>Also: I live in Texas and have 100% renewable energy

Are you living off the grid, or living on the grid but paying for a "100% renewable" provider? If it's the latter it's likely that you're only being 100% renewable on a net annual basis, and still using non-renewable sources during peak hours. https://energy.stanford.edu/news/100-renewables-doesn-t-equa...

Seems like an unnecessary quibble. If everyone was using a "100% renewable" provider, would non-renewables be consumed?

But at this moment people aren't so whether it's actually helping the environment is debatable. It's like selling a vegan burger that's made with beef but claiming it's totally fine because that's offset by some other guy eating a plant burger.

It sounds like GP is saying that at current capacity, there isn't enough renewable energy to supply all of the demand 100% of the time.

Just an FYI, unless you’re off the grid you aren’t actually 100% renewable. I live in Texas and found this to be super confusing when I signed up for power for the first time. If you think about it for a second it makes sense that you’re getting the same energy as the rest of your neighbors and the grid is made up of many many different types of power plants. The “100% renewable” bit means that when the power broker gives a cut to the state that money is used to fund only renewable projects. Hope you learned something new today!

Think of it like you pay for grain harvested by well paid workers. But you don't get that grain directly. Instead all the grain harvested by everyone, even underpaid near slaves, is put in one big pile. When you go get your 5 pounds from the pile you are getting the mix from everyone, but the well paid workers are the ones earning the money.

That's how money works. It's a transactional abstraction. It doesn't matter how many times it changes hands as long as it ends up in the right place.