11–20 of 75 posts
I understand that natural gas plants were just as impacted by the storm as renewables ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... ) so it is not clear this bill is being passed in good faith
If they worry do much about storms wouldn't nuclear be the best option? Hydro is also pretty resilient.
Winterizing is the answer, no matter the power source.
I understand that natural gas plants were just as impacted by the storm as renewables ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... ) so it is not clear this bill is being passed in good faith
If they worry do much about storms wouldn't nuclear be the best option? Hydro is also pretty resilient.
That is obviously less of a problem in case nuclear power plants are build on the coast.
It is also worth to note, that other countries, Canada, Russia, Northern Europe, et... have nowhere near the problems Texas had.
I understand that natural gas plants were just as impacted by the storm as renewables ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... ) so it is not clear this bill is being passed in good faith
If they worry do much about storms wouldn't nuclear be the best option? Hydro is also pretty resilient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wind being offline, while not majority, was a non-trivial amount, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08mwXICY4JM .
If the wind infrastructure can be weatherized to effectively prevent such a scenario from happening (which it's my understanding is the case), then the claim that wind is to blame is still an untrue allegation. The blame would lie with not weatherizing the equipment, not with wind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they worry do much about storms wouldn't nuclear be the best option? Hydro is also pretty resilient.
That still leaves the grid to worry about. Even if the power plant doesn't have issue, if grid lines fail (temperature, wind, snow, ice,...) the power will still be lost. Nulear power plants have problems with freezing temperature (frozen rivers are bad to get cooling water from) and high temps / dry weather (again, low river levels are bad to get cooling water from. That is obviously less of a problem in case nuclea…
Well, of course. There was no problem of "it's cold". The problem was "it's colder than we expected". You don't prepare for things that don't happen.
This actually reminds me of a comment I saw on the topic of international shipping: "Slow is fine. Late is not." The goal isn't to arrive quickly, it's to arrive when you said you would get there. And analogously for the temperature.
I was under the impression that the issues with their grid were not due to renewable energy sources.
So where did you get that impression from?
I understand that natural gas plants were just as impacted by the storm as renewables ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... ) so it is not clear this bill is being passed in good faith
I was under the impression that the issues with their grid were not due to renewable energy sources.
In that sense, this is exactly the solution they need.
Interest rates being lower than inflation are a signal that pressures people to stop saving because the savings = investments equation has been broken by a huge margin.
The obvious question is, do these people hate money? Why aren't they just investing? One answer for that could be that all investments they want to make are illegal. Low carbon energy is an obvious investment. If you ban that and then ban the next thing, then what are all those pension funds (and other retirement related savings) supposed to invest their money into?