Nuclear scored the highest grade of an A, followed by natural gas and coal with C’s. Solar was the only renewable energy source to score higher than an F with a grade of a D, while hydro and wind scored F’s.
Texas gets electricity from six sources: coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar, hydro and wind...Some natural gas pipelines froze, contributing to the blackout. However: "Remarkably, natural gas still generated electricity at 38 percent of its total capacity throughout the energy emergency – providing on average over 65 percent of all electricity generation through Monday and Tuesday – despite roughly 30 GW being inoperable due to frozen pipelines holding up fuel."
It was the “green” energy sources that failed to show up for work: "The three worst-performing generating assets, on the other hand, belonged exclusively to renewable energy sources: solar, hydro, and wind. Had Texas been even more reliant on these energy sources, as renewable energy advocates around the country desire, the energy crisis in Texas would have been even worse."
Solar was irrelevant, and wind virtually irrelevant. - "You can rightfully label wind energy as the most unreliable energy source during the Texas energy crisis." As such, you can rightfully label wind energy as the most unreliable energy source during the Texas energy crisis. While it may not have been the primary cause of the power outages, it certainly wouldn’t have done Texas any good to have more wind capacity on the system. In fact, more wind capacity would have only made things worse.
'Today, about a third of California’s electricity comes from renewables, including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydropower dams. Solar installations, in particular, skyrocketed. In just five years, solar went from less than 1 percent of California’s in-state electricity generation in 2012 to over 11 percent in 2017. But electricity from natural gas has also held steady. In 2017, it represented more than 40 percent of California’s in-state generation.'
In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared, "Climate change is the greatest health challenge of the 21st century, and threatens all aspects of the society in which we live." Now COVID-19 has top billing as the existential health threat, but the proposed response is the same, writes Marc Morano in the fall issue of issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
"Climate distress is very difficult, if not impossible, to bear alone...The IPCC report is the bearer of alarming news for all on Earth. How can we best hear and respond to this alarm, caring for ourselves and others while mustering motivation and commitment for desperately needed action? The research of climate psychology tells us that rather than suppress or avoid our distress, we need to welcome it as a healthy response to the climate crisis. If we are not feeling some level of fear and grief, we are in denial. Acknowledging the myriad feelings of distress we have in response to climate breakdown is crucial for sustained action in response. Our feelings show us how much we care about our world, our communities, our lives and our loved ones. This caring is the basis for the action and change our world needs from us all right now.