> never involve wind maxing out in wintertime, because that's not how anything works. This is provably false by ERCOT's record-setting wind output of 17,541 MW

> never involve wind maxing out in wintertime, because that's not how anything works. This is provably false by ERCOT's record-setting wind output of 17,541 MW (83% capacity) on February 19, 2018 [0]. ERCOT only had 21,190 MW of wind capacity at that time. Now they have over 25,000 MW, yet wind was producing 3,500 MW (14%) last night, and now that it's warmer is all the way up to 6,629 MW (26% capacity). It's absolutely true that fossil sources failed when we needed them. It's equally true that wind failed us utterly. If we had no wind generation capacity but instead had 25000 MW more fossil fuel generation capacity, then we'd be in much better shape. Note carefully: I'm not suggesting this as a solution, as there are much better ideas like winterizing our existing capacity. I'm instead emphasizing that our summer capacity needs to be able to meet our needs in extreme cold, and we should either fix or get rid of capacity that can't do this. The biggest culprit by far being our current, un-winterized wind generation systems. [0] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Facts_8818.pdf http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Fa... (I cut off part of the quoted sentence because it made it seem like I was responding to the claim about how ERCOT does projections. As discussed above, I don't care about the projections because wind capacity failing us by design is an even bigger problem than it failing due to unforeseen circumstances.)