Hacker News Reader

Comment by nimbius | Hacker News Reader

regionally speaking, and state-to-state, the numbers are also pretty shocking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri...

California and North Carolina both generate nearly 50% of their energy from renewables for example.

As another example, in April this year, Washington generated 73% of its electricity from non-carbon sources (Hydro, Other Renewables, and Nuclear). This number varies throughout the year of course. Some months have Hydroelectric production alone as high as 80% of the state's total generation.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA#tabs-4

Yeah, but that's because they have all those rivers and Hydro dams. Not something replicable across most of the US.

In some situations it's possible to move the energy consumption closer to the hydro-based power. That's why the major cloud providers all have data centers near the Columbia River.

That sounds good but I cant help but be skeptical about that stat. It seems like consumption is the bottom line and I assume theyd highlight consumption of it was more favorable. What percentage of consumption is from renewables?

That state profile page doesn't highlight consumption statistics because that's not part of the standard short-form description produced by the Energy Information Administration. You have to visit other EIA pages to find out about a state's import-export electricity balance, like this one:

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=WA

Overall, Washington's electricity net generation exceeds electricity demand in the state, and the excess power generated is sent to the Western Interconnection, a regional grid that stretches from British Columbia and Alberta in Canada, to the northern part of Baja California, Mexico, and across all or parts of 14 western states.

Washington is a net exporter of electricity. It produces more electricity than it consumes.

Also interesting to see that Texas accounts for nearly 10% of the country’s renewable output, with Illinois at 7% and California at 6%.

Texas has a lot of oil fields and windmills.

And at the same time the Texas state government is actively trying to sabotage the industry: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-republican-...

Coming from the UK, where also media is of course always going to be biased, I have to say honestly, I read that, and one of its linked articles, and its phrasing seems so biased that I don't feel like I'm getting a neutral (or at least balanced) take. How can one hope to just understand the facts of a situation when even senior politicians such as governers are just making such pot-shotty comments? It appears to be written to leave an emotional impression, rather than information, in the reader's mind.

Politics in the US long ago transitioned away from reasoned arguments backed with data. The polarization of parties has created a gulf too wide to scaffold an argument across. The emotional impression is the point, but it's not for you. It's for the people who already prescribe to this dogma. Reading that gets them excited and engaged. Ready to go vote for their "tell it like it is" political party.

Yeah it’s tradition for Texas state legislators to drop by and dump a bunch of crazy shit. I’m seeing 12,000 bills filed this past regular session. The next session is in 2025.

   > I’m seeing 12,000 bills filed this past regular session.

i'm not familiar with the situation there but is that an exaggeration?

Slightly. 8,000 bills and 11,700 resolutions (things like naming January 23 as the Texas State Lawyer Appreciation Day or something). Of these 1,222 bills and 4,028 resolutions passed.

That's for two years though - the Texas Legislature meets every other year. Also remember that Texas has an economy roughly the size of Canada's, so in some senses that's like the output of a national legislature.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/texas-lege-update-w...

Yeah its very slanted. Texas Monthly is nothing close to balanced. Its from Austin Texas.

and sun, and it's BIG

Texas has very roughly as much coast line as florida. Daily heating cycle of the land creates a pretty good heat pump to blow wind onshore in the afternoon . In Corpus Christi and Galveston they call it the 1:30 at 1:30pm which indicates the wind direction clocking that way in the early afternoon. Couple that with very low land value best served by feeding cows on it, makes Texas a great wind producer, and higher than average sunny days makes solar very easy.

> Texas has very roughly as much coast line as florida.

Sorry, but no.

Florida (Method 1) 1,350 mi (Method 2) 8,436 mi

Texas (Method 1) 367 mi (Method 2) 3,359 mi

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

Much of the land in Texas is privately owned so you don't have many of the same issues in other states where there are arguments over where to build. It's a very easy decision for land owners in Texas because they get paid monthly per tower in operation. If you drive around Abilene and a little out southwest of there you'll see red lights at night everywhere and you can just count the cash-flow.

Oil is Texas "T", but money is always the real motivator.

Hmm, I don't think that list is correct. According to the Caifornia Independent System Operator:

https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

Right now (4:30pm) about 41% is coming from renewables (according to the full-day graph, that number is only slightly higher earlier in the day when the sun is strongest). Since 75% of renewables generation in CA comes from solar power, that 41% will drop like a rock once the sun goes down (eyeballing the stacked graph, it's around 15% or so in the morning before the sun comes up). No way does CA's renewables generation average out to the 49.4% shown on that Wikipedia page.

For reference, here's the full day graph: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#sectio... (unfortunately I can't encode options in the URL, so you'll need to pick yesterday to see a full day, and select the stacked graph from the options to better see the breakdown). Natural gas alone seems well over 50% of the usage. Even at 1pm, when solar generation should be around its peak, natgas+hydro+nuclear is above 50% of generation.

Surprised Hawaii is so low. Would have thought costs would have pushed them higher than that.

Much of the Hawaiian islands are mountainous with tropical forests. Real estate is at a premium there. My guess would be that there just isn't enough cheap land to make solar economical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com