
Texas has enough sun and wind to quit coal, Rice researchers say - myinnerbanjo
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-has-enough-sun-and-wind-to-quit-coal-Rice-13501700.php
======
Animats
There's a huge "wind belt" running north from the Texas panhandle up to
Canada. At one time, T. Boone Pickens was looking into exploiting this, but he
went for oil instead. There's no big electrical load in that area, so high-
voltage DC lines to the West Coast, east to the Midwest, and south to the
major Texas cities would be needed.

2,000 km transmission lines are now routine.[1] They've taken 2-4 years to
build in Brazil and China. So this is quite feasible.

Politically, building long-haul transmission lines in the US is a huge hassle.
Efforts to build a 730-mile line between Wyoming and Nevada (where it can
attach to existing lines to California) have been underway since 2013, one
jurisdiction and landowner at a time.[2] And this for something which is
completely non-polluting. It's DC; you don't even get induced stray voltages.

[1] [https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-
worlds-...](https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-
longest-power-transmission-lines-4167964/)

[2]
[http://www.transwestexpress.net/news/index.shtml](http://www.transwestexpress.net/news/index.shtml)

~~~
espeed
Yeah, and areas of that "wind belt" can get pretty violent at the extremes. It
includes Tornado Alley [1], which we got to experience in full force in 2017.
The house got hit by a mile-wide EF4 tornado. We were fortunate -- it only
took half the house and one of the vehicles -- but the three houses around the
corner were left to slabs, swept clean as the day the foundations were laid --
and hundreds of heads of cattle from the surrounding ranches were just gone --
no one ever figured out where they landed; however, other items were
discovered 50 miles away. That was a crazy day.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_Alley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_Alley)

------
40acres
The New York Times recently published some charts showing how each state
generates its electricity:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-e...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-
electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html)

~~~
fisherjeff
Great link - thanks! I was curious to see how total energy consumption changed
over the same time span. According to a super-useful EIA tool[0], it was
apparently (and surprisingly) almost flat, despite a 15% population increase.

[0]
[https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/?tbl=T01.01#/?f...](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/?tbl=T01.01#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2017&charted=4-6-7-14)

------
sremani
For wind and solar, the following sites are eye-opening

[https://globalwindatlas.info/](https://globalwindatlas.info/)

[https://globalsolaratlas.info/](https://globalsolaratlas.info/)

Its very likely the first metro area in US to live off Renewables is going to
be Dallas-Ft.Worth. Of course, Austin is close too.. but all those wind farms
are closer to Big D than Austin.

~~~
nickvanw
These charts miss Hydroelectricity, which is currently 70% of renewable energy
production worldwide.

Seattle is more or less entirely powered by renewables, with 97% of Seattle
City Light's energy coming from Hydro, Nuclear or Wind:
[http://www.seattle.gov/light/FuelMix/](http://www.seattle.gov/light/FuelMix/)

~~~
greglindahl
There are multiple definitions of "renewable energy" out there. Palo Alto
doesn't count "large hydro" as part of their renewables goal.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The problem with hydro is mostly fish. Anyways, from an economic perspective,
hydro is definitely renewable, and works much the same way a wind turbine does
(substitute blowing wind with flowing water).

------
bit_logic
There are already technologies that can create oil from energy+water+air. The
key component that can make it economically viable is an excess of energy. And
that happens to be the main issue with solar and wind, we need some kind of
energy storage solution to store the excess produced energy. Common solutions
explored are batteries and hydro dams.

However, producing oil from the excess energy is also a form of energy
storage. And Texas already has the infrastructure to refine and distribute
oil. Since the produced oil would pull CO2 from the air, it would be
effectively carbon neutral.

