DansDeals.com Forums

DansDeals Forum => Politics => Topic started by: PlatinumGuy on February 17, 2021, 10:51:27 PM

Title: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 17, 2021, 10:51:27 PM
With talk that this is only the beginning of global energy problems cascading from Texas natural gas shutdown, perhaps it's time for a dedicated thread.








Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on February 17, 2021, 11:20:23 PM
With talk that this is only the beginning of global energy problems cascading from Texas natural gas shutdown, perhaps it's time for a dedicated thread.


Where do you see any evidence of anything global cascading from this?

Please keep the Lincoln project out of any serious discussion.

While being connected to a larger grid would have helped Texas this week, the crux of the issue (without getting into the political blame game) is the fact that ERCOT was not properly prepared for the worst case scenario when it happened. Also, the NG shortage would be little helped by the electric being connected to the larger grid.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 17, 2021, 11:28:16 PM
Where do you see any evidence of anything global cascading from this?

I didn't say evidence. I said talk. (straw man)






Please keep the Lincoln project out of any serious discussion.
Silly ad hominem attitude. שמע את האמת ממי שאמרה.


Also, the NG shortage would be little helped by the electric being connected to the larger grid.
Why is that? Short power from NG, transmit power from other states. Oops, we're not connected.


ט טובים השניים, מן-האחד:  אשר יש-להם שכר טוב, בעמלם.  י כי אם-ייפולו, האחד יקים את-חברו; ואילו, האחד שייפול, ואין שני, להקימו.  יא גם אם-ישכבו שניים, וחם להם; ולאחד, איך ייחם.  יב ואם-יתקפו, האחד--השניים, יעמדו נגדו; והחוט, המשולש, לא במהרה, יינתק
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 17, 2021, 11:33:07 PM

Same in Antarctica, Canadian praries, Denmark, and Alaska
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on February 17, 2021, 11:40:08 PM
I didn't say evidence. I said talk. (straw man)




I wasn't trying to attack you, I just hadn't seen anyone talk about any global cascade. I honestly don't see this having any real effect on the global market, the outage will be too short for that.


Silly ad hominem attitude. שמע את האמת ממי שאמרה.

There is legitimate reason for them to stay separate and there are legitimate reasons not to over regulate. The Lincoln project has an anti cruz agenda that has nothing to do with the facts at hand.


Why is that? Short power from NG, transmit power from other states. Oops, we're not connected.


ט טובים השניים, מן-האחד:  אשר יש-להם שכר טוב, בעמלם.  י כי אם-ייפולו, האחד יקים את-חברו; ואילו, האחד שייפול, ואין שני, להקימו.  יא גם אם-ישכבו שניים, וחם להם; ולאחד, איך ייחם.  יב ואם-יתקפו, האחד--השניים, יעמדו נגדו; והחוט, המשולש, לא במהרה, יינתק
1) I'm referring to the fact that there are homes that don't have gas because there's a gas shortage.

2) there's a limit to how much power you can import, the transmission lines can only bring in so much. Whether or not that would have been enough is not something I can answer.

I usually just skip right over whatever you write in Hebrew, of it's important enough you'll have to write it in english.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on February 17, 2021, 11:41:57 PM

Same in Antarctica, Canadian praries, Denmark, and Alaska
Would those wind turbines work well in 100+ degree Texas heat? (I don't know the answer, but unless we know the answer is yes this tweet is worthless.)
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Lurker on February 17, 2021, 11:47:12 PM
I usually just skip right over whatever you write in Hebrew, of it's important enough you'll have to write it in english.

+1K. Getting a little out of hand...
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Jellybelly on February 17, 2021, 11:53:26 PM


I usually just skip right over whatever you write in Hebrew, of it's important enough you'll have to write it in english.
Youd be better  off skipping the English too
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Euclid on February 17, 2021, 11:56:45 PM
+1K. Getting a little out of hand...
It's a strategy to ensure nothing gets deleted (shaimos). ;)
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: S209 on February 18, 2021, 12:02:35 AM
Where do you see any evidence of anything global cascading from this?

Please keep the Lincoln project out of any serious discussion.

While being connected to a larger grid would have helped Texas this week, the crux of the issue (without getting into the political blame game) is the fact that ERCOT was not properly prepared for the worst case scenario when it happened. Also, the NG shortage would be little helped by the electric being connected to the larger grid.
Not gonna lie, Im more than a little curious what @Something Fishy modified in this post.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 12:04:29 AM
Not gonna lie, Im more than a little curious what @Something Fishy modified in this post.
Nothing noteworthy as far I can remember
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Something Fishy on February 18, 2021, 12:07:19 AM
Not gonna lie, Im more than a little curious what @Something Fishy modified in this post.

@avromie7 had quoted the entire OP. I deleted the quoted tweets to avoid duplication and a ton of scrolling.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: S209 on February 18, 2021, 12:10:09 AM
@avromie7 had quoted the entire OP. I deleted the quoted tweets to avoid duplication and a ton of scrolling.
Worth 3 likes in my book.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 12:22:41 AM
The Lincoln project has an anti cruz agenda that has nothing to do with the facts at hand.

