Guest “fact checking the fact checkers” by David Middleton
Note to fact checking trolls: The featured image is a meme. Look up the word meme before you prattle on about the frozen wind turbine not being in Texas. Also, I have been referring to the freakishly cold weather, snow and ice of the past couple of weeks as Winter Storm Younger Dryas. It is my unofficial pet name for the the Texas weather from February 9-18, 2021. Fact checkers who say this storm name doesn’t exist will very likely be ridiculed.
Ever hear someone say, “Everything’s bigger in Texas“?
Well… The lamestream media lies about the recent Texas energy disaster have been Texas-sized.
This is just a small sample…
Fact check: Renewable energy is not to blame for the Texas energy crisis
Natural gas, the state’s dominant energy source, has provided drastically less energy than expected, according to experts and industry data.[…]
“Wind was operating almost as well as expected,” said Sam Newell, head of the electricity group at the Brattle Group, an energy consulting company that has advised Texas on its power grid.
“It’s an order of magnitude smaller” than problems with natural gas, coal and nuclear energy, he said.
[…]
NBC News
WINTER STORM 2021
No, frozen wind turbines aren’t the main culprit for Texas’ power outages
Lost wind power was expected to be a fraction of winter generation. All sources — from natural gas, to nuclear, to coal, to solar — have struggled to generate power during the storm that has left millions of Texans in the dark.[,,,]
Frozen wind turbines in Texas caused some conservative state politicians to declare Tuesday that the state was relying too much on renewable energy. But in reality, the wind power was expected to make up only a fraction of what the state had planned for during the winter.
[…]
Texas Tribune
No, Wind Farms Aren’t the Main Cause of the Texas Blackouts
The state’s widespread electricity failure was largely caused by freezing natural gas pipelines. That didn’t stop advocates for fossil fuels from trying to shift blame.[…]
However, wind power was not chiefly to blame for the Texas blackouts. The main problem was frigid temperatures that stalled natural gas production, which is responsible for the majority of Texas’ power supply. Wind makes up just a fraction — 7 percent or so, by some estimates — of the state’s overall mix of power generation this time of year.
[…]
New York Times
- “Wind was operating almost as well as expected”
- [W]ind power was expected to make up only a fraction of what the state had planned for during the winter.
- Wind makes up just a fraction — 7 percent or so, by some estimates — of the state’s overall mix of power generation this time of year.
The “fraction” link in the New York Times article leads to the Texas Tribune article I quoted. The “fraction” link in that article leads to another Texas Tribune article that says this:
Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts, was expected to come from various wind power sources across the state.
Texas Tribune
That’s just a bald-face lie… Or a very confused journalist.
ERCOT’s (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) wind output is actually fairly reliable in winter, particularly in February.
In February 2020, wind accounted for 26% of ERCOT electricity generation…
Wind has accounted for at least 20% of ERCOT’s February generation from 2016 to 2020.
| ERCOT % Feb Generation From Wind | |
| 2011 | 10% |
| 2012 | 11% |
| 2013 | 13% |
| 2014 | 10% |
| 2015 | 12% |
| 2016 | 20% |
| 2017 | 23% |
| 2018 | 25% |
| 2019 | 24% |
| 2020 | 26% |
| 2021 (Feb 1-8) | 30% |
| 2021 (Feb 9-18) | 8% |
In February 2021, prior to Winter Storm Younger Dryas, wind accounted for 30% of ERCOT’s electricity generation…
During Winter Storm Younger Dryas, wind dropped off to 8% of ERCOT electricity generation, while natural gas more than doubled as a percentage of ERCOT electricity generation…
While there were severe problems with thermal generating sources from February 15-18, wind was basically a no-show from February 9-18.
And this puts the lie to these fact checker claims:
- Fact check: Renewable energy is not to blame for the Texas energy crisis
- No, frozen wind turbines aren’t the main culprit for Texas’ power outages
- No, Wind Farms Aren’t the Main Cause of the Texas Blackouts
The truth…
- Renewable energy is why Texas has less natural gas and coal capacity than it would have had otherwise.
- Frozen wind turbines are why coal-fired power plants were operating at >90% of capacity from February 9-14 and natural gas power plants were operating at 70% to more than 80% of capacity from February 11-14.
- Wind farms aren’t the main cause of the Texas blackouts because most of them had already been knocked offline by freezing temperatures and ice… Nearly a week before the blackouts! Where’s my Sam Kinison video?
The desperation on the part of the lamestream media to proactively defend wind power during this fiasco would be funny, if not for the fact that this lie quickly gained so much traction, that I have even repeated it. Wind power did not perform better than expected in any rational sense of the phrase.
