Texas On Track To Add Record Solar Power Capacity By End of 2022 (reuters.com) 111
According to a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Texas will add a record 10 GW of utility-scale solar capacity by the end of 2022, compared with 3.2 GW in California. A third of all U.S. utility-scale solar capacity planned to come online in the next two years (30 GW) will be in Texas. Reuters reports: California currently has the most installed utility-scale solar capacity of any state - about 16 gigawatts (GW). One gigawatt can power about 1 million U.S. homes. But since solar power is on only about a third of the time, a gigawatt of solar can only power about 330,000 homes. Texas added 2.5 GW of solar capacity in 2020, and EIA said it expected the state to add another 4.6 GW in 2021 and 5.4 GW in 2022, bringing the state's total to 14.9 GW. Solar is expected to make up the largest share of capacity additions in Texas between 2020 and 2022, with almost half of the additions, compared with 35% for wind and 13% for gas, according to EIA projections.
Math (Score:3, Insightful)
One gigawatt can power about 1 million U.S. homes. But since solar power is on only about a third of the time, a gigawatt of solar can only power about 330,000 homes.
And by that logic 3 women can have one baby in 3 months.
Re:Math (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is around half of Texas's summer electricity usage is on AC. AC use tends to be the best use-case for solar power, as both AC use and solar power are primarily driven by the sun.
Basically, in some cases, the mythical man-month holds.
Re: Math (Score:2)
Which in many ways shows that the state should be encouraging passive houses. A passive house would put less pressure on the power grid when the heat kicks in. On the other hand humidity appears to be the current Achilles heal of these houses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great so all we have to do is tear down the roughly 8 million houses and rebuild them...
I agree that *new* buildings need to be built more efficiently, and a lot of existing buildings can be upgraded in various ways to save energy, but shit like "encouraging passive houses" is about as useful a suggestion as "just move where the food is" is for hunger, which is to say not useful at all.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it's very useful, because we are building new homes somewhat rapidly (albeit mostly for investment purposes, so there's still a housing shortage — many if not most of these new homes are not affordable to those people who need housing) and because most homes in America are built like shit.
I can't compare to other "fully developed" nations because I haven't been to any, but I can compare to what we used to build homes like here in the USA and modern homes are trash. They are built out of a mi
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I agree that new buildings need to be constructed to a higher efficiency standard.
However, doing that will merely make the problem worse at a slower rate - it will not solve the already big problem of existing, inefficient buildings. That's why saying "Just build more efficient housing" is not useful. It doesn't actually address the problem. To do that, we need to either upgrade or straight up demolish and rebuild what we already have.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Right, we need to do both things.
There are no simple solutions to problems of this complexity, only complex ones.
If the problem is distributed, the solution needs to be distributed.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically you'd approach such a problem from multiple angles, since there isn't a one size fits all. Examples:
- Existing buildings would need to retrofitted, though would probably only be done if the home owner can recupe the cost within a reasonable time or had a grant to make it more likely they can
- The building code would be updated with certain energy requirements, while it is up to the contractor to work out how to achieve them. The exact technology should not be prescrib
Which is it? (Score:2)
First you said we're building homes nobody can afford.
Then you said we're building homes more cheaply than ever before.
Which is it?
Also, do you *really* believe that most of the new houses are sitting empty because nobody can afford to live there? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
whee [census.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Just add another outer skin"
Okay so, I work in construction, right? Engineering consultant, mostly commercial and lately municipal stuff. One project, currently under construction, is to make a complex of rent-controlled housing units "flood resilient" as part of ongoing Hurricane Sandy remediation. To accomplish this the design is to add a concrete wall just over 3 feet (just over a meter) all around the existing outer wall, to make it strong enough to resist the flood waters. The goal is to not have the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great so all we have to do is tear down the roughly 8 million houses and rebuild them...
I agree that *new* buildings need to be built more efficiently, and a lot of existing buildings can be upgraded in various ways to save energy, but shit like "encouraging passive houses" is about as useful a suggestion as "just move where the food is" is for hunger, which is to say not useful at all.
=Smidge=
I wasn't suggesting replacing what is already there, but ensuring building codes for new buildings move things in that direction. Not sure why you were so defensive over the idea?