What if Texas blankets the state in solar and wind? They could continue to be
a oil producer, but with the additional benefit of producing carbon neutral
fuel. With a carbon tax, this fuel could become quickly price competitive with
traditional "fossil" fuels (pulled from the ground). And even without a carbon
tax, it's possible a significant percentage of the population would be willing
to pay extra for carbon neutral fuel. Or another way would be for government
to require a certain percentage (such as the current 10% ethanol, they could
say 10% must be carbon neutral fuel source). There's a lot of possibilities
and potential to much more quickly address climate change than waiting for EV
cars to become the majority.

~~~
ip26
syngas definitely seems like one of those holy-grail technologies that could
save us from ourselves if we can make it economical. Plug-in replacement for
transportation, one of the most difficult places to decarbonize. As a bonus,
syngas is pure by nature, so engines burn cleaner without any need to worry
about things like "low sulfur diesel".

------
doggydogs94
Texas will be powered by wind and solar while supplying the rest of the
country with oil and natural gas.

~~~
Kadin
That's probably not a terribly stupid idea; transporting energy as gas in a
pipeline might be significantly more efficient than electricity through wires.

The oil and gas are going to be extracted as long as the global market prices
make it worthwhile to do so. The only way that changes is if renewables come
down in price enough to make fossil extraction uneconomical. So the more we
build out, the better, even if it happens at the same time as fossil
extraction.

------
InclinedPlane
We're still really only partially (fractionally even) serious about pursuing
renewable energy.

We need to increase capacity of renewable energy production, of course, but
that is the easiest part of the whole equation. We also need serious
investment into energy storage, by orders of magnitude more than what we have
today. That will be at least as large an investment as building out the base
capacity. And we need massive improvements to the power grid to make it
possible to transmit power from where it's generated to where it's used, which
will be at least as big an investment as either the capacity or storage
problem.

Fortunately, all of these problems will benefit from technology advancements,
and all of them can represent capital investments which provide lasting long
term value (not just in CO2 emissions reductions but also in improving the
resiliency of the power grid). There are tons of people working on the
generation problem. The storage problem is about in the same state that
generation was maybe 20+ years ago. And the grid problem? You could fit
everyone working on it into a conference room, a small conference room. We
desperately need to amp up investment in every aspect of this field ASAP.

------
stcredzero
potholer54 (who runs a _truly great_ bad anti-global-warming junk science
debunking channel -- totally check it out) also mentioned something about a
recent discovery for an economical way to covert wind and solar power into
ammonia, as a medium for storing hydrogen as a liquid. I'm not entirely sure
about that, because while potholer54 is _truly great_ in his usual wheelhouse,
he's perhaps a bit bad at evaluating new technologies. (Like, he counts solar
roadways as as promising future development.)

However, if that's true, we could see pipelines and tanks of ammonia criss-
crossing Texas and the rest of the US, allowing us to fungibly transfer
renewable energy. Basically, we could use the systems and techniques we have
already developed for doing this with Natural Gas, including the kinds of
interfaces those systems have with the current power grid.

Unfortunately, a cursory search for this technology seems to contradict this.

~~~
todd8
Storing environmentally friendly generated electricity in reactive chemicals
would solve lots of problems (storage; reuse of existing energy industry
infrastructure; energy-dense fuel for cars, trucks, and planes; lowering CO2;
etc.) However, ammonia is quite corrosive.

Because the steel pipes transporting natural gas throughout the US are under
pressure, they are subject to a peculiar form of degradation, _stress
corrosion_. Normally, steel can rust or corrode when exposed outdoors. Simple
coatings of paint, tars, polymers, etc. can protect steel, and natural gas
transport pipes are coated on the outside to protect them from moisture, air,
and the natural PH variations found in different environments. These pipelines
and their coatings are examined periodically to prevent catastrophic failures.
The pipes are perhaps one-half to two meters in diameter and have a wall
thickness of one to three centimeters if I recall.

Stress corrosion is not like normal rust on the surface of steel. It happens
_inside_ the steel, along the inter-granular crystalline boundaries within the
steel itself. Somehow, the stress inside the steel produces higher rates of
corrosion (there is a large literature on this subject, google "stress
corrosion"). This type of corrosion can be dangerous because pipes can burst
without visible warning of their condition. Detection of stress corrosion
requires inspection systems that are much slower (ultrasound, electromagnetic
induction measurements, etc.) and less practical than simply looking for
corrosion on the outside of the pipes.

Unfortunately, ammonia is corrosive to steel and the insides of existing
pipelines and the valves and other fittings would not be prepared to handle
ammonia. So ammonia wouldn't be able to utilize the existing natural gas
pipeline infrastructure.

I'm not a metallurgist nor even someone that remembers much of my university
chemistry classes so I welcome comments from a more informed HN reader.