That said, wind power has generally been very successful in Texas… The problem is that ERCOT’s plan for a total failure of wind power seems to have been hoping that natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants could successfully operate at about 90% of capacity until the wind power came back online.
“Hope ain’t a tactic.”
Mark Wahlberg as Mike Williams in Deepwater Horizon
Even with all of the system-wide failures, natural gas is the only reason that this energy disaster didn’t claim hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. Winter Storm Younger Dryas will probably surpass Hurricane Harvey as the most expensive natural disaster in Texas history and ERCOT was possibly within five minutes of it being possibly the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history when they began load-shedding.
Former Texas Public Utilities Commissioner Rebecca Klein laid out some questions that need to be asked and answered in this very thoughtful article:
1. Are we prepared to pay more for electricity and water to ensure higher levels of reliability? And if so, how much more? Greater reliability may mean a number of things, such as required weatherization of infrastructure assets; higher mandated margins of reserve generation than we have today; real incentives for customer conservation and/or smart appliances; better coordination among gas, electric and water utilities; making sure our gas supply is safe, adequate and accessible; or tweaking our wholesale power price caps, among many other things. Some of these activities come at a higher price than others. We need to evaluate the tradeoffs in a systematic way.
2. How can we be better prepared for “outlier” events, regardless of their probability? Would it make sense to require state-wide scenario planning that includes coordinated drills that test both our operational and communication capabilities across multiple entities?
3. How can all stakeholders, particularly ERCOT, the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the Office of Public Utility Council (but also utilities, etc.) provide more timely, transparent, and relevant information to consumers about how to prepare; what is happening and why; what to expect; and whom to call?
C3
Or we could go with AOC’s solution.
The infrastructure failures in Texas are quite literally what happens when you *don’t* pursue a Green New Deal.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 17, 2021
The breakdown for 16 February 2021:
| MWh | % | |
| Wind Generation | 73,395 | 6% |
| Solar Generation | 20,134 | 2% |
| Hydro Generation | 3,833 | 0% |
| Other Generation | 682 | 0% |
| Natural gas Generation | 759,708 | 65% |
| Coal Generation | 204,655 | 18% |
| Nuclear Generation | 98,394 | 8% |
| Total | 1,160,801 | 100% |
Fossil fuels accounted for 83% of our electricity generation on February 16. Fossil fuels + nuclear accounted for 92%. But AOC says more wind & solar would have saved the day…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
30,000 MW of wind at a cost of some $70 billion producing 650 MWs when it was desperately needed is a failure on the magnitude of the Maginot Line in World War 2.
But doesn’t “Green Energy” sound good?
And 10,000 MW of Nuclear costs ?
Of NG ?
Of Coal?
any one of which could have saved the day in Texas.
Here’s an occasion when a sudden drop in wind did lead to power cuts in Texas:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-utilities-ercot-wind-idUSN2749522920080228
I think the bigger point is this: Even accepting their logic and numbers, their argument boils down to “You have to be stupid to rely on wind power in extreme weather!”
It’s hardly an argument for adding more windpower. It IS an argument for more, and more reliable, fossil and nuclear power, enough so you could do without wind even in the worst conditions.
But in that case, why bother with wind at all?
“How can Texas prevent another power failure?” by Tom Tribone | February 25, 2021 | https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/how-can-texas-prevent-another-power-failure
* * *
“Texas adopted one of the purest free markets for electricity about 20 years ago. But something happened in the interim. Renewable energy came to the fore. …
“Renewable energy (wind, solar, hydroelectricity) all ultimately come from sunlight, which is free. So, renewable marginal cost is zero. If marginal cost is zero and it equals marginal revenue, then things break down. This is what we actually see in real markets where renewable energy is big enough to be the marginal producer of power.
“Wholesale prices for electricity can be close to zero — sometimes below zero due to subsidies. At that point, companies no longer have a strong price incentive to invest in new capacity. They underinvest in the system.
“When you add in the intermittency factor of renewables and the severe extremes that Mother Nature sometimes hits us with, there is, in some sense, almost no amount of storage that would be enough if renewables dominated. Sometimes, you just need conventional sources.
“… Brazil has introduced enough conventional electricity plants to ensure that doesn’t happen again. It did that by establishing structures to compensate for the market failure of the zero marginal cost issue that occurs whenever a large proportion of renewables has been built up. We do the same thing in many parts of the United States. The technical term is a “capacity market.”
Nuclear. Nuclear. Nuclear.
If you are going to legislate against gas heat, gas cooking, gas automobiles, you need a lot more electricity.
The only non fossil fuel reliable power system is nuclear.
