Great State of Texas Energy Crisis

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I’ve lived in Texas on several occasions. In the mid 80’s I was at Shepherd AFB in Wichita Falls. I was catching a flight from Dallas to Orlando and had to take a van from WF to Dallas. Woke up in the morning and it was a full on blizzard going on. We slipped and slid all the to Dallas. I wasn’t sure the pane was going to take off. We lived in San Antonio from 93-99. One year in February it was 100F. The year my FIL died there was an ice storm in February that knocked the power out in most of Texas and Louisiana. The interstates were closed. We had to take the Blue highways from San Antonio to nearly all the way across Louisiana. Took us two days to get to Florida.
 
Since the population of the U.S.A. appears to be leveling off, perhaps the nation's electrical grids will catch up. Naa, wishful thinking.
Seems like I remember 30 or more years ago some states utility companies shut down excess generating capacity.
ButchW and I agree on one point, the wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most grease/money.
 
Kirk said:
"Although California's population increased by 13% during the 1990s, the state did not build any new major power plants during that time."
Click to expand...
While 13% doesn't sound like a big deal. Considering California's 1990 population, about 30,000,000, a population increase of 13% would be about a 4,000,000. I'm guessing, but I suspect, determining the power needs and then locations of facilities for an increase of that magnitude would be rather challenging. ;)

Putting things in perspective, in 1990, only 20 of the 50 states had populations greater than 4,000,000.

Building power plants also takes a bit of time and planning. By way of example, construction for the Delta Utah power plant referenced in the thread, took almost 5 years to complete. I suspect the requisite planning and politics took another 5.
 
One thing to remember though is that residential energy use per Capita varies by state. One California resident uses about 41% of the energy that a resident of Montana does and 64% compared to Texas. So in California we use less power generating plants per Capita than all other states except for Hawaii.

1675639899362.png
1675639919940.png
1675639950372.png
1675639978297.png
1675640012192.png
1675640051449.png
 
Pedro Dog said:
So in California we use less power generating plants per Capita than all other states except for Hawaii.
Click to expand...

California grabs 1/4th of their power from generating plants in other states. They're number 1 at doing so. So, yes California uses less power generating plants in California.

Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and West Virginia were the top electricity exporters. These are also the top electricity users on your list. It takes a lot of energy to produce electricity from both coal and renewables so that it can be exported to other states. California is that top state.

"In 2019, California’s net electricity imports were the largest in the country at 70.8 million megawatthours (MWh), or 25% of the state’s total electricity supply."

"Four of the five largest exporters, by percentage of total supply, produced more than half of their in-state electricity from coal, ranging from 51% in Montana to 91% in West Virginia. Wyoming is the nation’s largest coal-producing state; West Virginia, Montana, and North Dakota are also major coal producers. Renewables were the second-largest source after coal in Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Montana."

www.eia.gov

California was the largest net electricity importer of any state in 2019 - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov www.eia.gov
 
Last edited:
This a per Capita consumption statistic, it has nothing to do with the production, importing or exporting of energy. It is how much energy is consumed per person.

And I never said that the plants were in California, what I said is that we use less energy from power plants regardless of where they are located.
 
TheBar said:
The big difference is most of CA has a mild climate. People don't die if they lose electricity in the winter. Texas like the rest of the Midwest can have temperature drops of 44* in one hour. You'll notice most of these extreme weather events happened 100 years ago before fossil fuels were an issue?
Click to expand...
Is that a question? Please rephrase it. :)
 
Pedro Dog said:
This a per Capita consumption statistic, it has nothing to do with the production, importing or exporting of energy. It is how much energy is consumed per person.
Click to expand...
Comparing energy use of a household in Ca to Montana is silly. The two states are located in two different climate ranges, So the energy that someone uses and the types of energy needs are way different for a household needs

Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California

www.energy.ca.gov www.energy.ca.gov

Natural gas continues to play an important and varied role in California. Nearly 45 percent of the natural gas burned in California was used for electricity generation, and much of the remainder consumed in the residential (21 percent), industrial (25 percent), and commercial (9 percent) sectors. California continues to depend upon out-of-state imports for nearly 90 percent of its natural gas supply, underscoring the importance of monitoring and evaluating ongoing market trends and outlook. Natural gas has become an increasingly important source of energy since the state's power plants rely on this fuel.
Click to expand...

Montana - State Energy Profile Overview - U.S. Energy …​

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov www.eia.gov
WebJan 10, 2023 · Coal-fired power plants provided the largest share of Montana's electricity generation in 2021, accounting for 43% of in-state electricity, followed by hydropower at 41%, wind power at 12%, natural gas at 2% and petroleum coke at nearly 2%. In 2021, …
  • Crude Oil: 13
  • Natural Gas: 20
  • Electricity: 40
  • Total Energy: 22
 
I was trying to point out that in the initial discussion of people moving to and from Texas and how it affected the ability of the power grid operators to keep up, that regional power needs need to be accounted for. If people move from extreme climate states to mild climate states, the need for power generating plants does not translate one to one.

I'm posting real statistics for forum members to see for themselves what the numbers are. I am not making any judgement as to why people live where they choose to live. I'm not picking on Montana either, It's a beautiful state full of resourceful hard working and proud people.

In the case of the chart from 2020, Montana just happened to be on top. I also find it interesting that Maine comes in at #10 with 75.4 MBtu and Vermont next door at #25 at 68 MBtu.
 
