From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The Greenies are throwing their toys out of the pram because Texas is planning to build dozens of new gas power stations.
Power Magazine reports:
A nonprofit environmental group said at least 130 natural gas-fired power plant projects are planned in Texas over the next few years as part of that state’s effort to meet growing demand for energy. The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), in a report published June 11, said the projects would provide more than 58 GW of new generation capacity, while noting that many of the proposed facilities may not move beyond the planning stage.
The group noted the build-out is supported by the Texas Energy Fund, a taxpayer-supported program created by state lawmakers that provides grants and loans for construction of power generation projects. The fund was created in the wake of the February 2021 Uri winter storm, when as estimated 10 million Texans lost power, prompting officials to look at how to avoid future blackouts caused by extreme weather or other events.
The group in its report said it “has created a statewide inventory of proposed gas power plant projects … using information from a wide variety of publicly available sources, including the Energy Information Administration, Global Energy Monitor, ERCOT [Electrical Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s grid manager], application documents for the Texas Energy Fund, permit documents from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, trade publications, and news articles.” The report focused not only on the construction of new gas-fired projects, but also on the environmental impact, saying the new facilities would, if built, emit an estimated 115 million tons of greenhouse gases (GHG).
Full story here.
How dare Texas want reliable power!
130 natural gas-fired power plant projects are planned in Texas over the next few years
This news will undoubtedly upset The Guardian, BBC etc. The Guardian keeps track, don’t you know, with their trusty CO2 tracker. And it’s hugely frightening stuff:…
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/environment
Safe Level: 0.035%
Actual Level: 0.0429%
Over the Safe Level: 0.00271%
Gosh!
Does the Guardian usually have trouble with Math? Using my math I see Over the Safe Level: at .0079
I guess there are 2 over safe levels?
Over ten years .00271
Over twenty five years .0079
The “Grauniad” nickname should give a clue on their reputation for proof-reading.
YES. Must step up our game, to win the information war.
Set the ‘safe level’ threshold at above > 0.1% (> 1000 ppm):
That’s a minimum Zero-Point-One-Percent Solution …
… to the Problem of how to green the globe …
… in advance of the longer-term threat neo-glaciation threat,
… which is a ‘climate change’ one can believe in.
The view is clearer from far abroad:
[June 21, 2025 Fossil fuel use is growing By Vijay Jayaraj ]
So in principle, most people here ought to disapprove.
Why?
Not all of us here are American. In fact, some of us are in a much worse position with no prospect of affordable energy. Be thankful you don’t have people like Miliband and Habeck.
The cost of energy in the US is 25% of the price in Britain.
I’m not American either. An often stated argument is the use of tax payer money to fund renewables.
Was that a joke?
Only a lunatic would put [other people’s] money into renewables. If that isn’t obvious to you…
What’s your idea on making Britain’s energy prices comparable with those in the US – and UK industry reasonably competetive on world markets?
What would you change, if anything?
I’m not English either. The point, which you apparently missed, is that the market should drive the energy supply and not the government with other people’s money.
I missed no point.
You obviously missed the point that the market has been superseded by government green diktats.
That’s why we pay wind farms not to produce anything. Whatever nationality you are, they are welcome to your lack of ideas.
The posts below get it.
The Government used taxpayer money to mess up the grid, and the taxpayers were complicit in that stupidity. It’s only proper that the Government use the taxpayers’ money to restore a sound grid.
agree it should be market driven
Not part of the plan.
There is good use of taxpayer money, and then there is stupid use of taxpayer money. Depends upon your definition of stupid. The provision of reliable, inexpensive, safe energy cannot be construed as stupid.
Yes, I disapprove of the subsidization of natural gas power plants. I also disapprove of the subsidization of renewables. Let them compete on their own merits.
When you factor in intermittency, which the market has a way of doing, you’ll soon see what the true cost of each source of energy is.
I don’t know why you got the down vote ? The game of dueling subsidies should stop completely. Get rid of governments on all levels meddling and we can ascertain the true costs of supplying power and make appropriate decisions.
Wind does not work very well in freezing rain and still air. Which the subsidy mining lobby ignores.
If it’s wind that you want
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIP9KXdmO0
Vegetarian, of course.
Oh no, another “nonprofit” “environmental” group. That’s a double oxymoron. The claim is false, another wild alarmist harum scarum the money-grubbing panic merchants hope will strike fear into the sheeple. But new natgas power plants are an excellent idea so the alarm is more of a clarion call.
All the intermittent unreliables require 100% backup, so it’s cheaper and better to build just the natgas backup-forefront plants and forget the spasmodics. But then how would the slimy alarmo lobbyist profiteers rob the Treasury? Haha, they’ll find another scam, so don’t worry. Or do worry.
