4 ms·

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 ru

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.

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.