Talk:2021 Texas power crisis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 June 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jt91326.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Power Crisis

I believe the storm itself has already been sufficiently covered in other articles. However, I would see the benefit of centering this article completely around the Texas power crisis, as that has received loads of coverage and maybe rename the draft 2021 Texas Power Crisis or something like that, depending on the WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543:Hi, thanks for the feedback! This sounds good to me, but I think I don't have enough edits to rename the page. Would you like to do it? Burritok (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Burritok: I have completed the move. I also rejected the draft for now. Don't fret, the article just needs to be refocused to match the new title. In other words, it needs to be focus mainly on the power crisis. I also think that more details can be added. Once that is complete, I will probably accept it. I'll also offer some help, if you don't mind. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: Certainly, help is very much appreciated! Thanks! I'll keep adding details wherever I can.

I can understand how water pipelines may burst in cold weather (water expands as it turns into ice) but I feel it is not possible for natural gas pipelines to burst due to cold weather, as gases expand due to heat, not due to cold.

At least twice in the article, mention is made of gas pipelines bursting due to cold. Monatowfik (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point; from a quick survey of the articles discussing this I don't see mention of gas lines bursting, just freezing and depressurizing. Burritok (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Background - Too Much Focus on the Storms?

@EDG 543: You're adding a lot of information about the storms which is not directly relevant to the power crisis in Texas. I'm all for including a section about how other locations were impacted, but I think some details about the storm's development don't belong, for example, "one half continued into Quebec and the other moving out over the Atlantic Ocean," and, "In addition, at least 49 people lost their lives in total[17] and a tornado outbreak from the storm spanned Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina resulted in several structures and trees being damaged or destroyed, and the tornado in Brunswick damaged dozens of homes and killed at least three people" — this information belongs in articles specifically about the storms. As you suggested earlier, I believe we should keep this article more focused ;) Burritok (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: @Davidwr: I may (emphasis on the word "may") have went a teeny bit overboard with that background section. Now, are you suggesting that the entire section be done away with? I do believe that the section is needed, but could be cut down significantly to avoid trivial details. However, I believe that the section should be similarly expanded with details regarding Texas' lack of preparedness, aging power grid, failure to learn from the 2011 incidents, etc. as those details are more relevant to the scope of this article. What do you fancy of that idea? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong person. I have not edited this article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman, pardon me! The user who had written this failed to sign, and I just checked my notifications and saw your name. You had mentioned me elsewhere, I see now. Sincerest apologies, sir. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No issue. Hope you get the response you're looking for. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: Sorry, I forgot to sign! I agree the background section is important, just some details about the storm should probably be trimmed down. Many thanks again for all the help! Burritok (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: I'm not sure why you pinged me, but the lack of preparedness that led up to the major meteorological event becoming a power crisis is very relevant, in much the same way that Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico includes Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico § Infrastructure and recession. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: As for Burritok's suggestion to trim the background, I agree, let's keep the whole article focused on what the article is about - the 2021 Texas power crisis. Yes, there needs to be background, but the background that's irrelevant to Texas is, well, irrelevant to Texas. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I really do think I'm starting to lose it... You may have seen that I pinged another user before you mistakenly. Since there was no signature, I looked in my notifications to see who mentioned me, and saw him. When he pointed out my error, I made the same mistake of looking at who had mentioned me prior to that, which happened to be you. I'm terribly sorry to have wasted your time, but thank you for your valuable input nonetheless. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you live in Texas, know someone who lives in Texas, or have been paying attention to the news out of Texas this week, nobody is going to blame you if you are "starting to lose it" or "lost it several days ago". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for ITN

Just a notice to editors that I've nominated this article for Wikipedia:In the news for February 19, 2021. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note to editors, the article was denied recognition in the Wikipedia:In the news. Consensus closed at 04:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC). (Elijahandskip (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC))

"Names"

The Weather Channel's naming of storms should not be used in this article, as it is in the lead. The names are for marketing purposes and have no official standing. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:Did You Know

This would make a good WP:Did You Know entry. @Burritok: are you familiar with the DYN process or would you like someone else to nominate it for you?