1) I'm referring to the fact that there are homes that don't have gas because there's a gas shortage.

2) there's a limit to how much power you can import, the transmission lines can only bring in so much. Whether or not that would have been enough is not something I can answer.
The LP agenda is entirely irrelevant to the fact they're accurately pointing out Ted Cruz is a hack for making up a story about Califronia when it's actually true about Texas.

1) Power would solve most of the severe problem as an alternative source of heat.

2) The proof is NM AR & OK had the same storm and no power outages.

 
Would those wind turbines work well in 100+ degree Texas heat? (I don't know the answer, but unless we know the answer is yes this tweet is worthless.)
The argument is silly because wind production in Texas, even now, is outperforming expectations (or down very slightly) so it's not the problem. It's a rhetorical refutation of Abbotts claim on Fox that wind power 'Green New Deal', is fundamentally not weather resistant which is a pathetic lie. If it was Cuomo he would be crucified here.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on February 18, 2021, 12:27:16 AM
And here i thought that this was in Just Shmooze to make an attempt at not being political and about political hacks on either side. Silly me.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on February 18, 2021, 12:30:16 AM
The LP agenda is entirely irrelevant to the fact they're accurately pointing out Ted Cruz is a hack for making up a story about Califronia when it's actually true about Texas.

Considering how many times the power was cut in CA over just this past year, I'd say CA has a way bigger power problem than TX.
.

 The argument is silly because wind production in Texas, even now, is outperforming expectations (or down very slightly) so it's not the problem. It's a rhetorical refutation of Abbotts claim on Fox that wind power 'Green New Deal', is fundamentally not weather resistant which is a pathetic lie. If it was Cuomo he would be crucified here.
This is absolutely false. A huge amount of the wind production is offline due to freezing.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on February 18, 2021, 12:36:33 AM
Considering how many times the power was cut in CA over just this past year, I'd say CA has a way bigger power problem than TX. This is absolutely false. A huge anount of the wind production is offline due to freezing.
"Expectations"
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 12:41:33 AM
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on February 18, 2021, 12:44:10 AM
If the purpose of this thread was to bash Cruz, you should have put it in the title.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 12:51:40 AM
This is absolutely false. A huge amount of the wind production is offline due to freezing.


Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: yuneeq on February 18, 2021, 01:29:36 AM
On average, renewable energy sources - mostly wind - account for about 20% of its energy supply .
On Tuesday, the state's principal energy supplier, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (Ercot), said the freezing conditions had led to :

30GW being taken offline from gas, coal and nuclear sources
a 16GW loss in capacity in wind and other renewable energy supplies

In other words, 80% of the capacity resulted in 30GW worth of outages. If the 20% of wind capacity performed the same,it wouldve lost just 7.5GW, compared to the more than double it lost. That 8.5GW of extra capacity lost may have been the difference between outages and everything running normally (or at least a lot less outages).
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 01:39:16 AM
Liberals are out to destroy America

Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Euclid on February 18, 2021, 01:47:46 AM
@mods please move this thread to the Politics board
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 01:55:21 AM
On average, renewable energy sources - mostly wind - account for about 20% of its energy supply .
On Tuesday, the state's principal energy supplier, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (Ercot), said the freezing conditions had led to :

30GW being taken offline from gas, coal and nuclear sources
a 16GW loss in capacity in wind and other renewable energy supplies

In other words, 80% of the capacity resulted in 30GW worth of outages. If the 20% of wind capacity performed the same,it wouldve lost just 7.5GW, compared to the more than double it lost. That 8.5GW of extra capacity lost may have been the difference between outages and everything running normally (or at least a lot less outages).

Texas is short at least 18.5 GW. 8.5 GW alone would not solve the problem. Regardless, wind power fundamentally can function just fine in this weather, the only problem is Texas didnt prepare their turbines for it bc its a big investment for an incredibly rare event, and they assumed theyd have NG.

Wind is producing just as much as Texas planned for it to produce now, and there was nothing stopping them from weather proofing it to make it produce more now. 


Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 04:42:46 AM
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on February 18, 2021, 06:49:54 AM
As you see here, they actually have access to the main grid, the problem is the main grid is also stretched to the max.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on February 18, 2021, 09:19:17 AM
As you see here, they actually have access to the main grid, the problem is the main grid is also stretched to the max.

