Hacker News Reader

The absolute amount of clean generation mostly just correlates with the amount of electricity demand.

Texas uses 475 TWh / year of electricity, California 251, Florida 248, Ohio 149, and down it goes.

Meanwhile Texas only has 33% carbon free electricity vs 49% in California which are still below outliers like Vermont 80%, South Dakota 81%, and Washington 83%.

Unfortunately, WV and Kentucky are coal country with under 7% carbon free.

Yea. It's trite, but a lot of things are literally bigger in Texas. It's easy to do really misleading stats around Texas because it just does more of everything than the rest of the US. It can both build more green energy and still pollute more than everyone else.

In fairness, California is pretty big as well. Bigger by population actually.

But yeah, Texas is definitely laid out in an enormous fashion. States outside of California are just not good comparisons.

California is also significantly bigger by economic output while using half as much electricity. There's probably some hidden factors there, like Texas engaging in more electricity intensive industries than California does or California using more fossil fuels for things Texas uses electricity for (this one seems improbable), but it seems like a very strange discrepancy.

I have to assume most of the electricity use in TX is cause it's over 100 degrees in most of the state for most of 9 months every year, and a lot of California barely gets over 75 for more than a few weeks. Texas lives and dies on air conditioning, which is a nearly fully electrical use. Colder places use energy, but it can be a mix of electricity, gas, propane, and other options. AC is almost always electricity.

Maybe there's also an industrial angle, but you can live in CA without power almost all year. There's a lot of Texas where if the power goes out for a few days, all your food is spoiled and you're probably about to die from heat with almost no alternative.

I had my AC go out in October in Texas and it was 88 degrees in my house within 6 hours. A lot of houses and apartments really aren't designed for natural ventilation in the way that you'd want in order to be able to naturally cool a space.

It’s a bunch of things. Home solar and insulation requirements isn’t directly showing up on these comparisons but they matter. In 2023 California got 19TWh/y from home Solar vs 3.7 for Texas. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1419901/us-residential-g...

TX climate isn’t that hot, most of the population sees average summer highs in the 90’s just like most of the south with few outliers. https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Texas/temperature-jul...

The California as a wide range of temperatures, directly next to the ocean is milder assuming the wind is from the west, but it gets much worse with El Centro seeing average July high’s of 107! https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/California/city-tempe...

PS: A less commonly considered advantage for solar is rooftop panels provide shade and by converting sunlight into electricity it effectively lowers their albido reducing local heat gain.

I mean, that table says the average high for almost all of is in the mid to high 90s. That's not that far off from what I said.

Additionally, sure, California has plenty of desert that's as hot as Texas, but most of the population is in LA, San Diego, or San Francisco, which are all coastal and relatively temperate. Most of Texas's population is in Dallas(97), Houston (93), San Antonio (95), or Austin (97) which are all generally in reliably hot areas. Houston may have an average summer high of 93, but that's also coupled with a brutal humidity.

The equivalent California population centers are SF (66), San Diego (75), LA (82), and Anaheim (87). All generally livable temperatures, especially given their overnight lows are in the 60s. Most of Texas has summer overnight lows in the mid to high 70s.

Yes, Texas isn't that much hotter than the rest of the US south, but it's also insanely more populated. Houston with it outlying suburbs nearly has the population of all of Mississippi put together. For the most part, large quantities of people don't live in the other really hot parts of the south except for Florida.

If the argument is temperature and therefore AC alone explains the drastic difference in per capita electricity use the numbers just don’t add up. If half of Texas electricity use was AC and all of California stayed 75 the sure however…

I agree there’s a big costal population in CA, but those city temperatures are really deceptive as even just the suburbs of those cities get hot. San Bernardino which still is part of the LA metro area and just 50 miles from the ocean jumps to 95f in July. The closer to the ocean you get the cooler things tend to be but most of the greater metro area is in the 90’s not 75f.

There’s also a huge belt of population running through the middle of the state IE “Central Valley” and out to the the southeast portion of the state: https://i0.wp.com/images.mapsofworld.com/answers/2017/11/cal...

Just looking at the Central Valley Fresno, California population 550,000, 97F in July. Sacramento 525k 95f Bakersfield 420k 98f. And that’s not counting a host of smaller cities and towns or the southeast.