The country needs to install about a terrawatt of nuclear power.
Solar is a joke. Wind mills are an abomination. Only nuclear can work.
The US has about ~500 GW of generating capacity right now. ~100 GW is nuclear. Getting us to 80% nuclear which would be a CO2 free source of base load would require another 300 GW plus most of the existing nuclear is old and needs to be replaced.
Now add new uses. There are something like 250 million cars and light trucks. They average 15,000 mi/yr. Figure 3mi/KWh that is 5,000 KWh/car or about 100 GW of capacity for cars.
Already we are past 500 GW. But, the warmunists want all electric houses and buildings, and manufacturing.
As an order of magnitude,1 Terrawatt is anywhere from 310 GW to 3.1 TW.
If we are serious, we can do it. And do it in good time.
But I think the warmunists are not serious and will try to block it.
BTW. Stow it about radioactive waste. Uranium Oxide fueled light water cooled and moderated reactors can only burn about 5% of the energy in a fuel rod. The rods can be reprocessed and other types of reactors can burn the reprocessed fissile metals (Uranium, Plutonium, ect.). We need several different types of reactors.
Hi Walter,
Adding a capacity market “works”, but is a kluge approach to reliability. It’s a back-door approach that allows suppliers of politically-favored intermittent energy to participate in the market. In essence, this allows unreliable energy providers to supplant more reliable sources, while passing on the cost of grid stability to rate payers in the form of capacity payments to sources that are only dispatched when the intermittent energy sources fail to materialize. A much better approach would be to require that all market participants be required to offer in their supply on a level playing field, including the requirement to pay a make-whole penalty for non-performance.
Beware of Paul Krugman: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/krugman-misses-on-the-texas-blackout/
Krugman is a 💩
I previously contributed substantively on ERCOT. No need to repeat.
But will offer a closely related observation. The harder AOC and the MSM try to spin this ERCOT disaster as NOT wind related, the more you KNOW it was, independent of the grid facts. Inverse Alinsky, Fake News, and all that.
Mike Rowe facebook post:
Off the Wall
Mike – The Way I Heard It has to be the best title of any book, ever. It’s refreshing to hear someone with a large platform say, “I could be wrong.” Your chapter on the difference between sounding certain and being correct – “Off by Roughly Two Trillion” – should be required reading by everyone at CNN and FOX. Kudos! Also love the epigram from Travis McGee – “Be wary of all earnestness.” Indeed!
Judy Reinhardt
Thanks Judy. If you liked that one, you might also enjoy this Twitter feed I recently discovered. It’s called COVID One Year Ago, and if it weren’t so horrifying, it would be hysterical. https://bit.ly/2NXVRPO
Check out these quotes and headlines from last February. They’re notable, not because they’re so wrong and so recent, but because they’re so certain.
February 5, 2020, Los Angeles Times: “How to prevent coronavirus: Wash your hands and ditch the mask.” https://lat.ms/3aSy7p7
February 5, 2020, USA Today: “US surgeon general: Americans should be more concerned about the flu than coronavirus.” https://bit.ly/3uxGtKQ
February 6, 2020, Bloomberg News: “How to Avoid Coronavirus on Flights: Forget Masks, Says Top Airline Doctor” https://bloom.bg/3qWtsIC
February 9, 2020, New York City Health commissioner Dave Chokski: “Today our city is celebrating the LunarNewYear parade in Chinatown, a beautiful cultural tradition with a rich history in our city. I want to remind everyone to enjoy the parade and not change any plans due to misinformation spreading about coronavirus.” https://bit.ly/3suUVSa
February 17, 2020, USA Today: “[Dr. Anthony] Fauci doesn’t want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is ‘just minuscule.’ But he does want them to take precautions against the ‘influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave.’” https://bit.ly/3r8aIpL
February 18, 2020, California Healthline: “In the Alhambra Unified School District, where about half of the students identify as Asian, administrators discourage the use of face masks and try to explain to families that they don’t protect from disease, said Toby Gilbert, a spokesperson for the district. That is sound scientific advice.” https://bit.ly/2O2dI88
February 20, 2020, KERA, the north Texas NPR affiliate: “Experts Say Coronavirus Poses A Low Risk To The U.S. — So Why Are We So Afraid?” http://bit.ly/3bIYHAk
On February 22, 2020, ABC News reported, “Health experts warn life-saving coronavirus vaccine still years away.” https://bit.ly/3qX2VL1
Is it unreasonable for a casual observer to read through this hot mess and conclude that every one of these journalists, politicians, and scientists seemed more interested in fighting xenophobia than they were in protecting Americans from a potentially deadly virus? Is it unreasonable to wonder how many more Americans would have died as a result of these comments, had the virus turned out to be even deadlier than it is?
