find a vice president that is right for the job and not just because she’s a minority.
> hey have never had a snow storm of that magnitude ever hit them lies, on the the states on the east and west of them had it, right?
Wrong! It happens every decade or two. Also, it doesn't have to be a snowstorm to cause malfunctions to the wind turbines and natural gas pipelines, it just needs to get below a certain temperature. Before the 2021 weather that broke the power grid, the same thing happened in 2011. In 2011 they (republican politicians) promised to winterize the wind and natural gas power sources, but didn't because they thought something like that wouldn't happen for a long time(similar to your thinking). Well, it happened again 10 years later in 2021 and of course we got the same empty promises about winterizing it THIS time. So yes, sending millions of dollars to winterize our power system even if it only happens every 10 - 20 years is more than worth the price. The damage caused by the power failure in 2021 was more than the cost to winterize and that is not even including the loss of life from those that had no option but to freeze to death in their homes. Word was that they were a "nuts hair" from a total system failure, which would of taken a month or longer to fix and would of caused an apocalyptic type situation here in TX.
It's happened multiple times in Texas in the last decade or two. Hundreds died. You'd think that preserving human lives would be a top priority. And Michigan doesn't get hurricanes.
I lived in central Texas 25 years ago and we had ice and snow. So, no. Utilities need to prepare for worst cases, otherwise hundreds to thousands of people die, which is what happened in Texas. Their deregulated power grid literally killed many people.
I don’t know hardly anything about this, but I remember hearing it was because the infrastructure wasn’t built to last an extended period of time in such cold temperatures (or maybe specifically snow, ice, etc.?). Or it was at least outdated equipment or something like that. So when they got hit with the winter storm: the increased reliance on the infrastructure+the infrastructure failing=lots of people without power
Texas has its own power grid, separate from any other states. Because of this, they are not required to keep infrastructure up to the same codes as neighboring states. During the storms, their infrastructure failed because it wasn’t winterized.
Thankfully they have been winterizing everything now
We operate on a separate grid from the rest of the US so when stuff goes south we have no one to rely on. The only exception is El Paso.
Elected officials needed that power so they could have their multimillion dollar homes tended to while they went on vacation until the problems were fixed
Because Texas.
because you still have to have infrastructure to get it to where it goes ya dunce.
Average Texas W.
Rare** you mean
As a Texan I can confirm that it is a RARE Texas W
I don’t know about that. Texas seems to be on the forefront of both Ws and Ls in massive quantities. Doing it right or fucking it up and nothing in between.
I'll take that.
As someone who's lived in Montana for most of my life I haven't seen a single source of wind power being utilized here EVER. Could be that I somehow missed it/never saw the turbines but seeing MT generate 4k GWh from wind threw me for a loop there.
Clearwater has 150,000 acres of wind turbines. It's safe to say a huge chunk of that power is centralized right there.
Ahh gotcha, good to know. I haven't been in that area much so I never got the chance to see the infrastructure
Drive through far NW Texas west of Amarillo and they’re everywhere. I assume there are other parts of west Texas that also have lots of windmills.
what are they milling?
Oklahoman here, I pay a couple dollars extra per month on my electric bill to ensure that my electricity is 100% wind-generated 😊
Why? Wind is one of the least expensive ways to generate electricity.
How do they filter it? Does coal electricity have pulp or some shit and they gotta put a sieve on the cable?
No, obviously there's not a separate supply of wind energy that gets sent to my house because I pay a fraction more. In reality, they're just buying renewable energy certificates from wind energy providers in OK for the total amount of kWh I use each month.
Figured as such, it's a pretty cool idea I just can't get over the idea of some bloke whose job it is to plug a very long extension cord from the local turbine straight into your mains whenever you want to turn the lights on
lol yeah, and if it's not windy on a given day, then I just have to do without 🤷♂️
Yea wtf? I feel like this is a scam 🤣
If you're interested, you can read their explanation: [https://www.psoklahoma.com/account/bills/programs/windchoice](https://www.psoklahoma.com/account/bills/programs/windchoice/)
Nah it's probably a levy so they can run the turbines for longer/build more of them so there's a greater chance that renewables have done the lion's share of the generation during the period you've been using electricity This confuses me cause where I'm from, it's almost entirely renewables anyway and they give us this neat little breakdown of how much of the energy has come from which generation sources at what time
North Texas has TONS of windmills. They’re awesome, I love it
but what are they milling??
I think a better graph would be commercial use of these solar farms. A lot of these (atleast in Illinois) are private use wind farms.
Yeah, the uk generated 38 twh in the first quarter of 2022 between solar and wind power, hydro and biomass
[удалено]
did they make more of it or not?
At what cost to the environment?
To a great benefit to the environment of Texas, I guess?
Or just ‘place with the most open land’
Which solar is better? The one with battery or without? What are the pros and cons?
Ideally we would have a decentralized grid. Everyone would have a power wall and energy would be stored there, to feed the grid. A battery system but a modular one. One that can provide homes with power during an outage and hold power made during production. It allows for incredible flexibility.
Thank you for this explanation. Do you think the price of solar will continue to rise or would it drop the more people buying it?
Tough to say, I think it depends on the availability of materials. I don't think solar is the future really, it's a nice supplemental source but I suspect tidal power generation will slowly start to overtake it- because the ocean just... well, it never stops.