#facts

Of course there were missteps here, but anyone going for the quick political shot, whether a polititian or not, is a hack. There are SO MANY factors involved. Many items being mentioned by hacks on both sides have merit to them, but none are THE thing. The TX energy market is different than any other in the country. Their regulatory schemes have both advantages and disadvantages over others. Just like any other regualtory scheme devised by man. Until this event, the TX structure has outperformed any other in the country both in reliability and in cost. There are some shortcomings in the system being laid bare here and there will probably be changes to the market. SOme of the shortcomings were either known or foreseeable and some not.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 12:06:44 PM


Invalid Tweet ID
(ETA its fake)



Think he cleared?
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Lurker on February 18, 2021, 12:21:18 PM
@mods please move this thread to the Politics board

Please?
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Yehuda57 on February 18, 2021, 12:38:43 PM
#facts

Of course there were missteps here, but anyone going for the quick political shot, whether a polititian or not, is a hack. There are SO MANY factors involved. Many items being mentioned by hacks on both sides have merit to them, but none are THE thing. The TX energy market is different than any other in the country. Their regulatory schemes have both advantages and disadvantages over others. Just like any other regualtory scheme devised by man. Until this event, the TX structure has outperformed any other in the country both in reliability and in cost. There are some shortcomings in the system being laid bare here and there will probably be changes to the market. SOme of the shortcomings were either known or foreseeable and some not.

Please don't bring reason to a flame war
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on February 18, 2021, 01:10:32 PM
Please don't bring reason to a flame war
Those angry Republicans ::)
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: AsherO on February 18, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: PlatinumG
(ETA its fake)
[/quote

What's fake?



Think he cleared?

Why would he do a quick turn at CUN? Is he mileage running? Escorting a relative? Running drugs? Sudden change of heart?

What happened?
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Euclid on February 18, 2021, 01:15:53 PM
Why would he do a quick turn at CUN? Is he mileage running? Escorting a relative? Running drugs? Sudden change of heart?

What happened?
Please?
Ahem
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Yehuda57 on February 18, 2021, 01:29:54 PM
Think he cleared?

Definitely. This flight was clearly a plan B
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 01:30:21 PM
Why would he do a quick turn at CUN? Is he mileage running? Escorting a relative? Running drugs? Sudden change of heart?

What happened?

He deserted to Cancun and decided to come back when he was caught and shamed for it (TVs crews are already waiting at IAH). He's already at ~44% approval vs 45% approval.

Definitely. This flight was clearly a plan B
Lol.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on February 18, 2021, 01:51:14 PM
"who cares about the people in TX-I need to attack Ted Cruz"
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: yuneeq on February 18, 2021, 02:07:19 PM
Ok back to regular programming, are things getting better yet? How long will it take to get back to normal?
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 03:04:30 PM
"who cares about the people in TX-I need to attack Ted Cruz"
Definitely sounds like what Beto Obourke is doing now...

Ok back to regular programming, are things getting better yet? How long will it take to get back to normal?
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 05:04:21 PM
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 18, 2021, 06:58:33 PM
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: Jellybelly on February 18, 2021, 11:03:10 PM
Ted believes that less government is better so he decided to get out of the way
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 19, 2021, 12:46:23 AM
[/youtube]
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on February 21, 2021, 01:42:33 PM
Ted believes that less government is better so he decided to get out of the way
Yup, he's definitely campaigning for less government

Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on February 21, 2021, 11:37:48 PM




2) The proof is NM AR & OK had the same storm and no power outages.

For the record, this isn't true.

Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 09:38:04 AM
Interesting 'explainer' - they mention the interconnection issues, but focus more on preparedness for extreme weather as the culprit (and the role deregulation plays in that):

Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 09:41:20 AM
Interesting 'explainer' - they mention the interconnection issues, but focus more on preparedness for extreme weather as the culprit (and the role deregulation plays in that):

The deregulation angle is a bunch of bunk.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 09:50:08 AM
The deregulation angle is a bunch of bunk.
So what you're saying is, you didn't watch the video and just responded to the text above it?
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 10:04:19 AM
@aygart , what do you think would have happened if TX was connected to the Eastern US grid? Would the transmission lines be able to handle all the excess demand? Would the power plants be able to handle all that demand? We know they got some power from the Eastern US, but that was cut off when the mid-west had their own storm to contend with. To me it definitely sounds like someone would end up without enough power and because TX is separate they were obviously the first to be cut off.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 10:23:58 AM
So what you're saying is, you didn't watch the video and just responded to the text above it?
Correct, after have read tens of articles about the topic from all sides of the political spectrum and all levels of expertise of various aspects of energy markets and grid reliability, all with a background of dealing with many of these aspects on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 10:29:39 AM
Correct, after have read tens of articles about the topic from all sides of the political spectrum and all levels of expertise of various aspects of energy markets and grid reliability, all with a background of dealing with many of these aspects on a daily basis.
So to be clear, you're replying to my comment above the video, without the context in which it was posted, the entirety of which is contained in the video you didn't watch.

