An Inside Look at Cuba's Constant Struggle for Clean Water (nytimes.com) 207
A significant portion of Cuba's available drinking water is lost through its leaky and antiquated pipelines -- more than 50 percent, by some estimates. From a report: In recent years, infrastructure problems have been compounded by droughts and rising temperatures. For much of the population, running water is available only sporadically -- in some cases, for one or two hours a day, every few days. While it flows, residents store the available water in cisterns or tanks, which then serve as potential breeding environments for mosquitoes.
is Glorious Comrade! Viva Fidel! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't expect to change your mind, but I can at least correct a couple of your 'misapprehensions'.
Socialism is a Parasite.
There are many systems that can be considered parasitic, i.e. systems that extract 'value' for a minority at the expense of the majority, but socialism by any definition isn't one of them. HFT (and, moreso low-latency trading) is parasitic on the stock market; privatised resource extraction is parasitic on a nations' sovereign wealth; banking could even be considered parasitic; but a system that explicitly say
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism as practiced in every place that has ever had it means that if you build something, I take it. Capitalism is what you build is yours. Socialism is "what you build is mine".
From Merriam Webster
Parasitic
adjective
b) exploiting the hospitality of others : depending on another or others for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
You could reasonably say you LIKE a parasitic system.
You could say you WANT me to be a parasite.
To say that me taking the fruits of your labors
Re:is Glorious Comrade! Viva Fidel! (Score:4, Insightful)
Socialism as practiced in every place that has ever had it means that if you build something, I take it. Capitalism is what you build is yours. Socialism is "what you build is mine".
We obviously have a different idea of what capitalism and socialism are: Capitalism: what you build is generally owned by others (those who provided the capital, but not the labour). Socialism: what you build is yours, by definition, until you sell it.
Either way though, all of this is somewhat of a distraction from the idea of socialism at the level of the nation state, i.e. the idea that the resources of a nation belong, in a sense, to all its inhabitants, rather than just the lucky few. Now, it's obvious that this is a problematic proposition because it is at odds with the current distribution of wealth and property, and any attempt at redressing this conflicts with our notions of property rights. However it's equally clear that, since that this distribution of wealth and property arose largely from a violation of these rights, there's not, per se, any greater legitimacy for the current status quo than there is for any number of other possible states. For what it's worth, I am less interested in the redress of historical wrongs than I am in not repeating them.
From Merriam Webster
Parasitic
<snip>
To say that me taking the fruits of your labors isn't parasitic - well that's just denying the very definition of the word.
I'm not disputing the definition of parasitic, I'm disputing the idea that socialism is parasitic. Your 'argument' does nothing to address that. Oddly, given that, under capitalism, the person labouring away doesn't gain the fruits of their labour the person(s) owning the company they're labouring for does, your phrasing of the argument does more to support my point than refute it.
For the record, I do not object to capitalism, provided it's well regulated and serves the interests of the general public. I think the advent of capitalism has led to millions being lifted out of abject poverty, and the system of risk and reward provides incentives that have spurred innovation. However it has also led to the death of millions, and large scale environmental devastation. Any system has failure modes, and we ignore them at our peril.
Best of both worlds (Score:2)
I think we agree no system is perfect. Fortunately, there is a system that provides the benefits of socialism without it's drawbacks.
To keep things simple, and avoid any need to argue with socialists, for this post I'll adopt the theoretical definition of socialism "the means of production are owned by the people". We need not get into what actually happens when you try to institute socialism in real countries.
Also to keep things simple, and avoid unnecessary argument and detail, I think we can entirely f
Nothing to do with Cuba/Communist (Score:2)
For instance in Montréal, we are losing 500 million litres (138 millions US gallons) per day, about 30%, through leaks. I think they finally replaced the century old antiquated wood pipelines this year!
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying that Montreal has frequent, extended periods of water outages, just like Cuba? Somehow, I don't think so.
