CSNbbs

Full Version: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
(02-16-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting reading the back-and-forth here.

Bottom line to me - why are we in this fix?

Lad seems to blaming gas more than wind.

Tanq the opposite.

As the proud possessor of land with an enbridge pipoeline crossing it (and another with another comany no yet mentioned here), and as a former owner of three gas wells on same property, I will just point out some anecdotal evidence. The operators stopped operating when the price of gas fell to a point of not bring in enough $$ to cover expenses. After a certain period of time not operating, under the lease I had the right to ask that the wells be removed. I wanted to enhance the real estate value of the land. They pulled the wells. If the wells were still in the ground, they could be producing today - but they are not.

Never seen a pipeline freeze up, but since there are sections above ground, I guess it happens.

What I am seeing as an electricity consumer is that the rolling blackouts are getting worse. Last one was 10 hours off after 4 hours on. Whether the fault is in the wind or the gas, we were not prepared for this unique event. meanwhile the recording keeps telling me outages of up to an hour have been authorized.

To the bolded - bingo! I'd argue we're in this fix because the power grid was not sufficiently winterized for this event. The likelihood of this deep of a freeze was so small, that it likely wasn't cost effective to make the proper preparations required to maintain sufficient power generation.

This is a failure of the entire energy system that ERCOT is managing, and wind is NOT the lynch pin here (that's been my main point of contention). Like I said, if wind was going at 100% of capacity, there would still be a demand shortage.

Gas prices are up as supplies dropped (well heads and infrastructure have frozen) and I've read that gas prices have skyrocketed because of the lack of supply.

Quote:After physical delivery gas prices hit $600 per million British thermal units in Oklahoma this past weekend, the commodity is now trading at $500 per mmBtu at two Midcontinent hubs, Bloomberg reports, with prices at a third hub at $300 per mmBtu.

Normally, gas trades at about $3 per mmBtu, but the wave of Arctic cold weather sweeping across the middle of the United States has boosted demand for energy massively and has already led to blackouts in some parts of the country, notably in Texas.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Gas-Prices/G...kouts.html

A rare bingo from Lad! I am honored. I started to call this a 500 year event, but I did not want to start a segue into global warming.

Yep, the old supply-demand factor. prices went down due to fracking and the opening of other fields. I wonder if the antifracking people and the antipipeline people will pay any attention to this demonstration of secondary and tertiary factors on the lives of real people

My guess is that it doesn't. Like I said earlier in the back and forth with Tanq, I think the biggest way this event connects to the viability of wind, is that it clearly shows the need for an alternative for baseflow and surge capacity to thermal generation if people really want to get rid of O&G. But if we have a narrative trying to argue that wind was really to blame, this very real criticism of wind energy will be ignored.

And since there aren't great alternatives to support wind in the way it needs to, since nuclear has such an unfortunate stigma around it, the best option right now is likely natural gas.

I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue. I can't imagine it will be business as usual on the opposite end of this. But then again, Texas has dragged its feet on making adjustments to its SOPs after natural disasters since Ike hit...
(02-16-2021 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting reading the back-and-forth here.

Bottom line to me - why are we in this fix?

Lad seems to blaming gas more than wind.

Tanq the opposite.

As the proud possessor of land with an enbridge pipoeline crossing it (and another with another comany no yet mentioned here), and as a former owner of three gas wells on same property, I will just point out some anecdotal evidence. The operators stopped operating when the price of gas fell to a point of not bring in enough $$ to cover expenses. After a certain period of time not operating, under the lease I had the right to ask that the wells be removed. I wanted to enhance the real estate value of the land. They pulled the wells. If the wells were still in the ground, they could be producing today - but they are not.

Never seen a pipeline freeze up, but since there are sections above ground, I guess it happens.

What I am seeing as an electricity consumer is that the rolling blackouts are getting worse. Last one was 10 hours off after 4 hours on. Whether the fault is in the wind or the gas, we were not prepared for this unique event. meanwhile the recording keeps telling me outages of up to an hour have been authorized.

To the bolded - bingo! I'd argue we're in this fix because the power grid was not sufficiently winterized for this event. The likelihood of this deep of a freeze was so small, that it likely wasn't cost effective to make the proper preparations required to maintain sufficient power generation.

This is a failure of the entire energy system that ERCOT is managing, and wind is NOT the lynch pin here (that's been my main point of contention). Like I said, if wind was going at 100% of capacity, there would still be a demand shortage.

