So .. ur not willing to go out on the limb and proclaim "which" of the claims you cite is the correct claim. And ... who gives a shit what Abbott says. He's a lying sack of shit politician, just like all the Democrats.
So..your not willing to actually read through the data, check the links provided, and realize that all the data is true at the various times it was written.
As a citizen of a chat board, it is your responsibility to show me that so called time line. "Published date" in a left wing rag doesn't count.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/...nergy-sources-during-the-texas-power-outages/ "Fuel-Based Energy Sources Passed, While Wind Energy Failed In case you missed it, wind energy scored an F in all three categories – the only energy source to perform so poorly during the power outages in Texas. As such, you can rightfully label wind energy as the most unreliable energy source during the Texas energy crisis. While it may not have been the primary cause of the power outages, it certainly wouldn’t have done Texas any good to have more wind capacity on the system than fuel-based energy sources. In fact, that would have only made things worse. More nuclear power, on the other hand, would have made the world of difference, as it was the most reliable energy source on the grid during the energy crisis and by a large margin. Unfortunately, Texas only has about 5,400 MW of nuclear capacity on the grid – making up just under 4 percent of total capacity in Texas. While coal and natural gas didn’t do nearly as well, they still passed with C’s. Furthermore, because Texas has nearly 20 GW of coal capacity and over 77 GW of natural gas capacity, a C effort still led to natural gas and coal being the largest suppliers of electricity throughout the energy emergency. If this grading scale tells us anything, it’s that relying on intermittent renewable energy during extreme weather events is not the answer to maintain reliability, and fuel-based energy sources are required in order to keep the lights on."
To be fair, I don't think the article gives Hydro credit. We have a ton of Hydro here in AR, and they opened up the gates and instantly kicked up the MW on the grid. Texas just doesn't have enough Hydro to make a difference. But I totally agree with the article .. NUCLEAR ... is the best base load there is. COAL is a close second, but Texas has decommissioned 11 Coal plants since 2018 ... replacing that capacity with unreliable Wind. I posted an article as to why this is earlier. Texas doesn't charge for Electricity Capacity, they only charge for MW's generated. This gives Wind an advantage over Coal in a cost analysis, and is the reason why Wind has thrived in Texas. If Texas charged according to capacity as the other grids do, Wind wouldn't stand a chance. Solar would be excellent if you could just figure out some way to store the energy.
Wind Energy in Texas The United States Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB) provides the locations of land-based and offshore wind turbines in the United States, corresponding wind project information, and turbine technical specifications. The creation of this database was jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Technologies Office via the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Electricity Markets and Policy Group, the U.S. Geological Survey Energy Resources Program, and the American Wind Energy Association. https://windexchange.energy.gov/states/tx