Re: (Score:3)
Texas is a real mess right now. It is a State that is rapidly changing, as there is a lot of economic growth, and urban development. That means in order for it to function it will need to apply smarter regulations and a more advanced method of governance, for the growth to succeed and be sustained. While at the same time the big driver of this growth to Texas is lower Taxes and Regulations. This method was sustainable with the Old Texas, because a solid majority of Texans were rural, with a lot of land. So
Re: (Score:1)
Your understanding of the state of Texas is decades out of date. Texas, like most of the rest of the US, is mainly urban/suburban and had been for a long long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Do passive houses actually work if built using carpentry instead of masonry which is AFAIK the prevalent way in the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I think of construction techniques that handle hot climates well, I think of Norway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say check out "The Build Show" by Matt Risinger, since he covers passive and low energy homes in many of his videos:
https://www.youtube.com/user/M... [youtube.com]
One thing I like about him is that he actually admits to screw ups and the learning points from them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As you said, the peak usage is from 2p-4p. That's when the sun is out. Electricity production does not really change throughout the day - modifying output is very expensive. If solar just removes that blip from 2-4, then that means fewer plants run 24/7.
More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:2)
It's hard enough just now matching supply to demand on the grid. Increasing the solar capacity (especially as a replacement for natural gas generation) inceases the difficulty. More needs done at the consumer end, things like smart meters and real-time pricing at the user level to more closely match demand to supply (to encourage things like charging batteries during mid-day)
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:5, Interesting)
We also need more long-distance HVDC lines, especially running east-west to spread out the available sun. Late morning sun in Florida can power waffle irons in California. Afternoon sun in Arizona can provide power to the East Coast in the evening.
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:5, Interesting)
We also need more long-distance HVDC lines...
No we don't. What we need is grid-scale vanadium redox batteries [wikipedia.org] to hold the charge. At 80% charge/discharge efficiency and a minimum lifetime of 20 years (after which it can be recycled), it's a highly viable option for grid-scale power.
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want grid-scale batteries, the best choice right now is sodium-sulfur [utilitydive.com]. There are already dozens of utility-scale installations worldwide, with several in the US. It's a proven technology that uses readily available, inexpensive materials.
The only thing that might be better is Ambri's magnesium-antimony [ambri.com] cells, which use a molten salt electrolyte/separator which makes the whole thing mechanically and chemically more robust. Those are still in early trials though, so while I have high hopes I'm not going to count those just yet.
=Smidge=
count me in. (Score:3)
I'll go with whatever works. If it's molten metal batteries, so be it!
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely the answer.
And what's great about upping our solar and wind generation is that regardless of when in the future we roll out whatever the current grid scale battery tech is at that point, it can immediately start benefiting the grid.
There is going to be huge money to be made in Texas exporting renewable energy. And even huger money exporting it on demand. If anywhere is ideal for massive battery farms, it's Texas. Huge expansive area, flat, and tons and tons of renewables to fill them. The
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that might be better is Ambri's magnesium-antimony cells, which use a molten salt electrolyte/separator which makes the whole thing mechanically and chemically more robust.
384 Wh/L is decent volumetric energy density. 82 Wh/kg is rubbish weight energy density. Lithium-ion formulations achieve 380 Wh/kg. Maybe ok for stationary applications, but they're more reminiscent of lead-acid than lithium-ion when it comes to handling and installation. Ambri is claiming 20+ year lifespan of daily cycling, so 7000+ charge cycles, compared to 1400-ish for lithium-ion. If Ambri comes reasonably close to their stated robustness, I'd prefer it for household energy storage. That's the k
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is grid-scale vanadium redox batteries [wikipedia.org]
Have you checked the price of vanadium or the production volume?
Depending on vanadium redox to fix the problem is as realistic as believing in the Easter Bunny.
Batteries based on lithium or sodium make far more sense, but are still less cost-effective than wider geographic distribution with HVDC.
At 80% charge/discharge efficiency and a minimum lifetime of 20 years
HVDC is over 90% efficient and lasts much longer than 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries based on lithium or sodium make far more sense,
Fine, whatever works.
but are still less cost-effective than wider geographic distribution with HVDC.
