> the biggest producer of renewables is Texas
replyThat doesn't refute the point at all.
no, but renewables do speak for themselves in dollars and cents, even if they dont have subsidy. now should petrochem subsidies end too? probably yes.
reply> renewables do speak for themselves in dollars and cents
replyYes. But administration opposition can change that math, as they have with the tariffs.
From the CalISO graphs, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of solar power for most of the day. It doesn't seem reasonable to incentivise production in the same way as it was when that wasn't the case.
replyI think NEM 3.0 incentivises storage now? Which seems to be what the (California) grid is looking for.
Texas barely scrapes into the top ten red states by percentage of wind and solar, despite its ideal geography.
replydeleted
replyBoth NEM 2.0 and 3.0 have serious issues, but for different reasons. NEM 2.0 was basically a early adopter's rich person's subsidy that heavily distorted the market, and NEM 3.0 does not have nearly enough subsidies to justify the cost unless you pay cash up front for a large system. (For the record, I am on NEM 3.0 and got such a system).
replyAt the end of the day, the best case scenario is large scale renewable / battery storage to bring costs down as much as possible, and for those of us who want battery backup / solar can choose to invest in it, but it shouldn't be "the" solution.