Wind Power Is a Disaster in Texas, No Matter What Paul Krugman Says

The title of the article implies Wind Power is a disaster. But the actual article contains little to support this headline. There are a lot of numbers and graphs in this article... and some strange analysis about power generation amounts at different points in time (lots of potential for cherry picking here). But the money quote is this:

"And so we see what people mean when they say the Texas blackouts are the fault of natural gas, rather than wind: since no serious official ever expected wind to be any help during a crisis, it can hardly be blamed for not showing up when disaster struck. In effect, Krugman is arguing that wind power is the Ted Cruz of electricity."

Windy is temperamental. When it is there, it is very cheap.. and the Texas Energy Market loves cheap. When it isn't, we should plan for that and have some more stable sources. Even if we have to gasp regulate some of that stability.

Also: Check out the articles on the right for a understanding of the bias of this think tank.

The Mises institute, a rotten lair of willful lies funded by the oil industry. I have no idea this misinformation gets posted here.

I'm fairly sure the real problem during the big freeze was natural gas not being winterized. Wind power is less than 25% (being generous many would call it less than 10%) of the power stack of Texas and it wasn't the only one or even the most significant failing during a crisis. If anything I bet wind was what kept things running during the crisis.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wind-turbines-texas-power-outag...

> Yet when wind collapsed during the deep freeze, suddenly even its biggest fans admit that nobody ever thought it could do the same job as natural gas.

Or just was not designed to do so in this case?