[PeakOiler]

I drive through Georgetown everyday on my commute to Austin. It's not that big of a city. Population is about 55K.

See Google Info

[C8]

This Big Texas City Will Soon Be Powered Entirely By Wind And Sun

There’s a fast-growing city in Texas that also has one of the most progressive energy programs in the country — and it’s not Austin.

Located about 30 miles north of the Texas capital in a deeply conservative county, the city of Georgetown will be powered 100 percent by renewable energy within the next couple years. Georgetown’s residents and elected officials made the decision to invest in two large renewable energy projects, one solar and one wind, not because they reduced greenhouse gas emissions or sent a message about the viability of renewable energy — but because it just made sense, according to Mayor Dale Ross.

“This was a business decision and it was a no-brainer,” Ross told ThinkProgress from his office along one of the city’s main thoroughfares. “This is a long-term source of power that creates cost certainty, brings economic development, uses less water, and helps the environment.”

In a state better known for what it prospects for underground, Texas has one of the best aboveground renewable energy profiles in the country — especially west Texas, where the wind blows hard and consistently and the sun shines unabatedly. Texas also has its own electricity grid, which allowed state lawmakers to build the thing often lacking in the development of major renewable energy projects: transmission lines. As part of the state’s Competitive Renewable Energy Zone program, or CREZ, Texas has spent around $7 billion building transmission lines to make far-removed wind and solar projects accessible to population centers in the central and eastern parts of the state.

By bringing nearly 150 megawatts of wind energy from north Texas and another 150 megawatts of solar from far west Texas, Georgetown is taking full advantage of what the Lone Star State has to offer. And in doing so, it is getting some of the cheapest, most reliable, and most sustainable energy in the country.

thinkprogress

I wonder if renewables will cause people to spread out more as to where they live since the ratio of land to people matters

[Graeme]

Don't think so. Urbanization in the US has been increasing from about 5% in 1790 to 80% in 2010. Looks like this trend will continue.

[ROCKMAN]

"Georgetown’s residents and elected officials made the decision to invest in two large renewable energy projects, one solar and one wind, not because they reduced greenhouse gas emissions or sent a message about the viability of renewable energy — but because it just made sense, according to Mayor Dale Ross." And understand a big factor in how this all came about (besides the $7 billion of state money for transmission upgrades): I assume like Austin Georgetown voters agreed to pay a higher initial rate for electricity above the typical fossil fuel sources power. This allow the "unregulated" utilities to entice investors into building the alts out.

This a model that clearly works: show how a relative small public commitment to high energy costs can lead to lower long term energy costs. This worked in Texas. Pitching the alts to "save the planet" or for the sake of future generations went no where. Just as that approach is causing very little transition in most other states.

[ralfy]

Cities that grow fast and that are part of free market capitalist systems cannot ultimately rely on wind and sun as these involve low energy returns and quantity. With that, cities have to shrink, systems have to go in decline, and consumption has to be kept to a minimum as populations grow.

[Graeme]

Yes they can and will. Georgetown is demonstrating it.

[americandream]

Yes they can and will. Georgetown is demonstrating it.

No they cannot. There simply isnt the value to be extracted in these schemes. Value requires infinity.

[ROCKMAN]

I don't like being rude, boys, but did read a single f*cking word I wrote about Georgetown, Texas? LOL. That is the subject of this thread. Lets stay focused. As part of the Austin region it is experiencing a true capitalism boom. And doing so with some of the cheapest electricity in the country thanks to booming wind power in Texas... along with some help from the huge Texas coal consumption.

Georgetown isn't reducing its size, capitalism or energy consumption. It's expanding on all quarters rapidly. In case you missed it: IN 2014 GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, WAS ONE OF THE TEN FASTEST GROWING CITIES IN THE US. Capitalism on steroids. LOL. And a side note: Fort Bend County, Texas, has been the fastest growing US county for most years over the last few DECADES. Essentially THE southwest suburban expansion of Houston. And it's primary source of electricity: the second largest producer of GHG in the country: a plant burning lignite and NG.

