So, like the 8% production two weeks ago, you need a 10x overbuild _just_ to reach rated capacity consistently. And you probably need some kind of long term storage as well for when it really goes bad.
There is a huge difference between slow to dispatch (coal/nuke/etc) plants which take hours to come up to full pressure, and simply not having anything that can come online (solar/wind) for a predicted weather event.
Unless TX has a median load factor of 100% (in which case, wow), 5x overbuilding on top of median load factor definitely works in the case you describe.
As far as I know, the typical wind average load factor is 33%. So over-scaling by 5x of that would mean that 7% is still enough to provide. Granted, that's not a very large margin to the 8% you mention, but Europe is bigger than Texas, so it's less likely to have such a low-wind event.
Here look at whats going on:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/cu...
You will have to tweak the graph because I didn't spend the time to figure out how to create a link to a graph which isolates just wind, and then expands the time-frame out to an entire year.
If you do that, what you see is during the summer the lulls are much lower and last for much longer. AKA it might go for a week or two basically not producing anything. It happens at other times of the year too, but during the spring/fall the weather is changing faster (aka its less stable) and the running average goes up.
This is what the wind/solar people seem to refuse to understand, its not a simple averaged calculation over a year because the worse case is much much worse for storage and capacity. The wind blows at 5% nameplate for two weeks, and the amount of storage and overbuild required to bridge that makes it an order of magnitude more expensive than pretty much every other source. Made massively worse because in say TX, that is also when energy consumption peaks.
Yet we build 10GW of capacity, that mostly does not contribute towards lower coal usage.
And, wind capacity factor is usually very low.
I don't mind keeping building solar panels, but subsidizing requires proper analysis of the benefits and externalities (notably on the grid) rather than blindly giving money to anyone saying !SOLAR! like we currently do.
Solar on reservoirs and in pastures will be recognized as an overwhelmingly better idea.
A dollar spent on solar displaces several times as much carbon as anything else except wind, even after accounting for night and weather.
Try find a windless day here.
That being said, the article is pretty low on numbers. The only actual number shown is -32% in UK. Which can totally be overcome by having 5x overproduction in whole of Europe.
Do you have numbers for off-shore parks along the Baltic coast? That would be much more interesting.
We are talking about a continent scale grid.
And what's wrong with idea that we shouldn't freely give other countries leverage on us?
was presumably the answer to that. Now of course one does need a proper analysis of weather patterns (wind+sun) over the whole of Europe over the long term to know how well it would actually work. But it is a fairly large area.
That being said I'm all for not putting all our eggs in the same basket, and having both nuclear, wind, solar AND coal and gas plants is fine by me (but the plan must say that the coal and gas plants will never be in use, but they are ready "just in case")