Gas prices are up as supplies dropped (well heads and infrastructure have frozen) and I've read that gas prices have skyrocketed because of the lack of supply.

Quote:After physical delivery gas prices hit $600 per million British thermal units in Oklahoma this past weekend, the commodity is now trading at $500 per mmBtu at two Midcontinent hubs, Bloomberg reports, with prices at a third hub at $300 per mmBtu.

Normally, gas trades at about $3 per mmBtu, but the wave of Arctic cold weather sweeping across the middle of the United States has boosted demand for energy massively and has already led to blackouts in some parts of the country, notably in Texas.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Gas-Prices/G...kouts.html

A rare bingo from Lad! I am honored. I started to call this a 500 year event, but I did not want to start a segue into global warming.

Yep, the old supply-demand factor. prices went down due to fracking and the opening of other fields. I wonder if the antifracking people and the antipipeline people will pay any attention to this demonstration of secondary and tertiary factors on the lives of real people

My guess is that it doesn't. Like I said earlier in the back and forth with Tanq, I think the biggest way this event connects to the viability of wind, is that it clearly shows the need for an alternative for baseflow and surge capacity to thermal generation if people really want to get rid of O&G. But if we have a narrative trying to argue that wind was really to blame, this very real criticism of wind energy will be ignored.

And since there aren't great alternatives to support wind in the way it needs to, since nuclear has such an unfortunate stigma around it, the best option right now is likely natural gas.

I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue. I can't imagine it will be business as usual on the opposite end of this. But then again, Texas has dragged its feet on making adjustments to its SOPs after natural disasters since Ike hit...

The composition of energy sources isnt ERCOT's domain --- they simply aggregate and deliver. I dont see how ERCOT can respond given their legal charter and mission.

Please stop shotgunning.
Anyone know how I can drop images off my computer to this board? That is without uploading to an external spot?

I have received permission to post off the charts I have here, but only to here. The January fuel load is one I think lad should digest fully.
(02-16-2021 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting reading the back-and-forth here.

Bottom line to me - why are we in this fix?

Lad seems to blaming gas more than wind.

Tanq the opposite.

As the proud possessor of land with an enbridge pipoeline crossing it (and another with another comany no yet mentioned here), and as a former owner of three gas wells on same property, I will just point out some anecdotal evidence. The operators stopped operating when the price of gas fell to a point of not bring in enough $$ to cover expenses. After a certain period of time not operating, under the lease I had the right to ask that the wells be removed. I wanted to enhance the real estate value of the land. They pulled the wells. If the wells were still in the ground, they could be producing today - but they are not.

Never seen a pipeline freeze up, but since there are sections above ground, I guess it happens.

What I am seeing as an electricity consumer is that the rolling blackouts are getting worse. Last one was 10 hours off after 4 hours on. Whether the fault is in the wind or the gas, we were not prepared for this unique event. meanwhile the recording keeps telling me outages of up to an hour have been authorized.

To the bolded - bingo! I'd argue we're in this fix because the power grid was not sufficiently winterized for this event. The likelihood of this deep of a freeze was so small, that it likely wasn't cost effective to make the proper preparations required to maintain sufficient power generation.

This is a failure of the entire energy system that ERCOT is managing, and wind is NOT the lynch pin here (that's been my main point of contention). Like I said, if wind was going at 100% of capacity, there would still be a demand shortage.

Gas prices are up as supplies dropped (well heads and infrastructure have frozen) and I've read that gas prices have skyrocketed because of the lack of supply.

Quote:After physical delivery gas prices hit $600 per million British thermal units in Oklahoma this past weekend, the commodity is now trading at $500 per mmBtu at two Midcontinent hubs, Bloomberg reports, with prices at a third hub at $300 per mmBtu.

Normally, gas trades at about $3 per mmBtu, but the wave of Arctic cold weather sweeping across the middle of the United States has boosted demand for energy massively and has already led to blackouts in some parts of the country, notably in Texas.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Gas-Prices/G...kouts.html

A rare bingo from Lad! I am honored. I started to call this a 500 year event, but I did not want to start a segue into global warming.

Yep, the old supply-demand factor. prices went down due to fracking and the opening of other fields. I wonder if the antifracking people and the antipipeline people will pay any attention to this demonstration of secondary and tertiary factors on the lives of real people

My guess is that it doesn't. Like I said earlier in the back and forth with Tanq, I think the biggest way this event connects to the viability of wind, is that it clearly shows the need for an alternative for baseflow and surge capacity to thermal generation if people really want to get rid of O&G. But if we have a narrative trying to argue that wind was really to blame, this very real criticism of wind energy will be ignored.