Something like half of the population of California see’s 95+ temperatures in July where they live. So yes San Francisco being surrounded by the ocean on one side and the bay on the other stays surprisingly cool, but it’s just not that much land, 875k people live in SF proper and most of the state is very different.

> I have to assume most of the electricity use in TX is cause it's over 100 degrees in most of the state for most of 9 months every year

That is not even remotely accurate.

Amarillo, average temp is in the low 90s for 3 months: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/amarillo-weather-averages...

Houston, 90s, 4 months: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/houston-weather-averages/...

Dallas, 90s, 4 months: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/dallas-weather-averages/t...

These are the average daily temperatures, which means you can have peak temperatures higher, of course.

But if you're going to claim that most of Texas only drops below 100 for winter, you're going to need a citation.

> But if you're going to claim that most of Texas only drops below 100 for winter, you're going to need a citation.

I didn't intend to imply that. I'm not insane, I literally live in Texas. I know it gets under 100 during the summer. I'd be shocked if anywhere in the world spent a single 24 hour period over 100 most years.

I was being hyperbolic, but not by much. In 2023, Houston saw 97 days over 95 degrees. Dallas saw 84, San Antonio 110 days, Austin 109. For most of those days, the low is still over 70. It gets to around half the year in most of the major population centers if you lower it to 85 degrees. Los Angeles only rarely gets over 100 days over 85 and SF almost never sees more than 100 days.

The practical effect is the same - you generally run your AC nearly 24/7 to keep your living areas below 80 degrees from April through November. It was already in the high 80s last week in a lot of the state.

> I was being hyperbolic, but not by much.

I'd hesitate to describe it as "not by much".

In each of your examples, you show 3-4 months of days over 95. But yet you said "over 100 in most of the state for most of 9 months of the year". Not by much would be a fraction, not a difference of 200-350% of your example.

Just looking at electricity is unfair though. How much of Vermont's, South Dakota's and Washington's heat come from clean electricity and how much is natural gas? If you want to compare apples-to-apples you have to look at things like residential carbon intensity separately from industry.

Careful once you start adding elements individually you’ll tend to focus on those supporting your viewpoint rather than the total. Electricity is after all used by more than just residential homes. If you want to look at “Total Energy” in a more brand context than electricity that’s not just heating and electricity it also includes gasoline and industry etc.

So on average people in Texas drive 16,171 miles per year vs 10,949 for Washington state etc. Similarly the oil industry both flairs and burns a great deal of fuel in order to crack longer hydrocarbons into shorter ones etc.

However, in the widest definition all of this is just a rounding error. It’s actually plants on farms which have the largest energy supply/demand by a huge margin, but being free we rarely consider it in such calculations.

Yes, but a state like Vermont is going to outsource 100% of the carbon intensity it takes to produce gasoline and natural gas to another state. Then use a very small amount of electric energy compared to fuel and gas. Comparing only their electricity usage is very disingenuous.

Vermont is exporting a great deal of the electricity it generates as well.

A nationwide map of carbon intensity by demand would have very different numbers in the electricity column. Such a viewpoint is reasonable, but you need to maintain consistency in definitions for such comparisons to be meaningful.

> TX generates 138% more electricity in 2023 vs. 2009 [1]. By contrast CA generated 5% less electricity in 2023 vs. 2009 [2] (roughly same for any 2 years around those start and stop years).

Isn't some of that because Texas has no major connections to other grids? As your quote from the article points out that means that to meet increasing demand Texas has to build more power generation in Texas.

If California, which is well-connected to other states' grids, needs more electricity they can buy it from other states.

> I do wish this topic were treated less politically and more pragmatically. At this point everyone seems to agree we need more electricity in the future with less carbon intensity and so far, TX is one of the few states actually achieving it at scale.

That's good but its not the whole story. You've got to also look at the mix of renewables and non-renewables. Texas is moving in the right direction, but other states are too and many are farther ahead.

In 2022 Texas produced 139 TWh of renewable electricity [1], which is more than any other state--about 50% more than second place (Washington at 88 TWh)

But Texas also was #1 in non-renewable electricity production at 386 TWh. (Second most is Florida at about 240 TWh).

Percent of electricity from renewals is probably a better way to compare states. Of the top 10 electricity producing states California has the highest renewable precentage at 43%. New York and Texas are at 28% and 27%. The rest of the top 10 is a few around 12-13% and the rest in the 3-10% range.

