You are not listening to what I'm saying and making up your own conclusions to what I am saying. Out of curiosity what could have been done to avoid this?

Nothing. Most of Canada and the Northern US and Europe just shut everything down and live "off the grid" for most of the winter. Hopefully one day we discover ways to produce electricity in cold weather.

Then what you are saying is not at all clear so clarify.

It seemed to me you were suggesting the choice to put some of the budget money ("over investment") for energy assets into renewables reduced the dollars available for "reliables" thus the needed 'safety equipment' was not in place.


If accurate that simply is not how things work and you have a vast misunderstanding. What you are referring to is the choice skew.

Regardless of choice skew, SAFETY has to be built in to the dollars allocated. That means if Nuclear only get 30% of the budget (because N.Gas and Solar get a share) but the nuclear advocatess and lobbyist wanted 50% what DOES NOT HAPPEN is the Nuclear guys build their assets without the proper safety measures so they can save money there and increase capacity.

Then the Nuclear facility melts down and they say 'it is N.Gas and Solar's fault because if they did not get that share of the budget we would have had money for safety.

NO. Not how it works. Not even a little bit. It does not matter what percent of the budget NGas, Nuclear, and Solar get. For each dollar they DO get they must allocate the correct percent to safety (not just physical production assets).

In this case the N.Gas and Nuclear did not allocate the correct percent to winterizing assets in direct contrast to what nearby El Paso DID spend the needed percentage on safety and they had no such problem.

So that is what could have been done to avoid this.

While it can be hard for one country to learn from another's mistake, heck even State to State that is tough. But different cities in the SAME State should learn from the mistakes of others. El Paso learned from their mistake 10 years prior while the rest of Texas just crossed their fingers and said 'we are not doing anything different and are just going to hope for the best'.

El Paso managed through it near flawlessly as the rest of Texas collapsed into chaos. The lessen is not 'less renewables' and is harden your assets and make sure you do not scrimp on safety.

(oh and lol at Bobo)

If a country / state let's the market deliver a utility, service or good, the state does not need to behave like an idiot in the market it created. Government not only can, but it should assess the risks of such markets, especially when it comes to critical services and utilities.

There are things such as contracts, stipulations and regulations a government can use. Of course such things can drive up costs, as suppliers price them into their quotes. Then again, leaning back and doing very little has never in itself been a guarantee of fair pricing either.

Of course, you can include too many risks. There are disasters and contingencies in the world where the costs of preparing for them outweigh the benefits. If some regulation drove up the price of electricity, that too can cost lives or health of citizens. So all such things must be looked at fairly and by independent experts.

It's not normal in America. My parents live in Texas and 99.9% of Texans don't have these ridiculous plans where residential customers gamble on energy prices with limited upside and much much greater downside. There probably hasn't been an incident like this one before, so nobody bothered to regulate them, but I imagine they will be outlawed or modified after this.

Wasn't there an incident in 2011?

This prompted a huge report that essentially recommended changes that would have prevented/lessened what just occurred?

Once again, politicians do nothing except line their own pockets with money and power while "the people" pay for it with their own lives and money.

The system is broken.

Society is not far behind.

I doubt you see any real change.

The way CEO pay and investor return is too often tied to short term gains means there is almost no incentive to fix this very broken system.

They in fact did maximize profits by choosing to NOT reduce profits over the years by making the type of big capital expenditures that nearby El Paso did after the last massively damaging cold spell. They ignored all the reports to do so. And in so doing made lots of profits in those intervening years. El Paso's utilities would have made substantially more too, almost certainly if they ignored the upgrade costs.

Now it might be possible that they would end up giving all those profits back and more, if this incident cost them more to repair and especially if people could sue them for damages and loss of life. But the way the system works and likely gov't enacted liability protections, , and knowing Federal money is now coming in to bail them out, I doubt that.

I would also bet some Federal Money is allocated to upgrade all the facilities meaning they get socialism to cut their losses and then socialism to build their improved infrastructure for tomorrow. And then they get to go back to maximizing their private profits.

At least TX ultra cold weather has nothing to do with climate change. Green house gasses don’t produce cold weather

Not sure. I didn't see any viral stories about 4 fig bills for 1 day then.

I think (but am not sure) these plans weren't around then. Obv freezing temps has happened before.

My post was moved here but I think it's unfair to a climate change thread.
I took the power bills as an example but it could have been medicine or food, etc...
i.e I feel the people who scream with glory that markets decide, offer and demand is sacred and gtfo with communism **** , are the 1st one to scream bailouts when they are hit by these mechanisms.

On the energy crisis and the texas problem, we are fkd.
Imagine the leading country, the one that is supposed to show the example, mess that bad.
And the whole problem at its core can be summed up in 2 words:
Bad faith.

Not sure is serious so click me.

I'll take some of the blame for that, as I suggested it in a post report - seemed like the perfect fit since it was all about TX and energy and seemed like that's what you wanted to discuss.

There's a capitalism vs communism thread going that might interest you. It's not how the thread started, but that's where it's gone (and was renamed as such today).

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...alism-1786075/

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=152

In 2019, I thought solar power satellites shooting microwave at earth was more sci fi than reality and we'd see people try in like 50 years.

I was wrong.

People are trying now.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/23/ameri...ntl/index.html

YouTube videos != Science

Just one example

Rarely but severe cold days in Dallas happen and have been happening for a long time!

Coldest Days in Dallas History

3 coldest periods in Dallas History


Largest snowfall events in Austin!

Big Austin Snowfall Events

Haha, again not sure is serious or trolling so good job in saying really dumb stuff.