And since there aren't great alternatives to support wind in the way it needs to, since nuclear has such an unfortunate stigma around it, the best option right now is likely natural gas.

I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue. I can't imagine it will be business as usual on the opposite end of this. But then again, Texas has dragged its feet on making adjustments to its SOPs after natural disasters since Ike hit...

Well, they did build a seawall in Galveston after the 1900 hurricane...

And they build a new bridge in Laredo after the 1954 flood washed out the old one...

Seems like after the fact fixes in the norm here. Ike is relatively recent.

My opinion is that government everywhere responds better after a problem is exposed than before it happens. Think levees/Katrina. Think 1927 Mississippi floods. Think California wildfires.

Mississippi 1927 floods
Funny thing, and I will summarize, is that lads 'never mind that wind load in the back' stance seems to be contradicted by wind comprising 25% of the power load over January, per one of the graphs.

Now, take that 25% and remove it. Completely. That is the opening bell to the saga, mind you. As opposed to the constant clamor of 'oh its just an insignificant part of the load' we have been hearing.

As opposed to lad's posting of 'one day forward expectations', and various 'plans' that need to be contradicted, I have here crystal clear raw data showing that all of his words about an 'insubstantial portion' (or somefink like that) is absolutely bunk. Garbage.

Adding in lads 'interpretation' of what ERCOT means by 'removed' (or whatever the word was), what we have is lad making supposition after supposition after supposition, and presenting it to me (and us) as supposed cold, hard fact. Amazing that.

Again, after the graphs are put up, I will repeat to him the question posited earlier:

Given one set of items on the intricacies of actual on the spot electric generation from a junior environmental engineer, and given a competing set from some of the literally most reknowned people around knee deep in the subject, whom should I believe?

And yes, I got permission to post these from literally the highest echelons of probably the most experienced energy data firm in the world. I definitely want at this point for the preceding question to be answered in light of them.
(02-16-2021 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting reading the back-and-forth here.

Bottom line to me - why are we in this fix?

Lad seems to blaming gas more than wind.

Tanq the opposite.

As the proud possessor of land with an enbridge pipoeline crossing it (and another with another comany no yet mentioned here), and as a former owner of three gas wells on same property, I will just point out some anecdotal evidence. The operators stopped operating when the price of gas fell to a point of not bring in enough $$ to cover expenses. After a certain period of time not operating, under the lease I had the right to ask that the wells be removed. I wanted to enhance the real estate value of the land. They pulled the wells. If the wells were still in the ground, they could be producing today - but they are not.

Never seen a pipeline freeze up, but since there are sections above ground, I guess it happens.

What I am seeing as an electricity consumer is that the rolling blackouts are getting worse. Last one was 10 hours off after 4 hours on. Whether the fault is in the wind or the gas, we were not prepared for this unique event. meanwhile the recording keeps telling me outages of up to an hour have been authorized.

To the bolded - bingo! I'd argue we're in this fix because the power grid was not sufficiently winterized for this event. The likelihood of this deep of a freeze was so small, that it likely wasn't cost effective to make the proper preparations required to maintain sufficient power generation.

This is a failure of the entire energy system that ERCOT is managing, and wind is NOT the lynch pin here (that's been my main point of contention). Like I said, if wind was going at 100% of capacity, there would still be a demand shortage.

Gas prices are up as supplies dropped (well heads and infrastructure have frozen) and I've read that gas prices have skyrocketed because of the lack of supply.

Quote:After physical delivery gas prices hit $600 per million British thermal units in Oklahoma this past weekend, the commodity is now trading at $500 per mmBtu at two Midcontinent hubs, Bloomberg reports, with prices at a third hub at $300 per mmBtu.

Normally, gas trades at about $3 per mmBtu, but the wave of Arctic cold weather sweeping across the middle of the United States has boosted demand for energy massively and has already led to blackouts in some parts of the country, notably in Texas.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Gas-Prices/G...kouts.html

A rare bingo from Lad! I am honored. I started to call this a 500 year event, but I did not want to start a segue into global warming.

