Coal and nuclear plants didn't reduce output because of the cold. With the disappearance of wind, the entire grid stability was put at serious risk and had the potential to completely collapse state-wide. ERCOT managed that problem by forcing load shedding ("rolling blackouts") to get overall load in balance with available supply.
Coal and nuclear generally work fine in cold weather as long as the plants were designed for it. Heavier insulation, larger heating systems, and heat trace—use of an electrical heating element in direct contact with a component—can be added to protect against freezing temperatures in cold weather climates. But these might not have been adequate for the very low and prolonged cold temperatures.
Coal deliveries can be interrupted in extreme cold and existing coal piles on the power plant site can freeze interrupting transfer to the silos in the plant. Plants in the north routinely stockpile additional coal to get through the winter.
Here's an irony. Ice will form and interfere with the blades of the cooling tower fans. Although the load on the fans is minimal during winter months, they must continue to rotate to keep air flowing nonetheless.
Various buildings on a site may not have any heat. Cold-climate utilities have installed diesel-fueled heaters to heat those buildings. If those weren't installed in anticipation of a deep-freeze, it would be hard to procure and install them when the freeze is hitting.
That's enough of the boring power plant details for you, but you get the idea. You have to prepare for cold before it hits. Operators in northern and high-elevation climates know this but Texas got hit with a rare cold snap. How much to you invest for freeze-protection for a rare event?
The far better approach would have been to keep the coal and lignite plants operating (instead of forcing them to shut down) and never have installed windmills. Or build the needed backup generation for the times you KNOW those wind turbines are going to stop turning. But installing the needed wind backup would be expensive and would expose the fallacy that wind is economically competitive.
Exactly. The point is using unreliable wind power is very expensive.
That is what brought down everything else.
Without the Wind power, there would be far more reliable capacity to use.
“The far better approach would have been to keep the coal and lignite plants operating (instead of forcing them to shut down) and never have installed windmills.”
That is exactly what should have happened. About a decade ago in San Antonio the energy folks contracted a serious bout of ‘wokeness’ and paid millions to cancel SA’s share of a second nuke and instead paid more millions to start windmill farms. I would venture to sat that the only people in the SA area that are happy with that decision are the ranchers that get $800 to $1,200 per month per windmill on their property.
I fervently hope that any members of ERCOT that supported any windmill project will soon be working at Walmart or better yet, breaking rocks.
I worked at the salem, nj nuclear plant for about a year. Every time it reined the power went out in the administration building. I was seen getting in my car and driving home for the rest of the day.
They did take a nuclear plant offline generating 1.2 GW of power due to the cold weather affecting the plant. Apparently it was not winterized because it’s in South Texas near the Gulf and no ever dreamed temperatures would get that low.
“You have to prepare for cold before it hits. Operators in northern and high-elevation climates know this but Texas got hit with a rare cold spell”
That’s the reason all Americans should be prepared for any disaster. We should have extra food, water, coffee, toilet parer, cat food and litter, secondary heat source like a kerosene heater, generator perhaps, communication. etc etc etc