HVDC cannot provide power 24/7 which is the problem. Eventually you need something to keep us warm at night and if it's not nuclear then it's going to have to be battery backed somehow. Investing in both seems like it wouldn't be cost efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
The wind doesn't stop blowing at night.
When one area is becalmed, the winds are stronger somewhere else. So geographical distribution with HVDC fixes that problem.
Solar works because power demand is high in the day and low at night. The problem is the "gap" from 4 pm to 7 pm when people get home from work, turn on the AC and start cooking dinner. But HVDC alleviates that problem by shifting power from west to east. 7 pm in NYC is 3 pm in the cloud-free Mojave and Sonoran deserts.
Re: (Score:2)
The wind doesn't stop blowing at night.
When one area is becalmed, the winds are stronger somewhere else. So geographical distribution with HVDC fixes that problem.
That sure sounds like a fragile system, like it's one big storm (which happen annually) away from a massive blackout. Batteries ensure the exact opposite by decentralizing the source of power.
On top of that, it seems it's an expensive and underdeveloped industry.
Per wikipedia:
Operating an HVDC scheme requires many spare parts to be kept, often exclusively for one system, as HVDC systems are less standardized than AC systems and technology changes more quickly.
I'll grant you that it's an interesting idea but I would never want to rely on something so uncertain.
Re: (Score:2)
We also need more long-distance HVDC lines...
No we don't.
Are you stupid? HVDC would reduce the amount of storage required from multiple weeks to 12-24 hours. Why? Because it would move electricity from where we are producing it to where it is being used(which can be across the continent).
Of course 4 hours of storage is not viable in the short term let alone 12 hours and HVDC.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you stupid?
Maybe. I mean, I'm not going to discount it as a possibility but I'm not a medical doctor, so I couldn't tell you for sure.
HVDC would reduce the amount of storage required from multiple weeks to 12-24 hours.
If it works and is low cost then I'm all for it. However, you have also left out that we do need power during the night. Eventually, we will need either batteries or plenty of nuclear, so why bother installing HVDC in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Well I am in favor of nuclear energy completely. Building a nuclear baseload would be cheaper and easier than building 2x solar, 2x wind, 12 hours of storage and a HVDC supergrid. The reality is that storage is really expensive and not viable for grid level.
HVDC would significantly reduce the amount of storage needed in a 80-100% renewables system. Dropping the amount of storage required from weeks to 12 hours. You are right we won't need it we pursue a nuclear energy though(I assumed you were against
Re: (Score:2)
Well I am in favor of nuclear energy completely.
Nuclear is great but there are people that will fight against it's installation rabidly, the most foundational requirement for any successful technology. It may be inefficient but I think pursuing all possible avenues is the wise choice because you aren't betting the future on the success of single technology but rather you are betting on the success of at least one technology.
The reality is that storage is really expensive and not viable for grid level.
Grid level storage may be expensive (now) but it also ensures a lot of redundancy by decentralizing the source of power. It could
Re: (Score:2)
Also because larger markets are more efficient. Not only will an upgraded grid bring intermittent renewable energy to distant customers, it will enable battery storage installations to stabilize the grid while purchasing energy from distant, cheap sources.
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:5, Interesting)
Solar capacity is quite predictable (days ahead to hours ahead - based on weather). Also, you can basically "turn off" solar capacity at will and at a moment's notice (just disconnect individual panels).
The difficulty is increased more by adding wind power (wind might not be so predictable as cloud cover). Also, you can't stop instantly a wind turbine, as the huge propeller contains a lot of energy which must be slowly shed.
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:4, Interesting)
Texas has gone WAY out of their way to isolate themselves from the national grid. This is one of those cases where "Texas independence, yay!" is a BAD thing. And it's the primary reason so many Texans got to sit in the dark and shiver for a week recently.
The way it works for most other states that have lots of solar is you make more power than you use during the day, selling a bunch of it to other states in the grid, (this means you have more soar than you "need" during the day) and then at night you turn around and buy power back from the grid from states from either gas power plants or other electrical storage. (where you could easily be buying back your own solar power to sent them that day!) Basically you get overnight storage for your own power at very little cost.
If Texas is going to continue to promise to winterize their production plants and not actually DO it, then getting more connected to the grid is the only other option, unless you count chattering your teeth in the dark as an "option". Or, if they want to stay "independent", then they need to maintain their systems, since they won't be able to rely on other systems maintained by someone else.
