Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

This is true, but the funny part is, it's only going to impact red states. PNW/California already get most of their power from low carbon sources. Illinois has the largest fleet of commercial nuclear generators, and subsidizes it. NYISO gets a bunch of clean hydro power from Canada and some fossil gas. Is industry going to build where power costs are higher out of stupidity? Unlikely. "Stop hitting yourself."

As another comment mentioned, this is immaterial at the rate at which solar PV and batteries are being manufactured, it just makes electricity more costly (an additional tax) until we get to the future.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly (center on US)

View on HN

It doesn't matter.

Outright banning solar and wind in red states and then watching as power generation companies flee to blue states as these energy sources outcompete fossil fuels in the marketplace doesn't matter. They still got to say "fuck you, libs." That's all that matters. Pointing out how this hurts their own voters won't change anything because the thing they want is not actually human flourishing. The thing they want is "fuck you, libs" and they got that already.

Hurting the voters in this way is a win for Republicans though.

They can use it as a wedge issue.

Look, Republicans in Republican states, they're leaving you without jobs and giving your jobs to immigrants. See, slightly red but mostly purple States? This is what will happen to you. And the energy companies take the blame, not legislators.

Politics today is ruled by cynicism.

I don't even believe that this matters. I don't think the motivation is based on "hey we can use this as a strategy to get re-elected." I truly believe that the motivation is "fuck you, libs" and nothing deeper. Even if it makes them less likely to retain power they'll still do it. Because they got to spit on the left.

That's not cynicism. That's brute honesty.

You’re not wrong, we’re just waiting for voters to age out (~2M 55+ every year, ~5k per day). Angry, irrational, uneducated people will not be swayed, nor change their mind or their vote. We just keep powering forward through the molasses. It is what it is. Change what you can, ignore what you cannot.

With health technology they'll live until 100 costing an disproportionate amount of money through government heathcare while continuing to vote Republican

I think you'll find this social science paper relevant and lightening. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451

The data is kind of misleading. Texas actually produces almost twice as much solar + wind power as California. The %mix is lower because Californians don’t have to run AC and heat year-round, so power demand per capita is way lower as a function of geography rather than policy.

I accounted for that in the comment you replied to. Texas has a voracious appetite for power due to data centers, manufacturing, and air conditioning, and impairing new renewables will hurt Texas more than California. Energy policy is in direct opposition to Texas' need for inexpensive, low carbon power due to their higher per capita consumption. Texas should be doing everything in its power to support the deployment of renewables, but out of ideology at the federal and state levels, they are not.

California is ahead of the curve by having built renewables and batteries before this policy change, while other states will be stuck with suboptimal energy policy for at least the next half decade, increasing their cost of power. California is also the world's fourth largest economy with the energy system they have built.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-CAL-CISO/12mo/monthl...

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025...

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/04/23/california-is-now-the-4th-...

Texas has significantly more heavy industry than California which probably makes up more of the power delta than AC usage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com