[ROCKMAN]

Another interesting side note about "green" Georgetown: it's very proud to be home of a rapidly expanding fossil fuel company. And lets not miss the irony of the name of the company: CleanFUEL USA

“Georgetown is a great asset to us in itself,” said president Curtis Donaldson. “It’s easy to attract employees to Georgetown.” When looking for a site for his new company back in the early 90s, Donaldson needed a nearby airport and a job pool. The propane company currently employs 34 people in Georgetown and plans to hire more as they fill an order for 180 propane fueling stations in the next 24 months, a tenfold increase from their normal rate of production.

CleanFUEL’s high-end, full retail credit card pay-at-the-pump fueling stations can be found in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia, and of course, in the U.S. These propane fueling stations are part of CleanFUEL’s efforts to transition U.S. drivers seamlessly from gasoline to propane, which has been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18%, and produce 60% less carbon monoxide. Propane is also 97% domestically produced, which could lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

CleanFUEL: substituting one fossil fuel with another. Irony so thick you can cut it, eh? LOL.

[Graeme]

Well Rockman, take a read of this. It has a slightly different spin to the one you are portraying.

Texas city opts for 100% renewable energy – to save cash, not the planet

News that a Texas city is to be powered by 100% renewable energy sparked surprise in an oil-obsessed, Republican-dominated state where fossil fuels are king and climate change activists were described as “the equivalent of the flat-earthers” by US senator and GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.

“I was called an Al Gore clone, a tree-hugger,” says Jim Briggs, interim city manager of Georgetown, a community of about 50,000 people some 25 miles north of Austin.

Briggs, who was a key player in Georgetown’s decision to become the first city in the Lone Star State to be powered by 100% renewable energy, has worked for the city for 30 years. He wears a belt with shiny silver decorations and a gold ring with a lone star motif, and is keen to point out that he is not some kind of California-style eco-warrior with a liberal agenda. In fact, he is a staunchly Texan pragmatist.

“I’m probably the furthest thing from an Al Gore clone you could find,” he says. “We didn’t do this to save the world – we did this to get a competitive rate and reduce the risk for our consumers.”

In many Texas cities the electricity market is deregulated, meaning that customers choose from a dizzying variety of providers and plans. In Houston, for example, there are more than 70 plans that offer energy from entirely renewable sources.

That makes it easy to switch, so in a dynamic marketplace, providers tend to focus on the immediate future. This discourages the creation of renewable energy facilities, which require long-term investment to be viable. But in Georgetown, the city utility company has a monopoly.


Fearing an imminent end to the government’s generosity, private green energy companies have scrambled to build facilities. At the same time, in recent years a glut of Chinese-made panels has made solar power more cost-effective. And while west Texas is an oil driller’s paradise, it is also sunny and gusty, making it a perfect corridor for renewable energy.

The region bordering New Mexico is one of the prime solar resource sites in the US and the wind whistles across the plains to such an extent that, as Scientific American pointed out last year, the state is America’s largest wind power producer – as well as leading the nation in the production of crude oil and the emission of greenhouse gases.

Renewable energy also uses much less water than traditional power generation – a bonus in a state where half the land and more than nine million people are affected by drought conditions, though Briggs said that for Georgetown, water conservation was only a “side benefit”.


“They were just looking out for the cheapest deal. That’s just business,” the 50-year-old said. “I don’t really think we should be relying too much on oil, even though they have to right now. That don’t last forever.

“Sun will, though. Long as the sun comes up, the wind will blow.”

theguardian

[Graeme]

As far as generating electricity is concerned, it's not spin. It was a business decision.

[nocar]

That concerns electricity in houses, right? Do people there cook with electric or gas? How do they power their cars? How much do they drive their cars? Lawnmowers? How are deliveries to supermarkets and stores powered?

