Texas energy situation and green new deal

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
I'm sure he's not a republican.
Republicans want the federal government to pay peoples power bills. Yet they rail against the Feds bailing out blue states for the last year, you cant make this shit up.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
 
Last edited:

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
This is priceless. Texas they care..🤣🤣🤣

Five board members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas — the entity that manages and operates the electricity grid that covers much of Texas — will resign on Wednesday, according to a notice to the Public Utility Commission. A sixth has withdrawn his application to the board.

All six live outside of Texas.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,741
Reaction score
1,931
Points
113
We can, and that answer has been nuclear for decades.

But it’s the democrats who have prevented it from happening.
Wrong. Both sides. Dems seem anti-nuke. Repubs are all about promoting coal/gas/oil, at the expense of nuclear. If you are trying to say Repubs support nuclear power more than Dems, OK, I'd agree with that, but both sides are to blame for this.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
I used to believe nuclear was the long term answer, but events have changed my thinking. The probabilities and consequences of catastrophe are simply too high. We need to be pursuing something better as a long-term solution. In the meantime it'll do as a prominent piece, but I look forward to the day when we can decommission all those plants.
Fission has never been the answer, and it isn't currently the answer.

The only reason some conservatives like it is that they want to do anything and everything they can to make wind and solar, and those who back them, fail.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,903
Points
113
This is priceless. Texas they care..🤣🤣🤣

Five board members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas — the entity that manages and operates the electricity grid that covers much of Texas — will resign on Wednesday, according to a notice to the Public Utility Commission. A sixth has withdrawn his application to the board.

All six live outside of Texas.
It turns out when you let one party dominate for decades at a time, they become corrupt. Shocking.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
Fission has never been the answer, and it isn't currently the answer.

The only reason some conservatives like it is that they want to do anything and everything they can to make wind and solar, and those who back them, fail.
I think it may be a necessary evil for the short term. They have newer much safer reactor designs.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
It turns out when you let one party dominate for decades at a time, they become corrupt. Shocking.
What I found the most funny is that none of them even live in Texas.

I would like to see three or four parties because of the obvious problems inherent in this dichotomy.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
I think it may be a necessary evil for the short term. They have newer much safer reactor designs.
I don't think there's much risk on safety with fission. They're just hugely expensive, take very long time to build (safety first), and then you have nuclear waste left over.

The money and time are much better spend on wind and solar and most importantly solving the storage problem.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
The money and time are much better spend on wind and solar and most importantly solving the storage problem.
I am not discounting the need to do that, I just think a diversified grid will be necessary for quite awhile, until we solve many issues.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
I am not discounting the need to do that, I just think a diversified grid will be necessary for quite awhile, until we solve many issues.
Oh yeah, speaking of grids... Texas should be forced to join the national grid!!

Dumbasses
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
Well, I respect your passion, but that’s just not going to happen.

Lot of innocent folks in the state who desperately needed/still need help.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
Well, I respect your passion, but that’s just not going to happen.

Lot of innocent folks in the state who desperately needed/still need help.
Survival of the fittest, thats the price of living in a red state.
😎😎😎

This could be the event that pushes Texas over the edge from red to blue. That would then force the Republican party to reinvent itself or become insignificant nationally.

Growth thru suffering....
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,903
Points
113
No, F em no bailouts.
They can have a bailout. But Ted Cruz has to let Michael Bennett and Cory Booker punch him the face on the Senate floor as he grovels and apologizes for voting against relief bills for Colorado and New Jersey.
 

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
10,843
Reaction score
1,572
Points
113
Survival of the fittest, thats the price of living in a red state.
😎😎😎

This could be the event that pushes Texas over the edge from red to blue. That would then force the Republican party to reinvent itself or become insignificant nationally.

Growth thru suffering....
If Texas does flip, they can then rejoin the Union.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
Turns out deregulation resulted in people of Texas paying higher electric rates for many years. Texans got f____ed, both ways..

Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation

Texas’s deregulated electricity market, which was supposed to provide reliable power at a lower price, left millions in the dark last week. For two decades, its customers have paid more for electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a Wall Street Journal analysis has found.