I haven't checked the rules lately, but I don't think it will qualify for DYN if it is mentioned on the front page at around the same time. This means if it gets on the WP:In the news section (see above), I don't think it will be eligible for DYN. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say do it, even if it makes ITN they can hold back the DYK. All you have to do is find something weird or unexpected from the article; see Wikipedia:Recent additions for examples. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Update to this: I created a DYK nomination for this if no one minds. You can see it at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Texas power crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllegedlyHuman (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If we can work the cold-shocked-sea-turtle rescue into the power failure, we can use that. It's a stretch though, since that effort would've been pretty much the same even without the power outages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I suggested:

"Did you know ... that Governor Greg Abbott blamed the 2021 Texas power crisis on frozen wind turbines?"

If you have another idea for a blurb though absolutely add it on the nomination page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Unfortunately, unless I can find a reliable source that shows something about the sea turtle rescue was different in an interesting/DYN-ish sort of way because of the power outage it won't make a good hook. Plus, I haven't even found a RS that says that the sea turtle rescue was different in any meaningful way at all because of the power outage. It WAS different in that they used the convention center, but that wasn't because of the power outage, that was because of deferred maintenance at the sea-turtle-rescue organization's own facilities. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Another one might be "Did you know... the Texas power grid is separate from the rest of the United States?" Burritok (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This is kind of wrong, there is a non-permanent connection to the east grid, which was used for a short period of time this week until that grid kicked them off. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow: If you are referring to the Texas grid's DC ties, there are two to the US East and one to Mexico. To say that the US East grid "kicked them off" isn't the right term to use, it's not like they are kicked off permanently. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey User_talk:davidwr - I never said permanently, you did. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Archive Reference Request

If possible, please include a link to the archive of sources in your references. This will help prevent long term URL "link rot". Thanks in advance!

• 1st - to determine if a webpage (or file) had previously been archived: paste the URL in the top field of https://archive.org/web/ then click "Browse History" button. If the article exists, then copy the new URL from your browser to use in the reference.

• 2nd - to archive a webpage (or file): paste the URL in bottom-right field under "Save Page Now" then click "Save Page Now" button. It can takes 10's of seconds to do, sometimes longer depending on how busy the archive.org servers are at the time you do it. Since this is a slow process, it's faster to first check if the webpage has already been archived, per step 1 above.

• NOTE - the archived date is packed within the URL link in the format of YYYYMMDD. For example "https://web.archive.org/web/20210218002049/...", the archived date was February 18, 2021. The dates are based on UTC time zone, so it's quite normal for some links to appear to be off by 1 day relative to your time zone. Some examples are my references in the "Investigations" section of this article".

Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Governor Greg Abbott initially and incorrectly blamed the 2021 Texas power crisis on frozen wind turbines? (Source: USA Today)
• ... that during the 2021 Texas power crisis, the governor ordered natural gas producers not to export gas out of state? (Source: Governor's official web site)

Created by Burritok (talk). Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk) at 02:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC).

