Texas power situation

[Chalkie]

1 hour ago, GlennWest said:

 It is hard to spend money when we go generations not needing to. 

Not exactly generations since Texas had a major cold weather event just 10 years ago. 

USA Today article

[hemsteadc]

2 hours ago, Velos said:

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet, July 14, 2020 by Bjorn Lomborg. 

I guess we all choose what we want to believe.  

[hemsteadc]

2 hours ago, Barbaraok said:

Yes and the reason is that after thousands of years people have learned that human adaptation comes only at the point of desperation.

Humans need catastrophe to finally realize something bad is happening, no matter how much warning they get.

Edited February 20, 2021 by hemsteadc

[Chalkie]

I ran across a pretty interesting article regarding the failures of the Texas grid during this weather event.

Wind Energy Fails: Grading the Reliability of Energy Sources During the Texas Power Outages

I am not a scientist, engineer or statistician but the data presented seems to be factual to me. 

[pjstough]

12 minutes ago, Chalkie said:

I ran across a pretty interesting article regarding the failures of the Texas grid during this weather event.

Wind Energy Fails: Grading the Reliability of Energy Sources During the Texas Power Outages

I am not a scientist, engineer or statistician but the data presented seems to be factual to me. 

Wind turbines failed because that is what the engineers who run the system knew they would do under these cold conditions.

Edited February 20, 2021 by pjstough

[Barbaraok]

Chalkie, did you check out the group that published this?  They area center-right group in Minnesota and even they said the problem was LACK OF WINTERIZATION!  And that was THROUGH-OUT the entire system.  Focusing on wind was a clear bias on their part.  The whole focus should be on WHY NO WINTERIZING and the answer is no regulatory obversite, which is counter to what these groups want!

[2gypsies]

This is why the wind turbines failed.  If they can work in the Artic they certainly could have worked in Texas... if done right in the first place.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-wind-turbines-frozen-power-why-arctic-1570173

[Chalkie]

52 minutes ago, Barbaraok said:

Chalkie, did you check out the group that published this?  They area center-right group in Minnesota and even they said the problem was LACK OF WINTERIZATION!  And that was THROUGH-OUT the entire system.  Focusing on wind was a clear bias on their part.  The whole focus should be on WHY NO WINTERIZING and the answer is no regulatory obversite, which is counter to what these groups want!

I am familiar with the group and I did state that I am not an engineer, etc. They explained the methodology so why would it have an anti-wind bias if the facts check out? They did not give real high grades to coal and gas and real kicker to me is that 2 other renewables fared better, so I don't think it is anti-wind, as much as it is validating the fact the wind in Texas failed when it was needed most. If this had been the first cold weather event in Texas one could forgive ERCOT for not knowing what would happen, however, there was a similar event 10 years ago almost to the day.

[Chalkie]

1 hour ago, pjstough said:

Wind turbines failed because that is what the engineers who run the system knew they would do under these cold conditions.

Yes, the wind turbines in Texas do not have the cold weather packages that they do in colder areas. 

[Kirk W]

32 minutes ago, Chalkie said:

Yes, the wind turbines in Texas do not have the cold weather packages that they do in colder areas. 

While that is ture, wind failures alone would not have been even close to the problems that we have had, even if 100% of the wind generators had failed. The fact is that the natural gas supply equipment was not winterized as it is in cold climates either and so many gas fired plants lost their fuel supply. In addition, many substations were not designed for cold weather and the same is true across pretty much the entire system. And in an interview on Dallas TV, a manager from ERCOT admitted to the fact they were warned of this situation 10 years ago but also stated that at the time it was only a recommendation and not a requirement and so little was done to correct these problems "due to some budget shortfalls." 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Kirk W
Corredt typo

[Barbaraok]

Charlie, I'm just questioning the reason it was put out IN THE MIDDLE OF CRISIS?      

And this doesn't show a bias? 

Quote

Fuel-Based Energy Sources Passed, While Wind Energy Failed

In case you missed it, wind energy scored an F in all three categories – the only energy source to perform so poorly during the power outages in Texas.

As such, you can rightfully label wind energy as the most unreliable energy source during the Texas energy crisis. While it may not have been the primary cause of the power outages, it certainly wouldn’t have done Texas any good to have more wind capacity on the system than fuel-based energy sources. In fact, that would have only made things worse.

