Great job. I hope Noah takes time to read this. I made several of the same points over in his comment section, i.e. the devil is in the details. For example, Noah made a point about how the rate of deployment of solar in Texas is outpacing California. I took exception to his data because it did not match data that I found at EIA. In addition, Texas is still on the low end when it comes to penetration of solar and so they are adding most of their solar without batteries while CA is at the point where additional solar isn't advantageous without batteries, i.e. the famous duck curve is getting worse, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56880 .
We will never reach consensus on climate change and I agree we need to continue to sell it on different merits for people with differing political and scientific views. However, I believe economics will only get you so far, especially in a state like Texas, with so much oil and natural gas. I live in New Mexico and we also have sun, wind and fossil fuels in abundance but because of our net-zero policies, I believe we will to get to net-zero generation faster than Texas.
BTW, I really enjoyed your interview in the NYT yesterday. I was appalled at the treatment you got from the far left in the comment section, mostly doomers. I don't understand why people think that attitude or approach is helpful.
When I look at maps of wind and solar generation I'm always puzzled that there isn't more in New Mexico, even considering the state's small population. I assume there's more in the works. Any idea what's taking so long?
It ultimately falls on the utilities and their need to make money and it takes time to replace their fossil fuel generation. Arizona Public Service is the primary stockholder of the last coal plant in New Mexico, Four Corners Generating Station. They have agreed to retire their remaining units in 2031 but are being pressured to accelerate that by green activist organizations.
The other issue is permitting for transmission lines. The SunZia project is slated to add 3.5 GW of wind of generation most of which will be sold to CA and AZ. The HVDC transmission line has finally been green lighted but it has been in the works since 2009.
When the SunZia project is complete, NM will generate more than 50% from renewables. When the Four Corners plant is retired in 2031, I estimate that number will jump to 75%.
The San Juan plant location would seem to be a good spot for solar, with plenty of existing transmission capacity. I see that some solar is planned there, but far less than the capacity of the former San Juan plant.
Likewise, it will be interesting to see how things progress for nuclear power in the U.S. I speculate that Blue States might end up buying nuclear generated electricity from Red States.
Can't be stressed enough. For far more than a decade I've been reporting on surveys and social science showing there are no red or blue states when it comes to clean energy policy and renewables enthusiasm. Iowa has largely left coal behind for wind. Geography matters for wind. LIbertarian ideology can drive people to solar just as much as climate concern can. Someday climate campaigners will realize that a "climate first" message is counterproductive if the goal is widespread adoption of clean energy and policies that boost resilience. Lots more on the behavioral science here! https://revkin.substack.com/i/79692162/no-red-blue-divides-on-clean-energy-and-resilience
I think there are some real distinctions between red and blue states on policy. Small-scale solar is more closely tied to state policies than is utility-scale generation, so this article inspired me to make a map: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/w7pVV/
I think the most interesting aspect of this - which has relevance outside of the US - is that it shows getting the regulatory regime right is more important than any political or cultural interest in climate change. Clean energy tech wins on cost if you let people build it.
Britain Remade (British Yimby-for-infrastructure campaign group) have been highlighting councils that have declared a climate emergency but then vetoed green projects. E. g.
There’s a good book on specifically that called Climate Capitalism. Interviews with people in those ‘hot seats’ and what is happening, often out of the headlines
Really nice work! One thing I'd add is that off shore wind has been basically non existent in the US and blue states tend to be coastal. There were decades of NIMBYism in places like NY and MA that blocked offshore wind because of aesthetics. Finally starting to see some movement on it but missing the zero interest rate environment was sort of a bummer. I 100% agree with the economic argument being the way to go. I think "energy independence" and "decentralized infrastructure" are also angles that are also helpful.
NIMBYism has certainly played a role, but I also think offshore wind is intrinsically more difficult in the US than in Europe because electricity prices are lower in the US, and offshore wind is expensive to build. That's unfortunate because the northeastern states, especially, really need offshore wind.
A really interesting post, and one which has made me rethink how to talk to people; views often revolve around money, not the quality of life. It’s understandable if you don’t have much money, but even well-off people sometimes seem to prefer having more money than clean air to breathe.
It’s a mystery to me why people get hot under the collar about dirty water but not about dirty air...
Yes, the article and the comments are giving me pause for thought too. I am passionate about the environment and the disregard I perceive. I do understand both sides of the business arguments., ie: return on investments, and have long campaigned against the lack of political will - particularly in the UK - which is mostly down to corruption and/or incompetence. Peace, Maurice
A lot of electricity crosses state lines, and many utility companies operate in multiple states, so charts comparing in-state generation can often be misleading.