Let's make this simple - what is the statement/opinion you thought I was putting forward, without watching the video, and what is your response. Try to express your thoughts fully, something you struggle to do on this forum sometimes, opting for glib one-liners instead.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 10:34:42 AM
@aygart , what do you think would have happened if TX was connected to the Eastern US grid? Would the transmission lines be able to handle all the excess demand? Would the power plants be able to handle all that demand? We know they got some power from the Eastern US, but that was cut off when the mid-west had their own storm to contend with. To me it definitely sounds like someone would end up without enough power and because TX is separate they were obviously the first to be cut off.
There is no way there would have been enough transmission capacity to fix the problem, but there is a chance that it may have been mitigated slightly. Neighboring states also had similar outages. In 2014 when the polar vortex hit the Northeast, there were rolling blackouts in PA despite there being a full and costly capacity market for both generation and transmission. Somehow, when they were needed they weren't available to supply the contracted capacity. In TX the capacity incentive is by having high prices during shortage events instead of a regular capacity payment. Many generators lost out on this. I heard from one company that both owns generation and sells it as a TX REP that they rely on their own generation to supply their customers, but when the gas pipelines shut down or were curtailed, they were unable to get fuel for their generation and needed to buy for all of their customers on the open market. This meant that besides the lost opportunity for being unable to generate at high priced tmes they had losses to the tune of a billion dollars buying energy for $9000/mWh and selling for $40. There are many lessons to take out of this. Some may affect the deregulated aspects of it, but a large portion is from natural gas pipelines which are fully regulated.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 11:10:09 AM
So to be clear, you're replying to my comment above the video, without the context in which it was posted, the entirety of which is contained in the video you didn't watch.

Let's make this simple - what is the statement/opinion you thought I was putting forward, without watching the video, and what is your response. Try to express your thoughts fully, something you struggle to do on this forum sometimes, opting for glib one-liners instead.
I think you're not understanding @aygart expertise in the energy industry. Understanding energy rate structures is a big part of what I do for a living and I learned a lot from @aygart. Suffice it to say he understands the intricacies of the energy market very well, a lot better than a Vox video writer trying to make a political point.

There is no way there would have been enough transmission capacity to fix the problem, but there is a chance that it may have been mitigated slightly. Neighboring states also had similar outages. In 2014 when the polar vortex hit the Northeast, there were rolling blackouts in PA despite there being a full and costly capacity market for both generation and transmission. Somehow, when they were needed they weren't available to supply the contracted capacity. In TX the capacity incentive is by having high prices during shortage events instead of a regular capacity payment. Many generators lost out on this.
Alternatively, some of the other states would have shared in the power outages. While that would've been much better for TX, it would have been worse for the other states.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 11:15:44 AM
I think you're not understanding @aygart expertise in the energy industry. Understanding energy rate structures is a big part of what I do for a living and I learned a lot from @aygart. Suffice it to say he understands the intricacies of the energy market very well, a lot better than a Vox video writer trying to make a political point.
 Alternatively, some of the other states would have shared in the power outages. While that would've been much better for TX, it would have been worse for the other states.

I appreciate the compliment!

My entire business model is based on understanding the energy tariffs and markets. As a part of that I have been expert witness in litigation and have clarified aspects for people at some large energy suppliers.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 11:38:05 AM
I think you're not understanding @aygart expertise in the energy industry. Understanding energy rate structures is a big part of what I do for a living and I learned a lot from @aygart. Suffice it to say he understands the intricacies of the energy market very well, a lot better than a Vox video writer trying to make a political point.
 Alternatively, some of the other states would have shared in the power outages. While that would've been much better for TX, it would have been worse for the other states.
I appreciate the compliment!

My entire business model is based on understanding the energy tariffs and markets. As a part of that I have been expert witness in litigation and have clarified aspects for people at some large energy suppliers.

Lol, you're both hilarious. I'm well aware that you guys have expertise in this area. But you're discussing things unrelated to what I posted. Just watch the damn video and give your opinion then! It's exceedingly arrogant of you to go on and on about it, defiantly refusing to watch the video.

The reason I posted this is because they talk about the aspect of preparedness on the part of the energy producers. Texas being separate from the major interconnections is mentioned and then specifically put to the side in favor of the fundamental issue of preparedness. I'm sure you have what to add to the discussion - explain things better or argue on some of their points - but you can't do that without watching the video.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 12:08:08 PM
Just watch the damn video and give your opinion then! It's exceedingly arrogant of you to go on and on about it, defiantly refusing to watch the video.

It is not a refusal but rather that my ability to watch youtube is very limited by filters and where that is not an issue is not a setting that I can watch it.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 12:13:48 PM
It is not a refusal but rather that my ability to watch youtube is very limited by filters and where that is not an issue is not a setting that I can watch it.
That's fine, but then you shouldn't be commenting on it. You understand how condescending that is? "I can't watch the video, but as the expert on energy, let me reply with a comment unrelated to what you were trying to say."
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 12:39:13 PM
Just because I actually do want to hear what you have to say about it, I pulled the subs from the video. I'm skipping the beginning, where they talk more about the interconnections, and leaving in the rest, which focuses on weather and preparedness. The italicized parts are their expert speaking - a Princeton professor named Jesse Jenkins. Obviously some of it references visuals that you'll have to watch the video to get.

Quote
So, most of Texas is on its own grid. It means they dont have to follow the same regulations as the rest of the country, like reliability and cost standards. But it also means when it lost power in the storm, it couldnt easily get electricity from other states. Its independence kept it in the dark.

