Data Shows Wind-Power Was Chief Culprit Of Texas Grid Collapse

With the worst of the Texas power crisis now behind us, the blame and fingerpointing begins, and while the jury is still out whose actions (or lack thereof) may have led to the deadly and widespread blackouts that shocked Texas this week, Cascend Strategy writes that “in case there was any doubt why the Texas grid collapsed, the data is clear”

  • Wind failed as “Ice storms knocked out nearly half the wind-power generating capacity of Texas on Sunday as a massive deep freeze across the state locked up wind turbine generators, creating an electricity generation crisis."
  • Natural gas made up the difference for a while
  • But then everything else followed down

Some more detail from Cascend which lays out the events of this week in sequence:

  • A massive cold snap drove demand for electricity well beyond normal levels
  • Wind power failed to deliver it’s expected power – almost 40% of expected power – in part due to lack of winterized wind turbines

  • Natural gas (as always) made up the difference…

  • but then suffered from lack of supply from non-winterized delivery

  • Coal and nuclear both underperformed, but not by much, due to non-winterized equipment
  • Solar underperformed for a few days but is back, although is far too intermittent to help without storage except during heat waves
  • And Texas’ grid couldn’t buy enough power from neighbors to make up the difference
  • Nor are power producers required to keep a reserve of power

The simple 5-step solution according to Cascend:

  • Winterize equipment
  • Require power reserve
  • Connect the Texas grid better
  • Add solar with storage (storage is key)
  • And add more natural gas

As some others have summarized the Texas disaster best…

It is sad and ironic that in a state known for its huge petroleum and natural gas resources, the lack of reliability of wind power has brought the state to its knees in a time of crisis, not unlike that which California experienced in 2020 during record heat where wind and solar power could not keep up with demand and was near collapse.

The folly of chasing renewable energy as a means of mitigating “climate change” is making itself abundantly clear today in Texas. When will politicians wake up and realize that renewable energy almost always equates to unreliable energy?

2 Points

Nope, according to CNN it was just because Republicans run Texas and they hate people

3 Points

CNN might want to look into wind farms and solar panels in Germany over the past couple of months then. :smiley:

3 Points

Wind Turbines did not cause the problem, PEOPLE caused the problem. Don’t care if it was the first or last to shut down. The fact that places much colder than TX like Wyoming or off the cost in the North Atlantic can run wind turbines in the winter tells me TX gambled and went all cheap ass on there turbines and payed for it.

People not planning for the worse case scenario is a failure.
People not listening to scientist when they tell you the climate is changing is a failure.
People insisting on being special and not connecting the state to the rest of the US power grid is a failure.
People in government prioritizing making money over doing what is right is a problem.

Only problem with Wind, Solar and Battery storage at both the house hold level as well as state and regional power generation level is: NOT ENOUGH OF IT IS BEING USED.

As for new media FUCK FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, SKY… All any of them are doing is pointing fingers, talking shit or creating an argument to argue about. None of them are educating the people on the facts, how the technology works, what are the options and possibilities. No one is providing the masses a positive way to help.

Next to religion 24HR new channels are the worse invention man kind has ever half ass created.

5 Points
1 point

I think I should be a new reporter. I can create more believable bullshit than that :slight_smile:

5 Points

Hey, it was all I had :download_1_:

3 Points

Really? CNN from 1980 to 2012 was a pretty reliable news source. Then there was FOX countering the core anti-Bush media, then the MSNBC wing of the DNC. So, of the two 24 hour media stations one was center-right, one was center-left, and the other was left since 2012. ABC, NBC, CBS are all left… hell, they paved the way for Rush Limbaugh in the late 80’s because there was no real alternative, and he was parody and making fun of the news then!

What’s your solution? Britain has the BBC (and V for Vendetta by Alan Moore… NOT a conservative… ripped apart nationalized media). Youtube was a place where decentralized voices could present their news, but they are being locked down. Facebook is being locked down as well.