Some will argue, “But Mike, that isn’t fair. These people were just following the science. Science evolves, and when it does, reasonable people change their beliefs when new information is brought to light.”
I couldn’t agree more. But “following the science” wherever it may lead demands a measure of modesty. A willingness to be completely and totally wrong. So I would ask these defenders of the mistaken, “Where is their humility? Where are their apologies? Where is their embarrassment? Why do so many people in the public eye work so hard to sound so certain every time they hold forth?”
Obviously, the problem is not limited to COVID. Consider the claims driving the climate debate, and the certainty of those making them. I just watched John Kerry tell CBS, “The scientists told us three years ago we had 12 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crisis. We are now three years gone, so we have nine years left.” He said a great deal more as well, and he spoke as he always does, with absolute conviction and deep certainty. http://bit.ly/2NxcL8g
So, John Kerry is certain, but is he right? Many believe he is not. Others believe he’s not only mistaken, but that he’s deliberately trying to mislead and frighten Americans for all sorts of political reasons. Are these people unreasonable for being skeptical? Are they conspiracy nuts? Are they “climate change deniers?” Or are they Americans who have grown wary of doomsayers who sound no less certain than Al Gore and so many others who have publicly attached a ticking clock to their endless predictions of certain doom?
2008: Al Gore Predicts that Earth’s “Ice Caps” Will Melt away
by 2014. https://bit.ly/3uAv11c
2007: Ten Years Left to Avert Catastrophe! https://bit.ly/3aRcLZt
2001: “Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020!” https://bit.ly/3korPAQ
2000: “Children Aren’t Going to Know What Snow Is in Five Years.” http://bit.ly/3aW8N1Q
1987: “Within 15 years, the earth will be warmer
than it has been in the past 100,000 years.” https://bit.ly/3kpZqdN
1970: Earth Day Prof. Predicts A Super Ice Age Will Engulf The World. https://bit.ly/3aRdwSj
1967: “Dire Famine by 1975.” https://bit.ly/3uv5FS5
Again, these predictions are notable not because they were all so wrong, or delivered by experts. There notable because they were all so unapologetically certain. And yet, we still fall for it, over and over, year after year. I know a lot of reasonably intelligent people who now believe the world will end in nine years if we don’t abandon fossil fuels immediately. It’s not just that they believe it – they know it. They know it to the point where they’ll shout down all those who disagree, or dismiss them as deniers, or demand they be forbidden from speaking.
I’m not pointing any of this out to pick a fight with hardcocre environmentalists. I’m just saying that nowadays, the harder people work to sound credible, the less persuasive they appear. But who knows? Maybe John Kerry is right? Maybe there is a “climate crisis,” and maybe it’s all over in nine years. Personally, I think we’re going to make it to 2030 and beyond, but I don’t have a crystal ball, and I’ve been wrong before. On the other hand, I don’t need a crystal ball to see the crisis that is actually upon us. I refer to the credibility crisis unfolding as we speak.
We don’t have to wait nine years to see what happens when our press, our leaders, and our scientific community lose the faith and trust of the American people. All we have to do is look around for those in the public eye who have the trust of those on both sides of the aisle. It’s a pretty short list, and while I don’t imagine myself to be on it, it is why I called my book “The Way I Heard It,” and not “The Way It Was.” It’s also probably why W.B. Yeats, a far better writer than I, wrote this, at the end of his poem, The Second Coming. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.”
Of course, and to your point, Judy, Travis McGee said it even better, which is why his words appear in the front of my book.
“Be wary of all earnestness.”
Indeed.
Mr. Istvan, the failure was due to natural gas, not wind.
.
Also, when you use the term “Fake News” you lose any credibility.
There were system-wide failures from Feb 15-18. Wind totally failed from Feb 8-19. This literally isn’t rocket science.
WRONG. Brainless parrot
WIND was basically MIA. AWOL.. GONE
GAS had to cover for wind and for the energy need due to extreme cold
increased output by 450% then, because the ERCO managers had cow-towed to the greenie ACDS agenda, gas started having issues with supply and pumping compression.
This debacle is place TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY at the feet of the anti-CO2 agenda.
It is great that you are advocating to a RETURN TO COAL as a major proportion of the grid supply, though.
You keep repeating that claim as if you actually believe it.
You have it back to front. Wind underperforms as expected, and only rarely approaches the nameplate capacity.