Pedro Dog said:
I was trying to point out that in the initial discussion of people moving to and from Texas and how it affected the ability of the power grid operators to keep up, that regional power needs need to be accounted for. If people move from extreme climate states to mild climate states, the need for power generating plants does not translate one to one.

I'm posting real statistics for forum members to see for themselves what the numbers are. I am not making any judgement as to why people live where they choose to live. I'm not picking on Montana either, It's a beautiful state full of resourceful hard working and proud people.

In the case of the chart from 2020, Montana just happened to be on top. I also find it interesting that Maine comes in at #10 with 75.4 MBtu and Vermont next door at #25 at 68 MBtu.
Click to expand...
What will the residents left in Ca do if the state goes thru with the natural gas ban?
 
Pedro Dog said:
In the case of the chart from 2020, Montana just happened to be on top. I also find it interesting that Maine comes in at #10 with 75.4 MBtu and Vermont next door at #25 at 68 MBtu.
Click to expand...

Montana has 7.0 people per square mile with much greater distances between any civilization. Maine has 43 people per square mile and Vermont 68 per square mile. These states aren't comparable to Montana. Glasgow, Montana is one of the most isolated towns in the world.

It is much different to live in a rural region with extreme temperature variations, greater distances to any services, and a very low population. Simple things like water, heat, and sewage aren't provided. You have to do it. Mail isn't delivered, no newspapers either, and no fast food delivery.

I should know. Our population density in rural Colorado is 1.81 people per square mile. Yes, we use more energy. Our nearest fast food, traffic light, and any major service are 35 to 40 miles one way through mountainous terrain. Takes about 50 minutes with our large 4x4 pickup.

81643 - U.S. Zip Code Map and Demographics | Simplemaps.com

Map of 81643 in Colorado + data on income, age, sex, health, poverty, lat/lng and much.
simplemaps.com simplemaps.com
 
Last edited:
Lonestar Guy said:
You'll notice most of these extreme weather events happened 100 years ago before fossil fuels were an issue? Is that a question? Please rephrase it. :)
Click to expand...
A little sarcasm. People today think weather extremes are caused by burning fossil fuels. We had more extreme weather 100 years ago before fossil fuels could have been the cause.

I do not believe all life on earth will end due to global warming or climate change. During the time of the dinosaurs the earth was lush and green from the greenhouse effect, capable of supporting such large animals. In fact every time the CO2 level doubles there is a 32% increase in agricultural yields. The CO2 level was 4x higher than today. The average summer temperature world wide was 80* and winter averaged 59* with little variation. In other words the whole earth had California weather. Maybe not such a bad thing. Yes the ice caps will melt and the coastal regions will flood but the whole continent of Antarctica will become the next beach vacation destination :)
 
Last edited:
We were not doing too badly until the closing of two coal fired plants before the winterizing issue was an issue in '21. once this was done, our generation capability was reduced enough to cause a huge problem. To my knowledge this has not been rectified.

We are adding well over 1000 per day from other states and from our southern 'border'. Add to this the huge proliferation of electric vehicles to the market and you have the perfect storm brewing. Luckily now my move to the travel trailer will allow me to have my entire tiny home to be run with w reasonably priced generator as a backup because I am going to need it sooner than later!
 
TheBar said:
A little sarcasm. People today think weather extremes are caused by burning fossil fuels. We had more extreme weather 100 years ago before fossil fuels could have been the cause.

I do not believe all life on earth will end due to global warming or climate change. During the time of the dinosaurs the earth was lush and green from the greenhouse effect, capable of supporting such large animals. In fact every time the CO2 level doubles there is a 32% increase in agricultural yields. The CO2 level was 4x higher than today. The average summer temperature world wide was 80* and winter averaged 59* with little variation. In other words the whole earth had California weather. Maybe not such a bad thing. Yes the ice caps will melt and the coastal regions will flood but the whole continent of Antarctica will become the next beach vacation destination :)
Click to expand...
Ah, I thought maybe that was where you were going. Yea, people are short sighted nowadays, probably from watching too many TV shows that solve a problem in an hour. The earth has had large swings in climate changes over long periods of time since its creation. Ebbs and flows of warmth and cold. <irrelevant content deleted>
 
Last edited:
Jayflight said:
What will the residents left in Ca do if the state goes thru with the natural gas ban?
Click to expand...
This is a concern I have. Our house was built in the early 1950's. It only has 100 amps service. Never been a problem because we have gas appliances. The stove, oven, water heater, clothe dryer and furnace all use gas. I'd upgrade to electric appliances but with only 100 amps of power, I'd be hard pressed to use them. Upgrading to 200 watts would be nice but pretty costly. Maybe California will help homeowners with the cost of upgrading their electrical service.

The cost of gas is becoming an issue as well. Our utility sent an email last month stating the price of gas was going to double. Sure enough, we just got our largest bill ever. It was just over $300 for January. The highest I've ever paid was just over $150.00. What's interesting is a week or two after the utility sent an email on the increase, I read that the price of Natural Gas is coming down. So not sure if that was another piece of fake news or for whatever reason it doesn't apply to our utility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,011 (members: 30, guests: 981)

Forum statistics

Threads
131,929
Posts
1,387,694
Members
137,678
Latest member
David W.
Back
Top Bottom