Nearly 20 years ago, Texas shifted from using full-service regulated utilities to generate power and deliver it to consumers. The state deregulated power generation, creating the system that failed last week. And it required nearly 60% of consumers to buy their electricity from one of many retail power companies, rather than a local utility.

Those deregulated Texas residential consumers paid $28 billion more for their power since 2004 than they would have paid at the rates charged to the customers of the state’s traditional utilities, according to the Journal’s analysis of data from the federal Energy Information Administration.

 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,903
Points
113
Turns out deregulation resulted in people of Texas paying higher electric rates for many years. Texans got f____ed, both ways..

Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation

Texas’s deregulated electricity market, which was supposed to provide reliable power at a lower price, left millions in the dark last week. For two decades, its customers have paid more for electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a Wall Street Journal analysis has found.

Nearly 20 years ago, Texas shifted from using full-service regulated utilities to generate power and deliver it to consumers. The state deregulated power generation, creating the system that failed last week. And it required nearly 60% of consumers to buy their electricity from one of many retail power companies, rather than a local utility.

Those deregulated Texas residential consumers paid $28 billion more for their power since 2004 than they would have paid at the rates charged to the customers of the state’s traditional utilities, according to the Journal’s analysis of data from the federal Energy Information Administration.

Shocking. Free markets are supposed to always drive down costs! It's almost like utilities don't work the same way as widgets.
 

FormerFatOL

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
187
Reaction score
162
Points
43
Turns out deregulation resulted in people of Texas paying higher electric rates for many years. Texans got f____ed, both ways..

Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation

Texas’s deregulated electricity market, which was supposed to provide reliable power at a lower price, left millions in the dark last week. For two decades, its customers have paid more for electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a Wall Street Journal analysis has found.

Nearly 20 years ago, Texas shifted from using full-service regulated utilities to generate power and deliver it to consumers. The state deregulated power generation, creating the system that failed last week. And it required nearly 60% of consumers to buy their electricity from one of many retail power companies, rather than a local utility.

Those deregulated Texas residential consumers paid $28 billion more for their power since 2004 than they would have paid at the rates charged to the customers of the state’s traditional utilities, according to the Journal’s analysis of data from the federal Energy Information Administration.

I'm a little disappointed in WSJ's lack of analysis behind the difference in retail vs. traditional utility costs in Texas. As probably the best and most even-handed economic analysis paper in the country, this article provides no depth. Why did retail cost more? Pure profit? More costs? Did retail rely on more wind, solar, gas, nuclear or coal than traditional or vice versa? Were retail providers in more or less growing areas? Did retail providers need to invest more capital (growing areas, etc.) and thus recoup that cost? Were retail and traditional located in similar or different demographic density and geographic areas? None of that here.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
I'm a little disappointed in WSJ's lack of analysis behind the difference in retail vs. traditional utility costs in Texas. As probably the best and most even-handed economic analysis paper in the country, this article provides no depth. Why did retail cost more? Pure profit? More costs? Did retail rely on more wind, solar, gas, nuclear or coal than traditional or vice versa? Were retail providers in more or less growing areas? Did retail providers need to invest more capital (growing areas, etc.) and thus recoup that cost? Were retail and traditional located in similar or different demographic density and geographic areas? None of that here.
You seem to be grasping for some reason other than just pure greed that might explain (partly) why the costs went up.

And yet, I can't think of any good reasons that, whatever those claimed reasons might be, that folks in regions of states like Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana that are close to the border would face drastically different conditions than Texans on the main private grid.

So then, how can their rates be so much different??
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
7,735
Reaction score
2,821
Points
113
1. The amount for gender programs in Pakistan is 10 million
2. That amount was approved by Congress in Dec, 2020.
3. Among the supporters for that aid is Lindsay Graham.
4. It is intended to help women in Pakistan. The title gender studies is a bit misleading, making it sound like something transgender.
5. I find it all expensive for this period in time, (the amount of foreign aid in that bill is beyond ridiculous), but let's be honest about the number, and who is behind it. Biden was not President when this went down. Maybe why they use Biden on line one of the slide, but "they" on line two.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
I'm a little disappointed in WSJ's lack of analysis behind the difference in retail vs. traditional utility costs in Texas. As probably the best and most even-handed economic analysis paper in the country, this article provides no depth. Why did retail cost more? Pure profit? More costs? Did retail rely on more wind, solar, gas, nuclear or coal than traditional or vice versa? Were retail providers in more or less growing areas? Did retail providers need to invest more capital (growing areas, etc.) and thus recoup that cost? Were retail and traditional located in similar or different demographic density and geographic areas? None of that here.
Hmmm
Why do prices go up when you add more middle men between suppliers and customers?