Cuba's constant struggle for clean water is . . . (Score:2)
. . . directly associated with their communist government's inability to organize the economy in the way that they promise. Cuba has a wealth of natural resources, but, sadly, their communist government prefers to intervene unnecessarily in the activities of the people. So, instead of a flourishing economy, which could easily provide ample food, power, and water to all the people of Cuba, they are unable to provide even the most basic provision of life, water. Let's not talk about power, or food. Anyone
Well no point in talking about Water (Score:3)
I was excited to read this topic title; I spent over 25 years in the water industry, my specialty was corrosion control on pipes, and making calls when it was to late for that, was cheaper to replace.
Then I click, and it's the same endless sniping about politics that I could have found on /. in 1995.
So, screw it, I can't be bothered supplying "news for nerds" if this is just the Politico comments column.
But I do have one Cuban politics comment that continues to baffle me. ANOTHER still-communist, still-oppressive, regime is Vietnam, the main difference I can see is that the Vietnamese killed 58,000 Americans. But it's Vietnam, for some reason, that has acquired good trade status with USA - like a decade or more ago, and promptly started growing their economy faster than almost any nation on Earth - 10% per year(!!). This kind of destroys the argument that unfree, socialist nations are unable to grow even if they get favourable trade deals. But, mainly, it baffles me: should the Cubans have killed 58,000 Americans, too? Would you like them better then?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:5, Insightful)
6 decades is a long time to hold a grudge. Anyone associated with bay of pigs or the soviet backed missile crisis has either died of old age or is in an old folks' home.
Do sanctions actually work? Chavismo continues to keep Maduro in power as a 'victim' of US policy.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people still alive from World War II which was roughly two decades before the Bay of Pigs. Germany recently indicted a 95 year old woman because she was a secretary for a commandant at a concentration camp.
As for grudges, there are people in Europe who still hold grudges for a battle which took place 600 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Informative)
I interpreted it as suggesting that US policy towards Cuba is motivated by a grudge which goes back to the 60s. I'm still not sure it makes much sense: it would be more obvious to attribute it to a grudge over the nationalisation of property (which IIRC was cited as justification for parts of Helms-Burton) than the defeat of a proxy army; and surely more realistic to attribute it to the importance of naturalised Cubans (and their descendants) as a voting bloc in the swing state of Florida.
Re: (Score:3)
I get the impression that a lot of it is just the Red Scare. Never really went away in the US it seems, even now people are terrified of socialism and socialist ideas.
Part of maintaining that fear is to keep socialist countries poor. Fortunately it doesn't affect Europe and our social democracies are doing very well.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately it doesn't affect Europe and our social democracies are doing very well.
"Socialism" and "social democracy" are two completely different things.
Social democracy is not a type of socialism. It is a type of capitalism.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Informative)
That's not a typical definition of socialism. From webster's:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
So universal healthcare and strong workers rights do not fit into those definitions though they might be the natural outcome of a socialist government. Public ownership of critical services is a key facet of most major governments, regardless of political system. The private sector has been to be just as corrupt as the public sector but with less oversight. Eisenhower was not being a socialist stooge by building the US interstate system.
On a spectrum of political views between socialism and corporatocracy or plutocracy there is a lot of stuff in the middle. Some things fall further to the left, some are further to the right. But a country with universal healthcare is not socialist any more than having a free market makes a country an oligarchy.
This worry about socialism is just a revival of the old Red Scare, it's propaganda and only effective on those who are uneducated about what the words mean. And like the Red Scare, it is an intolerant stance which forbids its adherents from acknowledging that there is any possible moral or ethical value to anything with the word "social" in it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what it means in English in Europe. I guess it's a bit different in American English maybe.
For example, the British Labour Party describes itself as socialist. So you can look at the actual polices and things it did when in power last.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are defining "socialism" so broadly as to dilute all meaning.
If government-funded healthcare is "socialism", America is a socialist country. What America's government spends on Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals, and ACA subsidies exceeds what nearly any European government spends. Sure, we only cover 35% of our people while Europe covers 100%, but that is only because the American system is stupid and inefficient, but not any less "socialist".
If spending on "critical services" is socialism, every count
Re: (Score:2)
America's healthcare is subsidised, but only in a limited way. It's not socialist, that would be universal free healthcare.
I didn't say "spending on critical services", I said ownership. Not just throwing money at companies providing services, actually owning them.
