You’re just not listening. This kind is going to keep happening and it’s going to get worse and more often.Really, you’re going to pay for frost-proof windmills in Texas of all places? For once in 30+ years blizzard?
It’s a great example of net energy loss in an inefficient system.On a small scale, compressing air is a fair method of storing energy. I wonder how scalable it is....
If you don't winterize, this is what you get.Really, you’re going to pay for frost-proof windmills in Texas of all places? For once in 30+ years blizzard?
As they say on Wikipedia, “citation needed”.You’re just not listening. This kind is going to keep happening and it’s going to get worse and more often.
I take it you’d winterize in Hawaii as well? And to what extent? Arctic winterization, perhaps? A few million dollars per windmill? Remember, this is once in three decades event for them.If you don't winterize, this is what you get.
Boy Scout motto applies....
I’ve read this actually varies geographically, and they were a problem in West Texas . You can’t consider the entire state as a whole, you have to account for the local energy mix. If someone is locally powered by turbines and they’re fucked, that someone is fucked as well.The wind turbines were not the main problem anyway. They only accounted for about 1/3 of the loss in generation that happened. Various units in coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants were all offline for various reasons which accounted for most of the missing power. Even if all the wind turbines were 100% functional it would likely have not been enough to make up the difference anyway. Demand was just too high for the reduced production to cover. It was basically a combination of general unpreparedness, bad timing, and unusually bad conditions for an extended amount of time.
And, being Texas, many of the people who do have power will be economically devastated by the unregulated home energy costs this month. It's basically a textbook example on how to not run a power grid.The wind turbines were not the main problem anyway. They only accounted for about 1/3 of the loss in generation that happened. Various units in coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants were all offline for various reasons which accounted for most of the missing power. Even if all the wind turbines were 100% functional it would likely have not been enough to make up the difference anyway. Demand was just too high for the reduced production to cover. It was basically a combination of general unpreparedness, bad timing, and unusually bad conditions for an extended amount of time.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...er-getting-worse-in-these-20-places/39873609/As they say on Wikipedia, “citation needed”.
The DoD seems to think climate change is a credible threat:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...er-getting-worse-in-these-20-places/39873609/
https://news.stanford.edu/2020/03/18/climate-change-means-extreme-weather-predicted/
https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-change-and-extreme-weather
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://www.nationalacademies.org/b...ing-is-contributing-to-extreme-weather-events
"These failing sources largely included nuclear plants, coal plants and thermal energy generators. Frozen wind turbines were a factor, too, but Woodfin said wind shutdowns accounted for less than 13% of the outages."
-Austin-American Statesman
"Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Is California still on fire?
Merchants of Doubt. They make a living doing this, just as they did with tobacco denialism and fearmongering over the need for materials fireproofing that persists to this day.
As long as that minute doubt exists, naysayers can continue to ignore MASS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.