They had a choice, "pick A or B". And they chose "C, none of the above", and had an exciting spring as a result. Can't say as I feel sorry for them. (I live up in Iowa, we maintain our power grid, and we get a HUGE amount of it from wind and also do a lot of solar - so try to ignore the ERCOT con-men that tell you wind and solar aren't reliable in the winter - we know a thing or two about that!)
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:4, Interesting)
Texas put cronies in charge of the utilities and intentionally gutted any enforcement strength they had. They went as far as to sue the federal government just to keep those pesky regulators at bay. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
They can recommend plants do upgrades or make changes but can't force them. So back in 2011 when cold weather caused rolling blackouts they recommended the plants winterize. The plants said fuck you this is Texas we do what we want. So fast forward 10 years and guess what happened again? Rolling blackouts so bad that the grid almost failed. You can't start up a power plant without external power, so you could see how this would end poorly. Have the power plants done the necessary upgrades now?
Re: (Score:2)
Variable rates are why people have to choose between freezing or $10,000 electricity bills. The people who invest in these wind and solar farms are upset that Texas is going to outlaw the price gouging, which we saw in a article here on /. A
Move to Austin (Score:3, Insightful)
Flip Texas blue.
Re:Move to Austin (Score:4, Funny)
Texans already turned blue when the grid blew up.
Re:Move to Austin (Score:4, Interesting)
If and when Texas solidly flips, Republicans will have a hard time winning a presidential election for a long time. Democrats will be able to lose the entire Midwest (except Illinois) and South, and still have an Electoral College majority with the East and West/South states they won in 2020, plus Texas.
It will be interesting seeing Republicans flip to trying to abolish the Electoral College and Democrats trying to preserve it.
Re:Move to Austin (Score:4, Interesting)
If and when Texas solidly flips, Republicans will have a hard time winning a presidential election for a long time. [...] It will be interesting seeing Republicans flip to trying to abolish the Electoral College and Democrats trying to preserve it.
Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1988. I don't see that happening.
Why the focus on the Electoral collage? (Score:2)
The thing that causes the issue is the winner-take-all introduced by Republican states some time ago. And that is a completely separate issue that could work without the collage.
The collage could be made to work for minority candidates. "I direct my collage reps to give all their votes to X unless I can win outright". Could work very well indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be more interesting to see Republicans flip on basically everything they've been saying for the last two years when they see that their current messaging and "policies" are meant to cater to a very vocal minority which disgusts the independents that actually vote people into office. I think it's only going to take one or two more electoral wipeouts before they get the message that substantive policy ideas and reform gathers more voters than the weird cult worship of an abrasive amoral abusive delus
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, techies overwhelmingly vote blue. Look at Austin .. voted 72% biden .. up from 65% Hillary just 4 years ago.
95% of contributions at the top 6 technology companies donated to Joe Biden instead of Trump. Reference: https://www.wired.com/story/si... [wired.com]
According to data released by the Federal Election Commission, which requires individuals who contribute $200 or more to a presidential campaign to report their employer, employees at these six companies have contributed $4,787,752 to Biden and just $239,527
Re:Move to Austin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the power grid in cold weather?
Solar vs. Battery (Score:2)
One gigawatt can power about 1 million U.S. homes.
Cool.
But since solar power is on only about a third of the time, a gigawatt of solar can only power about 330,000 homes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a two-thirds waste issue sounds like a lot more like a battery/energy storage problem?
And when gross vs. net is that far off, seems silly to be bragging about gross total GWs. No car manufacturer is running around claiming a 100MPG car when the damn thing actually gets 33MPG.
Solar only generates 8 hours a day (Score:4, Interesting)
On average; depending on season, latitude, climate, panel angle, active sun tracking etc. That's why 1 GW of installed solar might only average 1/3 GW output. Actual figures are typically less than this, when you include other factors - in the continental US, a 1 kW panel typically produces between 3.0 and 4.8 kW hours in a 24 hour day, so a daily average of only 125 to 200 watts.