Even in the UK the government owns the rail track, for example, and there is broad public support for it taking ownership of the trains as well. The UK is not socialist but even here the automatic fear of anything socialist doesn't exist in the sa
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that "socialist" is being used as a politically disparaging term. Ie, anything "socialist" is EVIL according to the far right. Just attach the lable "socialist" to anything and it will die in congress.
Re: (Score:2)
The government does own the interstate freeway system. And it does strangely horrify some people that it's not managed by for-profit companies.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4)
America's healthcare is subsidised, but only in a limited way.
America's VA hospitals are owned and run by the federal government. Many local hospitals are owned and run by local governments.
It's not socialist, that would be universal free healthcare.
Many European countries have universal healthcare, yet their medical system is privately owned and operated. In many European countries, healthcare funding is mostly paid by employers (private companies), with the government only covering the elderly or unemployed.
I didn't say "spending on critical services", I said ownership.
In what country does the government not own the roads?
The UK is not socialist
But Denmark is? Do you think Denmark is more like Britain or more like Cuba?
America, where that idea would be horrifying.
Yet America has Amtrack, which owns twice as many miles of track as British Rail.
Re: (Score:2)
The US healthcare system is more like the UK one was before the NHS. British Rail hasn't existed for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
US policy towards Cuba is based upon getting the ex-pat vote which is a significant political force in Florida. This is very similar to Us policies towards Israel which is based upon getting the evangelical vote. US policy is always tightly tied to the calculus of votes.
Nationalisation of property is done and gone. It can't be reversed in a just way. Does someone get back a house or farm and then claim the moral high ground after evicting whoever lives there now? Cuba before the revolution was a very st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you're unaware that Coast Guard cutters have always been armed?
Re: Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Insightful)
That 'grudge' was based on a couple things:
US assets were seized and nationalized
Cuba allowed USSR to build missile base of the US coast
Various human rights violations that caused citizens to flee Cuba
The Mariana boat lift that had Cuba emptying their prisons and pushing convicts toward the Florida coast line
Cuban pride (we don't need the US!)
There was also Bay of Pigs and an assignation attempt or two.
That Cuba never felt the need to upgrade their infrastructure since La Revolution is entirely on them. Cuba had any number of supporting nations that could have sold them water pipes or more modern vehicles, but the sad truth is Cuba was broke.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Informative)
I don't even know why I am bothering telling you this. You are too young to know anything about Cuban-American relations.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like when Cuba emptied it's prisons by sending the prisoners to the United States?
Cuba is effectively under ongoing attack (and occupation!) by the USA and is using the only means it has to fight back. Then we complain about it and wonder why these things happen.
Re: Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:2)
They have limited resources. They are trying to maintain their nation despite our interference. They have done remarkably well, considering.
Re: Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:2)
Cuba is mis-managed, everything the US denies them is readily available from their friendly communist countries - Venezuela, Russia, etc.
Pretty sure they could buy an entire new water infrastructure from Canada or Mexico, if only they had cash.
Cuba's greatest national resource is medical doctors, who they loan out in exchange for oil from Venezuela and other nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Holding a grudge over stuff that happened during a hot or cold war isn't a good idea. It just perpetuates the antagonism.
Look at Ireland and the UK. Decades of violence and terrorism, but they managed to put those things aside and create peace.
Re: Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:2)
Who told you the troubles are over?
They are still pushing for complete takeover of NI, still have murders related to faction war and payback.
It has just been driven underground
Re: (Score:2)
There are some who won't give up, but it's nothing like it used to be. Ireland will probably reunite in the next few years anyway, the political process having delivered what they wanted in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
They have changed tactics. Instead of terrorism, they are outbreeding the Unionists. The Catholics are, or soon will be, a majority in NI because of their higher birthrate.
As that demographic bulge reaches voting age, power will shift to the Nationalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People still want reparations for slavery, which ended more than 150 years ago,
Re: (Score:3)
Sanctions work. They are clearly keeping Cuba from developing their water system (plus Internet, etc.) They do, however have a first rate health system since they can educate people without interference from the US.
Why does the US have sanctions on Cuba?
Re: Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:2)
Why does the US have sanctions on Cuba?
Cuban missile crisis ring a bell?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the cold war with Russia was some time ago. Are we still at war with Russia?