Where do you think we should get news? Who should control the news we can access? Should CNN, MSNBC, FOX News be shut down? What would replace it? Should Dan Rather and Pete Jennings, given their formally incontestable gravitas prior to being caught faking documents and lying be allowed to sit upon the throne of ‘truth’ while Drudge, National Enquirer and Project Veritas are swept into the sidelines? (Different eras, but the facts have come out to support the news they reported).

Please enlighten me, I’m really no fan of the spectacle of 24 hour news sites either, but what would you do better?

1 point

Even local news stations are all owned by the same company.

I would suggest no 24hr news stations. There isnt that much news in a day. Anyone that watches these stations, for any amount of time in a day, is no friend of mine anyway, so doesnt really matter.

3 Points

Without battery storage, I find it hard to justify wind and solar power. Those two things make sense when you have one and the other, else there’s no reliable factor like the chart shows. With fossil fuels you do have that immediate response, but why do it all without a “free” resource?

3 Points

@Quaektem: I know I wasn’t asked, but imho the first step would be defining what is “news”? I personally think the news is actual events, things that have happened, laws that have been put in force, and such things. Ideas about laws should be communicated, but ideally not in a fear mongering way. News is not some human speaking to the TV network from their study in front of a web camera, and most certainly it is not someone’s Twitter feed, even if it is that of the POTUS. Likewise: personal opinions on YT, FB, comments on news sites…

Second step could be tagging a price for the information. All TV and internet content is free of charge if you are online, and in this beautiful capitalist world, all networks want to make money from commercials. Cant blame them for that!I say skip the commercials, and make the viewer pay for the content. In this way, people would think really good who they want to trust, they would probably consume less news, and would be less susceptible to being manipulated. That would deflate the power the media companies have over population.

And as @Flee said, there really isn’t that much news going on either way, let the people relax and enjoy their lives.

4 Points

Thank you tricpe.

Defining ‘what is news’ is almost impossible. Sure weather has an impact on all of us and we have the Weather Channel for that news (which I think we can agree is a necessary 24-hour news channel despite the amount of filler found on it). I do think you set forth a decent definition of ‘news’ so I will stick to that.

G. Gordon Liddy had a section of his radio show where he just read newspaper articles. He spiced it up with dome dry humor, but the focus was sharing news reports for a half hour a day. It was the closest thing I experienced in my life to the old movie news-reel and I suppose that is the closest thing to what you are proposing.

The problems I see are this. First, as uneventful as G.G. Liddy’s reports were, they were biased, because he chose the stories he told. I am fairly confident that the old-school news reels during the wars were also biased the same way. Second, entertainment sells. I don’t watch FOX news (and if a crisis hit the nation I would watch CNN the day of) because of the sensationalism and theatrics. I would never bother with MSNBC either because I find them as bad as FOX. ‘Dry news’ is boring. Perhaps the Russians were on to something with naked news, at least people would tune in to get the news… not that they would be listening.

As for your second step… that was newspapers and later news magazines. Buying a newspaper or magazine ended up with Wall Street Journal, New York Times, National Review and Newsweek. Same division, same ads, same problem going back to the early Americas. People paid for the media they wanted to, didn’t really help.

I rely on the internet, and then I usually find 3-5 sources before I think I ‘know’ something, and even then the amount of crap on-line (selling ads) is staggering.

I don’t have a solution. I would like an un-biased news feed but I don’t see how to create it. Would I shut down CNN? Even though only airports and waiting rooms seem to broadcast it… no. If they are profitable, that’s fine. FOX is the closest to a counter to the big-media narrative… and homogeneity in news isn’t good, so having someone to challenge the left as the main-stream challenges the right is necessary. I like how the main-stream goes after Republicans, I only wish they did the same to the Democrats.

I think the 24 hour news cycle has an audience. Who am I to deny those morons of their entertainment?

3 Points