But it wasnt the reason it went dark in the first place. Being on its own, Texas has to make all their own power. They have a variety of sources. When the storm came, it affected every one. Several coal plants stopped operating, as coal piles froze. One of four Texan nuclear plants went offline. Some wind turbines stopped working in the freezing cold.

But the biggest failure, in terms of its magnitude and its impact, was the natural gas system.

Natural gas, which actually contains water vapor, froze in storage wells and pipelines. Every one of these systems failed, in part. And it had nothing to do with the type of energy, and everything to do with these companies not being prepared for the cold.

Clearly, you can run an energy system in cold temperatures. There are wind turbines operating in Antarctica, and gas plants in Alaska and Alberta. So, this is not a technology-specific issue. It was more a failure to anticipate that this is something that could even occur in Texas at this length and severity, and to prepare for extreme cold temperatures.

But it should have been anticipated. Because this has happened in Texas before. In 1989, the same kind of arctic storm caused natural gas plants to have the same problems, resulting in rolling blackouts. And the same thing again, in 2011. And both times, federal commissions recommended that utilities "ensure reliability in extreme weather conditions. "And specifically, for the state government to create winterization standards for these energy sources. The Texas utility commission did make those standards -- but also made them voluntary. So most companies didnt winterize. Private companies like these dont have an incentive to spend their money preparing for unpredictable and infrequent events without being required to. But this problem is not limited to Texas.

The particular vulnerability to the extreme cold may be a uniquely Texas thing. But I think what it shows, is you need to check your blind spots. And that applies everywhere.

This is a chart of the last 40 years of severe weather disasters in the US. Storms in particular are in orange. Here's the Texas winter storm in 1989, and the one in 2011. These costly disasters are becoming more frequent --not just in Texas, but nationally, and globally. And the US is not prepared. Most of this grid was built 60-70 years ago but was only built to last 50 years. And some studies point to nearly 100 facilities, like power plants, in immediate danger of flooding and storm surges. Most of these private energy companies, across the US, arent going to change unless theyre required to. But these utility commissions can require it. As can state governments. And the federal government. All three can even help pay for it.

Texas was warned for 30 years to prepare its energy systems for severe weather and climate change. But they didnt. Now the rest of the US is facing the same problem. It is a wakeup call, for everywhere, to think about, how do we prepare our energy infrastructures, and our other critical infrastructure, for extreme events that may become more severe, and may become more likely? And that isn't about just thinking about what's probable, but also, what can break the system in a way that's catastrophic?
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 12:39:56 PM
That's fine, but then you shouldn't be commenting on it. You understand how condescending that is? "I can't watch the video, but as the expert on energy, let me reply with a comment unrelated to what you were trying to say."
You are right. I apologize. What I should have written was that without commenting on the video itself, what I have seen around elsewhere about the deregulation aspect was a bunch of bunk.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 01:02:37 PM
Just because I actually do want to hear what you have to say about it, I pulled the subs from the video. I'm skipping the beginning, where they talk more about the interconnections, and leaving in the rest, which focuses on weather and preparedness. The italicized parts are their expert speaking - a Princeton professor named Jesse Jenkins. Obviously some of it references visuals that you'll have to watch the video to get.
This is where they're playing tricks and number games
Quote
Some wind turbines stopped working in the freezing cold.

But the biggest failure, in terms of its magnitude and its impact, was the natural gas system.
My numbers aren't 100% accurate because I'm working from memory, but the point still stands. While it's true that in terms of absolute gigawatts NG lost the most, NG also makes up the biggest part of the supply. At it's lowest it bottomed out at around 70% operational. Wind makes up a smaller but very significant percentage, something around 20-25%, at it's lowest it bottomed out at around 2% operational (98% of the wind turbines were not working) If the wind would have "only" bottomed out at the same percentage as NG (70%) they would have had another 15% of their capacity available. That's a very significant amount.
Quote
Clearly, you can run an energy system in cold temperatures. There are wind turbines operating in Antarctica, and gas plants in Alaska and Alberta. So, this is not a technology-specific issue. It was more a failure to anticipate that this is something that could even occur in Texas at this length and severity, and to prepare for extreme cold temperatures.
Quote
The particular vulnerability to the extreme cold may be a uniquely Texas thing. But I think what it shows, is you need to check your blind spots. And that applies everywhere.
This is overall the biggest culprit, the lack of preparation for such cold weather. Something they're not telling you is that this can (partially) be blamed on the fact that the CapEx for the power grid was spent on renewables instead of winterization.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 01:48:27 PM
This is where they're playing tricks and number games  My numbers aren't 100% accurate because I'm working from memory, but the point still stands. While it's true that in terms of absolute gigawatts NG lost the most, NG also makes up the biggest part of the supply. At it's lowest it bottomed out at around 70% operational. Wind makes up a smaller but very significant percentage, something around 20-25%, at it's lowest it bottomed out at around 2% operational (98% of the wind turbines were not working) If the wind would have "only" bottomed out at the same percentage as NG (70%) they would have had another 15% of their capacity available. That's a very significant amount.
You're arguing against the idea that NG fared worse than renewables (something discussed upthread), but that wasn't remotely discussed in the video. They had a graphic up there during the paragraph you quoted from showing that NG is the highest share of their energy supply at 46% (but you didn't bother with the video, so...). The part you actually quote says explicitly "in terms of magnitude and impact" - which pretty clearly is not by %.