• I changed "blamed" to "initially blamed" in the Greg Abbott hook. He later backtracked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• I added an alternate hook about hoarding natural gas. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am impressed by the quick and good work on this article; let's hope it doesn't get bogged down with news items and trivia, but so far so good. It's clean, verified, new enough, long enough. Both hooks are verified, but I say we go with the first, for its obvious attractions. Since Burritok is a brand-new user there is no need for a QPQ, but we should, given the extensive history, give co-credit to User:EDG 543 for all their good work. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose the first without clarification that it was false and misleading. Reywas92^Talk 01:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Drmies, thank you, and I agree, the article did turn out well, thanks to the efforts of many editors working in tandem. However, I would have to agree with Reywas92. I think we should mention that it was a false accusation. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92, there is no need for "strongly" anything here. We're all colleagues. User:EDG 543, if you like you can tweak the hook, but I think you'll have to do so in a more neutral manner than "falsely", with all its implications. You could add "and incorectly"; that seems to be neutral enough to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies, I fully agree and the change has been made. Thank you for your suggestion. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK so I'll tick that off again. DYK volunteers, the sooner we get this on the front page, the more hits! Drmies (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• DYK is not a means of promoting political causes. The article has disputed/failed verification info in the lead and infobox that could be fairly readily resolved, but using the nomination/DYK summary to fact-check governor Abbott's early statement which placed incorrectly weighted blame on wind turbines is hijacking DYK for partisan purposes. We should tread carefully here. As for his order against exporting natural gas, that doesn't seem particularly salient or interesting. IMHO the winter storm article is probably more deserving of a DYK, but for this article, there has to be a better fact to call out. There was already an In the News nomination; and the winter storm is currently in the In the News section, and probably more deservedly so, since it is a larger event inclusive of this one. Star7m (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This statement is absolutely verified; see the source provided. There is no basis for the idea that political topics cannot be featured in DYK, nor is there basis for the idea that when an article details a smaller aspect of a larger event, only the larger event can be featured. What you didn't mention is that you yourself added those tags to the article lead; you're not just observing them. And it's also impossible not to notice that for someone with four edits total, all of which are related to this, you know quite a bit about the Wikipedia process. I would be very careful about accusations of "hijacking DYK for partisan purposes" when you cannot prove you're acting with clean hands. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I was not questioning whether the statement was verified or accurate. There are two aspects of DYK review, the condition of the article and the suitability of the called-out DYK fact/blurb. The "disputed/failed verification info in the lead and infobox" was a concern unrelated to the Abbott quote. Regarding the larger concern with the Abbott quote, I know there is obviously precedent for political topics in DYK, but DYK should not be weaponized to cherry-pick statements to target politicians. Do we really "need to know" this? Star7m (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What we really need to know is whether or not you're a sockpuppet, as I have reason to suspect you may be (WP:PREC, WP:XS, WP:BRIEFLY). Drmies, would you care to look into this? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Star7m, to be fair, I doubt if there has ever been anything included in the DYK section that was actually completely necessary for anyone reading it. The general rule regarding politics, according to WP:DYK is that it should not be "a means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches)." So it seems that we should examine our intentions in displaying this: is it to simply share the fact that renewable energy sources were blamed for the crisis, or to defame Mr. Abbott? I don't see any words that would indicate a violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 16:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Star7m, drive-by editors who are either socks or totally inexperienced shouldn't get to torpedo this submission. I left your comments, for now, but removed your untick. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Update on this: [1] AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Water crisis

Perhaps this should be called 2021 Texas power and water crisis, due to expanding crisis? -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to request a name change, see WP:RM#CM. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

NO, because water was a side affect of the electricity outage. If you are going to rename the article, then need to consider 2021 Texas cold weather crisis and possibly other variations too? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Texas infrastructure crisis ? -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

I just restored a previous version of the lead. There had been some clear NPOV editing that removed several sources and changed the main cause for the crisis. Fortunately, someone quickly edited to fix the immediate problem. After reviewing the current version and comparing it to the version prior to the conflict, I came to the conclusion that the old lead is superior to the current lead because it is cleaner and well-sourced. ―NK1406 15:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox, lead, duration, and deaths

The infobox and lead are currently inaccurate or misleading, as to the duration, extent and impact of the Texas power event.

The lead states this is "an ongoing crisis in the state of Texas in the United States involving mass power outages, water and food shortages, and dangerous weather conditions." The infobox gives a date of "February 10, 2021-present (1 week and 5 days)". In fact, weather conditions in Texas are now calm and warm, there are 11,174 power outages of 12,444,401 customers (fewer absolutely than Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, or Alabama, and far fewer by population). So it is misleading to call this an ongoing statewide power crisis at this point. As the "power outages" section alludes, the worst of the "power crisis" was largely resolved within 3 days, and for many customers power was restored in a matter of hours.

There are still widespread urban boil water advisories in effect (normal following service interruption) and other localized water supply issues but these are very rapidly resolving.

