I couldn't believe the WSJ Editorial Board came out with an article saying otherwise. Wouldn't being blatantly factually incorrect about business analysis hurt their reputation among their target audience?
The target audience of the WSJ has learned long time ago to treat the editorial board as the crazy uncle you ignore at Christmas gatherings. The WSJ has arguably the best news gathering organization in the US. Their editorial board is a joke in comparison and nobody takes them seriously. They usually take the side of the rich against anybody, so I am sure most old school WSJ readers appreciate that but that does not mean one should go as far as believing them.
It is not unusual for the news section and the editorial section to take completely opposing positions on an issue. (I think they did that this past summer on the issue of effectiveness of masks.)
I don't currently pay for news. I would be willing to pay extra for a subscription to a reputable newspaper if they would assure me that the money wouldn't go to the editorial board.
You need to mentally downgrade your expectations of the WSJ editorial board; this isn’t new behavior at all. If you look for it, you’ll notice the naked contempt that the WSJ news side has for their editorial board, and occasionally post “yeah, those were all lies that the editorial board just said” pieces.
> I couldn't believe the WSJ Editorial Board came out with an article saying otherwise. Wouldn't being blatantly factually incorrect about business analysis hurt their reputation among their target audience?
Who do you imagine the audience is for the editorial pages of the WSJ?
Even long before Murdoch took it over, that part of the paper has a very different reputation and appeal than the rest.
The WSJ Editorial board was writing editorials outright denying climate change as late as 2016, so it's not like they have a strong track record to sully.
Editorial board's audience is "my tribe", and I don't believe that "my tribe" ever really has much of a factual requirement. I know I unconsciously support the positions of my tribe more those of not my tribe.
I suspect that the target audience of WSJ is inclined to like WSJ no matter what the editorial board pursues as long as they stay within their tribal lane.
That's true to some extent, but when it hits people in their wallets, it starts to break down somewhat. Taking the wrong side of this bet could lose businesses really large amounts of money.
It’s not clear to me who to believe. This fact check claims only 4 GW of wind power was down but the link that precedes that claim doesn’t actually state that. Meanwhile the WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002) claims 42% of power came from wind in the week before the freeze but there’s no sourcing of that either.
Believe primary sources that you can read and understand yourself. That’s it. Sad that we’ve come to this, but I had to adopt that policy last year for obvious reasons.
This other source claims 16 GW of renewable energy, mostly wind, is offline as compared to 30 GW of thermal sources (gas, coal, nuclear). That’s a very different claim from Politifact’s figure of 4 GW of wind offline. However Politifact frames it as 4 GW of wind experiencing problems (presumably meaning freezing problems and not just lack of wind). That seems like a spin of a different kind from the WSJ editorial.
EDIT: even more bizarrely, a different fact check from Politifact relating to the Texas outages claims yet another loss figure for wind power of only 2 GW, disagreeing with their other fact check: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-car...
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it a ton and we ban that sort of account. We're trying for something a bit different here.
You should always be doubtful of the thesis from editorial articles, but you could be less contemptuous... and more correct.
>...between the mornings of Feb. 7 and Feb. 11, wind as a share of the state’s electricity fell to 8% from 42%, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
>Gas-fired plants produced 43,800 MW of power Sunday night and coal plants chipped in 10,800 MW—about two to three times what they usually generate at their peak on any given winter day—after wind power had largely vanished. In other words, gas and coal plants held up in the frosty conditions far better than wind turbines did.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613...
so wind power cratered and other sources are running at 2-3x their normal despite problems from the cold like equipment freezing and water at water intake facilities freezing. this is despite a just in time operational mindset that is causing shortages of natural gas. power plants are shutting down because they don't have gas to burn.
so you can't blame it on wind power really. but your comment is fantastically derisive.
the 42 to 8 statistic is from a government organization.
generation is not equal to consumption because texas lacks batteries to store excess energy.
the politifact article is correct that the failure is on carbon based plants, and its on plants that are not used to cold weather for obvious reasons. but its also silly because the implication is that you just need more windmills. which is obviously silly because texas has one of the highest wind energy %s in the US.
but carbon based plants are running 3 times as hot as theyre used to and plants are shutting down because they dont have fuel. So you obviously need carbon fuel to help out.
the carbon plants are stepping up as much as they can but its not enough.
thats it. no huge conspiracy theory. but lots of people like to make fun of the other side.
they need more power, and you cant magically sprout up wind turbines
I don’t think that’s the implication at all. The implication is that some people are blaming wind generation for this shortage because of a few iced over turbines. When the cause is a system-wide failure to prepare for cold weather conditions.
I don’t know how to reconcile your claim of “wind power cratered” with plenty of other sources claiming “wind power generation exceeded expectations.” It makes me suspect you are not arguing in good faith.
sorry what? my point is that it is a system wide failure.
but the wind power dropped to 8% of power generated. carbon power obviously has to make up the difference and there are plants shutting down because they dont have fuel.
all wind power has to do to exceed expectations is to lose 50% as opposed to the expected 60%. (random numbers)
its easier to pump gas than it is to construct a wind turbine? the politifact article is blaming carbon plants, and I said that's true, but you need to understand the context. theyre blaming carbon plants because theyre the only source of power you can ramp up quickly without the wind complying
I think the 42 to 8 statistic is measuring a different metric.
My understanding is that natural gas, coal, and other fossil fuel-based electric sources only run when it is profitable to do so. When the price of natural gas is low and the price of electricity is high, it makes sense to use natural gas to generate electricity. When it's the other way around, turning natural gas into electricity is a money-losing proposition.
By contrast, wind and solar power have no input cost. So long as there is wind or sunlight, renewable power is being provided to the grid.
Last week, temperatures were higher and there was less demand for electricity. Prices were lower, so less fossil fuel energy was needed/wanted/generated.
This week, the temperature drop greatly increased demand for energy, increasing prices with it. More fossil fuels are burned. While the amount of wind/solar power generated did not greatly chang, the total amount of electricity generated increased, reducing renewables' share.
I think I get what you're saying. the amount of energy required increased, and therefore the % of energy from natural resources decreased because carbon plants are running 3 times as hot? especially since you'd rather burn free renewable energy as opposed to a limited supply of gas.
but isnt that the point? even if wind energy held up better than expected, theyre still not enough to cover the energy needs?
texas needs energy that they dont have.
and obviously the wind/solar output DID drop, and carbon plants have to make up for it
Yeah, Texas needs energy they don't have. They could have it if they were connected to any other power grid. But they purposefully built their grid to be incompatible with the US's other grids. There are still some interchanges, but those are inefficient (have to convert power from AC to DC and then back to AC at a different frequency) and running well over their capacity right now.