[dashster]

I wonder if renewables will cause people to spread out more as to where they live since the ratio of land to people matters

It looks like they invested in projects that are not right near them so conceivably New York city could invest in projects in some remote part of the state. But it would be easier to do if the land was in your jurisdiction and you were in charge of approval and constructing any needed transmission lines.

I always hope there will be more spreading out so people will always have farms and jobs near them. But it would be difficult to implement a plan to keep farms since every farm family wants the right to sell their place to a real estate developer at some point. And current property tax laws make working the same land more and more expensive as an area fills in and property values go up.

[dashster]

You might also want to ask what happens in the winter when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Will the city shut down completely? Or will it come back tail between it's collective legs to beg the power company to turn back on the gas/coal power plants? What if the gas/coal turbines are rusty, un-manned (womened) and can't afford to suddenly start up again.

Yeah, it should have to be stated differently, pointing out that on some days they will get little to nothing from renewables, while on others the excess from renewables that they don't need will be sold to other customers, and the 100% comes from averaging all their production out and comparing it to usage.

[kanon]

I always hope there will be more spreading out so people will always have farms and jobs near them. But it would be difficult to implement a plan to keep farms since every farm family wants the right to sell their place to a real estate developer at some point. And current property tax laws make working the same land more and more expensive as an area fills in and property values go up.

I mean no disrespect, but this thinking is, IMHO, very wrong-headed. The spreading out virtually guarantees greater energy intensity and infrastructure costs. People who believe the "economic growth" mantra of expansion of roadways and suburbia simply do not understand the bigger picture. The economic growth is really an expansion of debt/credit supported by greater fossil fuel consumption. On the whole, people and communities are not better off due to spreading out because the ongoing expenses of debt, fossil fuels, and maintenance are greater than the advantages. A powerful grouping of special interests do benefit from spreading out, but overall there is an economic loss. This is seen in unpayable debt, unmanageable infrastructure costs, and households spending more on transportation than any other category. The concern for small/family farms and greater self reliance is well intended, I'm sure, but that is a question of tax and subsidy policy, and not of spreading out.

I wish I could make a more detailed argument, but there is a huge problem in a lack of factual information. Promotional literature and selected facts are all that is available, but I repeat myself. Suffice it to say that Georgetown is only taking one step in a major transformation. Another part is what is known as "infill development," so that transportation and other infrastructure is simplified and far less energy intensive. Georgetown will have an enduring advantage over other Texas cities in terms of energy, but retrograde political policies in Texas may very well hide the advantage, since the state is on track to devote ever more subsidies to car-culture, sprawl, and corporate welfare.

[dashster]

I mean no disrespect, but this thinking is, IMHO, very wrong-headed. The spreading out virtually guarantees greater energy intensity and infrastructure costs.

I don't know what you mean by energy intensity, but I don't think infrastructure costs would be that different (There would be a big expense to convert over) People in cities seem to pay more taxes than people outside them. That is, cities will add an extra 1/4 or 1/2 percent to the state sales tax to pay for the higher cost of something. Some, like New York City, even add a city income tax.

People who believe the "economic growth" mantra of expansion of roadways and suburbia simply do not understand the bigger picture.

I am not advocating an expansion of suburbia. This would be farms mixed with houses mixed with commercial. A situation we don't currently have. Right now some areas have commercial. Some have housing. Some have commercial and housing. Some have farms and limited housing. This would be all 3 co-located.

The economic growth is really an expansion of debt/credit supported by greater fossil fuel consumption. On the whole, people and communities are not better off due to spreading out because the ongoing expenses of debt, fossil fuels, and maintenance are greater than the advantages. A powerful grouping of special interests do benefit from spreading out, but overall there is an economic loss. This is seen in unpayable debt, unmanageable infrastructure costs, and households spending more on transportation than any other category.