This is overall the biggest culprit, the lack of preparation for such cold weather.
Yeah, that was the point of the video.

Something they're not telling you is that this can (partially) be blamed on the fact that the CapEx for the power grid was spent on renewables instead of winterization.
This is not an either or. The producers aren't saying we're not gonna spend money on winterization because they need to spend it on renewables. They're saying that because they're not forced to spend money on winterization.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 02:51:44 PM
You're arguing against the idea that NG fared worse than renewables (something discussed upthread), but that wasn't remotely discussed in the video. They had a graphic up there during the paragraph you quoted from showing that NG is the highest share of their energy supply at 46% (but you didn't bother with the video, so...). The part you actually quote says explicitly "in terms of magnitude and impact" - which pretty clearly is not by %.
Yeah, that was the point of the video.
This is not an either or. The producers aren't saying we're not gonna spend money on winterization because they need to spend it on renewables. They're saying that because they're not forced to spend money on winterization.
I actually did watch the video. I didn't take notes on it so I don't remember every detail of it.

Yes more NG was offline than wind, but wind was affected by the storm way more than NG. They don't tell you that because it makes renewables look bad, instead they said "Every one of these systems failed in part, and it had nothing to do with the type of energy..." they create the illusion that NG fared worse that wind which is far from true.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 03:05:08 PM
I actually did watch the video. I didn't take notes on it so I don't remember every detail of it.

Yes more NG was offline than wind, but wind was affected by the storm way more than NG. They don't tell you that because it makes renewables look bad, instead they said "Every one of these systems failed in part, and it had nothing to do with the type of energy..." they create the illusion that NG fared worse that wind which is far from true.
"Every one of these systems failed in part, and it had nothing to do with the type of energy..."  in no way shape or form implies "that NG fared worse than wind which is far from true." You're really strawmanning this thing hard.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 03:12:46 PM
"Every one of these systems failed in part, and it had nothing to do with the type of energy..."  in no way shape or form implies "that NG fared worse than wind which is far from true." You're really strawmanning this thing hard.
That together with this from your post that I was replying to clearly implies that NG fared worse than wind
You're arguing against the idea that NG fared worse than renewables (something discussed upthread), but that wasn't remotely discussed in the video. They had a graphic up there during the paragraph you quoted from showing that NG is the highest share of their energy supply at 46% (but you didn't bother with the video, so...). The part you actually quote says explicitly "in terms of magnitude and impact" - which pretty clearly is not by %.
Yeah, that was the point of the video.
This is not an either or. The producers aren't saying we're not gonna spend money on winterization because they need to spend it on renewables. They're saying that because they're not forced to spend money on winterization.

Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: whYME on March 04, 2021, 03:18:49 PM
You're really strawmanning this thing hard.
-1

Someone like me who was not really paying attention and has no clue what happened in Texas drew exactly the conclusion they wanted -that NG was effected by the cold far worse than renewables. Exactly like @avromie7 said.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 03:33:26 PM
That together with this from your post that I was replying to clearly implies that NG fared worse than wind
-1

Someone like me who was not really paying attention and has no clue what happened in Texas drew exactly the conclusion they wanted -that NG was effected by the cold far worse than renewables. Exactly like @avromie7 said.
If that was the message they were trying to push, they did a terrible job. If your takeaway is the 'NG vs renewables' thing instead of 'all production types must be ready for extreme weather', it's probably because you saw the Vox logo, not because the video implied that. I agree that highlighting NG is a little strange, but it had the largest impact because it's the largest share of their energy (even if it fared better percentage wise).
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 03:34:52 PM
If that was the message they were trying to push, they did a terrible job. If your takeaway is the 'NG vs renewables' thing instead of 'all production types must be ready for extreme weather', it's probably because you saw the Vox logo, not because the video implied that. I agree that highlighting NG is a little strange, but it had the largest impact because it's the largest share of their energy (even if it fared better percentage wise).
Clearly not
-1

Someone like me who was not really paying attention and has no clue what happened in Texas drew exactly the conclusion they wanted -that NG was effected by the cold far worse than renewables. Exactly like @avromie7 said.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
Clearly not
Right, because 2 of the most partisan forum members seeing the Vox logo and deciding the video is bashing NG in favor of renewables is indicative of the actual content. ::)
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 03:58:10 PM
Just because I actually do want to hear what you have to say about it, I pulled the subs from the video. I'm skipping the beginning, where they talk more about the interconnections, and leaving in the rest, which focuses on weather and preparedness. The italicized parts are their expert speaking - a Princeton professor named Jesse Jenkins. Obviously some of it references visuals that you'll have to watch the video to get.

