You’re correct my numbers were off. However that ignores the point I made that the failures were more likely due to the lack of weatherization than the basic design. Windmill in the Midwest that see colder/snowier winters don’t fail. Also fossil fuel plants had to go off line due to the weather so does that mean they’re a bad idea?
No it means the owners discounted the potential of weather like this and didn’t properly prepare. Was that an unreasonable decision? Frankly IDK....but it has bitten them in their collective asses. Likewise is ERCOT’s historic decision not to participate in the national grid a mistake? Again IDK but it certainly hurt Texas this time.
Point is it’s easy to look at raw numbers and place blame but if you need a complete answer you need to ask questions and dive deeper. It will be interesting to see what a forensic review finds.

Agreed ..... the PRIMARY problem was management ... it's ALWAYS management and the idiots who run the place. I said that several post back. However, I'll stand by my claim that one of the driving problems with the Management is the push for Federalized Renewable Energy under Federal Control.

- Texans don't want the Fed controlling their energy. Why Texas has its own power grid, operated by ERCOT (statesman.com)
- But Texas, like everyone else soaked up subsidy money to put up windmills.
- Texas, like everyone else, was FORCED to close down Coal Plants thanks to Obummer and his war on coal.
- The cold spell, thanks to poor management, a.k.a .. New Orleans Levy Board Style, ... has skimped on emergency NG infrastructure .... and the they saw a 30% decline in output, hampering NG power plants. U.S. Natural Gas Shortage Hampers Blackout Recovery - WSJ

There were a lot of problems ... but I'll oppose anyone who sings the praises of Windmills. Granted, I agree with you that a little preparation could have saved the windmills ... but .... cue the meme of the helicopter burning thousands of gallons of fuel to de-ice a windmill. Wonder how much electricity a helocopter motor could produce?

Interestingly, a locomotive engine 12,000 hp produces 8.9 MW of power ... which is just 3 MW short of the largest Windmill, and it is capable of running at 100% on demand, whereas a Windmill typically runs at about 20%.

Understood and I’m not promoting any specific form of generation. I do believe NG combined cycle and nuclear are the best at this time. My experience with coal is that it has too many supplementary problems now. If you include all the costs of mining, transportation and waste management with the fact it’s the most labor intensive form you see it’s very expensive. That I didn’t even add the cost of emissions control. Coal mines suck, fly ash tailings suck and plants require the most support....except nuclear.
I do see wind as a potential supplement as the technology changes and battery storage solutions arrive. I’d doubt solar will ever be more than a fad unless we decide to collect it in space and find a way to beam it (not likely anytime soon).
As 123 said the holy grail is fusion. Has we invested in its development things would be much better.
In general I think technology must lead the way and we continue to find, develop and use the means that provide the most power, reliability and fewest problems and least waste.

ONe of these days, someone is going to get serious about this ... it would solve the wind solar storage problem and be on demand. ...

Again, virtually all of this is completely wrong. As for reading all of it, you only have to look at the picture I posted. It's directly from ERCOT, it's not trying to spin the information or play politics. It's simply showing how much power is offline and what type. And what it shows is that 2/3 of the wind turbines are online, vs only 1/3 of the fossil fuel generators.


Which is right in line with what I posted about wind turbines in Antarctica.and also the Arctic, and cold weather sites around the world. Namely, they are there because they work, and continue to work even under the worst conditions. Which is why Texas Governor Abbot and the GOP look doubly stupid for saying what they said.

As far as winterized turbines not working in warm weather, this is false also. They were working before the storm, and suffered less breakdowns, required less manpower to operate, and needed less maintenance than the fossil fuel generators did.

The wind turbines in Texas that continue to work are invariably those in the northern part of the state that were winterized. The ones that froze up were almost invariably in the southern part of the state that were not winterized. Wind turbines are inherently more robust than fossil fuel generators.

So if Texas had placed enough wind turbines to generate 100% of the power they needed, and properly winterized them and maintained them....there would be no crisis, no power outages, no people freezing in their own homes.

It's not rocket science.

You're not freezing your balls off in Texas, are you?

You have reading problems.

What you posted said 46k MW went offline.

28k form fossil fuels.

18k from non fossil fuel.

Here is a tip, divide and let me know the share of down power ( from fossil fuels vs renewable )in relation to total output.

All of that is taken directly from ERCOT. So if you have a problem with the data, your beef is with them, not me.

I don’t think you understand the data based on your conclusion.

Wind and solar accounted for 39% of the failures, but when operational, account for 33% of total output.

We covered this. It’s not the technology. The data shows that both groups failed near the same rate as their total output. It clearly puts the blame on management. Your call for 100% of anything is not sound. You can winterize coal, gas, nuclear, wind etc.

Good night