Yeah I was going to say: > My friends on the right tend to send blame towards green energy. And they have a point! Renewables are temperamental – with too many clouds solar doesn’t do anything, and frozen blades can’t turn wind energy turbines. The impact of the storm is to shift energy supply curves to the left, and the more the grid relies on renewables, the bigger that shift is. The basic problem renewables have had is that it’s really difficult to STORE their energy for future use. If we could create really large energy reservoirs, we could store Texas’ abundant solar and wind energy for a literally-rainy day.

Renewables were literally not the problem and it’s hard to take any kind of advice from this article when it gets the basic facts wrong.

My understanding is that renewables were one of the problems. Wind makes up just under a quarter of the energy. And, depending on who you ask, they lost half to almost all of the energy from wind. That is a problem when the demand goes up. It wasn't the only problem, but it was definitely part of the problem

Wind and solar are both currently over-producing. Not "lost half to almost all." That's an almost-certainly deliberate misrepresentation based on the fact that winter production is always lower than summer production, and comparing the total peak capacity on the best possible summer days and comparing it to now.

We had projections for both wind and solar for these last few weeks, and both wind and solar OVER-produced, exceeding those projections.

On the other hand, we had projects for coal and natural gas, and both of us failed spectacularly.

So yes, I am concerned about any article that spends time talking about wind and solar, when the ACTUAL problem that caused it to be 41ºF in my living room was natural gas and coal.

Wind capacity changes over time. While the wind turbines were producing less than their theoretical max, they were producing more than ERCOT’s own models expected.

The real issue here is that thermal plants (coal, gas, and nuclear) failed exactly as the 2011 report warned. While wind was producing more than expected, it was never going to produce enough to cover the difference as thermal plants started to shut down.

I'm having a difficult time understanding why the entire article should be dismissed due to your disagreement with the quoted statement.

First, I don't find the quoted statement to be false: (1) Wind turbines/various solar methods have numerous problems beyond that; as do all methods of providing power. (2) Both would be better at providing energy the way we consume it if we had a cheap, reliable method to store large amounts of energy[0].

I don't work in energy, but I follow enough of it to know that these statements are reliable. There are companies looking into various, exotic, methods for storing large amounts of generated electricity so that the "we don't control the fuel" problem of many renewable options is a non-issue. Not all renewables have this problem, hydro can be consistent/reliable, provide large amounts of energy and is cheap. All of these problems have technology solutions waiting to be discovered/applied. It's hard to find anyone who will complain about hydro-electric plant[2] -- electric bills go down and there's less smoke in the air. The same thing is started here with wind/solar. Complainers stop when they actually read their bill. "Oh, it doesn't cost more? ... oh,... well... ~noises in political~"

Was it that the author indicated that the Green Energy Blamers "have a point"? See, that's a nice psychological trick. I suspect you are a big supporter of renewable/environmental politics. I suspect his goal with that statement was to make a point to the blamers. Aside from the first sentence, pointing out an obvious, well-known fact about renewables than any "Green Blamer" has been screaming -- forever -- and baking in a solution[0]. And he's not advocating getting rid of anything/building up the "expensive/easy to turn on/off" technologies.

[0] What you produce has to be used or stored. That's the case with every utility -- water/gas -- things just move, and can get out of hand, a lot faster I gather.

[1] And yes, energy storage on a multi-day scale is science-fiction, AFAIK, presently. This is a hard problem.

[2] Assuming it's designed taking into account whatever new "evil" thing hydro does to the environment that I'm not yet aware of. :)

My disagreement is based on the fact that it was 41ºF in my living room due to failures with coal and natural gas, so any time spent talking about weakness of power-production methods that were exceeding expectations is beyond wasted. It's a distraction from the real issues.

If solar and wind had failed spectacularly, then I'd want to see that. But they didn't. Coal and natural gas did.

So we should be talking about how natural gas and coal failed, not some hypothetical alternate reality where solar and wind under-delivered.

