To be fair, Texas is roughly in the same latitude as Sahara - a winter like the last one is basically once-in-a-lifetime occurence. Kind of makes sense not to prepare for it.
> a winter like the last one is basically once-in-a-lifetime occurence
This will be interesting to watch. Any description of weather events that relates them to time (eg 1 in 100 years) seems to be massively wrong and getting less accurate each year.
If I read the IPCC report correctly, the extreme heatwaves will increase in likelihood while the extreme “cold waves” will actually decrease. So it’s not clear if this will become more common.
Didn't it happen 10 years ago already? And in the aftermath it was reported it will happen again and the network needs to be prepared better next time?
To paraphrase famous saying from the stock markets: climate scientists predicted 50 of the last 2 severe winters. At some point you get the "boy that cried wolf" problem.
You would have to compare against the cost of all predicted climate-related trends, not just the ones that hindsight has validated you about. Go back and find all the wrong predictions, and lump in their preparatory or prophylactic costs if you're interested in a true apples:apples comparison.
No, I wouldn't, because I'm talking about the very recent decision to not winterize the Texas grid, even though all of the data presented pointed to the fact it would be a very good idea to winterize it.
Specifically the Texas grid is what I'm talking about, I care not about anything else you may feel the need to refer to
1) Quite a motte and bailey maneuver you're pulling here, given the broad scope of your earlier comments.
2) Merely saying "it could have been different" is not an argument, unfortunately. What you refer to was 10 years ago, when the TX legislature made the decision to recommend electric grids be made more weather-resistant, instead of requiring it. Many electric cos did those upgrades. Most people would consider that actually a pretty good outcome given that this is a one-in-a-decade type of event.
> Quite a motte and bailey maneuver you're pulling here, given the broad scope of your earlier comments.
You're accusing me of not knowing what I was referring to when I posted something.
Both the parent, and grandparent, of which I replied to, are mentioning Texas. Grandparent, broadly, parent, much more specifically. With the recent cold snap in Texas, I presume all context is there to make it clear I was speaking of Texas, specifically.
Anyways - 10 years... yeah, that is well within the realm of what I'm talking about. If it were say, more than 25 years ago when it was highly recommended to winterize grids, perhaps I would relent.
I hope you do not venture into local/state politics, because your type of thinking is how these bad things happen.
Wrong predictions like what? If you're preparing for hundred-year weather, there's not much that will actually be "wrong" unless you really screw up your math. And it's mostly just hot, cold, and flood, isn't it? And some of the preparations will be shared.
I assure you that doing something like installing ACs in every home in Seattle would incur a massive cost, and it is not guaranteed that such a measure would ever be necessary at any point in the next 100 years.
What does that have to do with power grid failures?
Also having AC, even if it's not necessary, can be very useful.
"Seattle averages 24 days a year when the thermometer reaches into the 80s °F (over 27 °C). The temperature typically climbs to 90 °F (32 °C) on just one or two days a year."
That's high enough to cause a serious reduction in productivity/enjoyment. If the average person is exposed to those temperatures for 3 hours a day as a lack of home AC, and loses 10% of that time, that's 7 hours a summer. Multiply by minimum wage and it only takes a summer and a half to meet the cost of a window AC unit. Which should last a long time if it's only used one month a year.
