Comments (27)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
Dangrenade [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

5, maybe six days worth.

Was that sufficient? Obviously not.

1
TheWackaFlack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where is your source in this?

1
Dangrenade [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good question. I included a link.

1
Dangrenade [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just click on my text / post. It opens up.

1
TheWackaFlack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah so.... that link doesn't say anything about storage of NG.

1
Dangrenade [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did you read my title, and how I dissed the article?

1
Dangrenade [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have a snapshot of a chart from ERCOT, but I can’t paste it here. Here’s a link showing that as wind and solar dropped off, NatGas picked up the slack, but they only had enough for about five days.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46836

0
TheWackaFlack 0 points ago +1 / -1

"Natural gas wells in the region have been affected by freezing temperatures that have disrupted production, and pipeline compressors have lost power."

Did you read the article? if the compressors loose power then it doesn't matter how much storage we have.

If you want nuclear power move to Fukushima.

1
Dangrenade [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks for proving my point about the unreliability of NatGas

1
Dangrenade [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Go stick a windmill up your ass