[Retric]

The absolute amount of clean generation mostly just correlates with the amount of electricity demand.

Texas uses 475 TWh / year of electricity, California 251, Florida 248, Ohio 149, and down it goes.

Meanwhile Texas only has 33% carbon free electricity vs 49% in California which are still below outliers like Vermont 80%, South Dakota 81%, and Washington 83%.

Unfortunately, WV and Kentucky are coal country with under 7% carbon free.

[noirbot]

Yea. It's trite, but a lot of things are literally bigger in Texas. It's easy to do really misleading stats around Texas because it just does more of everything than the rest of the US. It can both build more green energy and still pollute more than everyone else.

[bilbo0s]

In fairness, California is pretty big as well. Bigger by population actually.

But yeah, Texas is definitely laid out in an enormous fashion. States outside of California are just not good comparisons.

[rainsford]

California is also significantly bigger by economic output while using half as much electricity. There's probably some hidden factors there, like Texas engaging in more electricity intensive industries than California does or California using more fossil fuels for things Texas uses electricity for (this one seems improbable), but it seems like a very strange discrepancy.

[noirbot]

I have to assume most of the electricity use in TX is cause it's over 100 degrees in most of the state for most of 9 months every year, and a lot of California barely gets over 75 for more than a few weeks. Texas lives and dies on air conditioning, which is a nearly fully electrical use. Colder places use energy, but it can be a mix of electricity, gas, propane, and other options. AC is almost always electricity.

Maybe there's also an industrial angle, but you can live in CA without power almost all year. There's a lot of Texas where if the power goes out for a few days, all your food is spoiled and you're probably about to die from heat with almost no alternative.

I had my AC go out in October in Texas and it was 88 degrees in my house within 6 hours. A lot of houses and apartments really aren't designed for natural ventilation in the way that you'd want in order to be able to naturally cool a space.

[Retric]

It’s a bunch of things. Home solar and insulation requirements isn’t directly showing up on these comparisons but they matter. In 2023 California got 19TWh/y from home Solar vs 3.7 for Texas. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1419901/us-residential-g...

TX climate isn’t that hot, most of the population sees average summer highs in the 90’s just like most of the south with few outliers. https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Texas/temperature-jul...

The California as a wide range of temperatures, directly next to the ocean is milder assuming the wind is from the west, but it gets much worse with El Centro seeing average July high’s of 107! https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/California/city-tempe...

PS: A less commonly considered advantage for solar is rooftop panels provide shade and by converting sunlight into electricity it effectively lowers their albido reducing local heat gain.

[noirbot]

I mean, that table says the average high for almost all of is in the mid to high 90s. That's not that far off from what I said.

Additionally, sure, California has plenty of desert that's as hot as Texas, but most of the population is in LA, San Diego, or San Francisco, which are all coastal and relatively temperate. Most of Texas's population is in Dallas(97), Houston (93), San Antonio (95), or Austin (97) which are all generally in reliably hot areas. Houston may have an average summer high of 93, but that's also coupled with a brutal humidity.

The equivalent California population centers are SF (66), San Diego (75), LA (82), and Anaheim (87). All generally livable temperatures, especially given their overnight lows are in the 60s. Most of Texas has summer overnight lows in the mid to high 70s.

Yes, Texas isn't that much hotter than the rest of the US south, but it's also insanely more populated. Houston with it outlying suburbs nearly has the population of all of Mississippi put together. For the most part, large quantities of people don't live in the other really hot parts of the south except for Florida.

[FireBeyond]

> I have to assume most of the electricity use in TX is cause it's over 100 degrees in most of the state for most of 9 months every year

That is not even remotely accurate.

Amarillo, average temp is in the low 90s for 3 months: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/amarillo-weather-averages...

Houston, 90s, 4 months: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/houston-weather-averages/...

Dallas, 90s, 4 months: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/dallas-weather-averages/t...

San Antonio, similar: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/san-antonio-weather-avera...

These are the average daily temperatures, which means you can have peak temperatures higher, of course.

But if you're going to claim that most of Texas only drops below 100 for winter, you're going to need a citation.

[noirbot]

> But if you're going to claim that most of Texas only drops below 100 for winter, you're going to need a citation.

I didn't intend to imply that. I'm not insane, I literally live in Texas. I know it gets under 100 during the summer. I'd be shocked if anywhere in the world spent a single 24 hour period over 100 most years.

I was being hyperbolic, but not by much. In 2023, Houston saw 97 days over 95 degrees. Dallas saw 84, San Antonio 110 days, Austin 109. For most of those days, the low is still over 70. It gets to around half the year in most of the major population centers if you lower it to 85 degrees. Los Angeles only rarely gets over 100 days over 85 and SF almost never sees more than 100 days.

The practical effect is the same - you generally run your AC nearly 24/7 to keep your living areas below 80 degrees from April through November. It was already in the high 80s last week in a lot of the state.

[megaman821]

Just looking at electricity is unfair though. How much of Vermont's, South Dakota's and Washington's heat come from clean electricity and how much is natural gas? If you want to compare apples-to-apples you have to look at things like residential carbon intensity separately from industry.

[Retric]

Careful once you start adding elements individually you’ll tend to focus on those supporting your viewpoint rather than the total. Electricity is after all used by more than just residential homes. If you want to look at “Total Energy” in a more brand context than electricity that’s not just heating and electricity it also includes gasoline and industry etc.

So on average people in Texas drive 16,171 miles per year vs 10,949 for Washington state etc. Similarly the oil industry both flairs and burns a great deal of fuel in order to crack longer hydrocarbons into shorter ones etc.

However, in the widest definition all of this is just a rounding error. It’s actually plants on farms which have the largest energy supply/demand by a huge margin, but being free we rarely consider it in such calculations.

[megaman821]

Yes, but a state like Vermont is going to outsource 100% of the carbon intensity it takes to produce gasoline and natural gas to another state. Then use a very small amount of electric energy compared to fuel and gas. Comparing only their electricity usage is very disingenuous.

[Retric]

Vermont is exporting a great deal of the electricity it generates as well.

A nationwide map of carbon intensity by demand would have very different numbers in the electricity column. Such a viewpoint is reasonable, but you need to maintain consistency in definitions for such comparisons to be meaningful.