Excellent article, David. I plan on quoting Rebecca Klein in a letter I am preparing for State Representative Jeff Leach this weekend to provide some constituent feedback concerning this serious generation capacity issue. This is an issue that, with considerable and vigorous reflection and debate, the Texas Legislature MUST try to address while in session. If something doesn’t get resolved by early May, I plan on sending Gov. Abbott a note demanding that he put the Legislature into special session until they do get something done. I don’t want to see Texans suffering or freezing to death again in my lifetime before the next Ice Age cometh (only kidding about the Ice Age).
I have the feeling that Texas (and the rest of the country) needs several more severe doses of “Freeze/fry in the dark” before there’s a widespread re-think of Green Renewables. Various forms of pain pedagogy may be the only way to free the mind of Green Propaganda. Very unfortunate. And remember, Texas taxpayers have shelled out $80 B in tax subsidies alone for Green Renewables as well. At some point the price tag is untenable when the “disaster costs” are factored in.
“Wind was operating almost as well as expected”
They are right, and you are wrong. Anyone who expected wind and solar to be available during an extreme weather event is an idiot.
All houses should have at least two independent sources of energy for heating and cooking. Lights aren’t too bad, because of led technology and batteries, but heating and cooking can’t be all electric, you need gas or propane backup.
The problem with your comment is that up to 2 weeks ago all we ever heard is how reliable and useful renewable energy is
Griff feels it’s his primary calling
And as Dave points out with graphs wind has provided far more than the 6-7% claimed by your people for February through the years.
But you are right
Unreliable crap is unreliable crap and anyone suggesting spending one more penny on it before the real power assets are hardened should be chased out of public life.
I agree with your observation that wind and solar aren’t usually available during an extreme weather event and that houses should have two independent sources of energy for heating and cooking. Here’s the problem. In states like New York who have already started implementing their version of the green new deal gas and propane backup is going to be outlawed. It cannot end well because extreme weather is never going to go away.
Texas should trademark “You can’t fix stupid” because what happened to Texas in 2011 proves Texas is pretty stupid.
Texas should have learned that we had enough wind in the ERCOT grid back then.
(Snipped)
(You need to stop with the personal attacks) SUNMOD
Why do you feel the need to hate all things Texan? Is your ex a Texan or something?
The real stupidity for Texas and elsewhere is spending money on wind and solar
Texas has proven to the world that the “free market” in energy supply doesn’t provide reliability. It may provide cheap energy, but it trades low price for poor performance.
ERCOT is anything but a free market.
To a communist, there’s pure communism and everything else is a form of capitalism.
WRONG, the free market has been destroyed by people with ACDS
Wind and solar would never be more than a tiny niche in a free market.
Great to see you advocating a RETURN TO COAL AS A MAJOR SUPPLIER, though
The standard claim of a progressive. No matter how regulated a market is, it’s always the fault of the free market when it fails.
You can reliably expect poor performance from wind and solar
Homeowner property insurance rates will be going through the roof in Texas in the next few years because of the losses from this “event.”
..
What is sad is that the SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) predicted this event. Maybe Texans will now pay attention to the people that can predict the weather.
Utter horst schist.
This was NOAA’s February outlook 9 days before 20-40 F below normal weather kicked in…
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/february-2021-outlook-winter%E2%80%99s-chill-forecast-across-central-and-western
From Feb 8-18, Texas would have been the darkest shade of blue on NOAA’s color palette.
What they should be paying attention is ANYTHING BUT those with ACDS .
Great that you are advocating a RETURN TO COAL as a major percentage of Texas supply, though.
Who are these people who can predict weather decades out?
What losses are you whining about?
They did. They requested a waiver from the Feds to kick up reliable Gas and Coal production. The waiver was denied (until prices were 1500/MW-hr.)
And again the blue states have to bail out the red states with boatloads of money because the red states never learn.
Source?
He heard it on the BBC.
That’s funny, considering the latest COVID relief bill contains billions in handouts for blue states.
CA, NY, and IL will be getting HUGE bailouts from the Feds in the latest Dem plan as they have completely destroyed their economies.
The best thing for the United States of America would be for Texas to succeed. That way, the rest of us wouldn’t have to send our money to bail out the people of Texas every time the floods, hurricanes, droughts, cold snaps and other weather events decimate their infrastructure.
Learn how to spell.
WOW, your derangement is getting deeper and deeper by the day
Its quite HILARIOUS to watch you sinking into the fetid ooze of your mindless comments.
🙂
Progressives hate, it’s what they do.
Texas has already succeeded.
Do you really believe that natural disasters never hit blue states? Or are you just playing stupid to please your pay masters?
You first should try and get an education
Trust me, a lot of Red States want to secede. The Feds will never let that happen as all of the Real GDP is done in the Red States.
