> 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.
> 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.
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...