ERCOT's current output page[0] shows 3643 MW of Total Wind Output, but total installed capacity is over 25000 MW [1]. Current wind output is less than 7% of ins

ERCOT's current output page[0] shows 3643 MW of Total Wind Output, but total installed capacity is over 25000 MW [1]. Current wind output is less than 7% of installed capacity. ERCOT was previously able to generate 17541 MW of wind power[2] in February 2018, when it had only 21190 MW of wind capacity. PVGR Output (solar) is currently 0 MW, with over 3000 MW of installed capacity. That's 0%. Nuclear is apparently doing best, outputting 75% capacity (with a capacity of around 5000 MW). I'm not sure on the exact numbers for coal, gas, etc., but they are clearly supplying the bulk of the 49089 MW demand. > Wind actually outperformed what it was projected to If you read the full quote from the article, this is so heavily qualified that it seems designed to be quoted out-of-context. As in, they couldn't say that wind generation performed well in any meaningful sense without outright lying, so they came up with this quotable take instead, knowing that the extremely heavy qualification would not make it into the quotations. If I project wind power to generate 5% of its capacity, and it actually generates 10%, I can say that wind power "exceeded expectations" in exactly the way the fact "checkers" mean it. But this ignores the fact that most of the wind capacity failed to produce anything, which is what people actually care about. If the projections had been made a month ahead of time, then "exceeding projections" might have some useful meaning. But the projections referred to are only made 24 hours in advance, meaning that the expectations being exceeded were incredibly low and easy to "exceed". I'm sure ERCOT does projections more than 24 hours in advance as well. Why doesn't PolitiFact reference those, or compare this February's output to previous Februarys, or do anything other than cherry-pick a single set of numbers that just so happens to support their political agenda? > But this isn't about wind vs. coal vs. gas, it was about weatherized vs. not weatherized. This seems to be spot on. Many of the issues could have been avoided if the systems had been built to sustain cold weather. [0] http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_conditions.html http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_condi... [1] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219848/Capacity_Changes_by_Fuel_Type_Charts_January_2021_monthly.xlsx http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219848/Capacity_Chang... [2] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Facts_8818.pdf http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Fa...