~~~
stcredzero
_So ammonia wouldn 't be able to utilize the existing natural gas pipeline
infrastructure._

That's not what I'm advocating. I was talking about the precedent of companies
that know how to run pipelines, do transactions with storage pools, and
scheduling. Of course the physical pipes and other equipment would have to be
different. But all of the commercial contractual, financial, and legal
frameworks are all pretty much worked out.

------
pm24601
Texas is unique in another way. It's electrical system is not interconnected
with the rest of the nation.
[https://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/keyplayers/Documents/NERC_Reg...](https://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/keyplayers/Documents/NERC_Regions_Color.jpg)

~~~
4thaccount
There are still DC Ties connecting to the Western Interconnect and the Eastern
Interconnect.

~~~
msisk6
ERCOT (which manages the grid in most, but not all, of Texas) has 5 DC ties to
other grids. Two are to the Eastern Interconnect and 3 are to Mexico.

El Paso isn't in ERCOT, but is connected to the Western Interconnection

------
ngmc
Very cool read - hopefully my fellow Texans advocate for a homegrown energy
mix with plenty of co-benefits.

The Solutions Project[1] is developing roadmaps[2] for transitioning the
entire planet to 100% renewable energy. My college advisor[3] is the lead
scientist and one of the smartest people I’ve ever encountered.

[1] [https://thesolutionsproject.org](https://thesolutionsproject.org)

[2] [https://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-
energy/#/map/state...](https://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-
energy/#/map/states/)

[3]
[https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/)

------
philsnow
A thought occurred to me while driving the other day: Texas seems to be more
of an "oil" state than an "energy" state, but it could be devoting a
percentage of its largess from exporting oil / oil tech to developing safe
nuclear power. For all I know this is already happening, I have no idea, but
it seems like if they don't get off "oil" and get onto "energy", the state
could be the Detroit of the 2040s

~~~
Junk_Collector
Texas is very much THE energy state. They are the number one producer of oil,
natural gas, and wind power in the US. They are among the highest producers of
total renewable power in the US as well. If it wasn't for hydroelectric (which
Texas is not very suitable for) it would be the number 1 producer of renewable
energy in the States. There are also significant levels of Nuclear power
produced in Texas at 10% of it's total electrical generation capacity. Texas
comprises roughly 1/3 of the US power grid and operates the only State
independent stand alone power grid in the US. Texas produces 20% of the US's
total energy output and produces twice as much electricity as the second
highest producing state (Florida). The power grid is Texas is also extremely
reliable and resilient even by American standards.

The state is also a huge technology sector (aerospace, chemical,
semiconductor, and software) does a lot of manufacturing, and operates 2 trade
borders, the Gulf ports and Mexico.

------
siffland
I am here in San Antonio, I wanted to get Solar on the house, the cheapest
quote was $14,000. A lot of new build houses here have solar panels on the
top. The issue with that is some fire departments will refuse to do anything
but contain the fire if you have solar panels (i guess they need training).

CPS energy (Our big power company) keeps sending fliers that i can be on wind
power, the catch is it costs more. Seriously, i can pay more to ensure my
power comes from (or is offset by) wind production.

I hope Texas does do more Solar and Wind power. Solar water heaters would be
nice here too.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Be careful with solar power hot water. After living in China, I will never
ever live in an apartment again whose only hot water option is solar. Way too
many warm/sort of cold showers have traumatized me.

------
leereeves
> between wind energy from West Texas and the Gulf Coast, and solar energy
> across the state, Texas could meet a significant portion of its electricity
> demand from renewable power without extensive battery storage. The reason:
> These sources generate power at different times of day, meaning that
> coordinating them could replace production from coal-fired plants.

Under ideal conditions, or even on cloudy, calm days?

If it's only on certain days, the headline and this quote are misleading.

------
maerF0x0
Why quit when you can use both?

