Much as I admire @russellgold and many other WSJ news reporters, I am sick of the lies of @WSJopinion. They came out of the gate blaming green energy for Texas problem on basis of no facts. Let's look at some facts, shall we? 1/13
As Arctic blast descended on Texas, power grid peaked late the evening of 2/14, pumping out 68 gigawatts of power. But then equipment started to fail. Generation dropped drastically over course of 2/15, and blackouts began. 2/13
Now, it is true that as the cold front moved over Texas, wind power boomed, peaking at 8 gigawatts. And also true that once the frigid, still air settled on the state, wind power dropped way off. This is exactly what you would expect and plan for. 3/13
It's also true that some wind turbines froze up, since many in Texas apparently lack weatherization package. Don't think we know yet what the breakdown was between turbines freezing and turbines just losing wind. 4/13
But fossil plants were also freezing! Gas tripped offline, coal tripped offline, even one nuke plant tripped offline from a frozen pump. All day Monday into Tuesday, things kept getting worse. Blackouts spread across Texas. 5/13
When things bottomed out, the state grid had gone from pumping out 68 gigawatts to supplying only 43. Massive! Let's call that the "hole" in the Texas grid: 25 gigawatts of missing power. 6/13
By now, natural gas lines were seizing up. Wellheads were freezing. Homeowners who burn gas were getting priority of supply. So even gas-fired power plants that managed to get themselves unfrozen were short of gas. 7/13
When we look at all sources, which contributed most to the 25 gigawatt hole? Turbines were down 6 GW from their peak, so they were responsible for 25% of the hole. That's a big deal, but again, somewhat expected in this kind of worst-case "extreme low wind" event. 8/13
Coal plants tripping offline made up 12% of hole. Nuke plant that tripped was 5%. But the gas that went down — that was 57% of electricity hole! And unlike turbines, the gas /coal / nuke dropoff was NOT expected. You should be able to run those plants in cold weather. 9/13
Texas has made a conscious decision to be an electricity island, largely unconnected to USA. If it had big power lines going east and west, other states might have helped plug the power hole, but Texas has always said, 'Nah, we're good.' 10/13
I say you SHOULD be able to run gas plants in cold weather, but they need to be "winterized." Texas has refused to apply any mandatory standards telling power plants or gas suppliers to do this. And Texas has been specifically warned about the implications. 11/13
In fact, less disruptive power outages occurred during a big cold snap in 2011, producing a 400-page federal report suggesting that Texas winterize its grid. And Texas said, 'Nah, we're good.' 12/13
If I were a Texan right now, I would not be trying to blame any energy source for the debacle. All of them can freeze if unprotected. Instead, I would be looking pretty hard at the politicians who keep saying, 'Nah, we're good.' Whose interests are they serving? END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Justin Gillis

Justin Gillis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JustinHGillis

18 Feb
The dramatic situation in Texas was exactly prefigured in 2011, during a similar but less severe cold snap. That disaster involved freeze-ups in gas and power supply, just like this one. It produced a 357-page report on what ought to be done to prevent a recurrence. 1/5
The report specifically advised: "Lawmakers ... should determine whether production shortages during extreme cold weather events can be effectively and economically mitigated..." 2/5
...through the adoption of minimum, uniform standards for the winterization of natural gas production and
processing facilities." Was that done? Current events would suggest: no. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
11 Jan 20
Climate science has a term – “carbon-cycle feedbacks” – that is sufficiently dry as to hide its terrible import. Let me render it into different language in a THREAD. 1/10
Feedbacks in the carbon cycle means: koalas and kangaroos roasting alive in Australia, human beings fleeing into the ocean as the land behind them burns to the water's edge, Californians running in terror ahead of fast-moving fires. 2/10
By dumping carbon pollution into the air, we are messing with the most fundamental biogeochemical cycle on the planet – the one that created us. We are sucking inactive carbon from underground and pumping it into the air, where it becomes part of the active “carbon cycle.” 3/10
Read 10 tweets
14 Dec 19
In thinking about the climate crisis, we have all been overlooking the pernicious role of the railroads. New reporting in @TheAtlantic by @yayitsrob begins to shine a spotlight. Will link to piece in a moment. 1/6
But first: here is the report, by students at @BrownUniversity, on which the journalism is partially based. Just digging in myself but seems like essential reading for all climate advocates. 2/6 climatedevlab.brown.edu/uploads/2/8/4/…
Another crucial piece of the puzzle comes from @RBrulle at Drexel, who has long been doing vital work to understand the networks of influence that blocked climate action. 3/6 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11…
Read 6 tweets
15 Aug 18
1. In response to my @nytopinion piece with @jamesonmcb advocating a national clean energy standard, I got multiple questions on why it might be more likely to pass Congress than a carbon tax. Herewith, a theory:
2. Fossils are increasingly worried about climate lawsuits, so much they are spending money to gin up an Astroturfy campaign pushing Congress to exempt them from liability. They are willing to trade a low carbon price for relief, but getting few takers among Rs on Hill.
3. Suppose a big court decision goes against them. Juliana vs. U.S. case is most likely, judge has already written hugely favorable opinion toward kid-plaintiffs. Now fossils really worried. They put screws to their bought-off R and D politicians on Hill.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!