Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by edbob 1916 days ago
> Wind ran at about 50% of capacity and that was because it wasn't winterized.

That's bullshit. I was watching the ERCOT feed [0] during the blackouts, and I never saw it exceed 30%. I posted about it here extensively during the event, and no one reported seeing higher numbers. Right now wind is 5727 MW (23% of installed wind capacity), which is actually a little higher than the average generation I was seeing during the blackouts. PolitiFact very suspiciously doesn't want to say which sources are supposed to support which claims, but I can't find any support for their figures in their ERCOT links, which are the only actual sources provided.

Edit: I did a little more digging, and found that it's your claim that "wind ran at about 50% of capacity" that is completely false. The truth is that only half of the capacity was frozen, but that does not mean that the other half was producing. About half of the unfrozen capacity was not producing for other reasons. The truth is that wind output was 15-30% of capacity due to a combination of factors, including turbines freezing, batteries losing capacity and plain lack of wind. PolitiFact is not outright lying, they're just being as misleading as they possibly can be by cherry-picking stats like "50% was unfrozen" but omitting highly relevant data like "70-85% was offline". That's propaganda, not fact-checking.

[0] http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_condi...

1 comments

Wind turbines have a normal capacity and a maximum output. They weren't running at 50% of maximum output they were running at 50% of normal capacity.

When wind turbines run at maximum capacity prices often go negative or turbines get switched off.

I don't think politifact is the one being misleading here.

I think you have your terms mixed up. Capacity refers to the maximum output. "Normal capacity" isn't a thing. You could say "normal output" or "expected output".