This isn't a storage issue, just a fact of life for intermittent energy sources - and it's why solar output is more commonly measured in actual generated kWh per day or year, rather than kW installed. If you need a reliable minimum power baseline then you'll need a mix of complementary energy sources, perhaps including storage or other dispatchable source. Solar can be a very cheap part of that mix, but rarely the only part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Texas is a perfect place to put solar panels because when they need them the most, they by definition have plenty of insolation — because they need the power to run air conditioning.
As such, Texas doesn't need storage to make use of large amounts of solar power. "electricity consumption per Texas home [eia.gov] is 26% higher than the national average" because of A/C.
In this case, solar is a very cheap part of the mix without adding any storage.
Re:Solar vs. Battery (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a two-thirds waste issue. It's a lazy reporter going "solar is on 1/3 of the time, and powers a million homes when on. I'll math it". It works out fine if everything a house does can be done any time of day. It "mythical man months" if electricity use is constant throughout the day.
Electricity use peaks during generation is actually probably fairly true in hot areas - AC is a huge use case and highly correlated to when the sun is out.
Re: Solar vs. Battery (Score:3)
Perhaps you're not a native English speaker. What he said is commonly used English.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't you attempt to argue the point rather than attacking grammar?
Re: (Score:2)
Merriam Webster (definition 3.a) may be illuminating for you. If you want to be a pendant, don't use "speech" to mean "grammar" or "writing".
And? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power is great for powering your AC units during the hot summer days.
Re: (Score:3)
My EV has an 80kwh battery. I can charge it whenever electricity is available. In an emergency, I can tap it for power.
Wider adoption of EVs will solve much of the problem with intermittency.
Re: And? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the grid is down then the issue of "intermittency" is kind of out the window, isn't it?
Also, an EV "Vehicle to home"/"Vehicle to grid" interface is literally distributed batteries...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
My generator is probably much cheaper than your EV.
Your generator is not street legal.
Re: (Score:3)
So, how would you solve the problem? Load shedding (cutting groups of customers off from the grid) is brutal, but was necessary, the whole Texas grid was 5 minutes away from complete shut-down (probably for several weeks). Unless some long-term solution to matching demand to an increasingly tempremental supply is found, then rolling blackouts will become the norm and the luxury of 24/7 electricity availability will become a happy memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries for short term stability, over-built wind for long term, and any other renewable sources you can lay your hands on without upsetting the environment.
Over-building really is the key. Then you can also have very high load items that can take advantage of cheap excess energy when available, like water desalination or opportunistically charging batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't use electricity to heat your home, especially resistive heating, because, unlike air conditioners, the times when you'll need to use it don't coincide well with the times that PV panels produce electricity.
Hopefully the blackouts and super high market rate electricity were a wakeup call to Texas developers and homeowners to switch away from electric resistive heating, and for them to get the utilities to winterize their power generation facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power is meaningless when it's winter, dark and snowing and people are literally freezing to death inside their unheated homes. What's the upshot of this story, that more money is being wasted on unreliable, intermittent power that will be of no use whatsoever when it's really needed?
There are plenty of humans who live on this planet where it never snows. Much like putting in outdoor pools, location matters. And even those living in extreme conditions would still probably benefit from supplemental solar power, not to mention a planet benefiting from a reduction on fossil fuel demand. We certainly don't have all the answers yet for future energy solutions, so we better figure out a way to extend the life of fossil fuels. Solar is certainly one way of doing that.
As far as countries wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse is that solar and wind are economically more viable than most fossil fuels, and get better every year. And that's WITHOUT large-scale grid storage or strong country-sized interconnects to move power to where it's needed. When we start deploying those things? Absolutely game-over for pretty much every other energy source.
I don't get the anti-renewable cult. Why do folks join it? Why do they promote it? How can they not see that they're just wrong?
Not being able to take in new and changing information a
I have diagnosed your solar panel issue. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Texas Voters: Yee haw!
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power is meaningless when it's winter, dark and snowing and people are literally freezing to death inside their unheated homes. What's the upshot of this story, that more money is being wasted on unreliable, intermittent power that will be of no use whatsoever when it's really needed?
Texas had problems like that with their gas power plants last winter due to lack of maintenance and winter preparation (which they had 10 years to do, since a previous winter storm took their grid down), so there are issues with any solution. Solar, especially with some storage, can be a good *addition* to the grid.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is the democrats saying that gas, coal, and nuclear power have to be removed.