Yep, the old supply-demand factor. prices went down due to fracking and the opening of other fields. I wonder if the antifracking people and the antipipeline people will pay any attention to this demonstration of secondary and tertiary factors on the lives of real people

My guess is that it doesn't. Like I said earlier in the back and forth with Tanq, I think the biggest way this event connects to the viability of wind, is that it clearly shows the need for an alternative for baseflow and surge capacity to thermal generation if people really want to get rid of O&G. But if we have a narrative trying to argue that wind was really to blame, this very real criticism of wind energy will be ignored.

And since there aren't great alternatives to support wind in the way it needs to, since nuclear has such an unfortunate stigma around it, the best option right now is likely natural gas.

I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue. I can't imagine it will be business as usual on the opposite end of this. But then again, Texas has dragged its feet on making adjustments to its SOPs after natural disasters since Ike hit...

The composition of energy sources isnt ERCOT's domain --- they simply aggregate and deliver. I dont see how ERCOT can respond given their legal charter and mission.

Please stop shotgunning.

Uhhhh, I don't think I said that ERCOT could do anything about composition of energy sources. You made that one out of thin air.

Are you saying ERCOT can't change requirements for the power producers operating within its jurisdiction? ERCOT's "primary operational duties of ERCOT are to ensure the reliability of the ERCOT System." So if they tell producers they need to meet requirements X, Y, and Z to maintain system reliability, you're arguing they have no ability to do that?

You'll have to explain to me why you think ERCOT is a rather powerless entity that can't make changes that would help avoid a similar network failure in the future.
(02-16-2021 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny thing, and I will summarize, is that lads 'never mind that wind load in the back' stance seems to be contradicted by wind comprising 25% of the power load over January, per one of the graphs.

Now, take that 25% and remove it. Completely. That is the opening bell to the saga, mind you. As opposed to the constant clamor of 'oh its just an insignificant part of the load' we have been hearing.

As opposed to lad's posting of 'one day forward expectations', and various 'plans' that need to be contradicted, I have here crystal clear raw data showing that all of his words about an 'insubstantial portion' (or somefink like that) is absolutely bunk. Garbage.

Adding in lads 'interpretation' of what ERCOT means by 'removed' (or whatever the word was), what we have is lad making supposition after supposition after supposition, and presenting it to me (and us) as supposed cold, hard fact. Amazing that.

Again, after the graphs are put up, I will repeat to him the question posited earlier:

Given one set of items on the intricacies of actual on the spot electric generation from a junior environmental engineer, and given a competing set from some of the literally most reknowned people around knee deep in the subject, whom should I believe?

And yes, I got permission to post these from literally the highest echelons of probably the most experienced energy data firm in the world. I definitely want at this point for the preceding question to be answered in light of them.

You keep missing the key issue here - was ERCOT planning to use the GWs associated with that 25% share of generation during a severe weather event?
(02-16-2021 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To the bolded - bingo! I'd argue we're in this fix because the power grid was not sufficiently winterized for this event. The likelihood of this deep of a freeze was so small, that it likely wasn't cost effective to make the proper preparations required to maintain sufficient power generation.

This is a failure of the entire energy system that ERCOT is managing, and wind is NOT the lynch pin here (that's been my main point of contention). Like I said, if wind was going at 100% of capacity, there would still be a demand shortage.

Gas prices are up as supplies dropped (well heads and infrastructure have frozen) and I've read that gas prices have skyrocketed because of the lack of supply.


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Gas-Prices/G...kouts.html

A rare bingo from Lad! I am honored. I started to call this a 500 year event, but I did not want to start a segue into global warming.

Yep, the old supply-demand factor. prices went down due to fracking and the opening of other fields. I wonder if the antifracking people and the antipipeline people will pay any attention to this demonstration of secondary and tertiary factors on the lives of real people

My guess is that it doesn't. Like I said earlier in the back and forth with Tanq, I think the biggest way this event connects to the viability of wind, is that it clearly shows the need for an alternative for baseflow and surge capacity to thermal generation if people really want to get rid of O&G. But if we have a narrative trying to argue that wind was really to blame, this very real criticism of wind energy will be ignored.

And since there aren't great alternatives to support wind in the way it needs to, since nuclear has such an unfortunate stigma around it, the best option right now is likely natural gas.

I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue. I can't imagine it will be business as usual on the opposite end of this. But then again, Texas has dragged its feet on making adjustments to its SOPs after natural disasters since Ike hit...

The composition of energy sources isnt ERCOT's domain --- they simply aggregate and deliver. I dont see how ERCOT can respond given their legal charter and mission.

Please stop shotgunning.