The problems in Texas were a combination of lower than normal temperatures combined with high humidity. The result was an ice storm. Note: ice storms do not plague wind turbines in cold climate areas.
I am not sure I should have to pay more for reliable power. When I lived in colder climes, I paid less for electricity (100% coal-fired) even though they had to deal with weather like this regularly. If they can do it, why can’t the power plants in Texas? Also, this was high demand for the time of year but well below peak summer demand, so we should have had plenty of capacity to handle this if the baseload plants stayed up and there was sufficient natural gas storage to cover a week of high demand. We need several more Katy Hub-sized gas depots, which should be easy to find in Texas. We also need guaranteed natural gas delivery contracts so the producers have a financial incentive to add a little heat tracing to their equipment. The high pressure gas lines can’t freeze unless we get down to Neptune temperatures, but the wellheads and collection lines can begin to form hydrates below 40°F.
TEXAS
Texas does not import electricity, because it has minor connections to nearby grids.
Texas prides itself going it alone. Don’t mess with Texas.
The New York Times, February 20, 2021, displayed a very revealing and useful graph, based on Energy Information Administration, EIA, data, of Texas electricity production, by source, a few days before, and a few days after, the major winter snow storm, which started early evening, February 14, 2021. You can google it, but it is behind a paywall. The graph showed:
GAS
Gas plant output was about 43,000 MW. The output decreased to about 29,000 MW about one day later, a 33% reduction (largely due to piping freeze-ups), then output went up and down, at an average of about 29,000 MW, to quickly/seamlessly counteract the output changes of other sources, especially of wind and solar.
COAL
Coal plant output was about 11,000 MW. The output decreased to about 8,000 MW about one day later, a 27% reduction (largely due to piping freeze-ups), then the output was about 7,000 to 8,000 MW
WIND
Wind plant output was about 9,000 MW, from an installed capacity of 30,904 MW (about 15,000 wind turbines); the capacity factor was 9000/30904 = 0.29. The output decreased to about 1,000 MW about one day later, an 89% reduction (largely due to freeze ups of 12,000 MW of capacity (per ERCOT, the grid operator), i.e., about 12000/30904 x 15000 = 5,825 wind turbines, or 5825/15000 = 39% of all wind turbines. Then output increased to about 4,000 MW for about a day, then decreased to about 1,000 MW, etc., due to wind-velocity variations, i.e., bouncing around at a low level, due to a lack of wind. The relatively few wind turbines on the Texas Gulf Coast were unaffected by the snow storm, and performed as usual.
https://windexchange.energy.gov/states/tx#capacity
NOTE: Wind turbines, whether producing or not, require electricity for self-use, i.e., each of those frozen wind turbines and all operating wind turbines would demand 30 to 60 kW from the grid, 24/7, for self-use, where ever the electricity would be available. See explanation in this URL
https://windfarmrealities.org/?p=1594
NUCLEAR
Nuclear plant output was about 4,000 MW. The output became about 3,000 MW about one day later (largely due to piping freeze-ups), a 25% reduction
SOLAR
Solar plant output was near zero on the early evening of February 14, 2021. The output increased to 3,000 MW, from an installed capacity of about 13,000 MW during the following midday. On a sunny day, peak midday production from 13,000 MW of panels is about 13000 x 0.8 = 10,400 MW, but peak production was only 3,000 MW, i.e., 6,000 MW/ 0.8 = 7,500 MW of panels, or 7500/13000 = 58% of all panels, were covered with snow. Then solar output went to near-zero again, starting late afternoon/early evening, etc. Solar is almost never there when it is needed.
NOTE: In New England, which is much smaller than Texas, a wide-spread snow storm would cover almost all panels, at least for a few days, longer if icing would occur.
None of the above had anything to do with the Texas distribution and transmission grids.
This had to do with an unusual freeze-up, which:
1) Temporarily, a few days, reduced output of traditional sources.
2) Covered 39% of wind turbines with snow and ice.
3) Covered 58% of solar panels in many areas
Texas should be:
1) Investing in insulation to protect critical power plant and grid systems
2) Retrofitting wind turbines with freeze protection systems, as do New England and northern Europe, a multi-year effort.
Winterizing some of our natural gas generation, all of our best coal-fired power plants and the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station would be a good idea, as would increasing our quick access to natural gas storage. This would be a sensible insurance policy.
Winterizing non-dispatchable wind doesn’t seem like a good plan to deal with once-in-a-generation winter weather. Wind works well in Texas because it’s cheap.
