Author Topic: Ice Age in Texas  (Read 4754 times)

Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 6935
  • Total likes: 1451
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #60 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.
I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3379
  • Total likes: 555
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #61 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.

Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 6935
  • Total likes: 1451
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #62 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.

I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Offline whYME

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 3175
  • Total likes: 1136
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #63 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.

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3379
  • Total likes: 555
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #64 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).

Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 6935
  • Total likes: 1451
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #65 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.
I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3379
  • Total likes: 555
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #66 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. ::)

Online aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 13359
  • Total likes: 8158
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 13
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #67 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.
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3379
  • Total likes: 555
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #68 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 didn’t winterize.
Voluntary just doesn't cut it.

Offline PlatinumGuy

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 14100
  • Total likes: 1999
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 11
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #69 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.
״וזה כלל גדול: שישנא אדם כל דבר שקר. וכל מה שיוסיף שנאה לדרכי השקר – יוסיף אהבה לתורה.״ - אורחות צדיקים

Offline whYME

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 3175
  • Total likes: 1136
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #70 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).


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.)

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3379
  • Total likes: 555
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #71 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.

Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 6935
  • Total likes: 1451
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #72 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.
I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Online aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 13359
  • Total likes: 8158
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 13
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #73 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.
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline yuneeq

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 7580
  • Total likes: 2006
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: NJ
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #74 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.

Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 6935
  • Total likes: 1451
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #75 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.
I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Offline yuneeq

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 7580
  • Total likes: 2006
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: NJ
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #76 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.

Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 6935
  • Total likes: 1451
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #77 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.
I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Offline PlatinumGuy

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 14100
  • Total likes: 1999
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 11
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #78 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

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.
״וזה כלל גדול: שישנא אדם כל דבר שקר. וכל מה שיוסיף שנאה לדרכי השקר – יוסיף אהבה לתורה.״ - אורחות צדיקים

Online aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 13359
  • Total likes: 8158
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 13
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Ice Age in Texas
« Reply #79 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
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.
Feelings don't care about your facts