Again: According to the agency, wind turbines account for less than 13% of the total generation that was lost. The majority of which was coal and gas. Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong point.
I don't give a shit what the "agency" says .. apparently it doesn't occur to you that a PERSON, an idiot, a political hack with a conflict of interests ... "misspoke" and said 13, instead of 30. But alas, we have the NUMBERS .. .the NUMBERS are what they are. Per your article .. "As of Wednesday, 46,000 megawatts of generation were offline, with 185 generating plants tripped. ERCOT officials said 28,000 megawatts came from coal, gas and nuclear plants, and 18,000 megawatts were from solar and wind." (the graph goes on to say Wind lost 15,000 MW). Wind - 15,000/46,000 = 32% of the LOSS. Solar - 3,000/46,000 = 6.5% of the LOSS. Gas/Coal/Nuclear - 28,000/46000 = 60.8% of the LOSS. But the picture becomes more clear when you consider the contribution to the grid. (also from your article). Natural gas (51%) Wind (24.8%) Coal (13.4%) Nuclear (4.9%) Solar (3.8%) Hydro, biomass-fired units (1.9%) Wind is 24% of the grid, while NG, Coal, and Nuclear are 70% of the grid. For wind, 32%Loss/24% potential is a risk factor of 1.33 ... ie., an additional 33% greater contribution to the problem than would be expected. Whereas for NG/C/N, a 60% Loss/70% potential is a risk factor of 0.85 ... ie., a 15% lesser contribution to the problem than would be expected. Like I said .. all you have is what some "agency" claimed, when they misspoke about the numbers. The NUMBERS don't lie. You are a perfect example of a person who prefers the "news" as opposed to the data.
Where I come from, you don't exceed projections by underperforming. And that was with 1/3 of the wind turbines out. Wind did it's job. Fossil fuels didn't.
im trying to understand your argument with this statement. Is your statement that fossil fuels will fail, or that wind will always be superior? Or that the lack of fossil fuels, due to legislation, is the problem? We just need to build more windmills, is that what you’re saying?
Dan Woodfin, a senior ERCOT director, said on Tuesday according to Bloomberg: "We've had some issues with pretty much every kind of generating capacity in the course of this multi-day event." In a press call on Tuesday, Woodfin said that of the 45,000 megawatts of power that were offline across Texas, thermal sources, which include gas, coal and nuclear plants, accounted for around 30,000 megawatts. Renewable sources, meanwhile, accounted for around 16,000 megawatts of the power that was offline. Wind energy in particular was responsible for less than 13 percent—between 3,600 to 4,500 megawatts—of the total outages, Woodfin said, according to Bloomberg. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-green-energy-power-cuts-texas-1569922
Its not a good thing when you miss-represent data. Also, you have now posted 3 different data sets. Which one would you like to stand by?
Bayou ... here is what ERCOT said .. pp. The Northern tier Windmill Farms froze up but fortunately, the higher winds associated with the front increased production in the Windfarms in the Southern tier of the State. As they said, "it could have been worse" from a windmill failure contribution but for the increased production in the southern field. The cold also impacted NG fired plants, as demand on NG was strained due to increased residential demand, as well as lines freezing up. Coal and Nuclear faired much better than both NG and Wind, but to be fair, they took a hit as well because of poor management. What Green Envirowhackos refuse to admit is that the shift to Wind and even Natural Gas is partly a function of Green Legislation that puts undo regulation on Coal Plants. It is true, a NG plant produces about 1/2 the CO2 as Coal. But, the narrative that CO2 is bad is a lie. Other factors pushing power generation to NG is price. Here again, legislation to decrease CO2 emissions puts extra cost on coal plants.
It is the case of LEFTISTS!!!! ... search around on the web to find some "news story" that presents the numbers that you agree with. Find some "expert" or official to tell you what the data means, as opposed to look at the data itself.
BY ARISTOS GEORGIOU ON 2/17/21 AT 11:30 AM EST Dan Woodfin, a senior ERCOT director, said on Tuesday according to Bloomberg: "We've had some issues with pretty much every kind of generating capacity in the course of this multi-day event." In a press call on Tuesday, Woodfin said that of the 45,000 megawatts of power that were offline across Texas, thermal sources, which include gas, coal and nuclear plants, accounted for around 30,000 megawatts. Renewable sources, meanwhile, accounted for around 16,000 megawatts of the power that was offline. Wind energy in particular was responsible for less than 13 percent—between 3,600 to 4,500 megawatts—of the total outages, Woodfin said, according to Bloomberg. This is the latest data put out by ERCOT. This is the graph I posted earlier: The text above is from Wednesday the 17th. The graph shows data from Tuesday the 16th. While wind can sometimes produce as much as 60% of total electricity in Texas, the resource tends to ebb in the winter, so the grid operator typically assumes that the turbines will generate only about 19% to 43% of their maximum output. Even so, wind generation has actually exceeded the grid operator’s daily forecast through the weekend. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...were-just-a-small-piece-of-texas-s-power-woes So wind power actually exceeded projections even with 1/3 of the turbines out. Unreal.