Small-scale solar, on the other hand, is highly dependent on state-level policies, and the patterns are telling. Here's a map that I just whipped up: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/w7pVV/
What I really worry about in certain red states are the attempts to prolong the lives of coal power plants, despite their decreasing economic viability.
Interested in your map but not sure I understand it. Could you define capacity per capita more. Where are you getting your data? Following the perspective of H Ritchie’s info, Georgia has had multiple solar “farms” built in the last 10 years( some are rather large along I 75, others smaller in rural areas). But on your map Georgia appears more at the 0 scale. Maybe it’s just my bias of happening to travel where there happens to be solar panels.
As they say, it's technically anything under 1 MW capacity, but in practice that's mostly rooftop solar, both residential and commercial.
I just took the state-level small-scale capacity numbers from the EIA table cited at the bottom of the map, and divided them by state-level population data that I got from Wikipedia.
Thanks. Looked up the solar farms I mentioned and they were all greater than 1 MW. Residential solar is low though not zero in Georgia. These farms again go along with the idea in the piece of the economic reason for sustainable energy. Appreciate the reply.
Hannah's initial disclaimer about consumption is really important when considering transmission networks as this can get confusing fast. The more constraints on a network, the harder to balance demand from instant generation; ergo coal/gas/nuclear has their place in some instances.
To phase them out completely will require a sea change in sharing which most private companies shy away from.
The NRC has made building new nuclear impossible. Gas is problematic as it is not stored on site, and there is competition for its use for heating in winter. Since Democrats block all new gas pipelines, and gas supply is already limiting, even before forthcoming gradual closure of existing nuclear, the USA will be depending on oil and coal for decades. Unless of course people like Hannah started educating Democrats about how you cannot run a grid on solar and wind.
PS: Don't mention batteries. That just reveal your ignorance!
I think this can easily be explained by the fact that most green energy subsidies come from the federal government, but different states have different amounts of solar, wind and hydro resources.
In early 2020, I spent time with RE investors and developers in San Antonio, where I saw firsthand that cheaper energy + pro-development policy = faster deployment at scale. Your research and charts show this well. It’s an important message that needs to be shared widely.
@Hannah - any chance you’ll be doing a book tour that stops in NYC?
You missed one crucial point, which is that only Republicans are strongly supportive of nuclear energy, especially the deregulation required to makes it cheap. Every time Democrats win power nuclear energy is strangled. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently introduced rules for SMRs that makes building them impossible. The NRC needs to be abolished. Every time Republicans win power, nuclear power soars. They will eliminate the NRC, a crucial step for nuclear power. Since there is zero chance of solving the intermittancy problem for solar and wind (please don't mention batteries!!!), nuclear power is absolutely essential for deep decarbonisation of the electricity grid at a cost that allows full electrification of transport and heating. Democrat voters are largely ignorant of the technical challenge of deep decarbonisation because the media they read ignore them. So they keep demanding policies that cannot succeed, like replacing fossil fuels with solar, wind and batteries.
Main result so far: Florida GOP voters no longer deny climate change in appreciable numbers. As a result, the dominant local debates are no longer about the existence of climate change but instead on climate policy.
Yes, after decades of government regulations, skillions of government research and subsidy, constant environmental lobbying, _NOW_ wind and solar are being built for "economic and energy security reasons". Kind of a stretch to claim that this is an argument for free market capitalism.. but ok, whatever, if it gets the stuff built I'm fine with Halliburton making money building wind.
I think you have an error in your data. The generation you list for Minnesota for solar is the same as what you list for wind. Moreover, the fractional figure for solar does not agree with the absolute one, at least for MN. I suspect the MN solar generation number is actually a copy of the wind number. I live in MN and know that we do not have that much solar installed 😅
That’s why I think ‘clean’ is a better adjective than ‘green’ for those of us wanting to see the move away from fossil fuels to accelerate.
Apparently Republicans associate "Green" with "Socialist". However, "Clean" is good, especially if it is "American".
Great job. I hope Noah takes time to read this. I made several of the same points over in his comment section, i.e. the devil is in the details. For example, Noah made a point about how the rate of deployment of solar in Texas is outpacing California. I took exception to his data because it did not match data that I found at EIA. In addition, Texas is still on the low end when it comes to penetration of solar and so they are adding most of their solar without batteries while CA is at the point where additional solar isn't advantageous without batteries, i.e. the famous duck curve is getting worse, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56880 .
