Why can’t these idiots just mandate that you have to build out clean energy to power the data centers. It’s such a simple bit of legislation that they just will not do.
"Abbott is asking the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas to ensure data center developers provide information on tax breaks they will receive; power use and generation; water use and cooling operations; efforts to reduce impacts on local communities; and ownership of the facility. Any projects that fail Abbott’s ordered “comprehensive verification and audit” should be denied connection to the grid, the governor said."
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comp...
"“Our top priority is to protect Texans’ safety and quality of life,” said Governor Abbott. “Any project that fails to comply with the requirements set forth by the PUCT and ERCOT, and by state law, must be denied connection to the Texas grid. Simply put, Texans must come first.”"
https://environmentamerica.org/texas/center/media-center/new...
"The Lone Star State generated the equivalent of 37% of its electricity from solar, wind and geothermal power in 2025"
And to which companies would this apply? Only Datacenters? There are other energy intensive industries too, should this also apply to them? And what is the cutoff for that? Does every bigger 21st century company also need to be an electricity company?
It would be less arbitrary if all negative externalities would be taxed (for example, carbon tax or noise pollution tax) and maybe prioritize households on the public grid.
carbon taxes dont work because all they do is make production more expensive, and businesses are always happy to pass on any extra costs to their customers. its the same with noise pollution and water use. the only way to actually stop them is direct regulation.
buying land does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it. stop worshipping property and markets and focus on real problems like limited number of business licenses, exclusivity contracts, long or lifetime post employment terms, weak competition rules and long waiting times at government offices. all of them go against the right to buy what you want, work for anyone who wants to take you or to start a business. thats the real economic freedom that is in danger today.
https://texas2036.org/news-analysis/gale-force-growth-texas-...
Oh and it reduced our green house gas emissions. That was the catch.
(I got coal rolled just yesterday, in Tahoe. Who knew that was still a thing…)
Ken Paxton, who is running for Senate and currently serves as attorney general, proudly announced cracking down on "solar scams": https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-...
Plus his campaign site makes no mention of supporting clean energy: https://www.kenpaxton.com/
I will repeat: it's political suicide to run on a platform of clean energy or education in Texas. That does not mean companies are not building clean energy. But politicians will not make it part of their platform during elections.
If you really think Republican voters in Texas care so much about it, wouldn't the obvious play for Democrats be pointing out how much green energy these Republican politicians have allowed to be built under their watch? I think you're painting Republican voters with an extremely broad brush here and honestly, fail to understand what exactly they object to in the first place regards to green energy. Their main objection is being _forced_ to use it (or being chided by ivory tower know-it-alls) in contexts where they have certain preferences (like driving a big ass truck).
Not a single one is going to object to cheap energy so long as it doesn't degrade their current lifestyle. That's the point people like you forget when you're creating Republican straw men.
I’ve seen too many solar panels installed on the north side of a house, under a tree.
I suspect the success of renewables in Texas has more to do with the bottom line than anything else. They certainly get a lot of badmouthing from people in rural areas. And honestly this is the best possible outcome. The impact of good intentions wavers along with cultural evolution, but it's hard to stop something that just makes financial sense.
I'm about as pro-nuclear as you can be, but that's probably a good thing. Modern reactor designs are amazingly safe, and the industry itself has a really amazing track record, but there should be no room for the usual corner cutting shenanigans when it comes to nuclear.
I do genuinely believe that the West at large has lost the capability of getting any kind of large infrastructure project built due to hilariously blatant corruption. Even France, the poster child for nuclear energy and how much of a success story it can be, is struggling with their latest nuclear expansion because we let the private entity ghouls come in and suck everyone dry for every penny they can manage.
Can you just go to the auto parts store and buy a new lead acid standard issue battery? Definitely not. Well then ok, lets buy the most top shelf high-performance 2026 grade one. Also no.
The only battery you can use is the original one that came with the car in 1979. That's it. So now you have to pay a factory to produce a battery with a design from 1974. This battery easily costs $750k for all the custom engineering and low volume needed. And it is objectively worse by every measure to what is available at Walmart today for $50. So why do we have to use the original one? Because that is the battery that was certified, and certifying a new battery would take 10 years and tens of millions.
Again, I have pretty direct experience with this (a division of my company), and the situation above is a "translated" example of what goes down.
Maybe you call it "corner cutting" to use a new battery, but frankly I think you might be just speaking from the hip.