  > So we should be talking about how natural gas and coal failed ...

That's a fair point, though, that wasn't really the point of the writing. It was simply to understand the enormous complexity of the situation from an economic standpoint.

It's also fair that the author might not have been up to date with the latest information. In the early days of the mess, wind was initially suspected to be the main culprit, primarily from the surprise to the general public that wind turbines and ice don't mix[0] and the general sport that northerners have of laughing at the "snow-challenged" when the rare white hell falls from the sky[1].

[0] I live near the thumb in Michigan. We like to take our kids to the wind farms. There are many, many reasons that a given generator will have brakes applied, including "too much wind". People laugh at that stuff, but it's "by design" and is part of a system.

[1] We laugh unfairly when Atlanta gets an inch of snow and more people die in two days than die in an entire winter up here, but it ignores the reality that our local governments stockpile salt/sand and have dozens of trucks/expertise to handle substantially more snow. Put us on roads with no clearance and a bunch of drivers unfamiliar with snow and we'd be just as at risk. Or toss a coastal-state problem like a tidal wave/tsunami, in the state that's laughing and they'd fare about as poorly.

Wind did fail spectularly. It was producing 15% of its installed capacity last night. It's all the way up to 30% now with more favorable conditions. Every other generation source vastly outperformed wind.

Saying that wind exceeded expectations is like saying that your QB with a broken leg exceeded expectations by making it to the bench. You should still be looking for a QB that can play.

If the argument is that wind is nearly useless in the winter by design, then that is all the more reason to promote alternatives. No one freezing right now is going to be comforted by the knowledge that our wind capacity was planned to be unavailable when it's coldest.

Solar is fine, and is a trivial amount of the installed capacity in any case.

There is a big difference between installed capacity and how much is expected for a period of time. For instance, it is not 100% failure that a solar cell outputs no power overnight; that's just the way they work.

There is plenty of wind generation going on in Canada or Sweden; one presumes the "make a wind generation system work in the cold" is a solved engineering task. Those windmills are a little more expensive.

Is this a result of poor planning or is this novel failure? This smells like a failure driven entirely by inappropriate cost optimization.

> This smells like a failure driven entirely by inappropriate cost optimization.

Exactly. Due to the nature of the Texas climate, peak capacity will track summer demand and not account for once-in-a-lifetime freezes. We need proper planning and enforcement to ensure that we can output as much in the winter as we can in the summer. Hopefully it's as straightforward as weather-proofing our existing capacity. As you said, wind generation works fine in much colder climes.

If a significant part of our capacity can't produce in cold weather, it should be phased out in favor of capacity that can. I'd love to see that be Canadian-style windmills, if that turns out to be able to produce consistently in winter (I have some doubt here because of the very low projections for our existing wind output, but perhaps more robust turbines will do much better). If wind turns out not to be able to meet that need sufficiently, then perhaps we should focus some of the subsidies on capacity that can. What we should never do is defend one preferred generation source without regard to whether it can supply what Texas actually needs, which is capacity that can produce consistent output in both summer and winter.

Do you mind pointing me to some reliable links that do highlight the actual problem?

The ArsTechnica article is a decent place to start.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/even-power-disasters...

This is still an on-going event so the “history” is still being written.

Also https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-...

> Mistakenly lays some blame on renewables, which are overperforming right now in Texas. Renewables are not in play here, we are having major problems with natural gas and coal plants not being prepared for cold weather.

Last night[0]—when it's coldest—wind was producing at under 15% of installed capacity[1]. Photovoltaic generation was at 0%. You can technically claim that wind exceeded expectations, but you should qualify that by explaining that wind was expected to produce almost none of the supply, despite ERCOT having 28% of the wind capacity of the entire country.