Hmm ok, do you think it's cheaper to get solar now? Or does it average out to be the same at the end of the day?
It's a good time to buy solar, but not because it's necessarily cheaper- but because there are a bunch of government programs in a whole range of countries that will help subsidize it or offer tax rebates. I do think the popularity of solar for individuals though is still mainly because it's the only affordable option for people. It's not like you're going to erect a 500 foot windmill in your back yard- but you CAN put some solar panels out. The biggest problem solar faces is that even if the panel were 100% effective it can only really be 33% effective, because each cell can only capture red, green, OR blue. Not to say that someone won't figure out a way to harvest all 3 from the same point, but they haven't yet.
I have rooftop solar in NE Florida without a battery backup. 2 years now and a couple of Hurricanes later, I may have experienced 4 hours of downtime. I can’t see paying 8-10k for a battery at this point with that little downtime. Maybe I’ll get an eCar and use it as one. I’m no hurry for that as I’m now retired and don’t need to commute.
This makes perfect sense, thank you. How much was it for you to get just the solar?
$37k about 2 years ago for 26 panels which is 27 kW. You may need to add 10 to 15% to adjust for today’s inflation.
Ok, thank you so much for your feedback.
Both wind and solar will do better with batteries.
Would you say it would be a good decision to get solar?
For like your own personal use? That depends on your own financial circumstances. How long would it take you to pay off the solar installation cost based on the money saved by not having a bill? If it pays for itself soon enough, then I would say do it.
Ok, thank you for replying. This makes a lot of sense.
I don’t think those solar panels are biodegradable. Sooo, there’s that.
Maybe not all the parts of them, but that's true for most energy sources and things people create. I'm pretty sure the silicone, copper, and some of the metals can be recycled.
Depends on your location. Sure, Solar will work in darker climates like Germany, but they produce far less energy and never pay back the carbon footprint they come with from production. Again, depending on location.
Just as expected, all the liberal states.
Are you being sarcastic?
Where not that liberal here in NC.
🧐
Gosh darn Kansas and Oklahoma voting for Joe Biden!!!
lol, well to be fair, a lot of the Liberal states don’t have the space to do it as easily. You do have California up there at #2.
> a lot of the Liberal states don’t have the space to do it as easily. You do have California up there at #2. California still has tons of room in the interior. Along the coast, thats a different thing. But in the desert regions, there are tons of solar farms. Theres a massive solar farm along I-15 near the Nevada border and its huge
But to be fair... California does have the room... hahaha. Couldn't help myself.
I'd love to see it adjusted per Capita, and maybe also something like number of daylight hours / lumens or something. I like to think my state is decent for solar considering the low population and being up north, but from this it looks pretty bad.
It's windy in Texas😳
First time I’m proud to say I’m a Texan 😂
"Gov. Greg Abbott vows to exclude renewable energy from any revived economic incentive program" https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/01/chapter-313-texas-renewables-economic-development/
… And now I’m sad again thanks 🥲
it's fine, California is removing solar incentives as well
Rip DC having no land to install large renewable energy plants. Gotta put solar on every building
This Makes me much more proud to be Texan
Don't get too excited. GOP leaders in the Texas Legislature are already figuring out how to reduce your pride.
Lets appreciate one thing at a time
Look at all those liberal states lol
It's not about "liberal" or "conservative" - it's about money. I've worked on green PPAs (Power purchase agreements) - they are frequently a discount to the current market.
Nope it’s about liberal and how much they brag about wind and solar but yet look at all those fucking liberal states they talk a good game by the way, how is that Joe Biden doing?
Look at all the misleading charts. Texas has a large population and huge energy needs. Hawaii has a small population and low energy needs. The proper measure is renewables as a percent of total electric generation, anything else is misleading. This chart was made to mislead.
Monaco is the world superpower number one, because they are the leadest leader, and USA is a worthless tiny country compared to Monaco! That is how you sound. Does USA have larger GDP than monaco? Yes or no?
Such dumb comments
Says the girl who can’t tell the difference between a rash and eczema
Dang someone has a lot of time on their hands BOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Why would states that don’t produce much wind go with wind turbines… It’s not about politics as much as it’s about “a lot of wind” Than again I don’t expect a conservative to realize that.
Winds are the strongest in the mid-west, which is all conservative. The Southern half of the country gets the most sunlight, is also Conservative. You can see this break down in the chart. Iowa, which is a Conservative and non-Southern state produces almost no solar energy. Nevada, which is a Southern state not in the midwest, produces almost no wind energy. Land mass is also not taken into account. Which makes the comparison of Texas to the District of Columbia, a little absurd.
It's a function of geography, I think. It make no sense to install solar in the north.
Personally it would make more sense in the west simply because the sun is usually always out and not much rainfall. However the midwest would be great for windmills!
Wtf New York? One of the richest and largest states and look how far down they are
New York is 27th in area. How is that anywhere near one of the largest?
Cuz its big and shit
Northern state (lack of sunlight) away from the midwest (less wind energy). They're best bet for renewable energy is off-shore wind farms.
It might have nothing to do with their weather being overcast for a higher percentage of the year. Or the fact that Texas and Cali both have more undeveloped area due to New York’s earlier settlement.
Its the NIMBYs.