CO2 Mt/TWh is also useful as it can give some idea of how dirty a state's non-renewables are. For example Delaware and Montana emit 505 and 504 Mt/TWh CO2, but Delaware is only using 3% renewable electricity whereas Montana is using 52% renewable. That suggests that Montana's non-renewables are quite a bit dirtier than Delaware's non-renewables.

Texas is 406 Mt/TWh. Combined with their 26% renewables this suggests that their non-renewables produce around 556 Mt/TWh CO2. There is way dirtier out there (Wyoming at almost 1100 and West Virginia at around 960 for example), but of the top 10 electricity producers only Ohio matches it. California is 380 and Florida is 401.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_renewab...

> Isn't some of that because Texas has no major connections to other grids? As your quote from the article points out that means that to meet increasing demand Texas has to build more power generation in Texas.

> If California, which is well-connected to other states' grids, needs more electricity they can buy it from other states.

Well, that's not quite right, in order to meet increasing demand the increased capacity still has to be built somewhere, but it doesn't have to be built in California.

Either that or you could make the other states use less electricity.

Is that CA number because more properties are generating lots of Solar PV and so need less from the grid?

You still have the problem, especially with PV, of the duck curve that requires other producers to ramp down (and potentially be paid for ramping down).

As someone in California, part of it is that we have the highest cost electricity in the country. Texas power costs less than 1/3 what I pay.

I, personally, would use much more if it were cheaper (tighter thermostat/AC, charge at home, etc).

Texas only adds more clean generation because it’s way less capital intensive than building a natural gas or coal plant. Those plants require $500M+ minimum and the returns just aren’t that great. My wife is an energy attorney in Texas and handles power purchase and interconnection deals like these all day long.

Solar and wind deals require far less capital, go up faster, and aren’t subject to the supply risk of natural gas or coal.

Texas also has a lot of clean energy thanks to sun and terrain. The Edwards plateau creates some of the best wind generation opportunities in the US.

Texas also attracts energy heavy industries because it has relatively cheap power. Which we’ve learned partly results from not paying anyone to have excess capacity… which is all fun and games until you have winter storm Yuri roll in and your only option is to “shed load” which btw kills some people.

Another aspect of Texas is that we have demand response contracts whereby certain users get paid simply for the ability to “take” power when required. This is very attractive to bitcoin miners. Prices here go negative from time to time which is pretty wild.

All of this attracts a lot of energy-intensive industries to Texas.

The market structure is weird, but it works more or less.

> Texas is the only state in the lower 48 that has no major connections to neighboring power grids.

This may be true but it makes it sound like there's no connections, which is false. There are interconnections between other power grids but depending on their definition of "major connections", it may be technically true.

>This may be true but it makes it sound like there's no connections, which is false

It sounds more like there are no major connections, which is what a plain reading of that sentence says. And as you said, that's true, there's no alternate interpretation where interties that can carry around 1.5% of the grid's load are "major connections".

And you're ignoring the fact that the lack of interconnections is a deliberate political decision, not a technical oddity. By keeping their grid independent, the Texas grid can escape regulation by FERC. The limited interties they do have are used for used for scheduled and emergency power trades and are not treated as interconnections supporting interstate or international trade.

https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/connecting-past-and-...

It seems like they just trusted that supply and demand works…and were correct.

Except: They had to interfere with the free market to force electric suppliers to harden their infrastructure against cold weather -- something they hadn't done before because of the race to lowest operating costs.

There's also other horror stories from under regulation:

https://www.keranews.org/news/2021-03-08/texas-wont-reduce-1...

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/04/ercot-texas-electric...

> they just trusted that supply and demand works…and were correct.

Except when they weren't, like the sibling comment about 2021 winter and all the hoopla over needing to force them to invest in winter proofing; after a winter failure which cause hundreds of deaths due to multiple days long power outages.

And the more current rolling blackouts during the summer that no one is happy about but have little to no recourse for. It's so much fun having to reset digital clocks on appliances every morning. Or, working late and the unexpected joy of having the power grid tell me it's time for bed because the power for the entire neighborhood, including street lights, will be off for the next 3-5 hours. Hope you have good battery powered fans on before you went to bed or enjoy waking up in a humid mess.