Abbott is pushing a lie to protect incompetence. There is no Federal oversight of the Texas Grid, ergo fewer regulations (sound familiar) - so point one: state legislature needs reform. 2/

2. Point 2: there were clear signs the grid would get overloaded under extreme cold conditions. Why? Due to a vacuum of regulations mandating winterization of turbines and power generators. This from sources, in Texas!
3. Point 3: Of the power shortfall that hit Texas, over 80% was due to problems at coal and gas fired plants. Power generators were just not winterized. Decisions to do so have been ignored since the 1990s.
4. Point 4: these are winterized wind turbines in Denmark. The ocean is frozen. The turbines are generating. https://t.co/LrdYZuFac1
5. #Texas| the main issue is: catastrophic governance at the State level (no Federal oversight of the Texas grid) failing to allocate funding to winterise the Natural Gas, Coal and Wind Turbine elements that contribute to the grid. (~ 80/20 mix).

https://t.co/erZxZTP6av
6. #Texas| all the info you need to know on the Texas power outage here. The grid is run by ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas). 7/

https://t.co/ghNndBtr15
7. #Texas| Wind in Texas is generally less during winter, ergo grid operators would not have planned for getting 30GW from wind generation (30GW is equivalent to every wind turbine operating in Texas). An ERCOT chart indicates wind is producing significantly more than forecast.
8. #Texas| there’s also some goodness and humanity emanating from Texas that we need to share.

The shelters are located at his stores at 6006 North Freeway in Houston and 7227 West Grand Parkway South in Richmond. Please RT.

https://t.co/SWAHlFc4cr
9. #Texas| https://t.co/YJzCxTonN8
10. #Texas|

Be careful about this photograph too. NOT from Texas. IT IS a Helicopter de-icing on a wind farm in the winter of 2013-2014, in the Uljabuouda mountains in Arjeplog, Sweden.

https://t.co/fRKj5W2EHa

More from Government

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?