Perhaps most problematic is the infobox lists "Deaths: At least 58" but citing to an article ([2]) which only states "Nationwide, more than 30 deaths have been blamed on the weather this week — some who died trying to stay warm in their homes." This source does not support a figure of "at least 58 deaths" attributable to the "2021 Texas power crisis." However many people died in Texas (the source does not say), surely many and likely the great majority had nothing or little due to the power outage itself versus the extreme weather event itself (unpreparedness for winter storms and extreme cold), not to mention many weather-related deaths have multiple causes (there on average some 260 deaths every day in Texas in a normal year, without coronavirus). Star7m (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Star7m, I have fixed the statement claiming 58 deaths in Texas as the source provided did not support that. The mistake came in that 58 people did die as a result of the storms, but only 32 were in Texas, as this source explains. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

EDG 543, this source is still not for power-related deaths, but storm-related deaths. It includes drownings and car accidents and other weather-impacted events that had zero connection to power outages. For that matter, even some hypothermia deaths in homes likely had no adequate electrical heat source either. It mentions a man who died in a Houston-area parking lot with no shirt, shoes, or socks; another is a rough-sleeping transient in Abilene. Those are due to the "power crisis?" Star7m (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Star7m, well, perhaps you can find a better source for the death total attributed directly to the power crisis. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

EDG 543, I can't, but the article still should not include incorrect facts ("at least 32 deaths") citing sources which refute them, because no sources for those incorrect facts can be found. Star7m (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Star7m, we could change it to "up to 32" rather than "at least 32" going off of the information that we are provided. I don't think it would be quite right to just pretend that no one died as a result of the crisis, as the article, albeit vaguely, states that "many of them were just trying to stay warm," indicating that there were at least some confirmed casualties in the total. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 16:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

EDG 543, unfortunately "up to 32" is misleading since the only basis for "32" is weather-related deaths, and only some of these are documented to be connected to the power outage, and several are documented as having no connection to the power outage. If you are going to give a "deaths" number at all based on weather events, then it must be made clear that the "deaths" is for "weather-related deaths in Texas", not for the "2021 Texas power crisis". Clearly there are deaths that are at least in part due to the power outage, including some CO poisonings from running generators indoors (the proximate cause is user error, which would not have occurred but for the power outage). Some of the freezing deaths and house fires were also likely due to power outage unpreparedness. The other problem with "up to 32" is that the 32 was a lower bound on weather deaths, so while power outage deaths are likely less than that, they could actually be more since 32 could underestimate total weather deaths. Without sources or possibly inappropriate original research, I'm not sure the deaths number can be easily characterized in the infobox, although I guess you could put "At least 32 weather-related deaths", that might be more accurate but still seems a bit out of place. Star7m (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice Picture

Hey guys, I found a nice map of the power outages on: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/20/texas-power-grid-winterize/. I was planning to add that if possible. Do you all think it would be a good idea? EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a nice map, but you would need to show that the work product was released under a compatible license. Kuru (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kuru: I wish I knew how to do that. Maybe you and other people who edited this page should check it out and see if it's an acceptable picture to use. Inform me of your findings. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EagerBeaverPJ: the map is data which (in this case) cannot be copyrighted. I can convert it into an svg map and add it to the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(will probably do this in the next few days) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elliot321: Hey, I know it's like one month later, but do you think it's still possible for you to do it? First, do you think you could check if it's an okay picture and doesn't have copyright issues? After that, if the picture is totally fine, do you think you could convert it into the svg map you were planning to put it into? It would really help if you could do that. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine situation

I see nothing about the fear vaccines would be lost if the power didn't come back soon enough. I don't know why the news sources would be mentioning this if there were backup generators, but they did.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, if you find reliable sources for that, go ahead and add it. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Not as bad as they bad it sound, but I found some details.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

In the opening paragraph it's says gas lines froze. Propane amd natural gas freeze below -300 degrees Fahrenheit and gas in the pipelines flow at about 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The lines did not freeze. Equipment associated with the lines froze. 64.31.219.150 (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, changed to "equipment". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing?

