My friend, I agree about market distorting subsidies. But we should oppose them with correct facts.
Wind, or any other resource, is not paid regardless of location. ERCOT uses Locational Marginal Pricing which factors in location and congestion to the price. All things being equal if a closer / less congested supply source is the same price as a distant one, the closer one will have a lower bid.
I am fine with saying we should have a reliable base and let wind cycle. But those dispatchable sources need to work when dispatched. We had failures in thermal power in every single power source due to cold - including nuclear. We have plenty of thermal to get us through this event without wind. On paper. Maybe we didn't have enough gas infrastructure to do it with the increased demand for heating. I'm not sure. I'm sure there will be a report about it (that no one will read).
We should not fight subsidy with subsidy. That only distorts more, and state interference will inevitably and always reduce reliability.
Quote:
I'd happily pay 20 percent more for a secure grid with zero 'green' sources just so that I know I can rely on it.
Maybe you would, but most people won't. Most people have no idea how the grid works, and want cheap power. Well, we got cheap power. But cheap has a time scale - cheap moment to moment, cheap month to month, cheap year to year, and cheap decade to decade. Your last electric bill didn't price in this event. Your next one might, I'm not sure.
Your analysis didn't include Texas. What have Texas electricity prices done between 2009 and 2017 as wind supplanted coal fired generation? I suspect you'll find that prices got cheaper.
Here, I looked it up.