I think you are talking about suburban sprawl. Our current model, where most commercial expansion happens in the core and the suburbs spread out, lengthening commute times. In my utopia, commute times would all be the same. People live near where they work. Not just housing, but commercial is distributed. When you change jobs, you most likely move.

The concern for small/family farms and greater self reliance is well intended, I'm sure, but that is a question of tax and subsidy policy, and not of spreading out.

It doesn't have to be small/family farms. The farms could be owned by a huge corporation. They just have to be near the people. One issue it would address is a situation that exists in Silicon Valley. The sewage treatment plant sends their solid waste to city landfills. It is considered to expensive to haul that waste to farms which are 90+ minutes away.

I wish I could make a more detailed argument, but there is a huge problem in a lack of factual information. Promotional literature and selected facts are all that is available, but I repeat myself. Suffice it to say that Georgetown is only taking one step in a major transformation. Another part is what is known as "infill development," so that transportation and other infrastructure is simplified and far less energy intensive. Georgetown will have an enduring advantage over other Texas cities in terms of energy, but retrograde political policies in Texas may very well hide the advantage, since the state is on track to devote ever more subsidies to car-culture, sprawl, and corporate welfare.

Infill is considered green, but I consider it very brown. For one, the reason we do infill is because of our population increases - which come exclusively from immigration and its compounding. Our birth rates have been at replacement levels for decades. We aren't tearing down houses in the suburbs as we infill. Infill handles our much beloved and very sacred, and very brown, immigration population growth. If we were to build new cities out on the midwest plains for the beloved immigrants, the cost of immigration - of population growth - would become more apparent. Now we can sneak those costs in by having them mixed with the existing costs of an existing city. It is no doubt cheaper in many respects to infill versus building out on the prairie, but infill has a definite cost to existing residents (which will show up as higher rates, higher sales tax, and special property tax additions), despite what the politicians will say as they take money from developers. Building new schools because infill has already filled your existing ones, in an area that has already gone wall-to-wall, is not cheap. It's expensive enough that they strongly resist doing it - filling classrooms to the max and putting trailers out in the parking lots.

With the high-density housing of infill there are 0 gardens added, 0 compost heaps. With infill the idea of getting a lot of your home energy needs from solar panels on your roof goes away.

The densest parts of the country - like New York City, have had the longest and most infill. Rather than being cheaper places to live, they are more expensive. New York City residents must pay, not just a state income tax, but a city income tax. They pay more to live in higher density. They have subways, but they have to pay to ride them each time, just like someone in another less-infilled city pays for a bus or light rail trip.

I am not saying this, like I expect it to ever happen, just the way I would like to see it. Distributed towns linked by electric railroads. Not giant megacities. And the towns would be planned to be only to a certain limit. Once the town hits it's plan, it would then go into zero-growth mode and any population growth would require a new town to be built.

[kanon]

The densest parts of the country - like New York City, have had the longest and most infill. Rather than being cheaper places to live, they are more expensive. New York City residents must pay, not just a state income tax, but a city income tax. They pay more to live in higher density. They have subways, but they have to pay for them just like someone in another less-infilled city pays for a bus or light rail.

These are good points, but you are talking a lot about situations that are created by the status quo. Your utopia seems like an idea of contiguous villages -- somewhat self contained communities with their own character but all having a basic set of resources within a radius. You would have comparable problems to infill development if it were to be implemented. Higher density is more expensive because more economic activity can be done. It costs more because residents can pay. New York is a good example for many reasons because there is quite a history there, relating back to a guy named Moses. I am looking at that now, but haven't gotten very far. There are so many factors that it is more useful to talk about systems rather than points based upon the present framework. Another aspect is real estate pricing, since this drives much of the expense of density. It seems New York could have been a very different city. I just have to say that we are largely stuck with things that seemed like great ideas in the past and we really need better thinking for the future.

[Withnail]

This Big Texas City Will Soon Be Powered Entirely By Wind And Sun

Nowhere is powered entirely by wind and sun.

To even make that claim is a sure sign of cretinism.