Re: Climate models are wrong.

Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 3/1/2025 2:01 PM, William Hyde wrote:
...

BTW, Texas, the King of the so-called renewables, will not allow more
than 30% of the so-called renewables in the electric generation mix
for ERCOT.  Above 30% is the loss of control region for ERCOT.

>
Well, in the first place the expertise of Texas power regulators is
open to question.
>
But even if the upper limit for them is in fact 30%, that's a lot.
Throw in some nuclear power and the greenhouse emissions from
electrical generation are dramatically reduced.
>
I live in a promise where on any given day at most 10% of the
generation comes from fossil fuels, the rest being Hydro, Nuclear, and
to a much lesser extent wind and solar.
>
William Hyde

 
Right now at this moment, Texas is using electric power from:
1. Solar:       23,469 MW
2. Wind:         2,272 MW
3. Hydro:            0 MW
4. Batteries:      237 MW
5. Other:            0 MW
6. Natural Gas: 11,480 MW
7. Coal:         5,278 MW
8. Nuclear:      5,107 MW
=========================
Total:          47,843 MW
 
I think that I was wrong about the max of the so-called renewables.  The
max of 30% may just apply to wind power since the wind power ebbs and
flows with the wind.  When cold fronts come through Texas, the wind
turbines will actually go to zero power as they rotate the wind turbines
to face the wind, not a very quick process.

>
That sounds more reasonable, and directly contradicts Christy.
>
I know that LBJ was first elected to congress so that he could obtain
legal permissions to carry on with a flood control/hydro power dam that
had been begun illegally.  I guess that if it's still around, that dam
is not contributing 0.5%.
>
By the way, I live in a province, not a promise.  Maybe it's a promising
province.  So they have been saying my entire life, anyway.