World’s ‘solar and wind capital’ freezing due to snow ‘blanketing millions’ of solar panels

Then you should be able to show where it does so. Hint: wind is in green, solar in yellow, and natural gas in beige. Once you understand the color key, you'll see it shows exactly what I just said.

 

One has to keep the cave warm.

 

Do you understand that the solar and wind slivers rest on the nuclear-coal-gas base?

 

That's . . . not how graphs work. The graph shows how many mega kilowatt hours each source produces over time. Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that you didn't even understand what each axis represented? Dude, if you can't even read your own graphs, don't pretend to be ready for a discussion.

If you read your graph, coal and nuclear remained fairly flat, falling just a little bit when wind did, due to the cold weather. Gas rose and fell when wind did. Consistently.

 

The graph shows total power generation, with the different sources color-coded. It does not show what you claim. Notice how much more green (wind) precedes 9 February and how much less follows that date.

 

February 1 through 8 was an unusually windy week across all of Texas. ERCOT took advantage and let wind provide an unbelievable 20 GWh at times. The lower numbers following that time are simply less windy days, but the turbines were still producing.

The crater on the 15th was from the electricity getting cut to a large portion of Texas as the gas generators could not ramp up because gas supplies were frozen.

 

The x-axis is time. The y-axis is power generation. You can look at each color-coded line and see where it intersects these axes to find out how much the energy source associated with that color produced in energy at that time. Understand now? This is seriously, like, rudimentary SAT prep stuff. I wasn't kidding when I said that a junior high kid could tutor this.

 

Yes, before Feb 9 there was a lot of wind and low demand. Natural gas was on a vacation and they had trouble getting back to work when demand rose.

 

I bet that keeps you busy too.

 

Yep. No shortage of propagandists on that one.

 

I've noticed that.

 

Wind was set up to provide only 10% of demand. Wind exceeded expectations during 1-8th Feb (30% of total energy supply some days reaching 60% on some other days) and 19th-22 Feb (40% of total energy supply). It fell 2% off expectation during the coldest spell. The other 90% was supposed to come from gas, coal and nuclear which all dropped much more than 2% off their expected output. On the 15th, wind provided about 15% of the total energy, exceeding expectation

 

The graph shows power by source. The author's point is that wind had already collapsed well before gas power failed.

 

I'm quite well aware of how the graph presents the data, and I don't need to resort to insults to make my point. What you are missing, I believe, is that the power generation shown at any point on the x-axis is cumulative, with separate power sources color coded, so after 8 February the wind power increment fell drastically as the turbines froze up, and gas ramped up.

 

Actually not at all. Gas and coal ramped up as the turbines froze and dropped off the grid.

 

That is a false narrative.

 

The figures come directly off your graph

 

Nope.

Wind has accounted for at least 20% of ERCOT’s February generation from 2016 to 2020.

ERCOT % Feb Generation From Wind
2011 10%
2012 11%
2013 13%
2014 10%
2015 12%
2016 20%
2017 23%
2018 25%
2019 24%
2020 26%
2021 (Feb 1- 30%
2021 (Feb 9-1 8%
ERCOT Fuel Mix Report

 

So it turned out that wind provided double the planned for output for the period February generation from 2016 to 2020.

 

"Planned output" is just a PowerPoint caption.
Fact is that Texas had relied on wind for at least 20% of February power for the past five years. That is why the wind power failure caused such trouble. As already posted:

• Renewable energy is why Texas has less natural gas and coal capacity than it would have had otherwise.
• Frozen wind turbines are why coal-fired power plants were operating at >90% of capacity from February 9-14 and natural gas power plants were operating at 70% to more than 80% of capacity from February 11-14.
• Wind farms aren’t the main cause of the Texas blackouts because most of them had already been knocked offline by freezing temperatures and ice… Nearly a week before the blackouts!

 

Wind power was intended to provide 10% of energy needs. They exceeded expectations. The blame lies on the planners for relying on wind power continuing to exceed expectations. They also decided not to pay the additional 5% extra on cost of weather proofing the wind turbines

Now lets see the power generated on 15th Feb & 16th Feb
15th Feb estimates
wind:10MWH (16% of total energy output)
gas:35MWH
coal:10MWH
nuclear:5MWH

16th Feb estimates:
wind: 5MWH (11% of total energy output)
gas:28MWH
coal: 6MWH
nuclear: 4MWH

 

Your presentation is unfortunately both unlinked and false.

"Wind was operating almost as well as expected"... A Texas-sized Energy Lie

During Winter Storm Younger Dryas, wind dropped off to 8% of ERCOT electricity generation, while natural gas more than doubled as a percentage of ERCOT electricity generation…


EIA Hourly Grid Monitor
While there were severe problems with thermal generating sources from February 15-18, wind was basically a no-show from February 9-18.


EIA Hourly Grid Monitor

 

LOL Are you not able to read figures off your own graph? You provided the graph that I used!

You clearly don't understand your own graph hence why you continually just copy & paste

PS None of your links to actual energy sources work

 

Can you explain how a source that can only generate 20% of the output, is responsible for a loss of 80% of all output ?

 

Nonsense. You did no such thing.
You do not consider the U.S. Energy Information Administration to be a credible source?