Maybe we need to ask the Economist.
Deuce?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
You seem to be grasping for some reason other than just pure greed that might explain (partly) why the costs went up.

And yet, I can't think of any good reasons that, whatever those claimed reasons might be, that folks in regions of states like Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana that are close to the border would face drastically different conditions than Texans on the main private grid.

So then, how can their rates be so much different??
Texas is the energy state, has proximity to probably the most natural gas, has the energy industry least burdened by regulation. According to all conservative orthodoxy they should have by far the cheapest power.

They will probably all dismiss it so their brains don't explode.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,148
Reaction score
1,657
Points
113
1. The amount for gender programs in Pakistan is $10 million too much.
2. Congressmen and congresswomen are all disgusting rubbish, not matter the party. Nice try.
3. I dont care who supported it, R or D. Nice try.
4. The USA should support women in the USA. Rationalization, party of shill pauli.
5. BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT trump. Shill pauli and WALLACE! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
10,843
Reaction score
1,572
Points
113
1. The amount for gender programs in Pakistan is 10 million
2. That amount was approved by Congress in Dec, 2020.
3. Among the supporters for that aid is Lindsay Graham.
4. It is intended to help women in Pakistan. The title gender studies is a bit misleading, making it sound like something transgender.
5. I find it all expensive for this period in time, (the amount of foreign aid in that bill is beyond ridiculous), but let's be honest about the number, and who is behind it. Biden was not President when this went down. Maybe why they use Biden on line one of the slide, but "they" on line two.
Lindsey Graham has always been a big supporter of gender programs.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
1. The amount for gender programs in Pakistan is $10 million too much.
2. Congressmen and congresswomen are all disgusting rubbish, not matter the party. Nice try.
3. I dont care who supported it, R or D. Nice try.
4. The USA should support women in the USA. Rationalization, party of shill pauli.
5. BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT trump. Shill pauli and WALLACE! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Yea I know, even if $10 million can help mitigate the risk of a future terrorist attack or nuclear war, I say NO!
🙄
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
7,735
Reaction score
2,821
Points
113
1. The amount for gender programs in Pakistan is $10 million too much.
2. Congressmen and congresswomen are all disgusting rubbish, not matter the party. Nice try.
3. I dont care who supported it, R or D. Nice try.
4. The USA should support women in the USA. Rationalization, party of shill pauli.
5. BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT trump. Shill pauli and WALLACE! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
If what you say is true, your slide makes Biden out to be a kind, responsible person. That’s nicely bipartisan and fair if you.
 

FormerFatOL

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
187
Reaction score
162
Points
43
You seem to be grasping for some reason other than just pure greed that might explain (partly) why the costs went up.

And yet, I can't think of any good reasons that, whatever those claimed reasons might be, that folks in regions of states like Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana that are close to the border would face drastically different conditions than Texans on the main private grid.

So then, how can their rates be so much different??
First bolded: greed is an all too convenient excuse when talking about competing to sell a commodity. To the consumer, there is no difference in the electricity coming into their home provided by one company over another, so the choice goes to the lowest cost provider. Unless there was illegal collusion among companies to set a price, greed doesn't work with commodities. Heck, even local cooperative utilities make a profit and send it back to the members in the form of dividends.

Second bolded: I've been wondering why TX did so poorly vs. those surrounding states too. The WSJ article did nothing to explain that and only compared TX retail electricity rates to utility rates and the rest of the nation in total with no context. I can speculate that OK, AR, and LA routinely get colder weather than TX and winterize better. South TX never freezes yet got hammered last week. I can also speculate that those other states have nowhere near the wind and solar reliance that TX has so they don't need to ramp up natgas and coal as much when cold. That WSJ article did nothing to explain these things.
 
Top Bottom