Uhhhh, I don't think I said that ERCOT could do anything about composition of energy sources. You made that one out of thin air.

"I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue."

ERCOT has not a lot of say in what can happen lad.

The major player (the gorilla) is the PUC.

Capiche?

Again, stop making supposition after supposition on **** you have zero experience in. it is tiresome hearing you pull it out of your ass on this continuously.
(02-16-2021 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A rare bingo from Lad! I am honored. I started to call this a 500 year event, but I did not want to start a segue into global warming.

Yep, the old supply-demand factor. prices went down due to fracking and the opening of other fields. I wonder if the antifracking people and the antipipeline people will pay any attention to this demonstration of secondary and tertiary factors on the lives of real people

My guess is that it doesn't. Like I said earlier in the back and forth with Tanq, I think the biggest way this event connects to the viability of wind, is that it clearly shows the need for an alternative for baseflow and surge capacity to thermal generation if people really want to get rid of O&G. But if we have a narrative trying to argue that wind was really to blame, this very real criticism of wind energy will be ignored.

And since there aren't great alternatives to support wind in the way it needs to, since nuclear has such an unfortunate stigma around it, the best option right now is likely natural gas.

I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue. I can't imagine it will be business as usual on the opposite end of this. But then again, Texas has dragged its feet on making adjustments to its SOPs after natural disasters since Ike hit...

The composition of energy sources isnt ERCOT's domain --- they simply aggregate and deliver. I dont see how ERCOT can respond given their legal charter and mission.

Please stop shotgunning.

Uhhhh, I don't think I said that ERCOT could do anything about composition of energy sources. You made that one out of thin air.

"I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue."

ERCOT has not a lot of say in what can happen lad.

The major player (the gorilla) is the PUC.

Capiche?

Again, stop making supposition after supposition on **** you have zero experience in. it is tiresome hearing you pull it out of your ass on this continuously.

Are you saying ERCOT can't change requirements for the power producers operating within its jurisdiction? ERCOT's "primary operational duties of ERCOT are to ensure the reliability of the ERCOT System." So if they tell producers they need to meet requirements X, Y, and Z to maintain system reliability, you're arguing they have no ability to do that?

You'll have to explain to me why you think ERCOT is a rather powerless entity that can't make changes that would help avoid a similar network failure in the future.
(02-16-2021 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny thing, and I will summarize, is that lads 'never mind that wind load in the back' stance seems to be contradicted by wind comprising 25% of the power load over January, per one of the graphs.

Now, take that 25% and remove it. Completely. That is the opening bell to the saga, mind you. As opposed to the constant clamor of 'oh its just an insignificant part of the load' we have been hearing.

As opposed to lad's posting of 'one day forward expectations', and various 'plans' that need to be contradicted, I have here crystal clear raw data showing that all of his words about an 'insubstantial portion' (or somefink like that) is absolutely bunk. Garbage.

Adding in lads 'interpretation' of what ERCOT means by 'removed' (or whatever the word was), what we have is lad making supposition after supposition after supposition, and presenting it to me (and us) as supposed cold, hard fact. Amazing that.

Again, after the graphs are put up, I will repeat to him the question posited earlier:

Given one set of items on the intricacies of actual on the spot electric generation from a junior environmental engineer, and given a competing set from some of the literally most reknowned people around knee deep in the subject, whom should I believe?

And yes, I got permission to post these from literally the highest echelons of probably the most experienced energy data firm in the world. I definitely want at this point for the preceding question to be answered in light of them.

You keep missing the key issue here - was ERCOT planning to use the GWs associated with that 25% share of generation during a severe weather event?

I can tell you with certainly that they were NOT planning on losing just about every fing bit of it.

And, from others, ERCOT was expecting not 100% of that type of load factor but at least to the factor of 15% - 18% of a normalized load. Instead, they got less than 1% for several hours, and less than 5% for the vast time.

I will take it now that you are backing off your (interesting) statement of "winter months typically coincide with less overall energy production in wind" to try and downplay the load that wind had on the current situation -- given a 25% load factor in January that represents a fairly hefty % of the output there.

Given the previous graph that shows a fairly high wind load as well. Imagine that.

Again, supposition after supposition after supposition. Now you are moving the goalposts --- instead of 'it is in the winter, the winter load is lower, so therefore they didnt expect to lean on it in the slightest', you now seemingly take the position that apparently they 'didnt expect to have that load during an event'. Got it.