“spasmodics” – love it – may I use the term?
Combustion turbines (simple cycle CTs) are perfect for fast starts that are needed when the wind falls. Texas has a huge amount of wind power.
Texas has a huge amount of wind power.
So does Parliament – all of it anal.
“Texas has a huge amount of wind power.” But no place to store it when the wind isn’t blowing.
Amen. Thats why you need the CTs.
Wind power is not needed; it’s an expensive, unreliable white elephant
Please read my response. I said combustion turbines (CTs) are needed when the wind isn’t blowing, not wind turbines.
Is that the reason you down checked my reply?
They are fast starting, but not all that efficient. Especially when being continuously stopped and started.
Beyond that, you still have the cost of building enough wind power to power everything, and enough gas plants to power everything.
Excellent points.
Do that and you have defeated the primary reason for wind turbines. The below refers to using combustion turbines with solar power but it would be no different and maybe worse wrt combining ng turbines and wind. There is an environmental cost of ramping them up and down.
https://nsjonline.com/article/2019/08/duke-energy-application-points-finger-at-solar-for-increased-pollution/
Occasionally. Don’t need two sets of power generation plants. Backup should be the main power supply, period.
Maybe 18 plants, CCGT manufacturing capacity is booked up for years.
And the possibility of the Dems back in power in ’26 or’28 keeps this capacity from expanding.
Dems controlling Congress after 2026 won’t affect a thing; Trump would veto any legislation stopping construction of fossil fuel plants. By 2028 most will be finished or under construction, perhaps just waiting on delivery of the turbine.
And the Dems, if they have the numbers would override the veto. The POTUS can’t be a king. Elections have consequences. 2026 is critical.
hiskorr, Yes, precisely.
Great news, and the perfect backup for the continuing increase in the fraction of Texas power provided by wind. Those parts per thousand periods must be adequately covered.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/texas-power-system-set-new-clean-milestone-winds-pick-up-maguire-2025-02-20/
“Electricity production from clean energy sources in Texas has increased by nearly 60% since 2019, compared to just a 2% rise in fossil fuel-fired generation during that same period, Ember data shows.
Texas’ total electricity production has climbed by 17% since 2019, resulting in a cleaner overall power mix that has boosted total generation by an average of 5% a year since 2021.”
Of course we all hope that the new projects are equipped for extreme cold/sleet stormy weather protections, per similar facilities in more northerly states. The same for upstream – the wells, gathering systems, pipelines, etc. It’s all been done successfully elsewhere, and the upsteamers and midstreamers should be well compensated for the required weather hardening.
Win/win…
Way to leave out the facts..Gas, Coal, and Nuclear still make up 70% of total electricity production in Texas.
Let’s go with 64% – and dropping. That said, call back when SMR’s and actual long term waste storage becomes a reality. I’m all over that.
Bigger pic, lose all of the helps. Starting with the current oil and gas environmental, safety health Ben Dovers, and the shirking of 12 $ figures of freely assumed asset retirement obligations (just in Texas). Since the coal mine canary of Permian Basin proved, on reserves/present production is already dropping, I’m cool with the open competition.
“Let’s go with 64% – and dropping.”
72%. I stand corrected, and commend you for rounding down. Sorry about the “dropping” part. That stands…
“2% rise in fossil fuel-fired generation.” Wind has not grown fast enough just to handle the growth in consumption, and many new NG power plants are being built now. Good luck with your prediction.
” Wind has not grown fast enough just to handle the growth in consumption…”
2018 fraction of Texas e power from wind – 19%
2023 fraction of Texas e power from wind – 28%
https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2023/wind-snap.php
Need a pencil?
It seems to me that this is the trend at least in the US; i.e., closing the outdated and increasingly inefficient coal plants and replacing them with cleaner-burning natural gas. Note, not unreliable, intermittent wind and solar because customers want energy they can depend on 24/7/365, not the pipe dreams offered by renewables. As for The Guardian, the BBC, the CBC, CNN and any other alarmist media outlets, consumers and taxpayers don’t give a damn about their doomsday scenarios because they, the media, generally don’t have to face energy shortages during periods of extreme heat or cold.
Replacing coal with NG plants was convenient for quelling the noise from environmentalists, but was not the primary reason. NG has been cheaper than coal for many years. Plain, old economics shifted the fuel to NG. Very soon the economics will reverse. The conversion will stop, if it already hasn’t, and someone is going propose building new coal plants. Should be an interesting fight.
More good news.
Common sense wins.
Great news