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.


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.