This part being discussed here is absolutely amazing and correct. The issue with the largest impact was how Natural Gas infrastructure was unprepared. Renewables had a large part to play in why the impact was as much as it actually was (poorly written sentence, but not able to fix it now), but the NG was the big issue. When a power plant cannot get the fuel it needs to generate electricity there absolutely will be shortages. That is exactly the same thing which caused rolling blackouts in the Northeast in 2018. TX chose not to learn the lessons from it.

This has little if anything to do with deregulation. The infrastructure STILL IS regulated. Gas is almost fully regulated and definitely more regulated than in the NE. TX simply chose not to create the needed regulations.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 04:04:36 PM
This has little if anything to do with deregulation. The infrastructure STILL IS regulated. Gas is almost fully regulated and definitely more regulated than in the NE. TX simply chose not to create the needed regulations.
Yeah, I realized afterward that deregulation probably has more a specific meaning in this context that I wasn't picking up on. They're trying to say that preparedness of energy producers for extreme weather events - which are increasing in frequency (that part is definitely a Vox/left talking point) - should be mandated/regulated.
Quote
...create winterization standards for these energy sources. The Texas utility commission did make those standards -- but also made them voluntary. So most companies didnt winterize.
Voluntary just doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on March 04, 2021, 04:16:50 PM
The argument that wind was more offline than NG conveniently ignores the fact wind was deliberately not winterized bc the plan was for wind to go offline and be substituted by NG.

Imagine if a father agrees to pick up the kid instead of the mother, and then doesn't show up. Neither parent showed up, but it's 100% the fathers fault. So yes, wind was down, but it was never expected to be up. NG is the one that underperformed. NG and wind were both down, but it's mostly NGs fault.

And no, it isn't an inherent flaw in wind generation, it works fine in Antartica, Canada, Alaska, Iowa, Denmark, Sweden, and many much colder place.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: whYME on March 04, 2021, 04:40:19 PM
If that was the message they were trying to push, they did a terrible job. If your takeaway is the 'NG vs renewables' thing instead of 'all production types must be ready for extreme weather', it's probably because you saw the Vox logo, not because the video implied that. I agree that highlighting NG is a little strange, but it had the largest impact because it's the largest share of their energy (even if it fared better percentage wise).
(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji849.png)

And you're accusing him of strawmanning...

Of course that wasn't the main point/takeaway of the video. Nobody claimed it was. He pointed out how in the course of making their main point --which everyone here agrees on--
This is overall the biggest culprit, the lack of preparation for such cold weather.
they used selectively (dishonestly?) presented data to push a narrative. And I said that it worked on me.

If your takeaway is the 'NG vs renewables' thing instead of 'all production types must be ready for extreme weather'
Not at all. In fact just the opposite. Until I saw his post I thought I had picked up a random factoid that NG was hit harder than renewables. (although, as you said, seeing as it was coming from Vox I should've known better.)
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 04, 2021, 04:47:10 PM
The argument that wind was more offline than NG conveniently ignores the fact wind was deliberately not winterized bc the plan was for wind to go offline and be substituted by NG.

Imagine if a father agrees to pick up the kid instead of the mother, and then doesn't show up. Neither parent showed up, but it's 100% the fathers fault. So yes, wind was down, but it was never expected to be up. NG is the one that underperformed. NG and wind were both down, but it's mostly NGs fault.

And no, it isn't an inherent flaw in wind generation, it works fine in Antartica, Canada, Alaska, Iowa, Denmark, Sweden, and many much colder place.
But NG works fine in all climates as well. Everything can work if you prep properly.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
The argument that wind was more offline than NG conveniently ignores the fact wind was deliberately not winterized bc the plan was for wind to go offline and be substituted by NG.

Imagine if a father agrees to pick up the kid instead of the mother, and then doesn't show up. Neither parent showed up, but it's 100% the fathers fault. So yes, wind was down, but it was never expected to be up. NG is the one that underperformed. NG and wind were both down, but it's mostly NGs fault.

And no, it isn't an inherent flaw in wind generation, it works fine in Antartica, Canada, Alaska, Iowa, Denmark, Sweden, and many much colder place.
The increase in wind directly correlates to the decrease in coal over the past 15 or so years. While this may have been the intention, the supply of thermals definitely did not keep up with the need to cover for wind. It's very expensive to keep power plants operational just for the once in a lifetime storm that takes out all your renewable power.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 05:35:42 PM
- should be mandated/regulated.Voluntary just doesn't cut it.
Agreed. Infrastructure is part of the regulator's responsibility and they goofed.
The argument that wind was more offline than NG conveniently ignores the fact wind was deliberately not winterized bc the plan was for wind to go offline and be substituted by NG.

