They shipped in diesel to warm things up and get the grid going again. Not wind mills. In the end we'll be much further ahead if we let economics dictate how and when we transition from hydrocarbons. I've calculated that the carbon footprint of making and transporting a wind turbine is equivalent to 100 million cow farts.
Well duh, since building a wind turbine in this weather would take too long. But those wind turbines that were winterized are still working, just like this one in Antarctica...
Don't forget to have your diesel generators ready when it breaks.... https://phys.org/news/2017-11-turbine-australia-antarctic-base.html
TG ... something for you to consider. Texas (and the South in general) does not invest heavily in the road equipment for maintaining icy or snowy roads, because it is such a rare event. Likewise, they would not have been expected to invest in the equipment and chemicals to maintain ice free windmills, as the ROI is just not there. You can bet the windmills in the midwest are different, but they get snow and subfreezing temps every year, multiple times each winter. What you describe as what should have been done is like asking the midwesterners to build their homes on stilts for hurricane storm surge.
That is simply NOT what your graph and data say. Your Graph says that of the 46,000 MW that went off line, 15,000 were from wind, and 30,000 were from other sources. 15,000/(75,000+15,000) MW from wind is a 16% decrease. 30,000/(1,000,000+30,000) MW from gas coal and nuclear is a 2.9% decrease. I won't mean to be snarky ... but science is not your strong point.
Its like saying White people make up majority of the gun violence in the US. While true, because white people are the majority, it does not factor in the disproportionate MINORITY gun violence rate relative to their total population. Its shameful when people try to present arguments like this, but they do it to try and make their BLM claims valid.
