This would allow for renewables (mainly WIND in Texas) to be sold out-of-state, and would also mitigate peaking events (e.g. winter 2021 disaster) – this would reduce the need for in-state peakers (instead: buy power from another US state).
But as the saying goes: "everything is bigger in Texas" – including the self-induced isolation. Doing this would require Texas to submit to federal energy regulations... which I'm doubtful will ever happen voluntarily.
src: retired Texas datacenter electrician (IBEW)
[0] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmiss...>
[Texas' isolated grid operator:] <https://www.ercot.com/>
Since Texas has been leading the nation on renewables because it has a fairly free power market amd renewables are the cheapest power available, I'd expect this surge in demand to be eventually replaced by more renewables. In the meantime, extra capacity comes from old plants that can be spun up quickly.
Currently for Datacenter's to move forward in Texas they must have some local power production so you see some of the newer upcoming ones featuring 20+ portable gas turbines on site. Others feature mixed solar/portable gas turbine.
This is temporary because of the surge in power. Renewables will be built to handle the surge if it becomes a new baseline.
The equipment for grid connections is already 5 years behind in Texas. Are we talking about 20 or 30 years from now? Might as well be a lifetime.
You: Grid stuff is 5yr out everywhere
The article: Grid connections being years out is going to cause a huge increase in pollution because datacenters are setting up local gas operatings at the gigawatt scale.
I think a lot of people are missing the entire point. The next 10-20 years is going to have a huge spike in pollution (and CO2 release) that is going to affect humans and the grid at large.
I don't think you have any clue on the size of the projects being suggested. We are talking 3 times the size of the current texas grid which is twice as large as the California grid. It is a mind shattering amount of power that would be required if it could all be built.
"Guns don't kill people, people do."
Neither argument holds water.
FFS.
A better analogy would be to blame exercise for food shortages because it makes people hungry.
Imagine if an overweight person could only lose significant weight if they temporarily underwent obesity for a few years. While many overweight people exist, we should actively prevent more people from becoming overweight, and we should change the socioeconomic and political circumstances that contribute to excessive weight gain.
Imagine if a moderate exercise session causes a person to feel severe hunger pains for a few hours that do not immediately abate upon eating. Such an unfair biological condition would incentivize the person to avoid moderate or vigorous exercise. If the person attempts to power through the pain, the pain may trick them into eating more than they need to at the expense of their wallets, their health, and collective food supply. We should encourage such individuals to set aside longer times for light exercise if their finances and work allow them to, teach people to reduce their extra calorie margins without sacrificing necessary nutrients (especially because taking in less extra most-things is easier than removing extra most-things), and research palliative and curative medical treatments for this condition.
It's one bridge away from selling them Old Glory robot insurance.
"Data centers are everywhere and they consume old people's medicine for fuel."
Love to know who this actually triggers and what's inaccurate about the above? Coal is super good and clean? Natural gas emissions can't be sequestered despite numerous examples of exactly that? How dare I even suggest nuclear? Or is it just downright America-hating unpatriotic and letting the evil drag queens win? Genuinely curious.