A video does not equal science any more than an internet article equals science any more than web link equals science. But what is reported in any of those formats CAN be science. What was in my video was science. So lets cut out that garbage line.


You started with an absolute position, with a factual statement that what happened in Texas has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Your statement assumes the science is settled and its a position of fact you are stating.

I offered you a video that educated you on the fact that this is not settled. They acknowledge these events have happened before (as have devastating hurricane's) but they speak to the INCREASING and more predictable frequency.

This is not proof of climate change impacting any singular events (big snow storm, singular hurricane) but it is certainly proof in totality of climate change having an impact now planet wide.

That science is really not even in dispute now on either side of what used to be a partisan divide. Both sides acknowledge it.

Cool story science bro's.








On average during the winter there is a typical jet stream pattern across Europe and Asia with a ridge to the west and a trough to the east. But because of Arctic Amplification from climate change this jet stream can be magnified (made more extreme) which has implications for weather around the Northern Hemisphere.






On average the pattern the next few weeks should feature a ridge of high pressure with warm and dry conditions in the U.S. West and a dip in the jet stream, called a trough, in the east with disturbances (areas of low pressure) rotating around the trough. Any of these disturbances has the potential to turn into a winter storm.

Pfft. His feelings don't care about your facts.

Tweets aren’t science either. I posted cites to recorded data that clearly show that these cold events have been happening for over a century in Texas. Weather volatility is proof of climate change is ridiculous application of logic! Claiming I am a climate change denier by stating green house gasses don’t cause cold weather is even more ridiculous. We need to regulate green house gas emissions to curb the warming of the planet period!

The coldest day in Dallas history occurred in 1899! Same cold events happened in Dallas in 1899 and 1983! The recent snowfall in Austin was only the 6th highest in recorded history! These are facts, not feelings.

Winter weather history for Dallas area:

Dallas Winter Data

Data clearly shows that Dallas low winter temp being in minus F territory is a semi rare but not a one off event.

Opposing a logical fallacy != being a climate change denier.

Tropical storm naming for Caribbean area got into the Greeks in 2020! NOAA data clearly shows tropical storm activity has had a significant increase over the last decade and is highest in recorded history. Greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced.

The sound approach is to state more research needs to be done on localized weather phenomena and extreme weather events, and to what extent these are tied to climate change.

The research on overall global warming has been at a extremely high level of consensus for a long time, with disagreements largely stemming from technical application of models and analysis. There is no question here that the conclusion drawn is that climate change represents a very high treat to humanity. Perhaps not extinction-event level threat, but definitely in the ballpark of "global thermonuclear war".

Another garbage claim by you.

No website is science.

The contents of what is reported within any format is what may or may not be science and to determine that you must review what is provided and the citations they make within the reporting.

If you require simply posting of the text of scientific studies there are hundreds if not thousands that support my position. Far more than you can cite. That, however would be rather dry. And I doubt you have not seen them and simply hand waved them away mocking the 'science'.

More on the 'not science' front as major Oil and Gas industry companies in Texas, in 2018 where lobbying the governemtn to use taxpayer money to fortify the area around their facilities to protect against what they cite as the future effects of climate change.

You know, just for the lulz. When it comes to admitting climate change is happening and perhaps a carbon tax should be in place to help offset the costs of dealing with it, fingers in ears, 'nah nah nah not listening. Fake science'. As those impacts extract real cost from Oil and Gas assets, 'heh citizens, you need to pay to fix this for us, so we don't end up stuck with any of the costs'.


Big oil asks government to protect it from climate change


As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile “spine” of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would ... shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it...


...Texas is seeking at least $12 billion for the full coastal spine, with nearly all of it coming from public funds. Last month, the government fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion for three separate, smaller storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities....

...“The oil and gas industry is getting a free ride,” said Brandt Mannchen, a member of the Sierra Club’s executive committee in Houston. “You don’t hear the industry making a peep about paying for any of this and why should they? There’s all this push like, ‘Please Senator Cornyn, Please Senator Cruz, we need money for this and that.’”

Normally outspoken critics of federal spending, Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz both backed using taxpayer funds to fortify the oil facilities’ protections and the Texas coast. Cruz called it “a tremendous step forward.”...

...Phillips 66 and other energy firms spent money last year lobbying Congress on storm-related funding post-Harvey, campaign finance records show, and Houston's Lyondell Chemical Co. PAC lobbied for building a coastal spine.

"The coastal spine benefits more than just our industry," Bob Patel, CEO of LyondellBasell, one of the world's largest plastics, chemicals and refining companies, said in March. "It really needs to be a regional effort."

Just as the Republican Senator who brought the snow ball into congress to prove that Climate change was a hoax, you too are making the ignorant assumption that 'weather = climate'.

No one, and i mean NO ONE, is saying we have never seen such weather prior. Incidents of weather do not equal climate. Frequency, severity, change, equal climate which then impact weather events.

You are simply ignorant here and about 10 years behind this debate. People, even on the denier side gave up on the idiocy you are repeating here and have moved on to less silly arguments.

Seriously, read the article I posted above and see that even the staunchest republican deniers in Texas from the Oil and Gas industry have now pivoted to admitting it and the risks and now just are arguing over who should pay for it and protections from it.

Why? Because they foresaw such extreme events as this 2021 storm and other events happening more frequently and costing them tons of money to fix AFTER if money is not spent in advance to protect assets. They just want the gov't to pay. Just as the Federal and State gov't are now jumping in to pay for the damage of this cold front and you can place a safe bet, the Energy companies will get a good chunk of that taxpayer bailout money.