> When in reality as soon as an economical and private sector solution is there, republicans are on board

The leader of the conservative party has claimed that windmills kill whales, cause cancer, are "garbage" and pledged to prevent any being built in his second term.

> They just dont want the state to fund the cause and don’t consider it the state’s role or problem or the state as a solution to a problem that isnt wholly solved by the proposed expensive solution

Texas Senate Bill 819 "relating to renewable energy generation facilities; authorizing fees." would have made it the states role to create an expensive solution.

> (1) for a solar power facility, ensure that all facility equipment is located at least: (A) 100 feet from any property line, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of property located less than 100 feet from the facility; and (B) 200 feet from any habitable structure, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of the habitable structure; and

> (2)for a wind power facility, ensure that all facility equipment is located at least 1,000 feet from the property line of each property that borders the property on which the facility is located, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of property located less than 1,000 feet from the facility

Texas Senate Bill 388 "relating to the legislature’s goals for electric generation capacity in this state." would have made it the states role to create an expensive solution.

> (a) It is the intent of the legislature that 50 percent of the megawatts of generating capacity installed in the ERCOT power region [this state] after January 1, 2026 [2000], be sourced from dispatchable generation [use natural gas].

are the Texas bill sponsors not part of the aggregate conservative position?

I think this seems at odds from what I hear from republicans using retoric that's anti-renewable, anti-climate change and pro-oil.

Ignoring that though, energy is a market defined by government policy.

To give an example, solar assets can't control when they output, so many countries have contracts where solar gets a fixed price. Without that, peak solar times might even have negative pricing.

Those are two seperate ways to frame a market, one making renewables profitable and one making them uneconomic.

We can shrug and say "make them profitable under the current conditions" but that ignores the fact that fixed prices for output makes energy cheaper and cleaner as a whole.

My point is, there is no "true market", its something governments define and control. The question should be what outcomes you want.

I'd argue for cheaper, cleaner and more diverse energy, but I'm not in the US.

One of the roles of the state in a mixed economy is to cautiously intervene when there's market failure. Whether through tax policy or industrial policy. Republicans don't want to stop the market failure because they don't believe there is market failure. It's not only a disagreement in values it's a disagreement about basic scientific and economic facts.

Now do oil. How do Repubkicans feel about subsidies for oil?

How is this getting out of the way:

“In markets like Texas, the wholesale price of electricity is set equal to the price of electricity from the most expensive generator needed to meet demand, often referred to as the marginal generator.”