4 ms·
Believe primary sources that you can read and understand yourself. That’s it. Sad that we’ve come to this, but I had to adopt that policy last year for obvious
by jkhdigital 6y ago
Believe primary sources that you can read and understand yourself. That’s it. Sad that we’ve come to this, but I had to adopt that policy last year for obvious reasons.
- throwawaysea 6y agoThis other source claims 16 GW of renewable energy, mostly wind, is offline as compared to 30 GW of thermal sources (gas, coal, nuclear). That’s a very different claim from Politifact’s figure of 4 GW of wind offline. However Politifact frames it as 4 GW of wind experiencing problems (presumably meaning freezing problems and not just lack of wind). That seems like a spin of a different kind from the WSJ editorial. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... EDIT: even more bizarrely, a different fact check from Politifact relating to the Texas outages claims yet another loss figure for wind power of only 2 GW, disagreeing with their other fact check: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-falsely-blames-green-new-deal-wind-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-car...