I know we have tried to invade Cuba. Is that why we still have sanctions on Cuba? Because they refused to accept our invasion?
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't that when the Americans put missiles on the USSR's border (in Turkey) and they retaliated by putting missiles on Cuba? Then America had a shit.
I guess only America is allowed to put missiles on other countries borders, therefore upsetting the balance of MAD.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Informative)
"On the contrary, under this political system, Cuba universal health care system has flourished and is now ranked as one of the highest quality across the world. "
"Cuba has been able to maintain its high-quality health care services by centering the community and focusing on disease prevention. Healthcare in Cuba has a social aspect to it, particularly in the community and the family. In 1984, Cuba shifted its focus to the community by integrating healthcare in the community and in tight-knit neighborhoods instead of a disconnected hospital system outside of the community and its reach. Health care is organized at the local level with about 7.59 physicians per 1000 patients (highest in the world) and the doctors generally live in the same area or neighborhood as the patients they provide service for. This system has not only made it easier for patients to access clinics, but it has also developed a communal relationship between the patient and the doctor. To put it into perspective, in the U.S. doctors and medical providers are often secluded in a high socioeconomic area, where the patient and the physician don’t often share as many commonalities, like coming from the same neighborhood. One way the health care system in Cuba maintains this family-oriented health care is by requiring all medical students to complete a family practice residency. The fact that clinics are family based and community focused does not mean that the quality will drop. In contrast, primary care providers constantly try to maintain the quality of the services they provide by taking health statistics on the families and communities they serve and having public health officials routinely review the quality."
https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2019/... [berkeley.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to pay some people to invade your house, kill some of your family, and try to take it over [wikipedia.org], and I expect you to be totally cool with that.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably where a shirt with child murdering Che on it too.
Re: Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:2)
They seized industrial and hospitality industries 'for the people' - 'America' didn't steal Cuba from Spain.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. When was the last time Cuba had free and fair elections? When did they have a referendum on the form of government or its basic economic policies?
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Informative)
Cuba has free and fair elections all the time. Ever since the Castros killed everyone who openly opposed them and threatened the same for everyone still on the fence (causing millions to flee), the elections have been really, really easy. The communists win with 108% every time. What could be more fair than that?
Sadly, rampant ignorance of history is our culture. For some people, history began the day before the Bay of Pigs, when the evil imperialist United States attempted to overthrow the noble and totally legitimate government of Cuba. Then there was a big pause where nothing much happened, which brings us to today. As a result of all this "history" any and all problems in Cuba are the result of American meddling. QED. The End.
Re: (Score:2)
When did the USA? When Bush Jnr was told "no corporate welfare", the Democrats did it anyway. US elections are mostly 'stop socialism' and 'blame the other guy', not 'I believe in X' (B. Sanders excepted) and 'will do X' (Obama excepted, although that didn't work).
To that extend we should admire Marjorie Taylor Greene, who at least realized Qanon is bullshit. That doesn't excuse her anti-semitism, pro-insurrection and other 'woke' Twitter rants, although we should blame her supporters more than her bei
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Insightful)
The last free election was in 1948, held under the democratic 1940 Constitution. Fulgencio Batista, who had been president from 1940-1944, returned to Cuba to contest the 1952 election. When polls showed in distant third place he used his contacts in the military to engineer a coup d'etat, and there has never been a free election in Cuba since.
Re: (Score:2)
Like America, which had a revolution without a vote of any kind, after attacking those who didn't agree (the Tories) and forcing them out of the country or in the case of the original owners, waging genocide, putting them in re-education camps (Residential schools and such), kind of concentration camps (reservations), but without the housing.
Then there are the number of free elections in Central and South America where the Americans directly or indirectly over threw the winners of the election because they
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How many countries are entirely self-sufficient? Even if a country manages to be self-sufficient for food, the other natural resources available in its territory are independent of the form of government or economy.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Insightful)
If Socialism worked, if it was a functional political-economy, it would not and could not be destroyed by a lack of trade with Capitalist economies.
Huh. So, if your nation lacks resources, it's entirely due your political structure, is that right? Countries should be able to magic up their own oil, rubber trees, and amber waves of grain (in the desert, if necessary) but, they can't because they're Socialist.
