Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[The Larch]

There's a great CGP Grey video about federal land. Here you go!

[Sheilbh]

Why do you bring up California at all? We're talking about how retarded Texas' planned bills are. There are many reasons that can explain why renewables are so successful in Texas that have nothing to do with regulations.

The article mentions California because Texas is the leader in the US on renewables now even though they hate them.

A proposed bill in Texas is bad - let's see if it becomes law. But the reality is Texas have added more low carbon energy in the last decade than any other state. In terms of decatbonisation of energy, despite not caring/being ideologically opposed to energy transition, Texas is the national leader in recent years. That is good, despite their politics being bad.

We should be asking states that claim to care about climate and may even have declared a climate emergency why they're being outpaced by Texas. I'd have Texas as a bit of a write-off on climate action given oil and gas in their economy etc - instead I think we should probably learn from how they've achieved that last decade of remarkable growth, and then not copy the bad draft law.

[Valmy]

We should be asking states that claim to care about climate and may even have declared a climate emergency why they're being outpaced by Texas. I'd have Texas as a bit of a write-off on climate action given oil and gas in their economy etc - instead I think we should probably learn from how they've achieved that last decade of remarkable growth, and then not copy the bad draft law.

Those oil and gas facilities? Crazy energy intensive. They want that cheap electricity. Obviously coal hates the status quo but there is next to no coal in Texas, and what there is is very low quality.

[The Larch]

Why do you bring up California at all? We're talking about how retarded Texas' planned bills are. There are many reasons that can explain why renewables are so successful in Texas that have nothing to do with regulations.

The article mentions California because Texas is the leader in the US on renewables now even though they hate them.

Oh come on, it's a throwaway line just to make the point of how strong the renewables sector is in Texas. The point of the discussion is not chastising California for getting their lead eaten away.

We should be asking states that claim to care about climate and may even have declared a climate emergency why they're being outpaced by Texas. I'd have Texas as a bit of a write-off on climate action given oil and gas in their economy etc - instead I think we should probably learn from how they've achieved that last decade of remarkable growth, and then not copy the bad draft law.

I believe that Valmy already gave you the proper answer for that. Texas is in such a strong position for renewables because of their unique geography and political situation, their privileged position can't be replicated with regulations.

[Sheilbh]

Oh come on, it's a throwaway line just to make the point of how strong the renewables sector is in Texas. The point of the discussion is not chastising California for getting their lead eaten away.

But it's a relevant comparison. I don't think the real story about Texas and renewables is a bad draft law, but this reality:


Don't doubt some of it is geographical - and it doesn't include California's (considerable but diminishing because of drought) hydro sector. But I don't think Texas is such a special snowflake that there's nothing for others to learn from a state that's doubled the share of energy generated by renewables in the last decade.

I believe that Valmy already gave you the proper answer for that. Texas is in such a strong position for renewables because of their unique geography and political situation, their privileged position can't be replicated with regulations.

But surely the regulatory framework is part of it. I mean that article basically seems to be around environmental impact assessments. Obviously that legislator's trying to hobble a specific industry but from what I can see by requiring that industry to do what is mandatory for all infrastructure in California and much of Europe.

The EU has just created exemptions for certain renewables projects to not have to do environmental impact assessments or nature impact assessments (so they can go Texan) and I think Spain has taken full advantage of that. Not sure how far other member states have gone (it's a directive). But every EU member state and the UK and some US states have declared climate emergencies - maybe we should do a good thing and the opposite of this bill and basically replicate Texas' regulatory environment for renewables projects? Feels like it could help.

Edit: Not least because I think it's a big I don't care if the cat's black or white as long as it catches mice. I don't care whether the environment cares who is worried about the climate or not - all that matters is who's increasing the share of renewables most. There's specific factors in Texas, for sure, but whatever its done has been good.

I sort of thing the same with bringing back big hydro projects.

[Josquius]

It's obvious why say Maine can't copy Texas.
But it is mystifying the other southern desert states can't match it in solar at least.

[Admiral Yi]

I've never thought about it before but wind turbines must be tornado proof.

[mongers]

I've never thought about it before but wind turbines must be tornado proof.

Not necessarily, the could be violent changes of wind direction they couldn't cope with, I guess strong up or down current could be problematic.

Or perhaps for the biggest turbings smaller tornados could be pushing the blades in opposed directions at the same time.

But thinking about it, won't the range of possible debris that a tornado whips up, threaten to seriously damage it's blades and it's tower/infrastructure?

[Admiral Yi]

Not necessarily, the could be violent changes of wind direction they couldn't cope with, I guess strong up or down current could be problematic.

Or perhaps for the biggest turbings smaller tornados could be pushing the blades in opposed directions at the same time.

But thinking about it, won't the range of possible debris that a tornado whips up, threaten to seriously damage it's blades and it's tower/infrastructure?

I've never seen or read about toppled turbine on news reports.

[Valmy]

But it's a relevant comparison. I don't think the real story about Texas and renewables is a bad draft law, but this reality:

One of the funny things about the United States is that a lot of is made about "blue states" and "red states" but when you actually look at statistics about the states they never really correspond in results or policy. There are red states and blue states evenly up and down every list. Who would have thought North Carolina and Florida would be big leaders in  utility scale solar while blue New York, which is a giant state with tons of land and a giant load footprint, barely does shit.

It reminds me of all the protests against putting up wind turbines off the coast of Massachusetts, by fucking environmentalist groups. I know we talked about that way back in the distant past of Languish and I remember reflecting how frustrating those kinds of groups are. They always oppose the next step to protect the environment because it is not perfect. And look at Massachusetts now: not a watt of wind power.

[Valmy]

I've never thought about it before but wind turbines must be tornado proof.

That is actually a good question. I will look into it.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It's obvious why say Maine can't copy Texas.
But it is mystifying the other southern desert states can't match it in solar at least.

I would like to see a per capita version of the list. Texas has 30m people and New Mexico just over 2m; so NM is doing better than Texas per capita. On that basis Iowa(3m) and Oklahoma(4m) look very good.

[garbon]

I've never thought about it before but wind turbines must be tornado proof.

That is actually a good question. I will look into it.

A quick Google shows that it can happen but also they are designed with some resistance to winds/storms in mind.

[Josquius]

It's obvious why say Maine can't copy Texas.
But it is mystifying the other southern desert states can't match it in solar at least.

I would like to see a per capita version of the list. Texas has 30m people and New Mexico just over 2m; so NM is doing better than Texas per capita. On that basis Iowa(3m) and Oklahoma(4m) look very good.

Good point.
But on the other hand having far more space without people should boost the amount you can do?

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, my brit-based image of Iowa is a vast prairie/cornfield where it would be very easy to install wind turbines at field boundaries. Looking at this https://iub.iowa.gov/iowas-electric-profile we find that wind provides 55% of the state's electricity; it may be difficult to improve on that given the intermittent nature of windpower.

If we think of New Mexico, hot and sunny, surely it is routine to have solar panels on your roof to power your aircon...this would be very green and also profitable 

I notice that California has a lot of solar, maybe for that reason.