3 ms·

the 42 to 8 statistic is from a government organization. generation is not equal to consumption because texas lacks batteries to store excess energy. the poli

the 42 to 8 statistic is from a government organization. generation is not equal to consumption because texas lacks batteries to store excess energy. the politifact article is correct that the failure is on carbon based plants, and its on plants that are not used to cold weather for obvious reasons. but its also silly because the implication is that you just need more windmills. which is obviously silly because texas has one of the highest wind energy %s in the US. but carbon based plants are running 3 times as hot as theyre used to and plants are shutting down because they dont have fuel. So you obviously need carbon fuel to help out. the carbon plants are stepping up as much as they can but its not enough. thats it. no huge conspiracy theory. but lots of people like to make fun of the other side. they need more power, and you cant magically sprout up wind turbines

wffurr 6y ago
I don’t think that’s the implication at all. The implication is that some people are blaming wind generation for this shortage because of a few iced over turbines. When the cause is a system-wide failure to prepare for cold weather conditions. I don’t know how to reconcile your claim of “wind power cratered” with plenty of other sources claiming “wind power generation exceeded expectations.” It makes me suspect you are not arguing in good faith.
- arkis22 6y ago
  sorry what? my point is that it is a system wide failure. but the wind power dropped to 8% of power generated. carbon power obviously has to make up the difference and there are plants shutting down because they dont have fuel. all wind power has to do to exceed expectations is to lose 50% as opposed to the expected 60%. (random numbers) its easier to pump gas than it is to construct a wind turbine? the politifact article is blaming carbon plants, and I said that's true, but you need to understand the context. theyre blaming carbon plants because theyre the only source of power you can ramp up quickly without the wind complying
  - wffurr 6y ago
    Weird way to make your point. At least you are calling them “wind turbines” instead of “windmills” now.
  - wffurr 6y ago
    The politifact article is responding to nonsense like this blaming wind turbines for the shutdown: https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1361868404534112257 https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1361868404534112257 Note that's the governor of Texas in that clip, not some internet armchair grid operator.
mehlmao 6y ago
I think the 42 to 8 statistic is measuring a different metric. My understanding is that natural gas, coal, and other fossil fuel-based electric sources only run when it is profitable to do so. When the price of natural gas is low and the price of electricity is high, it makes sense to use natural gas to generate electricity. When it's the other way around, turning natural gas into electricity is a money-losing proposition. By contrast, wind and solar power have no input cost. So long as there is wind or sunlight, renewable power is being provided to the grid. Last week, temperatures were higher and there was less demand for electricity. Prices were lower, so less fossil fuel energy was needed/wanted/generated. This week, the temperature drop greatly increased demand for energy, increasing prices with it. More fossil fuels are burned. While the amount of wind/solar power generated did not greatly chang, the total amount of electricity generated increased, reducing renewables' share.
- arkis22 6y ago
  I think I get what you're saying. the amount of energy required increased, and therefore the % of energy from natural resources decreased because carbon plants are running 3 times as hot? especially since you'd rather burn free renewable energy as opposed to a limited supply of gas. but isnt that the point? even if wind energy held up better than expected, theyre still not enough to cover the energy needs? texas needs energy that they dont have. and obviously the wind/solar output DID drop, and carbon plants have to make up for it
  - mehlmao 6y ago
    Yeah, Texas needs energy they don't have. They could have it if they were connected to any other power grid. But they purposefully built their grid to be incompatible with the US's other grids. There are still some interchanges, but those are inefficient (have to convert power from AC to DC and then back to AC at a different frequency) and running well over their capacity right now.

wffurr 6y ago

I don’t think that’s the implication at all. The implication is that some people are blaming wind generation for this shortage because of a few iced over turbines. When the cause is a system-wide failure to prepare for cold weather conditions. I don’t know how to reconcile your claim of “wind power cratered” with plenty of other sources claiming “wind power generation exceeded expectations.” It makes me suspect you are not arguing in good faith.

arkis22 6y ago
sorry what? my point is that it is a system wide failure. but the wind power dropped to 8% of power generated. carbon power obviously has to make up the difference and there are plants shutting down because they dont have fuel. all wind power has to do to exceed expectations is to lose 50% as opposed to the expected 60%. (random numbers) its easier to pump gas than it is to construct a wind turbine? the politifact article is blaming carbon plants, and I said that's true, but you need to understand the context. theyre blaming carbon plants because theyre the only source of power you can ramp up quickly without the wind complying
- wffurr 6y ago
  Weird way to make your point. At least you are calling them “wind turbines” instead of “windmills” now.
- wffurr 6y ago
  The politifact article is responding to nonsense like this blaming wind turbines for the shutdown: https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1361868404534112257 https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1361868404534112257 Note that's the governor of Texas in that clip, not some internet armchair grid operator.

mehlmao 6y ago

I think the 42 to 8 statistic is measuring a different metric. My understanding is that natural gas, coal, and other fossil fuel-based electric sources only run when it is profitable to do so. When the price of natural gas is low and the price of electricity is high, it makes sense to use natural gas to generate electricity. When it's the other way around, turning natural gas into electricity is a money-losing proposition. By contrast, wind and solar power have no input cost. So long as there is wind or sunlight, renewable power is being provided to the grid. Last week, temperatures were higher and there was less demand for electricity. Prices were lower, so less fossil fuel energy was needed/wanted/generated. This week, the temperature drop greatly increased demand for energy, increasing prices with it. More fossil fuels are burned. While the amount of wind/solar power generated did not greatly chang, the total amount of electricity generated increased, reducing renewables' share.

arkis22 6y ago
I think I get what you're saying. the amount of energy required increased, and therefore the % of energy from natural resources decreased because carbon plants are running 3 times as hot? especially since you'd rather burn free renewable energy as opposed to a limited supply of gas. but isnt that the point? even if wind energy held up better than expected, theyre still not enough to cover the energy needs? texas needs energy that they dont have. and obviously the wind/solar output DID drop, and carbon plants have to make up for it
- mehlmao 6y ago
  Yeah, Texas needs energy they don't have. They could have it if they were connected to any other power grid. But they purposefully built their grid to be incompatible with the US's other grids. There are still some interchanges, but those are inefficient (have to convert power from AC to DC and then back to AC at a different frequency) and running well over their capacity right now.