~~~
arrosenberg
There is an abundant body of evidence showing that coal is a highly polluting
source of energy.

~~~
maerF0x0
Can coal be a net zero emission fuel?

~~~
philipkglass
Technically, yes. But coal's main advantage over other electricity sources is
that it's cheap. If you capture all the emissions it will no longer be cheap.

Here's one disastrously-over-budget attempt at a coal plant with CO2 capture:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemper_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemper_Project)

Had they forced the plan to completion, it would have generated more expensive
electricity than a new nuclear plant. More expensive than battery-backed
solar. More expensive than _any other_ utility scale electricity source in the
United States.

------
kumarski
This article is shortsighted garbage.

Natural gas peaking plants make up the difference when demand modulates.

In the last 30 years, mankind has gone from 90% fossil fuels to 89% fossil
fuels usage.

To make solar, wind, and other renewables, you need lots of liquid
hydrocarbons and their counterparts.

~~~
mikeyouse
> _Natural gas peaking plants make up the difference when demand modulates._

They explicitly say this in the 'garbage' article that's talking about coal,
not liquid hyrdocarbons.

FTA:

> _Weather, however, remains unpredictable. Texas would still need battery
> storage and natural gas-fired power plants to fill in gaps when, for
> example, winds might slacken earlier than expected._

------
snowwindwaves
I wonder what the fall out is going to be when some weather system arrives
that provides cloud and no wind for several days and there isn't enough
natural gas, coal, nuclear, grid-scale battery storage or hydro capacity left
to meet all of the demand.

I am sure it will be a rare event and probably preferable to continued c02
emissions. Probably will encourage more investment in energy storage.

Exciting time to be a power engineer!

~~~
Nasrudith
No wind for several days would take some serious geoengineering to accomplish
given there is a day/night cycle and temperature differentials create wind.
Let alone also somehow obtaining cloud cover at the same time which won't
create a wind from the borders not cloud covered.

~~~
opo
That isn't correct. According to a paper from the Fraunhofer Institute:

>...Long phases of no or little wind power are a potential thread to future
energy systems with a high share of renewable energies. A frequently cited
example observed in Germany was a whole week with very little wind power due
to temperature inversion in January 2009.

>...We find the average duration of low wind power feed-in phase to grow
linearly with the threshold: Phases with a wind power feed-in of less than two
percent of installed power are typically four hours long and phases with less
than five percent feed-in are on average seven hours long. However, a period
of wind power feed-in below eight percent of installed power that lasts one
week occurs every two years and a period of more than ten days occurs every
ten years.

[https://tu-dresden.de/bu/wirtschaft/ee2/ressourcen/dateien/l...](https://tu-
dresden.de/bu/wirtschaft/ee2/ressourcen/dateien/lehrstuhlseiten/ordner_enerday/ordner_archiv/ordner_enerday2014/ordner_pacp/ordner_fpap/folder-2014-04-22-7870620856/pltz_fullpaper_2014.pdf?lang=en)

~~~
Nasrudith
I was speaking of wind in absolutes - even then it produces 3% which while not
adequate unless massively overbuilt is still something. Although it doesn't
mention solar during that time period.

~~~
opo
>I was speaking of wind in absolutes -

Well... the original poster was referring to the potential problem where you
don't get any electricity from wind for several days, so it might have been
better if you dealt with that issue rather than speaking of wind in absolutes
since utility grade windmills need at least roughly 13 MPH winds to generate
power.

>...even then it produces 3% which while not adequate unless massively
overbuilt is still something.

No, not really.