The other thing of interest for solar is that your numbers and Ember's numbers for solar include both small-scale solar and utility-scale. As Dan Schroeder points out, small-scale solar is a big factor for some states, especially CA. In 2022, small scale solar made up 38% of the solar energy generated in CA, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=0043&geo=000000000004&sec=g&freq=A&start=2001&end=2022&ctype=linechart<ype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0
We will never reach consensus on climate change and I agree we need to continue to sell it on different merits for people with differing political and scientific views. However, I believe economics will only get you so far, especially in a state like Texas, with so much oil and natural gas. I live in New Mexico and we also have sun, wind and fossil fuels in abundance but because of our net-zero policies, I believe we will to get to net-zero generation faster than Texas.
BTW, I really enjoyed your interview in the NYT yesterday. I was appalled at the treatment you got from the far left in the comment section, mostly doomers. I don't understand why people think that attitude or approach is helpful.
When I look at maps of wind and solar generation I'm always puzzled that there isn't more in New Mexico, even considering the state's small population. I assume there's more in the works. Any idea what's taking so long?
A couple things.
It ultimately falls on the utilities and their need to make money and it takes time to replace their fossil fuel generation. Arizona Public Service is the primary stockholder of the last coal plant in New Mexico, Four Corners Generating Station. They have agreed to retire their remaining units in 2031 but are being pressured to accelerate that by green activist organizations.
The other issue is permitting for transmission lines. The SunZia project is slated to add 3.5 GW of wind of generation most of which will be sold to CA and AZ. The HVDC transmission line has finally been green lighted but it has been in the works since 2009.
When the SunZia project is complete, NM will generate more than 50% from renewables. When the Four Corners plant is retired in 2031, I estimate that number will jump to 75%.
Thanks for the summary.
The San Juan plant location would seem to be a good spot for solar, with plenty of existing transmission capacity. I see that some solar is planned there, but far less than the capacity of the former San Juan plant.
Likewise, it will be interesting to see how things progress for nuclear power in the U.S. I speculate that Blue States might end up buying nuclear generated electricity from Red States.
Maybe carbon intensity is a better metric for the role politics and policy play in decarbonization.
Using EIA data for 2021, I analyzed the specific emission intensity of the electric power sector for all 50 states.
Looking at the ten states with lowest specific emissions, 8 out of 10 are blue states.
Looking at the bottom ten states with the highest specific emissions, 8 out of 10 are red states.
Can't be stressed enough. For far more than a decade I've been reporting on surveys and social science showing there are no red or blue states when it comes to clean energy policy and renewables enthusiasm. Iowa has largely left coal behind for wind. Geography matters for wind. LIbertarian ideology can drive people to solar just as much as climate concern can. Someday climate campaigners will realize that a "climate first" message is counterproductive if the goal is widespread adoption of clean energy and policies that boost resilience. Lots more on the behavioral science here! https://revkin.substack.com/i/79692162/no-red-blue-divides-on-clean-energy-and-resilience
I think there are some real distinctions between red and blue states on policy. Small-scale solar is more closely tied to state policies than is utility-scale generation, so this article inspired me to make a map: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/w7pVV/
I think the most interesting aspect of this - which has relevance outside of the US - is that it shows getting the regulatory regime right is more important than any political or cultural interest in climate change. Clean energy tech wins on cost if you let people build it.
Britain Remade (British Yimby-for-infrastructure campaign group) have been highlighting councils that have declared a climate emergency but then vetoed green projects. E. g.
https://twitter.com/BritainRemade/status/1741392563599253950
Which are stark examples of the issue.
Capitalism can in fact meet the challenge of climate change. All it requires is the proper economic incentives.
There’s a good book on specifically that called Climate Capitalism. Interviews with people in those ‘hot seats’ and what is happening, often out of the headlines
Really nice work! One thing I'd add is that off shore wind has been basically non existent in the US and blue states tend to be coastal. There were decades of NIMBYism in places like NY and MA that blocked offshore wind because of aesthetics. Finally starting to see some movement on it but missing the zero interest rate environment was sort of a bummer. I 100% agree with the economic argument being the way to go. I think "energy independence" and "decentralized infrastructure" are also angles that are also helpful.
NIMBYism has certainly played a role, but I also think offshore wind is intrinsically more difficult in the US than in Europe because electricity prices are lower in the US, and offshore wind is expensive to build. That's unfortunate because the northeastern states, especially, really need offshore wind.
A really interesting post, and one which has made me rethink how to talk to people; views often revolve around money, not the quality of life. It’s understandable if you don’t have much money, but even well-off people sometimes seem to prefer having more money than clean air to breathe.
It’s a mystery to me why people get hot under the collar about dirty water but not about dirty air...
Yes, the article and the comments are giving me pause for thought too. I am passionate about the environment and the disregard I perceive. I do understand both sides of the business arguments., ie: return on investments, and have long campaigned against the lack of political will - particularly in the UK - which is mostly down to corruption and/or incompetence. Peace, Maurice
Nice article... well done
A lot of electricity crosses state lines, and many utility companies operate in multiple states, so charts comparing in-state generation can often be misleading.