No mention of the fact that the way the wind turbines were allowed to function GUARANTEED that they would fail in these conditions, whereas they have been shown to be reliable during even harsher polar climates.  

Then there is the final conclusion:

Quote

If this grading scale tells us anything, it’s that relying on intermittent renewable energy during extreme weather events is not the answer to maintain reliability, and fuel-based energy sources are required in order to keep the lights on.

 Doesn't that show their bias?

[bruce t]

hemsteadc nothing wrong in your world if all you can find to comment on is a spellun error. And while you find a simple spelling error Tesla makes more and more money out of government subsidies.

 

I put up a long post with a very well documented, real world, experiment. Yet no one wants to see the reality of what the future holds. Instead it's a blame game of why Texas shut down. It's simple. Texas shut down due to unforeseen circumstances. Simple. Just like accidents they happen. Get over it. The question should be, do we continue down the same path and accept that 'events' MAY happen? Or do we continue to take the risk with new technology, ideology, increased risks of future failures and higher costs? Just like South Australia, Texas is the petri dish of the choices that we all have to make. Stick with what works or jump into the petri dish.

So do you keep what you've got and accept the occasional hiccup or do you go down the green path and accept more risk and higher prices?

 

[hemsteadc]

1 hour ago, bruce t said:

So do you keep what you've got and accept the occasional hiccup or do you go down the green path and accept more risk and higher prices?

 

Yeah, thanks for the dire warning, but these arguments are a waste of time. Besides, this thread is likely headed for the trashcan.

Edited February 21, 2021 by hemsteadc

[Barbaraok]

2 hours ago, bruce t said:

 It's simple. Texas shut down due to unforeseen circumstances.

Except this is what was warned could happen after the 2011 storm.   Nothing unforeseen at all!

[Big Rick]

31 minutes ago, Barbaraok said:

Except this is what was warned could happen after the 2011 storm.   Nothing unforeseen at all!

And the Legislature made recommendations to fix it. ERCOT did not. Time to fire all those at ERCOT and get people who will fix it.

Lt. gov. Says Legislature is now going to mandate the fix.

[Barbaraok]

35 minutes ago, Big Rick said:

And the Legislature made recommendations to fix it. ERCOT did not. Time to fire all those at ERCOT and get people who will fix it.

Lt. gov. Says Legislature is now going to mandate the fix.

Only 10 yrs late, glad the legislature decided to do something!   ERCOT board lives IIRC, out of state, and is appointed by governor!

[GlennWest]

8 hours ago, Chalkie said:

Not exactly generations since Texas had a major cold weather event just 10 years ago. 

USA Today article

I  was here then. It wasn't nothing like this.

[bigjim]

1 hour ago, Big Rick said:

And the Legislature made recommendations to fix it

Instead of recommendations how about requirements with oversight. One former president who was given too much credit in many cases was still correct in saying, "trust but verify".

[ms60ocb]

It has been a few years since I was involved with Electric System reliability so I my not relate what the world uses today. The amount of generation required connected the grid would be 107%+ (a complex formula to get 7%+ called reserve.) of your load connected to the grid. Certain types of generation qualify to be quick start and get on line and generating at full load to be a part of the 7%+. Jet engines (fueled by Natural Gas and/or Diesel) and Hydro are 2 common types.

The Renewables come a different favor. Above generators if rated at 100 units counts as as 100 units towards your generation and reserve. Renewable generation is given a difference number. In the past 5% is being kicked around and could be used if the renewal source was connected to the grid. If a wind farm had a 100 unit farm generating but only producing 40 units you could 2 units as filling the 107%.  The above is talking Real Time, not a hourly or Day Total.. Some of the numbers I have read has me confused

Also ERCOT as I knew it from the WSCC area (many years ago) has or had several ties to the East and West Systems. These ties had limited capacity but were realable. The equipment converts the AC power to DC (no batteries) and back to AC. 

That is what many RV have with batteries. Convert AC to charge the batteries and use an invertor run your AC household equipment.

I just looked up Illinois as they are have 25% renewables in 2025 ( I think that is energy not Demand.