Is the crisis still ongoing as of March? I thought the power outages, water shutoffs, weather conditions, etc. were pretty much resolved by this point. Zowayix001 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Zowayix001, I agree. If you can find a reliable source that states when it ended, feel free to add it. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"renewable energy accounts for only 23% of Texas power output"

According to the ERCOT page, it is actually more like 30%. 184.145.19.73 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It may be helpful to provide a link directly to your source. ERCOT's data states 23% for 2020, with 25% and 20% for the first two months of this year. Kuru (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. Wind is 23%, not renewables. I've changed the line in the article to match the source. Kuru (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Kuru, hey, thanks for catching that. I was the one who had mistakenly put 23%, but someone had accidentally claimed only 10% originally! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

UT report

The Timeline and Events of the February 2021 Texas Electric Grid Blackouts Mapsax (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"initially blamed" "later discovered"

The second paragraph states that "State officials including governor Greg Abbott initially blamed the outages on frozen wind turbines and solar panels. However, it was later discovered that inadequately winterized natural gas equipment was responsible for the grid failure."

To me, this characterizes what happened as an initial, incorrect assessment, followed by new information coming to light which rectified an error. This is provably false. On the same day that Abbott was on Hannity saying "Our wind and our solar got shut down, and they were collectively more than 10 percent of our power grid, and that thrust Texas into a situation where it was lacking power on a statewide basis. ... It just shows that fossil fuel is necessary." , ERCOT was stating that natural gas was to blame.

Point being, the information rebutting Abbott's point was objectively not "later discovered". In fact, Dan Crenshaw references natural gas' pipes freezing in his inaccurate Twitter thread on the subject.

I don't consider myself qualified to speak on what appropriate language should ultimately be, but I know it shouldn't be what it is.

Perhaps:

"However, data showed that failure to winterize power sources, primarily those of natural gas, were ultimately responsible for the grid failure."

At least one nuke was also involved. See

https://austincountynewsonline.com/texas-failed-to-winterize-nuclear-plant-leading-to-reactor-shut-down/

How is it possible that a nuclear power plant in Texas had to shutter operations due to freezing weather, but nuclear power plants can operate without disruption in Russia? The answer is simple – the South Texas Nuclear Power Station failed to winterize its facilities. After all, whoever thought Arctic conditions would be seen in on the Gulf of Mexico? On Monday, the nuclear power plant had to shut one of two reactors down, halving its 2,700 megawatts of generating capacity. The plant, which operates on a 12,200-acre site west of the Colorado River about 90 miles southwest of Houston, provides power for more than two million homes. According to Washington Examiner, the nuclear power plant was not winterized to withstand cold weather. “It’s very rare for weather issues to shut down a nuclear plant,” said Brett Rampal, director of nuclear innovation at the Clean Air Task Force. “Some equipment in some nuclear plants in Texas has not been hardened for extreme cold weather because there was never a need for this.” On Monday, South Texas Nuclear Power Station posted “Event Number: 55104” on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission website explaining low steam generation was due to the loss of water pumps. In response, reactor one was shutdown. “It was the connection between the power plant and outside systems,” Alex Gilbert, project manager at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, told the Washington Examiner.

The reactor’s shutdown only represented 1,280 megawatts of the 30,000 megawatts of outages on Monday. Nuclear power provides about 11% of ERCOT’s power. Much of the power generation loss was due to freezing wellheads that impeded the flow of natgas to power stations, triggering electric shortages as demand overwhelmed the grid. The high concentration of natgas generation on ERCOT’s grid makes it vulnerable to power disruptions if fuel flow is disrupted.

Interesting. Not quite sure how much of this should go into the article or where, but it gives a different picture to some of it. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Post-crisis modeled analysis (Dongqi et al 2022)

This reference might be worth working in, based on the Breakthrough Energy Model: RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

References

"A line to enter a Texas pharmacy on February 16" picture

What exactly is this supposed to depict? People in line for a CoViD-19 vaccine? 172.56.23.218 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

good question. curious why "covid-19 response" even needs to be a section here. it's largely irrelevant. 99.155.43.182 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)