The New York Times Gets it Half Right on Texas Blackouts – DB DAILY UPDATE

… Just so everyone knows that all forms of power generation in Texas failed us to some extent this past week, I wanted you all to see the chart below. Here is what it shows, in terms of the % of power loss by energy source from 11:00 p.m. Feb 14 [At the peak of the chart] to 11:00 p.m. Feb 17, when 4 million Texans were without power:

May be an image of text

Natural Gas fell from 43 mwh to 32 mwh, a loss of 26%

Solar dropped from 1 mwh to ZERO, a loss of 100%

Wind dropped from 8 mwh to 3 mwh, a loss of a whopping 63%

Coal fell from 12 mwh to 8 mwh, a loss of 33%

Nuclear fell from 4 mwh to 3mwh, a loss of 25%

It is also key to note here that, from midnight on February 9, when the first blast of cold weather began to set in across the state, until 11:00 p.m., February 14, when output peaked, Natural Gas rose from 14 mwh to 43 mwh, or roughly 300%. Over that same span of time, Wind dropped from about 30 mwh to 8 mwh, or about 72%.

So, although a relative handful of natural gas power plants did freeze up, either due to the weather or due to lack of natural gas supply as some pipelines also lost pressure, the unarguable fact of the matter is that so-called “renewables” were utterly useless to Texas consumers during this life-threatening emergency, and that without Natural Gas, the entire state would have been left freezing in the dark.


ERCOT has known for years now – and has informed the PUC and the legislature of this on a regular basis – that the Texas grid lacks adequate reserve capacity to get us through a weather calamity such as the one just past. We don’t have enough baseload reserves, and literally everyone has known that (or should have known it), yet no one in a position of authority has had the political will to force that to chance.

4 thoughts on “The New York Times Gets it Half Right on Texas Blackouts – DB DAILY UPDATE

  1. Lets await the blackout in Europe. ;-( As i had heard from an interview, last week with Bill Gates, he forces the establishing of new atomic power plants. A next generation less harmful. If its true, i think its a good thing. Here in Europe some are blind about the future. Saving the environment and the nature can not base on beeing thrown back to ancient times. Michael

    Liked by 2 people

    • DOE in the US has already trying to sell the small nuclear reactor modules ( It would be nice if Russia, with its extensive experience in nuclear reactors and nuclear disaster management, take the concept further by leasing out fleets of nuclear power house ships. (After the dissolution of USSR, some Soviet nuclear subs have taken the roles of power house for their host cities.). The way to REAL Sustainablity would require both the reduction of human overpopulation and the dismantling of the culture of quick profits regardless of consequences. There must be careful planning. The Climate Change movement is only a disruptive self-serving group of profiteers, we should not pay too much attention to them.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I think so too, Tony! One is in need of something the masses are in need, and will pay for high rates. Here on the border to the Czech Republic we have a funny situation, because Czechia never will plug off their nuclear plants, and Bavaria is buying more and more energy from them. A crazy thing, most people are not realizing.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.