( i prefer some other names but to keep simple but I used a few terms )

Clay retired 33 years in both Operating and Maintenance + contract years

[RV_]

I would love to see and read the links to your sources about S. Australia's battery failures???? Links, not hearsay like windmills cause cancer? <wink> Many times here we get quotes without the link to read them in context. Will Rogers, our great American "Cowboy Philosopher" said something to the effect of "It ain't what a man knows that gets him in trouble. It's what he thinks he knows, but just ain't so."

The S.Australia battery farm by Tesla actually steps in to stop blackouts and has saved a ton of money doing it. They are for system security integrity.

If you would like to see S. Australia's very real success with renewables and storage here's where you can start:

https://www.renewablessa.sa.gov.au/   and click on "Large-scale generation and storage."

 

 

[bruce t]

RV I live here. I know what SA has and hasn't got. What it has got is almost the worlds most expensive power. It has got inter connectors to get base load power from other states. It has a Tesla battery that will support 20 minutes of use. (See below). It has diesel generators as backup. It has constant black outs. Ask my inlaws, who live there, have given up resetting any electric clocks. In Australia SA is referred to as the rust state. Successive governments have run most of it's industry out of the state.

The link you provided is a self interest site with no 'real' facts. Just self promotion. Here's Musk's own quote, "Tesla said the project in South Australia “will provide enough power for more than 30,000 homes”, or reportedly a total of about 1 hour and 18 minutes of power going at full capacity."  OR. " The 80 megawatt-hour batteries can store enough energy to power 15,000 homes for four hours or 2,500 homes for an entire day." 30000 is only a fraction of the homes in South Australia. Doesn't include any industrial or business use. These quotes come from the governments own promotional material. Time has passed and many details are still a secret. Why a secret?

"Industry suggestions published by Forbes claimed the 100MW battery farm would cost between $A200 million and $A240 million." No one knows what it cost because it's subject to a confidentiality agreement. And FWIW it owned by overseas company who makes a huge profit from the subsidies.

The battery does help 'smooth out' variations. It's not built to provide constant power. It's simply a back up for unreliable renewable energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RV_]

Guys, if gas and coal and oil did not fail because of frozen/broken valves there would have been no crisis! I saw the news too. There was no 60% fossil power saving the day with managed rolling blackouts. Neither the fossil or the wind were operating enough to pull through a disaster of gas and other fossil fuels delivery systems freezing up and failing. If they need a scapegoat blame the engineers who designed it only for fair weather, blame the Governors of Texas who did not execute oversight of the suitability of the equipment to continue to operate in the cold.

I'm in Colorado and we got to 18 degrees below zero. My power never even flickered.

I spent my ages 7-18 in S. Connecticut, the only significant power outage was the great Northeastern blackout of  1965 when I was 13. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-great-northeast-blackout

Engineer the windmills for extreme cold, and engineer the fossil fuel delivery systems which also failed notably, both pipeline and generation plant valves. 

[Chalkie]

3 hours ago, RV_ said:

I'm in Colorado and we got to 18 degrees below zero. My power never even flickered.

I am going to pick a hole in your statement as a former 30 year recent resident of Colorado Springs. There were some outages in Colorado, perhaps not enough to warrant any rolling blackouts, but they happened none the less. They had a lesser impact because Colorado is mostly prepared for the cold.

Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), where your power never flickered, serves about 500,000 people and because it is a city owned, non-profit utility, the profits are constantly being put back into the system as improvements and to keep rates low. Profits are not paid to share holders. As a result CSU has a power on record of approximately 99.99% of the time. To compare what happens in Colorado Springs to other areas, especially the 26 million that are in ERCOT, is simply invalid.

Now, if you want to hold up CSU has a shining example of what could be in utilities, that would be fair.

[Big Rick]

11 hours ago, Barbaraok said:

Only 10 yrs late, glad the legislature decided to do something!   ERCOT board lives IIRC, out of state, and is appointed by governor!

Looks like you are wrong.

ERCOT board is appointed and reports to the Public Utility Commision with Legislative oversight 

[Chalkie]

12 minutes ago, Big Rick said:

Looks like you are wrong.

ERCOT board is appointed and reports to the Public Utility Commision with Legislative oversight 

Yes, and I think I read somewhere that there is a call in legislature to require that all ERCOT board members be residents of Texas. That makes sense to me.