Small-scale solar, on the other hand, is highly dependent on state-level policies, and the patterns are telling. Here's a map that I just whipped up: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/w7pVV/
What I really worry about in certain red states are the attempts to prolong the lives of coal power plants, despite their decreasing economic viability.
Interested in your map but not sure I understand it. Could you define capacity per capita more. Where are you getting your data? Following the perspective of H Ritchie’s info, Georgia has had multiple solar “farms” built in the last 10 years( some are rather large along I 75, others smaller in rural areas). But on your map Georgia appears more at the 0 scale. Maybe it’s just my bias of happening to travel where there happens to be solar panels.
Here's a page that explains EIA's definition of small-scale solar: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=60341
As they say, it's technically anything under 1 MW capacity, but in practice that's mostly rooftop solar, both residential and commercial.
I just took the state-level small-scale capacity numbers from the EIA table cited at the bottom of the map, and divided them by state-level population data that I got from Wikipedia.
Thanks. Looked up the solar farms I mentioned and they were all greater than 1 MW. Residential solar is low though not zero in Georgia. These farms again go along with the idea in the piece of the economic reason for sustainable energy. Appreciate the reply.
Hannah's initial disclaimer about consumption is really important when considering transmission networks as this can get confusing fast. The more constraints on a network, the harder to balance demand from instant generation; ergo coal/gas/nuclear has their place in some instances.
To phase them out completely will require a sea change in sharing which most private companies shy away from.
The US has enough gas and nuclear that it shouldn't be hard at all to phase out the coal.
The NRC has made building new nuclear impossible. Gas is problematic as it is not stored on site, and there is competition for its use for heating in winter. Since Democrats block all new gas pipelines, and gas supply is already limiting, even before forthcoming gradual closure of existing nuclear, the USA will be depending on oil and coal for decades. Unless of course people like Hannah started educating Democrats about how you cannot run a grid on solar and wind.
PS: Don't mention batteries. That just reveal your ignorance!
Cool map! Did you really "just whip that up?"
I did. DataWrapper (first brought to my attention by the OWID FAQ page, https://ourworldindata.org/faqs#can-i-use-your-software-to-make-my-own-visualizations) is really easy to use!
I don’t think this is really about ideology.
I think this can easily be explained by the fact that most green energy subsidies come from the federal government, but different states have different amounts of solar, wind and hydro resources.
Exactly. It’s all about the money. A wind farm’s primarily product isn’t just electricity, it’s also subsidies and RECs
The subsidies need to go to renewables and scrapped for fossils
In early 2020, I spent time with RE investors and developers in San Antonio, where I saw firsthand that cheaper energy + pro-development policy = faster deployment at scale. Your research and charts show this well. It’s an important message that needs to be shared widely.
@Hannah - any chance you’ll be doing a book tour that stops in NYC?
You missed one crucial point, which is that only Republicans are strongly supportive of nuclear energy, especially the deregulation required to makes it cheap. Every time Democrats win power nuclear energy is strangled. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently introduced rules for SMRs that makes building them impossible. The NRC needs to be abolished. Every time Republicans win power, nuclear power soars. They will eliminate the NRC, a crucial step for nuclear power. Since there is zero chance of solving the intermittancy problem for solar and wind (please don't mention batteries!!!), nuclear power is absolutely essential for deep decarbonisation of the electricity grid at a cost that allows full electrification of transport and heating. Democrat voters are largely ignorant of the technical challenge of deep decarbonisation because the media they read ignore them. So they keep demanding policies that cannot succeed, like replacing fossil fuels with solar, wind and batteries.
At Florida Atlantic University we’ve published 9 (and growing) waves of public opinion polling just on Floridians.
https://www.ces.fau.edu/ces-bepi/
Main result so far: Florida GOP voters no longer deny climate change in appreciable numbers. As a result, the dominant local debates are no longer about the existence of climate change but instead on climate policy.
A step in the right direction
Yes, after decades of government regulations, skillions of government research and subsidy, constant environmental lobbying, _NOW_ wind and solar are being built for "economic and energy security reasons". Kind of a stretch to claim that this is an argument for free market capitalism.. but ok, whatever, if it gets the stuff built I'm fine with Halliburton making money building wind.
I think you have an error in your data. The generation you list for Minnesota for solar is the same as what you list for wind. Moreover, the fractional figure for solar does not agree with the absolute one, at least for MN. I suspect the MN solar generation number is actually a copy of the wind number. I live in MN and know that we do not have that much solar installed 😅
The point of taxing CO2 emissions is to speet the investment in zero and negative CO2 emissions technology “for economic reasons.”