News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Analysis: Texas power outage leaves officials working pol... by throwawaysea on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @08:04PM (#26174131)
It’s not clear to me who to believe. This fact check claims only 4 GW of wind power was down but the link that precedes that claim doesn’t actually state that. Meanwhile the WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002) claims 42% of power came from wind in the week before the freeze but there’s no sourcing of that either.
Re:Analysis: Texas power outage leaves officials working pol... by jkhdigital on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @08:24PM (#26174281)
Believe primary sources that you can read and understand yourself. That’s it. Sad that we’ve come to this, but I had to adopt that policy last year for obvious reasons.
Re:Analysis: Texas power outage leaves officials working pol... by throwawaysea on Thursday February 18, 2021 @02:33AM (#26177038)
This other source claims 16 GW of renewable energy, mostly wind, is offline as compared to 30 GW of thermal sources (gas, coal, nuclear). That’s a very different claim from Politifact’s figure of 4 GW of wind offline. However Politifact frames it as 4 GW of wind experiencing problems (presumably meaning freezing problems and not just lack of wind). That seems like a spin of a different kind from the WSJ editorial.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st...

EDIT: even more bizarrely, a different fact check from Politifact relating to the Texas outages claims yet another loss figure for wind power of only 2 GW, disagreeing with their other fact check: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-car...

Re:Analysis: Texas power outage leaves officials working pol... by pixl97 on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @10:35PM (#26175352)
If the weather was very moderate then you can get a very high renewables percentage, but that is only because total use is very low.