Check figures 2.c on page 18 and 2.o on page 34 in UT's report on this (https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin%20%28...) for a sense of the scope of how unexpected capacity outages break down.
Yes--a lot of wind was offline. But all of the expected wind capacity could have been met and the grid would have still needed to shed quite a bit of load. In fact, all of the expected wind, solar, coal, and nuclear could have been online and the grid would have still had to shed a meaningful amount.
The scale of the natural gas outages was larger than the entire load-shed, afaict.
EDIT: Okay there was some loss in capacity in wind power, but the greatest loss in capacity was natural gas plants, which lost 15GW of capacity. I confused natural gas with coal as I don’t consider either to be climate friendly. Wind lost about 3GW of capacity.
See at 7:50 here: https://youtu.be/08mwXICY4JM
By the way, natgas is actually much friendlier (well, less hostile) to the environment than coal, if you're looking at carbon/kWh or all of the other things released into the atmosphere when you burn coal.
However, you can much more easily make a giant mound of coal next to your power plant, than store up enough natgas (LNG is much more expensive to store). So, the power plants required natgas to show up in the pipeline, and when the temperature dropped and everybody cranked up the heat, not only in Texas, the natgas pressure in the pipelines dropped. Oil (liquid) and coal (solid) are just fundamentally easier to stockpile than natgas or wind (gas) or solar (light).
A big freakin' battery would help with this, but that isn't a cost-effective option (yet?).
The Natural Gas distribution system just fell apart two years ago.