Re: (Score:2)
A federal report issued in the summer of 2011 found that state officials back in 1989, after another cold snap caused outages, "issued a number of recommendations aimed at improving winterization on the part of the generators."
"These recommendations were not mandatory, and over the course of time implementation lapsed," said the August 2011 report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, titled "Report on Outages and Curtailments During the Southwe
Re: (Score:1)
I said right at the top that there were issues with the gas. However, I like previous wrote, the main issue to come out of this is the stupidity of the democrats that we should totally kill off gas, coal and nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power is meaningless when it's winter, dark and snowing and people are literally freezing to death inside their unheated homes. What's the upshot of this story, that more money is being wasted on unreliable, intermittent power that will be of no use whatsoever when it's really needed?
Texas had problems like that with their gas power plants last winter due to lack of maintenance and winter preparation (which they had 10 years to do, since a previous winter storm took their grid down), so there are issues with any solution. Solar, especially with some storage, can be a good *addition* to the grid.
Winter storms are so rare in Texas, they didn't think it was worth winterizing. Of course the last winter storm interrupted delivery of milk and other goods from Texas to my state.
Re: (Score:2)
Winter storms are so rare in Texas, they didn't think it was worth winterizing.
That's a fairly naive way to look at it. Apparently you missed the fact that a whole lot of the Texas energy companies could charge whatever they wanted when demand shot up, leaving homeowners with bills in the thousands to tens-of-thousands for a week or two where they didn't use much power because of the lack of supply and massive demand.
They actually profit when there is a disruption due to weather. Why on earth would they spend money preventing that?
Re: (Score:2)
Texas is dark all winter? I wasn't aware they were above the arctic circle. If only there was some type of device capable of storing electricity in the short term for later use... Oh well.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Solar power is meaningless when it's winter, dark and snowing and people are literally freezing to death inside their unheated homes.
Obviously you have never spent any time in Texas during the winter. Most of those conditions do not apply to Texas winters. On average Texas gets something like 300 days of sun a year. Most parts of Texas do not see snow at all during winter.
What's the upshot of this story, that more money is being wasted on unreliable, intermittent power that will be of no use whatsoever when it's really needed?
During the record snowfall and cold this winter, solar power kept working while fossil fuels like gas failed as equipment failed.
What about Mexico? (Score:2)
Why not build a plant to the south and just run the power north?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unreliable, as opposed to all that coal and natgas that just kept going in Texas this winter in freezing conditions? I mean, absolutely nobody froze to death or ended up with massive property damage due to weather-related outages of fossil fuels, eh?
Solar panels can be brushed or blown off quite quickly and start generating again. A frozen natgas pipeline will still be frozen, because Texas regulators have no teeth and cannot enforce winterization measures.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power is meaningless when it's winter, dark and snowing and people are literally freezing to death inside their unheated homes. What's the upshot of this story, that more money is being wasted on unreliable, intermittent power that will be of no use whatsoever when it's really needed?
Most of Texas doesn't have to worry about those issues.
Re: (Score:2)
"when it's winter, dark and snowing and people are literally freezing to death inside their unheated homes"
Up here in Vermont, my coworkers find that the wattage they generate is actually somewhat higher in the winter because the panels are more efficient when they are cold and they get secondary insolation reflected from the snow cover which beats the lower angle of the sun. The only factor that limits total energy is the shorter daytime.
Solar capacity added in 2 future years record? (Score:4, Funny)
But I thought.... (Score:2)
But I thought that solar and wind caused the Texas grid to collapse and break everyone's pipes? Why would they be looking to install more if it's such a destabilizing force? Perhaps because the right-wing idiot politicians and their sycophantic culture war followers spouting off these claims don't know what the fuck they are talking about?
While you're installing all that new solar, you might think about weatherizing your existing power infrastructure too. You know, like what was recommended 10 years ago
Hang on a sec... (Score:2)
Another Case to Examine Resiliency and Redundancy (Score:2)
Local Solutions (Score:2)
When looking at solutions for our dependence, take into consideration what works in your neck of the woods. Solar seems like a good fit for most of Texas, so good for them.