Texas had a record breaking cold snap this past week as a result of the Jet Stream slumping way south of where it normally sits, and allowing a huge mass of arctic air to drop temperatures down into the range of -20C. For a state that rarely sees 0F, that's shockingly cold. As you have seen in the news, the power grid in Texas basically collapsed in the face of record cold and snowy conditions.
In the wake of this, we have had numerous figures blaming this power disaster on renewable energy sources like wind turbines. Factually, even CNN is pointing out that this is utter nonsense. Anyone who lives in a more wintery climate (like Alberta for example) is used to -20C or colder temperatures not affecting much of anything.
So, why did the Texas power grid collapse so violently? DailyKOS published an analysis this week which walks through the combination of policy going back to the days of electrification in the 1930s, ego, greed, and what ultimately is a fundamental failure to safeguard the public interest by Texas politicians.
Mechanically, the basic statement is that Texas has never bothered to spend the money needed to prepare their infrastructure for winter conditions, even in the wake of a 2011 weather event which resulted in rolling power outages.
While it would be an enjoyable exercise to talk about the relative ease with which the technical problems could be solved, the politics are much more informative, especially with a conservative disinformation campaign gearing up to discredit "green" energy in the public mind.
Texas' woes really started when the state decided to "go it alone" by not allowing its grid to interconnect with its neighbours. This arose out of some conservative paranoia about "federal regulators". As a result, the Texas power grid basically stands as an island in the North American power grid system. It has minor interconnects with its neighbours, but none are adequate to do more than the most trivial of load balancing, certainly not enough to hold the grid up if a major collapse starts.
Isolationism, combined with a deep rooted skepticism about climate change (funded by Texas-based oil companies), meant that a lot of executives in the Texas energy industry decided that taking protective steps to avoid blackouts was an unnecessary expense. When a 2011 winter storm resulted in recommendations to winterize, those ideas quietly disappeared off the radar after a couple of more normal winters.
Here in Canada, we are getting fed a steady stream of right wing propaganda that "renewables are unreliable". Yes, there are days where the wind doesn't blow (although residents of Lethbridge, AB might contest that); there are overcast days where solar isn't going to be as efficient, and so on. I think we all know these as "self evident facts". Yes, you need a range of generation options right now. Nobody with any sense is saying you don't.
However, politics being what it is, people with very deep pockets are pouring huge dollars into convincing you that renewable energy isn't the way to go. Why? Because their profits depend on burning fossil fuels for as long as possible. They know, just as well as you and I do when we look at the hard science, that the bill for burning hydrocarbons for energy is coming due. They want to maximize their profits as long as possible. So, they pour money into disinformation spread through PostMedia, Fox News, and wherever else they own control.
The "right" mix of energy sources is largely going to be a matter of engineering decisions, not political. Arguments like those being put forth by Danielle Smith and other writers for PostMedia do us no favours by choosing to lie about the reality of what happened in Texas.
2 comments:
Must be a two for one special on at Postmedia to diss renewable energy. That notorious wordsmith "I'm a genius, just ask me" Rexius Murphy has a similar fact-free opinion column on Texas' electricity failure.
Presumably these dingbats are incapable of phoning up their local electrical utility and being connected to the System Planning department, where engineers who get paid to get things right actually do know about reliability and what makes things tick. Of course, the Smiths and Murphys of this world are afraid some cool and calm professional might well advise them of facts in ways that don't jive with their crackpot world view.
Some dork of an opinion writer like Smith or Murphy is but a dork of an opinion writer, no more and most certainly less.
BM
I don't know why we call this movement "conservative." While I've always been liberal it took me some years before I delved into what it means to be conservative. I went back to Edmund Burke and the first principles he stated.
Two things struck me from reading Burke. The first thing was that Burke wrote of a time when conservatives and liberals could work together while agreeing to disagree. Perhaps the more important revelation was how little resemblance remains between foundational conservatism and what we know as conservative today.
Conservative implies conservation, preservation. Burke, for example, wrote that we are but "tenants of the land," a privilege that carries a duty that we leave the land better than we received it. Theodore Roosevelt expressed this sentiment in almost identical words in his Square Deal speech in Osawatomie, Kansas in the summer of 1910. It was Teddy Roosevelt, a true-to-Burke conservative, who championed national parks as well as trust busting, who placed the well-being of ordinary Americans as the first priority of Republican governance.
From reading Burke and Roosevelt I came to realize that progressivism is not the exclusive preserve of the left. It only appears that way because the right purged it from their doctrine. I think this has contributed to the unnatural list in modern rightwing politics and democracy's descent into Lord of the Flies tribalism.
Post a Comment