The fundamental issue is that summer demand funds the construction of electrical capacity in Texas. As this is unavoidable given the climate, we need our summer capacity to be able to handle unusual winter load as well. You are essentially defending wind by saying that it's not expected to be able to produce more than a fraction of its power in winter, when the problem at hand is that we need capacity that can do exactly that. The more capacity we have that works in summer but not in winter, the more vulnerable we will be to unusually cold weather. Our current wind generation systems are by far the worst choice of power by this measure.

Solar capacity is actually performing great right now, in the daytime (looks like around 80-90%), and wind has picked up a bit (30%) but still lags every other generation source by a tremendous margin.

[0] http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_condi... [1] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219848/Capacity_Chang...

I absolutely agree that requirements for winterization are in order, and that could change things significantly. Perhaps winterized wind power would have great output in this weather, or perhaps not. My analysis applies only to the actual current ERCOT capacity, not any hypothetical capacity.

ERCOT's projections would have covered grid needs but for the failure of natural gas and coal plants. So let's talk about that.

Not solar, not wind. Comparing current production to idealized mid-summer production is nonsense. ERCOT's own projections never involve wind maxing out in wintertime, because that's not how anything works. If we were to become 100% reliant on wind for some strange reason, we would obviously need to build much, much, much more wind power for the winters. Which is why we have so many other sources of power. Solar and wind were never expected to keep my house warm, coal and natural gas were. And coal and natural gas fell over and died when it was needed most.

> never involve wind maxing out in wintertime, because that's not how anything works.

This is provably false by ERCOT's record-setting wind output of 17,541 MW (83% capacity) on February 19, 2018 [0]. ERCOT only had 21,190 MW of wind capacity at that time. Now they have over 25,000 MW, yet wind was producing 3,500 MW (14%) last night, and now that it's warmer is all the way up to 6,629 MW (26% capacity).

It's absolutely true that fossil sources failed when we needed them. It's equally true that wind failed us utterly. If we had no wind generation capacity but instead had 25000 MW more fossil fuel generation capacity, then we'd be in much better shape. Note carefully: I'm not suggesting this as a solution, as there are much better ideas like winterizing our existing capacity. I'm instead emphasizing that our summer capacity needs to be able to meet our needs in extreme cold, and we should either fix or get rid of capacity that can't do this. The biggest culprit by far being our current, un-winterized wind generation systems.

[0] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Fa...

(I cut off part of the quoted sentence because it made it seem like I was responding to the claim about how ERCOT does projections. As discussed above, I don't care about the projections because wind capacity failing us by design is an even bigger problem than it failing due to unforeseen circumstances.)

Wind turbines in Texas have failed for the same reasons that fossil fuels and nuclear have: failure to winterize.

Okay, you've got a fixation on wind power, so keep blowing that hot air. Shame you can't blow it into my living room.

In the meantime, I hope this state can winterize their natural gas plants, which your link shows should be more than half our power source. Not so much when the machinery is frozen, it turns out.

I actually support wind, and I think that it's great that ERCOT leads in wind generation. Hopefully they just need to do a better job at weather-proofing in the future.

What I have a fixation on is false claims that wind generation did not contribute to shortfalls. Failing to produce power by design is not a very good defense of wind power, while the out-of-context quotes that wind "exceeded expectations" are conspicuously missing any details of just how woefully low those expectations were.

Is he really laying blame on renewables? I mean, he pointed out the reality that the current weather situation has caused wind generation difficulties and that wind and solar, at least, are fueled by something we have little control over -- i.e. we can't add more wind/sun when we need more power. Frankly, I felt he presented it honestly -- it wasn't a "Enviro-Mentalist Bad!", it was "it is great a lot of the time and when we the ability to store it better, it'll basically be a non-issue".

Totally agree -- the issue is one that's clouded with BS on both sides. This article did a good job of explaining why it's a really hard problem; regulations are too often a big, blunt, instrument aimed at a delicate problem and are often just as destructive as "letting unregulated capitalism solve it". Too important of a resource for either solution so both sides aim at things that look good or appeal to their base (Big Energy Bad/Environmentalists are Communists!) and the blackouts continue.

that doesn't make any sense