3 ms·

Sorry, but no. A 2011 FERC report cited problems in Texas gas/coal/nuke plants for failing to weatherize. They didn't fix the problems, and gas and sensing line

Sorry, but no. A 2011 FERC report cited problems in Texas gas/coal/nuke plants for failing to weatherize. They didn't fix the problems, and gas and sensing lines froze, taking gas/coal plants offline too. 2/3rds of the power that went offline from the storm was fossil. Moreover, Texas's independent grid (not connected to the rest of the US) makes it difficult for them to import power from neighboring states. Stop trying to push political tribalist stories that blame renewables for bog standard failures in traditional systems that could have been avoided. https://www.powermag.com/ferc-nerc-february-blackouts-in-the-southwest-could-have-been-avoided/ https://www.powermag.com/ferc-nerc-february-blackouts-in-the...

cavisne 6y ago
The heavy reliance on natural gas is not traditional. Its a side effect of 1)
- cromwellian 6y ago
  No, it's because natural gas got cheaper, and they switched to the cheaper source. "The report also addresses the interdependency of the electric and natural gas industries. “Utilities are becoming increasingly reliant on gas-fired generation, in large part because shale production has dramatically reduced the cost of gas,” In 2011 when this happened before, Texas had even less renewables. I realize you're trying to hard to sell an ideology to blame renewables for what is really, gross mismanagement of the Texas grid, including fossil and nuclear power, but the reality is much more complex than your simple narrative. https://twitter.com/i/events/1361767999200317440 https://twitter.com/i/events/1361767999200317440
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Which fossil source is cheaper also largely depends on individual markets. The way carbon offset and carbon pricing is implemented in Germany for example, means coal got cheaper than natural gas for electricity. Despite being bad at ramping up quick and being really worse for the climate and environment. Gas would also be a good companion to renewables, simply because a gas turbine is very reactive, something a coal plant is not.
  - makomk 6y ago
    Natural gas got cheaper if you don't include the cost of the power grid going down in the case of weather like this. I do wonder if it would still be cheaper if you do... it's not just the power plants that failed, apparently the pipelines and the natural gas production infrastructure couldn't cope either, and that sounds potentially really expensive to fix.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  That doesn't explain why coal and nuclear plants failed. Or why gas power plants in other states are still running. All of which is in line with the 2011 report about TX not winterizing their power plants properly. Frankly, it seems like you've decided that the issue is renewables and you're searching around for an argument to justify a conclusion you've already come to. Because what you're saying is simply not actually supported by the evidence or consistent with the current situation.
golemiprague 6y ago
I do have a feeling though that putting too much attention and funding into renewables, which Texas did, takes some attention and funding from other issues like "weathering" which is basically either warming or cooling or anything in between. It also raising the question about funding climate change initiatives when we don't know what exactly the "change" is going to be in any given year. I am not saying renewable is bad or dealing with warming or anything like that, but maybe a more conservative and humble approach which takes into account the assumptions that we can't exactly predict the future, is more appropriate.

cavisne 6y ago

The heavy reliance on natural gas is not traditional. Its a side effect of 1)

cromwellian 6y ago
No, it's because natural gas got cheaper, and they switched to the cheaper source. "The report also addresses the interdependency of the electric and natural gas industries. “Utilities are becoming increasingly reliant on gas-fired generation, in large part because shale production has dramatically reduced the cost of gas,” In 2011 when this happened before, Texas had even less renewables. I realize you're trying to hard to sell an ideology to blame renewables for what is really, gross mismanagement of the Texas grid, including fossil and nuclear power, but the reality is much more complex than your simple narrative. https://twitter.com/i/events/1361767999200317440 https://twitter.com/i/events/1361767999200317440
- hef19898 6y ago
  Which fossil source is cheaper also largely depends on individual markets. The way carbon offset and carbon pricing is implemented in Germany for example, means coal got cheaper than natural gas for electricity. Despite being bad at ramping up quick and being really worse for the climate and environment. Gas would also be a good companion to renewables, simply because a gas turbine is very reactive, something a coal plant is not.
- makomk 6y ago
  Natural gas got cheaper if you don't include the cost of the power grid going down in the case of weather like this. I do wonder if it would still be cheaper if you do... it's not just the power plants that failed, apparently the pipelines and the natural gas production infrastructure couldn't cope either, and that sounds potentially really expensive to fix.
ashtonkem 6y ago
That doesn't explain why coal and nuclear plants failed. Or why gas power plants in other states are still running. All of which is in line with the 2011 report about TX not winterizing their power plants properly. Frankly, it seems like you've decided that the issue is renewables and you're searching around for an argument to justify a conclusion you've already come to. Because what you're saying is simply not actually supported by the evidence or consistent with the current situation.

golemiprague 6y ago

I do have a feeling though that putting too much attention and funding into renewables, which Texas did, takes some attention and funding from other issues like "weathering" which is basically either warming or cooling or anything in between. It also raising the question about funding climate change initiatives when we don't know what exactly the "change" is going to be in any given year. I am not saying renewable is bad or dealing with warming or anything like that, but maybe a more conservative and humble approach which takes into account the assumptions that we can't exactly predict the future, is more appropriate.