“Wind works well in Texas because it’s cheap”
Depends on how often and hard the wind blows, and subsidies. When it doesn’t, it is very expensive. Unless I am wrong, the initial cost per mw is much higher for wind than natural gas. And it takes a whole gaggle of mills per single gas plant. Looking downrange, it might be a toss up. But in the eyes of people who need steady work for a living, they’d probably think gas is the “cheaper” way to go.
I thought Warren Buffet had explained wind only makes sense because of the subsidies and tax breaks.
When the wind blows, other sources of power are forced to either dump their electricity at below cost, or to throttle back production.
The problem with throttling back production is that there is very little, if any, reduction in operating costs.
Wind only looks cheap because it is able to force most of it’s costs onto others.
It’s only cheap because it doesn’t have to pay for back up and most of the costs are forced onto fossil fuel plants.
And it will get less cheap when battery storage is attempted.
“Wind works well in Texas, because it’s cheap”.
When the wind blows, other sources of power are forced to vary their outputs to counteract the variations of wind (and solar), 24/7/365.
This mode of operation causes increases in: 1) wear-and-tear, and 2) Btu/kWh, and 3) CO2/kWh, and 4) c/kWh, and 5) less kWh is being sold, plus 6) requires grid augmentation/expansion, of which costs are shifted to ratepayers and taxpayers, and added to government debts, plus 7) traditional generating plants are forced to act as back-up/babysitters for wind (and solar), 24/7/365.
Wind only looks cheap because it is able to force most of its costs onto others.
The turnkey cost of a wind plant/MW is greater than for natural gas, and the capacity factor of wind plants is much less than gas plants.
People, who need steady work, and steady electricity, for a living, probably think gas is the overall “cheaper” way to go.
NOTE: Wind turbines, whether producing or not, require electricity for self-use, i.e., each of those frozen wind turbines and all operating wind turbines would demand 30 to 60 kW from the grid, 24/7, for self-use, where ever the electricity would be available. See explanation in this URL
https://windfarmrealities.org/?p=1594
NOTE: Warren Edward Buffett explains it well:
For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit, if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without tax credit.
Texas’ biggest disappointment =
The first problem was that ERCOT only had 67GW of dispatchable capacity available to meet demand which they estimated could have been 75GW if they had been able to supply it. Too much capacity was tied up in winter turnarounds. But there is too little capacity even for peak summer availability thanks to closures in a highly competitive market.
Secondly there is little doubt that had ERCOT grasped the nettle and started imposing rotating power cuts when the supply margin was cut by falling wind generation in the hours after the demand peak on the 14th we would not have seen the catastrophic frequency incident at 1:52 a.m. which I have seen reported as taking out 10 plants at once. Their loss was about grid mismanagement, not lack of winterisation or gas supply.
Thirdly, a direct consequence of the major trip was extra blackouts that directly affected gas and water pipeline pressures, in turn forcing more plants off line sporadically, and making it hard to get tripped plants restarted. Again, not winterisation.
That is not so say that plants did not have problems that could have been avoided with better weather protection at the plant. They did, but many of the trips were for other causes that plant winterisation would not have solved. Reverting to gas compressors on main pipelines would have dealt with the blackout risk. In the case of wind the insurmountable problem was falling wind speeds that no amount of de-icing would solve.
It will take a while to disentangle what happened with gas supply in detail, but we do know that a large volume of production was shut in as a precaution, that LNG plants returned supply to the market, and that there was a massive 156bcf storage drawdown of processed dry gas in the South Central US in the week of 12-19th. The Texas Railroad Commission issued directives on how gas supply should be used, including prioritising power plants and homes. Prices went crazy. It is unwise to jump to conclusions before we have quantified the problems to be solved.
“Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts, was expected to come from various wind power sources across the state.”
Yes I saw that gem quoted early on when it was also clear wind was supplying around 25% of power over the year and so much for the law of averages. Right there writ large was the problem with unreliables irrespective of extreme weather events but there’s no reasoning with these climate changers. When fossil fuels didn’t manage to take up the slack it’s clearly down to them and ipso facto they have to be got rid of.
That’s watermelon logic for you. Only they know what the averages are supposed to be anytime everywhere. Just like the global temperature and they’ve got the computer models to prove it to themselves. Our problem is we think they should be able to show how they came up with all their averages when it’s secret watermelon business. No further correspondence will be entered into and we just have to be patient and wait for the train wreck as the lights continue to go out and politicians finally react to the bleeding obvious.
Oh come on! Even if it has been all natural gas and coal, we know that the plant would have struggled with demand and more importantly the gas plant would have frozen up. As Texas was warned it would do as far back as 2011.
Prove to me a all fossil fuel grid would NOT have failed!
Because gas produced electricity INCREASED significantly.