Imagine if a father agrees to pick up the kid instead of the mother, and then doesn't show up. Neither parent showed up, but it's 100% the fathers fault. So yes, wind was down, but it was never expected to be up. NG is the one that underperformed. NG and wind were both down, but it's mostly NGs fault.

And no, it isn't an inherent flaw in wind generation, it works fine in Antartica, Canada, Alaska, Iowa, Denmark, Sweden, and many much colder place.
It is not ENTIRELY an inherent flaw in wind generation, but it partially is. Not because of the cold per see, but because of the general unreliability of wind and solar. This makes it dangerous to be over reliant on them at this point. Once more efficient energy storage is in place that will help, but even then, it will only help for short term down time. This does not take away from the general problem of how the entire TX grid was wholly unprepared for such cold weather. That aspect is not attributable to renewables at all other than possibly their making other forms of generation non-viable due to their abilities to get government subsidies. THis is a big part of the MOPR proceedings at FERC to try and mitigate exactly this issue in the northeast.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: yuneeq on March 04, 2021, 05:47:40 PM
Not sure if this point has been made, but isn't it a lot more economical to winterize wind generation in Alaska compared to a state that rarely has freezing weather? Winterizing 20% of your energy to prevent a 100 year event seems like an enormous waste of money to maintain a fragile system. It may be a better investment to add NG capacity with a far lower percentage of failure instead of investing in winterization.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 05:52:27 PM
Not sure if this point has been made, but isn't it a lot more economical to winterize wind generation in Alaska compared to a state that rarely has freezing weather? Winterizing 20% of your energy to prevent a 100 year event seems like an enormous waste of money to maintain a fragile system. It may be a better investment to add NG capacity with a far lower percentage of failure instead of investing in winterization.
Regardless you're investing in something that you only expect to need once in 100 years.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: yuneeq on March 04, 2021, 05:56:53 PM
Regardless you're investing in something that you only expect to need once in 100 years.

That is true, but if you start from scratch - before there was any renewable energy - if instead of adding 20% wind and winterizing forever, they simply added 20% NG, it would operate fine while being a lot more economical.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 04, 2021, 06:04:22 PM
That is true, but if you start from scratch - before there was any renewable energy - if instead of adding 20% wind and winterizing forever, they simply added 20% NG, it would operate fine while being a lot more economical.
This is exactly the problem with having an unreliable source of energy, you need to invest in a more reliable source to cover for when you unreliable source is down, it makes no sense economically.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: PlatinumGuy on March 04, 2021, 07:36:00 PM
That is true, but if you start from scratch - before there was any renewable energy - if instead of adding 20% wind and winterizing forever, they simply added 20% NG, it would operate fine while being a lot more economical.

Your numbers are off. The NG was down enough that even if there was no wind and there was 20% more NG, there would be widespread blackouts (although somewhat less than there were). NG underperformed by 41% of expectations, so even if there was 20% more NG capacity, that would be only 12% more overall power (even before you deduct the wind output), which wouldn't have come close to solving the shortage.

Texas didn't necessarily do the wrong thing in saving $$$ by mandating winterization for an event that was extremely unlikely to happen, but Abott going on Fox and blaming a non existent Green New Deal for a problem that was created by the diametric opposite of big government is pathetic.

Of course, the narrative that the Texas attitude saved consumers money is a fiction, per the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780=)

This is exactly the problem with having an unreliable source of energy, you need to invest in a more reliable source to cover for when you unreliable source is down, it makes no sense economically.
Renewable energy makes no sense economically until you acknowledge carbon footprint carries a price too. That's why the government has to subsidize it.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: aygart on March 04, 2021, 09:07:53 PM
Your numbers are off. The NG was down enough that even if there was no wind and there was 20% more NG, there would be widespread blackouts (although somewhat less than there were). NG underperformed by 41% of expectations, so even if there was 20% more NG capacity, that would be only 12% more overall power (even before you deduct the wind output), which wouldn't have come close to solving the shortage.

Texas didn't necessarily do the wrong thing in saving $$$ by mandating winterization for an event that was extremely unlikely to happen, but Abott going on Fox and blaming a non existent Green New Deal for a problem that was created by the diametric opposite of big government is pathetic.

Of course, the narrative that the Texas attitude saved consumers money is a fiction, per the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780=)
Renewable energy makes no sense economically until you acknowledge carbon footprint carries a price too. That's why the government has to subsidize it.
The WSJ article has some good points but missed the boat assuming the link is to the article I think it is . I hope to write more about this later.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 23, 2021, 11:11:51 AM
Great explanation of some of the more technical aspects of the outage.

Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: avromie7 on March 23, 2021, 11:38:27 AM
Great explanation of some of the more technical aspects of the outage.


I didn't watch the video yet, but this is what he is great at.
Title: Re: Ice Age in Texas
Post by: skyguy918 on March 23, 2021, 11:42:59 AM
I didn't watch the video yet, but this what he is great at.
Grady is awesome. All of his stuff on public works - what the infrastucture we see around us all the time does and how it works - is phenomenal.