It seems to be less than 24%. But even going by your numbers, you're blaming wind power failing as the culprit, when it's the low minority in how Texans get their power. Natural gas is the main source of Texas power, then coal.
"it is wrong, sinful and blasphemous for you to suggest, imply or help others come to the conclusion that Americans killed 3,000 of it's own people." - Tucker Carlson, regarding 9/11
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
In the link you sent it says 17.4 percent is provided by ercot, not that 17.4 percent of Texas's total energy consumption was provided by wind, so I'd guess there's other agencies that provide wind turbines.
Of course they wouldn't want to winterize, because it would hike energy prices through the roof.
This is a video of Steven Crowder covering it. This may make you roll your eyes because the source, but know that YouTube wants to destroy this guy, have attempted to multiple times, and is looking for any reason to 86 his channel. The standard Crowder now operates under is only saying things he'd say in court, under threat of perjury.
It handles every lefty argument and covers the math.
About 56 percent of Texas' energy comes from natural gas, just under 24 percent comes from wind, 19 percent from coal, and almost 9 percent from nuclear energy.
Not when it's being handled by the state, which spends money at 1/10th the efficiency a private Enterprise could.
If green energy weren't so politicised, private Enterprise would provide energy through fracking or nuclear.
I'm not blaming green energy, I'm blaming virtue signaling politicians saying green energy is effective than it actually is
Windmills need replacing after 7-10 years, solar panels even faster.
Green energy is a mirage.
Nuclear energy is a much better solution than wind or solar, but has been demonized.
I'm not an anti alt energy person, but I am against political schemes that use things like climate change as a cudgel to enact political change, and position opponents to their schemes as morally deficient.
Clearly you aren't against thousands of people being left to die with no energy, however...
I'm meming. I will say though, what people don't understand about the issues with nuclear isn't that it's scary but that the start up costs are insane. Nuclear is a clean energy and safe but in order for it to stay safe it's extremely expensive.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Feb 24th, 2021 at 06:11 AM
I'm against the loss of any life, especially human.
Thus why I speak out against top down governance, which is inefficient at best and massively deadly at worst e.g. the famine, the great leap forward and the cultural revolution in china, the famine in North Korea, the gulag system in the USSR, the holomodor, the Holocaust, etc.
Isn't it awful to insinuate someone doesn't care about the loss of human life, and kind of a low handed tactic, based on a false sense of moral superiority ?
Is the current power infrastructure not costly rn ?
Think of the health cost from pollutants from burning coal ?
Nuclear has the lower death per unit of energy.
Green energy is unreliable and needs coal as a crutch anyways.
I would be happy to see your info on how expensive nuclear is.
Flibe Energy say they'd need about a billion dollars to create a proof of concept LFTR and about 4 billion for their first full scale commercial reactor.
Relatively cheap compared to ITER which the US DoE is saying will now run possibly in excess of $65,000,000,000 just for the experimental fusion tokamak reactor currently being built in France which won't actually provide any electricity to the grid. There will also be absolutely zero room for error with ITER. If there's any kind of loss of containment or any kind of explosion, the levels of radiation will be several orders of magnitude greater than any nuclear disaster ever.
To give you an idea of the difference in scale. The highest estimated dose of an emergency worker at Chernobyl was 16 sieverts acute dose.
The inner wall of the ITER reactor will be subject to 70,000,000 sieverts per hour.
__________________ Sweating on the streets of Woking
Then your issue seems to be with the government of Texas.
You were though, that's how our exchange started.
Greens won't absolutely solve our energy needs, at least not for the foreseeable future, but they are the future alongside other sources, because we need to combat pollution.
I've no real problem with nuclear being used until something better comes along, but again, greens and nuclear can work in conjunction. eg a home can run on solar panels/batteries and still be connected to a grid that runs off a nuclear plant. Using more solar during the day and tapping back into the grid at night.
Climate change is real, as is pollution and humanity needs a fulcrum to enact change. Fossil fuel isn't going away anytime soon, but there will be less and less cars running on it as time goes on and technology progresses. Just as natural gas is replacing coal more and more.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 23rd, 2021 12:44 PM
