4 ms·
Page 16 is quite clear: the vast majority of missing generation capacity was natural gas. The lost wind capacity was comparable to lost coal capacity. Whether t
by dpierce9 5y ago
Page 16 is quite clear: the vast majority of missing generation capacity was natural gas. The lost wind capacity was comparable to lost coal capacity. Whether the cause is categorized as equipment failure, weather, or fuel availability, the most affected generation category was natural gas.
- kodah 5y agoThe point of my comment was that the supply chain issue was significant, sorenbs is saying winterization is the exclusive cause. The ERCOT report doesn't support what they had to say. Winterization accounts for ~12-15 GW while supply chain is responsible for ~5-8 GW. (Page 23-25) The comment I originally responded to said: > Isn't it a bit naive to assume the planers of these expansions didn't at one point or another had that exact thought themselves? The answer is no, it is not naive to assume that they didn't think about these things, because even in a state like Texas where energy is king it was not fully thought out. Edit: Also to be clear, I'm not ragging on Texas. I love the people of Texas and I miss being there, but I think the state has some important lessons to pay attention to and learn from.
- dpierce9 5y agoWhat isn’t fully thought out? The categories in the report are weather related, equipment failure, and fuel supply issues. These are considered in the report mutually exclusive. But they aren’t, it is just a useful categorization. You are simply wrong to think that they don’t consider intermittent resources as part of their planning. Wind stops blowing all the time, this is known. The fact that many natural gas generators iced over, fuel was too expensive, fuel wasn’t available, or they couldn’t maintain their equipment when needed was the principal source of lost capacity.