The issue is that a lot of people are hunting for a way to prove their ideological priors, rather than actually seriously considering the situation at hand.
very true. wind turbines work fine in very cold climates (see the Netherlands) but you have to get the "winter" package with de-icing capabilities but it costs more. Typically, you wouldn't need that in Texas but this wasn't a typical weather event by any stretch.
Texas relies on wind production to a much greater extent than the Netherlands.
"Wind power has been the fastest-growing source of energy in Texas' power grid. In 2015, wind power generation supplied 11% of Texas' energy grid. Last year it supplied 23% of the system's power, surpassing coal as the second-largest source of energy. ... An ERCOT report on generating capacity listed the top sources of power in the state:"
Natural gas (51%)
Wind (24.8%)
Coal (13.4%)
Nuclear (4.9%)
Solar (3.8%)
Hydro, biomass-fired units (1.9%)
"Energy from renewable sources accounted for only 7.4% of total final energy consumption (TFEC) in 2018, the third-lowest share among IEA member countries and well below the IEA median of 12.1%. ... Bioenergy is the primary source of renewable energy and includes transportation biofuels and direct use of biomass in heating and electricity.*" (https://www.iea.org/reports/the-netherlands-2020)
Except that the faults had occurred a number of times regionally in the last decade, and nothing had been done about it. Possibly an investment problem but some of the fixes (lubricant heaters) are not expensive; I would guess a general culture of 'no one told me it could happen', i.e. limited depth of experience in the utility company.
