> The near outage this summer was more accurately described as wind being low enough that it almost wasn't able to fill the gap caused by the gas, coal, and nuc

> The near outage this summer was more accurately described as wind being low enough that it almost wasn't able to fill the gap caused by the gas, coal, and nuclear plants going offline. I can’t find any good source about your claim of thermal plants going offline in the September incident. ERCOT’s statements consistently blame the combination of high demand and low wind. The federal Department of Energy even issued an order authorizing Texas power plants to exceed normal emissions limits in such an emergency, which is inconsistent with your claim that they “go offline” in these conditions: https://www.ercot.com/about/legal/doe202c https://www.ercot.com/about/legal/doe202c > And, yes, renewables are becoming a big industry but it’s nowhere near as big as the fossil fuel industry and orders of magnitude less lavishly subsidized. I thought we were done accusing each other of being shills. I’ll just point out that there’s significantly more propaganda in favor of renewable energy than in favor of natural gas or nuclear. But this is Hacker News and I am assuming good faith of you rather than accusing you of parroting talking points that were fed to you by Chinese photovoltaic manufacturers or annoying Swedish teenagers. And I am simply asking the same courtesy from you. > Texas Republicans tried to ban wind and solar expansion because that party has been owned by the oil industry for decades I think there is a good faith reason for such a policy. And while I do live in Texas and usually vote for Republicans, I am asking you to engage with me in good faith instead of calling me a shill. Are you capable of that or is the idea that someone can disagree with you about energy policy in good faith beyond your comprehension? Because you seem to be using this idea as a thought-terminating cliche.