Everybody. Hello from Square top peak that is Argentine peak in the background. And then further back, Torrey and grays, a pair of our famous fourteeners here in Colorado today, I want to talk about green energy and red states. There’s been a little bit of hand wringing in the environmental community that something like 75 to 80% of the investment from the inflation Reduction Act has gone into red states, not purple. Red states, not purple states,
red states. Let’s start by saying, calm down, because if the goal really is to do a green transition, it’s got to be everybody. So this is actually good news, but I think it’s worth explaining why there’s been a change of mindset on places like capitol hill when it comes to things like green tech, little less wind
anywho, where was I? How?
Hi, Billy.
Only person I’ve seen today
anyway, it’s worth understanding. It has to do with the nature of green take itself more than the subsidies. Number one is a little bit more of a business thing as a world. Red states have a more business friendly, low regulation approach to things, whether it is providing a little bit of money or just a lower legal cost for operating in the first place.
And so you throw a bunch of federal government subsidies into that system, it’s easier to get projects out the door in a place like say Nebraska than in a place like say Oregon. Second he’s just there he is.
Second issue is the whole rural, urban divide split. Oversimplifying here, but as a rule, the red states are more rural. They have a lot more land that can be dedicated to other projects than traditional energy investment. So if you’re in, say, New York City, you basically have a coal or natural gas burning power plant somewhere near the city, and then wire the power in. If you want wind or solar, the nearest place that you’re going to get appreciable solar density or wind density is North Carolina, which, incidentally, is arguably the state that’s kind of benefited the most, because everybody who wants green tech in the Northeast is putting North Carolina, because it’s the closest place where the power generation capacity is actually viable. So you get these belts. In the United States, we’ve got a Sun Belt. We have a wind belt. The wind belt is mostly the Great Plains, so basically North Dakota, straight down through South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. There’s a little bit in places like Colorado. Colorado’s a big wind state, of course, and Iowa as well. But considering the geography of wind, you know, go a little bit further west, you get a better territory. Same thing generally holds for solar. I mean, this hopefully isn’t a shock for anyone, but the further south you go, the greater the solar intensity is going to get. Now you also would prefer All else being equal to have a little bit of altitude and a lot less humidity, because that can tend to screw up
solar power as well. And so the primary solar zone is from the areas east of Los Angeles in Kern County in California, into Arizona, into New Mexico, into Oklahoma and especially Texas. So those two belts are getting an outsized portion of this as well as North Carolina because of its proximity to major population centers that really couldn’t do it itself, and that population density issue is really, really, really a big issue. You’re not going to put solar panels in a forest. You’re not going to put on the slope of a mountain unless it just happens to be in the perfect spot. You want large chunks of flat land with no one living in them, and if those chunks of flat land have no agricultural value. They’re even better. So West Texas looks great. Eastern Colorado looks great. North Dakota, oh my god. These places aren’t exactly known for being rabid environmentalists, but they’re not just the best places on the continent. They’re some of the best places on the planet for this sort of installation. Lo and behold, that’s where it’s going. You.
This post was originally published on here
