Hacker News Reader

Comment by s_dev | Hacker News Reader

To be fair -- Texas as a State and identity has been very outspoken about being pro fossil fuel and quite anti-renewables. The Mayor blaming renewables when it was gas pipes that froze was simply disgusting.

Many many Texans are not very envoirnmentally consciencious. It's very much a climate change disaster and many Texans felt insulated from such a global change.

To be clear shadenfreude is in poor taste but there is also a lesson for anyone who feels that climate change is other peoples problems. What is happening is awful and Texans deserve all the help the US can give.

View on HN

Texas is NOT anti-renewables.

We're #2 in the US for solar[0], #1 for wind[1], and #5 for nuclear[2] with roughly 25% of our power coming from wind alone.

Unfortunately, since weather like this doesn't occur very often (every ~60-100 years), the wind turbines aren't weatherized as they are in Canada and elsewhere. When half of that went offline on Sunday morning, it fell to natural gas to make up the difference. When the temperature continued dropping, the gas flowed more slowly and couldn't keep the right pressure levels, removing roughly a third of that production.

To be fair, your criticism would be more useful if it was built on facts.

0 - https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/solar-energy-produc...

1 - https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-...

2 - https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/nuclear-generation-...

> Texas is NOT anti-renewables.

It's quite bizarre to read this a day after the Texas governor literally went and blamed renewables [1] [2] when in fact their renewables have been performing better than their (far more prevalent) nonrenewables. [3]

And while frozen wind turbines have contributed to the state's energy crisis, that type of energy has only slightly underperformed against published expectations for winter output. Natural gas, the state's dominant energy source, has provided drastically less energy than expected, according to experts and industry data. "Wind was operating almost as well as expected," said Sam Newell, head of the electricity group at the Brattle Group, an energy consulting company that has advised Texas on its power grid. "It's an order of magnitude smaller" than problems with natural gas, coal and nuclear energy, he said.

[1] https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1361868404534112257

[2] https://www.yahoo.com/now/texas-governor-walks-back-fox-0524...

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fact-check-renewable-en...

(Thanks for finishing your numerous edits. It's hard to understand someone's point when they keep changing it.)

Now please re-read my comment and find where I criticized wind or any renewable.

You can say "omg a politician said something bad!" all you want but it a) ignores the data and b) doesn't lead anywhere productive.

Personally, I'll stick with the facts and data.

> Now please re-read my comment and find where I criticized wind or any renewable.

Please re-read mine and find where I suggested you criticized either of them?

> You can say "omg a politician said something bad!" all you want but it a) ignores the data and b) doesn't lead anywhere productive.

This wasn't just one random politician, this was the governor. Other prominent Texas politicians have also been bashing renewable energy for a long time too. Hope I don't need to find you quotes of this, but let me know if I do. How is it productive to ignore their blatant hypocrisy and let them keep spreading such awful disinformation to people? Do you really think they like to expand renewables and these quotes are just accidental gaffes others pick on? You don't see a pattern? To me it seems these officials are anti-renewables but still failing to prevent movement in that direction due to complex incentives and incomplete control.

> Personally, I'll stick with the facts and data.

You can be anti-something while still having it. Like so many people are anti-2nd-amendment but it's still there due to forces outside their control. Pointing to it doesn't imply anything about people's stances.

My apologies, version 2 or 3 of your comment did say that. Thank you for removing the accusation.

With regards to the governor, Texas is a little different. The Governor serves year around, according to their term but mostly applies policy and sticks within the budget that the Legislature (only serves every other year) sets. In past terms, the Legislature have expanded renewables quite successfully (as noted above) and I hope that trend will continue.

Or you can focus on "omg a politician said something bad!" but I hope I don't need to convince you that what politicians say and the policies they implement are often unrelated.

> My apologies, version 2 or 3 of your comment did say that. Thank you for removing the accusation.

No worries, though I actually have no idea what you're referring to. The only part of your comment that I can remember replying to was that single quote from you (which is still there). The subsequent edits in my comment were just adding links & expanding on them and trying to summarize their relevant points succinctly. It must've been a misunderstanding since that wasn't the intention of anything I wrote.

> With regards to the governor, Texas is a little different. The Governor serves year around, according to their term but mostly applies policy and sticks within the budget that the Legislature (only serves every other year) sets. In past terms, the Legislature have expanded renewables quite successfully (as noted above) and I hope that trend will continue.

Great, I hope so too. Again, this means some of the vocal ones have limited control. I don't know the power (ha) vs. size of each faction, but I'm not under the impression this is happening without a fight: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Tex...

>We're #2 in the US for solar[0], #1 for wind[1], and #5 for nuclear[2] with roughly 25% of our power coming from wind alone.

Not for long. Renewables are already being blamed for this (regardless of whether it's accurate or fair) and the politically expedient thing for Texas Republicans to do, in order to to be seen doing something, is to cut funding for green energy in favor of greater investment in coal, oil and natural gas.

Potentially, but I hope not. Diversification is incredibly useful here.

The various power generation approaches have different strengths, weaknesses, and risk profiles. Despite this week, it's rare to have a situation where multiple are greatly impacted at the same time.

> is to cut funding for green energy in favor of greater investment in coal, oil and natural gas.

Can someone lie and tell Texas Republicans that nuclear power is really really dirty so that they subsidize it to spite the Democrats?

the governor repeatedly said all energy sources failed, including gas and even nuclear. he gave specific numbers, pointing out that more energy was lost with natural gas compared to wind. of course people omit that because it's counter narrative.

also, Texas is a leader in wind power. it produces more than any other state and more than most countries.

If Texas were a country, it would rank fifth in the world: The installed wind capacity in Texas exceeds installed wind capacity in all countries but China, the United States, Germany and India. Texas produces the most wind power of any U.S. state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

That's just standard issue Republican politics and not at all specific to Texas. COVID is a hoax, there were WMDs in Iraq, the guy with horns in the Senate is the leader of Antifa, Trump won by a landslide, etc.

I started calling the party "Soviet" way back in the Bush (or "Bushevik") era, and it's only gotten even more so since then. While the official party platform is quite different from the old USSR, the whole "the party platform dictates the facts of reality" thing is similar. I predict it will only get worse. Qanon is in the process of taking over the party.

It can have only two outcomes: the victory of an irrationalist / anti-realist Qanon party and the ensuing collapse of the country, or Democratic single party rule which may lead to the same... due to what happens when you have single party rule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com