MLS_Analyst t1_ivf4tqu wrote
Reply to comment by alexanderpas in Rooftop solar trumps all fossil fuels as renewables smash more records on main grid [Australia] by EnergyTransitionNews
Flying into Texas is so depressing. So many rooftops, so much sun, so few solar panels.
And then every year we see so many hundreds (thousands?) of weather-related deaths there because they've let their grid go to shit.
EDIT: For some understanding of just how much Texas is letting their natural resources lay fallow, here you go:
crappykillaonariva t1_ivf5cod wrote
Texas has the 2nd most solar in the US behind California
MLS_Analyst t1_ivf9p7i wrote
Texas is 24th in solar installations per capita despite being smack in the sun belt:
https://solarpower.guide/solar-energy-insights/states-most-solar-installations
It's growing, which is encouraging, but California's per-100k installations is 9x Texas's.
crappykillaonariva t1_ivfpbbd wrote
The only reason I mentioned that is I noticed the opposite of what you are describing above (i.e. rooftop solar everywhere) in Austin. I'm not sure per capita is relevant given that each state has a fixed amount of land mass but Texas has been building the 2nd most solar per year for the past few years, which is great. Not to mention that Texas has fewer sun hours and higher temperatures than California (solar panels are as much as 25% less efficient when temperatures are high).
Texas' grid issues are a completely separate issue and, if anything, adding non-firm power (i.e. solar) to the grid could exacerbate their issues (I don't think that adding solar is what is causing their grid issues though, just mismanagement).
Texas should be applauded for massively increasing their solar installations over the past few years, not criticized because they can't keep pace with California.
MLS_Analyst t1_ivfq0p4 wrote
> not criticized because they can't keep pace with California.
They're not even keeping pace with New England, or the entire northeast outside of Pennsylvania. Texas absolutely should be criticized for that.
And selecting Austin as representative of the whole state is disingenuous for the obvious reasons.
crappykillaonariva t1_ivg41ly wrote
Are you looking at this on a per capita basis? Again, I think total installations is the better metric to use but there is a lot of solar development in Texas and there are plenty of other states in great climates for solar that aren't developing solar as fast as Texas is. Texas has a lot of issues with their electrical grid but solar isn't one of them IMO.
​
I think Texas is an interesting example because they really aren't building solar for climate reasons, they are building it for economic reasons (i.e. solar projects are profitable). I think the end goal should be to generate our energy from solar, wind, hydro and nuclear and proving that solar is a profitable endeavor will only further that goal.
​
I never insinuated that Austin is representative of the whole state and am not being disingenuous. It was an anecdote in the same vein as your earlier comment re flying into texas and not noticing solar panels.
GutFeelingonTheLong t1_ivgdg8i wrote
The solar industry is booming in Texas. I see it on a ton of houses. It’s very expensive though. We are installing in on our home. I wish our electric companies had better net metering programs like other states though.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments