Something similar happened in South Australia in 2016.
One of the worst storms to hit South Australia in 50 years knocked out 22 high-voltage power pylons, plunging the state into darkness. The lines on those pylons carry electricity generated near Port Augusta to the rest of the state. [1]
The government of the day blamed renewable energy, even though the outage was caused by the loss of core transmission lines that are generation neutral. Australian news media, including press that is 70% owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox in the US, repeated the claims across the news cycle.
"Republicans failed to ensure that the Texas power grid could withstand a cold snap, so the party’s broadcast arm recycled lies about wind energy to deflect blame on to Democrats."
That is such an intellectually dishonest way to frame temperature ratings discussion of critical infrastructure. The people who oversee and maintain the grid operate independent of government and wouldn't let any partisan elected official touch grid infrastructure with a 10' stick.
The right is blaming wind the left is blaming natural gas, they both are wrong, both failed at similar rates.
Trying to frame this according to ideological narratives just comes off as sleazy.
> The people who oversee and maintain the grid operate independent of government and wouldn't let any partisan elected official touch grid infrastructure with a 10' stick.
ERCOT is overseen by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, which could have the power to mandate that power producers winterize if elected officials passed appropriate legislation (nothing particularly unusual from a legal perspective would be required).
Elected officials absolutely can be blamed for not taking steps to prevent this.
Blaming natural gas for this as a general energy source is as wrong as blaming wind - both are vulnerable but can be protected - but the idea that the state government had nothing to do with it is silly.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Monday called for the resignations of Public Utility Commission Chair DeAnn Walker and Electric Reliability Council of Texas CEO Bill Magness, criticizing them for a lack of preparation ahead of the deadly winter storm that led to massive power outages across the state for multiple days.
“Both the PUC Chair and the ERCOT CEO said they were prepared the day before the storm hit in full force, but obviously they were not,” Patrick said in a statement. His statements come after the officials testified for hours late last week in committee hearings as state lawmakers grilled them over the power grid failures.
>>“Both the PUC Chair and the ERCOT CEO said they were prepared the day before the storm hit in full force, but obviously they were not,” Patrick said in a statement.
The Lt Gov Patrick seems to have a valid point, if true...
Which is great- desperate propaganda is one of the stages of grief for a dying market.
Solar is already under-pricing them, they can no longer fight it with regulation manipulation alone.
Shareholders are already exiting them in droves, waiting for the final blow - the invention of some large scale storage.
Either that or supra-conducting pipelines, shifting energy globally to were its needed in location and time.
Blunt lies to the former middle-class, who by nostalgia associate that technology with there own lost status, wont save them, they may only prolong the inevitable.
Let Don Quixote ride one last charge against the giants..
One could reasonably argue that since wind and solar power wouldn't save their bacon in an extreme weather situation it could also be perceived as a mal-investment, HHOS. If investing in "green" energy can divert capital and attention from systems reliability and resiliency, ERCOT's got some splainin' to do...especially since the author (Mackey) asserts that wind and solar were not expected to produce in the winter, whereas Texas supposedly has about 30 GW of wind power capacity[1].
The article seems to be relying mostly on indignant protestations. In reality solar and wind must be coupled with storage in order to act as reliable baseload generation.
So although solar and wind (and hydro) can reduce combustion generation, it can't be relied on to offset these particular risks of excessive demand (from people freezing, y'know?) which resulted in costly exposure. As evidenced by the reduced capacity.
>Texas supposedly has about 30 GW of wind power capacity
>In reality solar and wind must be coupled with storage in order to act as reliable baseload generation.
The problem is there is no grid scale storage, and neither ERCOT nor any other organization I know of can will solar nor wind into production.
Please note organic fuels:
-provide parts for your computer, smart phone, router
-power your home, and office so you can use above
-keep you cool in the summer and warm in the winter
-transport you on the ground and in the air from A to B
-power the agricultural sector so you don't have to grow all your own food
Unlike you, there are a billion people+ on Earth who do not have access to cheap, and reliable energy.
Those aren't fuels - those are chemicals found in crude oil. You don't burn crude oil in power plants. Burning less coal or natural gas doesn't decrease access to plastics and other organic chemicals.
That there are starving people in africa is not a valid argument for Americans to over eat, likewise the lack of cheap reliable alternatives to fossil fuels in the third world is not a reason for the developed world to also keep burning fossil fuels.
>Those aren't fuels - those are chemicals found in crude oil.
Methane is an organic fuel. Coal is an organic fuel.
>You don't burn crude oil in power plants.
Diesel is how small island nations in the Carribean or Hawaii get their reliable electricity. Diesel is a heavier form of crude. In case you don't believe me here is a primer: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/diesel-fuel/.
>That there are starving people in africa is not a valid argument for Americans to over eat, likewise the lack of cheap reliable alternatives to fossil fuels in the third world is not a reason for the developed world to also keep burning fossil fuels.
>lack of cheap reliable alternatives to fossil fuels in the third world is not a reason for the developed world to also keep burning fossil fuels.
What exactly are you saying? You are depriving the poorest billion people of electricity because of your virtue signaling?? This is inhumane.
"Over eat" - who are you to judge what form of electricity use is moral?
This makes re-investment necessary. These rates are actually shrinking for fossils, meaning shareholders don't expect much return on investment from them. They are expensive to get, volatile to trade and as e-cars show, fast to replace when push comes to shove. So everyone is looking for the door- aka the big battery. The moment the light never goes out in some battery lab, it will be a full blown fire-sale.
Here is a graph of Texas's generation by source during that time and the surrounding time. It seems borderline dishonest to have an article about this topic not include this. The sharp dip in the middle on the image (the beginning of Feb 15th) is when my power went out. https://postimg.cc/FfG4XdDy
I saw/heard this same effect from politicians in the US Congress & Former President.
Politicians denigrating "wind mills" i.e. wind turbines. And exaggerating their fault in Texas' February 2021 power outages. Clearly the particular politicans are biased towards the fossil fuel lobbyists. I just really hate when they play politics with economic factors such as power generation.
Less polluting, Renewable Electricity/Power generation is a public good.
It should be prioritized over the private gains of fossil fuel executives/employees/lobbyists.
One of the worst storms to hit South Australia in 50 years knocked out 22 high-voltage power pylons, plunging the state into darkness. The lines on those pylons carry electricity generated near Port Augusta to the rest of the state. [1]
The government of the day blamed renewable energy, even though the outage was caused by the loss of core transmission lines that are generation neutral. Australian news media, including press that is 70% owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox in the US, repeated the claims across the news cycle.
- - -
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/29/south...