Is that right? Is that the argument you're running with, here?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh. So, if your nation lacks resources, it's entirely due your political structure, is that right?
LOL!!!! You're making the case that the soviet union lacked resources?? LOL!!
And this, my friends, is why I call them leftist lunatics. It's not an insult, simply a factual description.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Interesting)
You might find this surprising: List of democratic socialist parties that have governed [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You might also find this surprising: Russian Civil War [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Also note that the same article clearly states that the coup of Allende was already well on its way due to massive strikes. The CIA helped,
I'd believe that the CIA tried to help, but their incompetence makes it hard to believe they were particularly successful. When have they ever done anything well?
Re: (Score:2)
To my knowledge, Chile didn't become a Soviet state, so they did succeed in that.
Oh yeah, that's like saying I got Trump out of office. Sure the CIA was trying it, but they can't tie their own shoe-laces together correctly. That's the level of competence we're dealing with here.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't happy with their socialist government, that's why anybody with any sense builds a boat out of trash and heads for Miami.
America can't do that (Score:2)
Basically they can thank our electoral college system for the constant stream of embargos and for being cut off from the rest of world trade.
My favorite is that "communist" China is our #1 trading partner and nobody ever bats an eye at that. Never mind that "communist" China has a
Re: America can't do that (Score:2)
I think China at the start was not about money, it was a failed experiment in capitalist peace. Coups in countries with nukes are dicey and this was the alternative.
Kissinger has a saviour complex and I doubt companies were looking 2 decades down the line to see outsourcing potential and were lobbying for it, they don't plan that far ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy idea...let the Cubans have what ever government they want.
What a great idea! Why don't you fly down there and run that idea by the ruling class? I bet they'd never thought about that....
Re: (Score:2)
The water problems mentioned are similar to the water problems all across the poorer parts of Latin America. It's not a Cuban problem, it's a poverty problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:2)
You are implying they have a choice as to who is in charge?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they could end up with either Republicans or Democrats in charge thus resulting in aging infrastructure because no one, no matter what political stance, wants to pay to upgrade infrastructure. It's a small island, it's poor, and thus money is always going to be tight no matter what. When Cuba looked rich, it was only because the elites at the top were rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think not. When you agree to host missiles that could have basically fucked the ENTIRE WORLD over, then the grudge may be lasting a long time, as I doubt it's just the USA that was concerned here, they may be a front for a lot of nations going, WTF, well that's not happening again, ever.
The situation was extremely serious, hence people actually going as far as digging fallout shelters. This wasn't some poxy game.
Umm, in all fairness, the US's missiles based in Turkey were just about exactly the same distance to Moscow as the Soviet ones intended to be based in Cuba would have been to D.C. That the Kennedy administration totally ignored that in their press events during the CMC was purely to score political points with American voters.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:5, Interesting)
I consider myself to be a patriotic American, and I have very little sympathy for Cuba. They claim socialism. However, just like every other socialism on the planet, the reality is a leader that wants to be a dictator, but also craves legitimacy, so he calls himself a socialist. Castro expropriated US assets and kicked the gringos out, precipitating their current sorry economic situation. They have nobody to blame but themselves, in my opinion. My view of Venezuela is quite similar.
Regarding the Cuban missile crisis, however, you're spot on. Actually, Cuba itself had very little to do with it. They just happened to be a key piece of real estate. We brought the missile crisis on ourselves by first shoving our own missiles straight up the USSRs nose. The USSR response was proportionate.
Re:Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:4, Insightful)
They claim socialism. However, just like every other socialism on the planet, the reality is a leader that wants to be a dictator, but also craves legitimacy, so he calls himself a socialist.
The important lesson here is that Socilialism invariably results in a dictator, since who else is going to make absolutely sure everything is shared equally?
And when you run out of spending other peoples money there is no other way out, as forfeiture of power will certainly result in your own execution, so tyranny is the only path forward for survival.
Re: Sounds like an awesome argument for... (Score:2)
You understand the middle in turkey were also removed after the CMC, as part of the negotiation with Russia to remove their missiles from Cuba, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, when this same comment is said about Israel and it's apartheid policies, one is immediately labeled anti-semitic and a hater of Israel. I guess what's good for one country isn't good for another.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Socialism.