Gas and Coal plants frequently run in cold climates reliably. If you don’t spend all your investment money on windmills and subsidies to get tax credits for $$ Billionaires $$ you have money to invest in improvements to reliability and infrastructure.
Gas and Coal run economically at 50% of maximum capacity, so that when the rare situation occurs they can run at much higher capacity to meet the demands of the customers, who PAY for the system.
Coal can be stockpiled so when excessive demand occurs for several days to over a week, it can sustain it’s output by fuel on-site.
We don’t have to have an all fossil fuel grid. More baseline nuclear would help as we phase out unreliable electricity production. Double the nuclear capacity, double the coal fired capacity, and provide better natural gas infrastructure to deliver gas to both homes and power generation facilities, and this is a non-event. That is what should have happened the past decade.
In other news – the green transport of the future:
Step on it! Russian diplomats forced to push trolley to depart from North Korea (VIDEO) — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union
The age old question: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who will guard the guardians?
Leftist “Fact Checkers” no longer check the facts, they’ve just become very dangerous propagandist who cancel/censor: ideas, empirical evidence, books, programs, networks, epistemologies, opinions, beliefs, philosophies, institutions and individuals which disagree with Leftists’ twisted and irrational NEWTHINK…
ERCOT made mistakes. They failed to adequately harden/winterize conventional power AND relied too heavily on wind and solar power—both things can be true at once.
it’s also true that wind and solar are terrible forms of energy to feed a grid because they’re wildly: expensive, unreliable, inefficient, intermittent, prone to massive power output fluctuation, too diffuse, and have laughable energy densities, require 100% immediate backup because of their endemic failures and tend to fail when needed most.
All objective data available from countries that have already tried and failed to run their grids on wind and solar show they are insane ways to run a grid. Texas’ blackouts again prove they’re extremely dangerous and led to many deaths from exposure.
All objective data show conclusively that fossil fuels are the best ways to produce dependable power 24/7/365 and should be augmented with hydroelectric and next generation nuclear power. Honest people and informed people know this.
Even informed Leftists (both in the public and private sectors) know wind and solar suck, but there are $trillions in taxpayer funds that can be wasted on wind/solar subsidies and reciprocal political donations, so Leftist hacks push the false narrative that wind/solar will save the planet from Warmageddon..
We live in strange, illogical and corrupt times.
Mind you they’re getting worried by events like Texas and trying to put the best spin on things-
Amazing answers to the world’s biggest energy question (msn.com)
Run through that lot and you can quickly discount hydro as we’ve plucked the low hanging fruit already with that. Which mainly leaves batteries and as physicist Mark Mills calculated and explained start digging furiosly right now to offer storage for a grid full of unreliables. Add in electrifying transport at the same time and it’s utter fantasy and cannot happen.
So that just leaves a motley bunch of brainfart thought bubbles to blow some more taxpayer dollars on. In the absence of nukes there’s only one way unreliables are headed now while those entrusted with keeping the lights on have to struggle with technical and economic reality (sorry new chums but we’re already full up to hyar with rooftop solar dumping)-
New rules to come for solar households (msn.com)
But to agree to nukes is to fess up they got it wrong with solar and wind and facing the obvious question what else did they get wrong? So the die is cast and they have to become more hyperbolic and irrational with every grid failure now. As they desperately try to disprove a fundamental axiom of engineering and economics that you can make a reliable system from unreliable componentry. Like doomed lemmings to the cliff now.
Lots of talk here about what should be done to prevent a repeat. Just a reminder : the lunatics want gas, coal and nuclear gone as soon as possible.
Nothing like a crime wave to encourage support for Law and Order.
Nothing like blackouts to encourage support for reliable electricity production.
A Liberal is just a Conservative that hasn’t be mugged….yet.
As I told earlier. Windmills give power when you don’t need it. When you need power, it has to be nuclear, coal, natural/biogas or biomass.
Almost doesn’t do you much good when you are sitting in a cold freezing home eating dry goods for weeks. Reliability is the word you want to hear.
That’s the pea and thimble trick with solar and wind being able to dump on the grid in a classic case of driving out competing investment in deliverable power-
Renewables boom prompts calls to start planning for Yallourn coal closure, community groups say – ABC News
Along with direct action stopping any expansion or conversion to lessen their dreaded plant food-
Power station scraps controversial plan to become Europe’s biggest gas-fired plant (msn.com)
Meanwhile they try and put off the ugly day of reckoning for their pet batteries-
Reuse plan to eke out more life from ‘spent’ EV batteries – Stockhead
It’s all a terrible boondoggle but the sooner they break our grids the sooner they get tarred and feathered politically.