Why I Dropped My "The Hill" Email Subscription
Now, most familiar readers to my blog know that I'm passionately pro-life and have been my whole life. It wasn't a topic my parents or the Catholic Church discussed with me; it stems from a conviction in the sanctity, the blessing of human life. It's a difficult issue for me politically and in relationships. I've never been married and it's never been an issue in my personal life, but the fact of abortion is an abomination. Yet usually I'm outnumbered on this fundamental issue on when life deserves protection. Two of my best friends over the past 25 years are pro-aborts; in fact, one of them had his first child, while in his late teens, aborted. It really tests my tolerance and patience, because if you would kill, or encourage another to kill, an innocent preborn child, your ethics, to me, are bullshit. I do, on occasion, express my opinion strongly, usually reflecting on the Serenity Prayer.
I never thought, when I signed up for The Hill emails, I would get (on multiple consecutive emails, an ad for the pro-abort theme of "Abortion Justice". That's a step too far. It's even worse than those maddening series of Comrade Bernie ads Youtube was trying to shove down my throat. I don't know why the media source thought it was a good idea to alienate half of their readers. To rephrase the Beatles' "Revolution", "when you talk about abortion justice, don't you know you can count me out".
My Brother's Observations on the Texas Power Outage Crisis
I respect the privacy of my 6 younger siblings and other relatives. We were Air Force brats: I was born in Texas, my next 4 in Massachusetts, my youngest brother in Florida, and the baby sister in South Carolina. Dad retired out of an Air Force career in the San Antonio suburbs. The next oldest, a sister, lives in Ohio, and the other 5 live in Texas, my 3 sisters in the extended Dallas area, and my Mom and two brothers basically between San Antonio and Austin. My 21 nephews and nieces live in several different states (mostly in TX (11), but others in FL, CA, CO (3), MI, OK, KS, OH, and the youngest attends the University of Alabama).
So about 17 are experiencing the Texas storm crisis. One of my nephews is a government meteorologist working in Corpus Christi and he's written several relevant Facebook posts for friends and relatives; the last I heard, he was camping out at his workplace.
My middle brother, a chemical engineer who has worked for energy companies (not utilities) his whole career, is quasi-retired, in the sense that my Dad retired from the Air Force in his early 40's. Dad drew a half-pay military pension which wasn't much for an NCO in those days. (I qualified for the free lunch program from eighth grade through high school.) Most veterans, including my Dad, started a second career. But my brother and his wife decided to build a retirement home in Texas (they had been living in Kansas), and my brother recently retired, but he intends to consult part-time and/or does some project work (say with his last employer). So I asked his opinion, and I post part of it below, but first let me give my general take, even before his response.
First, understand this is a freakish storm. I think I read something like they haven't had this kind of a storm in over 100 years. I wrote multiple tweets or texts on them, noting my first high school Christmas in south Texas, it was 95 outside. I earned all 4 of my degrees in Texas (San Antonio, Austin, and Houston), and over those 11 years or so (I started my MBA part-time), I experienced one snowfall, and that burned off in a day or 2. Second, Texas is not part of the national grid; they don't want the federal government involved like it would be with interstate power transfers. In practice, some energy flowing to Texas would have mitigated the supply/demand mismatch Because already weatherized Northern facilities could have generated surplus energy at a more modest premium for transfer.
Now there's this stupid political battle going on between green energy and fossil fuels, I haven't looked at interstate statistics, but Texas generates almost a quarter of its energy from wind turbines. I remember as I drove through I-30 to I-20 to I-10 from SC to AZ, I passed by a large number of turbines to my right. Now the fact is nearly 90% of Texas wind turbines stopped running because they weren't weatherized. In the short term, carbon-based energy had its own issues without weatherized operations. Progressives think they are "smart" by pointing out wind power can be generated in colder climates. Dude, you're totally missing the point. The wind power facilities weren't weatherized, and Texas lost a quarter of its capacity just as demand for energy was escalating.
I'll use my own example to make the point. I've noticed a number of auto service places in more northern states offer packages to winterize your vehicle. I've never really done that in part because I mostly avoid driving in cold or snowy. I realize there's still a risk that decision could come back to haunt me one day, but is that worth all that money I would be putting into the car. I suspect all the Texas facilities similarly knew they could winterize but how likely is a once-in-a-century storm and how willing are consumers to pay their rates to cover the costs of weatherization?
My brother gave an example of the trade-off he made in putting in extra insulation in building his house. Unlike some neighbors, he has running water. But he isn't off the grid and is experiencing a series of rolling blackouts. Still, he says his house temperature overall hasn't gone below 64 during the crisis.
So here's my brother's take:
Unfortunately, from what I have gathered so far it has been the “perfect storm”.
No sun (overcast) for solar, wind turbines iced, and natural gas production/supply significantly reduced due to wellhead freezing.
Unlike the northern states, facilities in Texas are not typically designed and constructed to withstand 4-5 days of below-freezing temperatures.
Shutdown Diary
Here's an interesting quote via Marginal Revolution on First Dose First:
…With such a highly protective first dose, the benefits derived from a scarce supply of vaccines could be maximized by deferring second doses until all priority group members are offered at least one dose. There may be uncertainty about the duration of protection with a single dose, but the administration of a second dose within 1 month after the first, as recommended, provides little added benefit in the short term, while high-risk persons who could have received the first dose with that vaccine supply are left completely unprotected. Given the current vaccine shortage, postponement of the second dose is a matter of national security that, if ignored, will certainly result in thousands of Covid-19–related hospitalizations and deaths this winter in the United States — hospitalizations and deaths that would have been prevented with the first dose of vaccine.
The latest stats from Washpo:
In the past week in the U.S...
New daily reported cases fell 28.1%
Covid-related hospitalizations fell 16.1%
Among the reported tests, the positivity rate was 5.1%.
The number of tests reported fell 13.5% from the previous week.
Since Dec. 14, more than 58,683,000 doses of a covid-19 vaccine have been administered in the U.S.
More than 16,414,000 people have completed vaccination or about 5.02% of the population.