I think the story highlights that left and right politics is dead and has been replaced by up and down. It's the politics of who is at the top and who is at the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And economic blockage might have something to do with the problem. It can be hard to buy supplies if you aren't allowed to trade.
Re:4 million in Texas without Electricity Tonight (Score:5, Interesting)
Let us not forget that people like Ted Cruz who talk about rugged individualism and pulling oneself up by their bootstraps are so against socialism, they have to ask the people of the U.S. to help Texas because it can't cope with a little winter weather.
Re:4 million in Texas without Electricity Tonight (Score:4, Funny)
Let us not forget that people like Ted Cruz
I don't really have anything to say in reply, other than that it is a scary thought, i.e. "people like." I thought there was only one [youtube.com] like him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you post in the wrong thread? This is about Cuba.
Unless you're using whataboutism, which strangely enough was developed for specifically these situations: to cause a ruckus and distract from the problems of communism by shouting "what about..." followed by some western problem. Did you know Cuba jails homosexuals and doesn't admit its fair share of refugees? Do you think the Cuban people would stand for this if they were allowed to vote on it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Were Republicans the ones demanding that Texas adopt so much wind power, or that the federal government subsidize it to the tune of $18/MWh, compared to a pre-storm wholesale price of $50/MWh?
Why wasn't anyone arguing for preserving a robust baseline electricity generating capacity, using facilities that are not so subject to weather conditions? (/s)
Re: 4 million in Texas without Electricity Tonight (Score:2)
The transition from coal to gas played a part too, it's trivial to stockpile a huge amount of coal next to a power plant. With gas there is less buffer in the supply chain, they clearly cheaped out on pipeline capacity ...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can, pumping a high enough flow of gas from underground buffers and transporting it to powerplants and residential across the US is just an engineering problem. You can do it as fast as you want, assuming you pay.
But they seemingly they cheaped out, Kinder Morgan is saying they have capacity problems ... the pipelines probably weren't dimensioned to keep all the powerplants across such a large part of the southern US on all at the same time. Dealing with once every couple decades freak weather with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like its the fossil plants with the problem.
Yes, it is. You need more of them.
Re:4 million in Texas without Electricity Tonight (Score:5, Informative)
The state has 28,000 MW of nameplate wind power. And ERCOT ordered rolling blackouts to reduce load by 16,500 MW because 34,000 MW of capacity was unavailable, against a peak demand of 69,222 MW. So, what, 82% of the offline capacity was wind power?
(Source: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/lo... [nbcdfw.com])
Re: (Score:2)
Was that before or after the loss of a few thousand wind generators this past weekend?
Re: (Score:2)
Both. The nameplate capacity is what the equipment is rated to produce under optimal sustainable conditions. The achieved output is almost always less than the nameplate capacity. For "base load" capacity, the difference is usually controlled by people rather than weather. For wind and solar, the difference is seldom something people control.
(Owners of space laser satellites may have some control over solar power output.
That's a joke. Space laser satellites don't have solar panels that are big enough t
Re: (Score:2)
I mean- is that the nameplate capacity of the towers that were up *before* the ice storms, or the towers that are still up *after* the ice storms?
I found the Daily Wire story to be quite entertaining about how supposedly green wind power, was being rescued by helicopters using fossil fuels, which were spraying deicer derived from fossil fuels, which were deicing blades made out of fossil fuel byproducts.
Re: (Score:2)
Have any substantial number of wind turbines been permanently broken by the storm? I only saw reports that they iced over, implying that they would work again once temperatures rose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It appears that most of the lost capacity was fossil fuel and nuclear plants, sometimes due to them being unable to cope with the cold weather and sometimes due to them being taken out of play by problems with transmission lines.
Wind turbines work fine in extreme cold, in fact they have them in Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, it is the lack of wind, without proper back-up that is causing the issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What amazes me is that not only Texas, but Germany had serious issues with electricity due to their cold weather. Add that to places like California where another dumb fuck far leftie governor is trying to shut down more than 10% of their electricity (and the ONLY clean