Or is this your new current backup position and supposition, or a long shot rhetorical answer (i.e. is any of the raw data 'in line' with the rest').
(02-16-2021 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My guess is that it doesn't. Like I said earlier in the back and forth with Tanq, I think the biggest way this event connects to the viability of wind, is that it clearly shows the need for an alternative for baseflow and surge capacity to thermal generation if people really want to get rid of O&G. But if we have a narrative trying to argue that wind was really to blame, this very real criticism of wind energy will be ignored.

And since there aren't great alternatives to support wind in the way it needs to, since nuclear has such an unfortunate stigma around it, the best option right now is likely natural gas.

I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue. I can't imagine it will be business as usual on the opposite end of this. But then again, Texas has dragged its feet on making adjustments to its SOPs after natural disasters since Ike hit...

The composition of energy sources isnt ERCOT's domain --- they simply aggregate and deliver. I dont see how ERCOT can respond given their legal charter and mission.

Please stop shotgunning.

Uhhhh, I don't think I said that ERCOT could do anything about composition of energy sources. You made that one out of thin air.

"I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue."

ERCOT has not a lot of say in what can happen lad.

The major player (the gorilla) is the PUC.

Capiche?

Again, stop making supposition after supposition on **** you have zero experience in. it is tiresome hearing you pull it out of your ass on this continuously.

Are you saying ERCOT can't change requirements for the power producers operating within its jurisdiction? ERCOT's "primary operational duties of ERCOT are to ensure the reliability of the ERCOT System." So if they tell producers they need to meet requirements X, Y, and Z to maintain system reliability, you're arguing they have no ability to do that?

You'll have to explain to me why you think ERCOT is a rather powerless entity that can't make changes that would help avoid a similar network failure in the future.

Because.

The.

Major.

Force.

And.

Player.

Is.

The.

PUC.

'Powerless', not that extreme. In the mix of it, they march to the orders of someone else. They can give guidance, of course. The PUC will make the policy that ERCOT will implement.

P. U. C. Got it?

Or do I need to say it again?

It is a creature of legislation subject to oversight by both the Legislature and the PUC. The PUC has primary jurisdiction over all activities conducted by ERCOT. And, the PUC will absolutely exercise that control here. Claro?
(02-16-2021 02:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]The composition of energy sources isnt ERCOT's domain --- they simply aggregate and deliver. I dont see how ERCOT can respond given their legal charter and mission.

Please stop shotgunning.

Uhhhh, I don't think I said that ERCOT could do anything about composition of energy sources. You made that one out of thin air.

"I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue."

ERCOT has not a lot of say in what can happen lad.

The major player (the gorilla) is the PUC.

Capiche?

Again, stop making supposition after supposition on **** you have zero experience in. it is tiresome hearing you pull it out of your ass on this continuously.

Are you saying ERCOT can't change requirements for the power producers operating within its jurisdiction? ERCOT's "primary operational duties of ERCOT are to ensure the reliability of the ERCOT System." So if they tell producers they need to meet requirements X, Y, and Z to maintain system reliability, you're arguing they have no ability to do that?

You'll have to explain to me why you think ERCOT is a rather powerless entity that can't make changes that would help avoid a similar network failure in the future.

Because.

The.

Major.

Force.

And.

Player.

Is.

The.

PUC.

'Powerless', not that extreme. In the mix of it, they march to the orders of someone else. They can give guidance, of course. But get off your bald supposition that ERCOT is the entity to make and enforce policy here.

P. U. C. Got it?

Or do I need to say it again?

Christ, you're an *******.

If all you wanted to say was that ERCOT could make changes, but PUC would be the better entity to enforce substantial changes, then say that.

Instead, you put words in my mouth about composition of energy sources, then you make an ad hom attack about me, and your third response that final has more substance to it is the post above.

I suggest you wrap up these posts and send them to Abbott:

Quote:“The Electric Reliability Council of Texas has been anything but reliable over the past 48 hours,” said Governor Abbott. “Far too many Texans are without power and heat for their homes as our state faces freezing temperatures and severe winter weather. This is unacceptable. Reviewing the preparations and decisions by ERCOT is an emergency item so we can get a full picture of what caused this problem and find long-term solutions. I thank my partners in the House and Senate for acting quickly on this challenge, and I will work with them to enhance Texas’ electric grid and ensure that our state never experiences power outages like this again.”

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor...gency-item
(02-16-2021 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny thing, and I will summarize, is that lads 'never mind that wind load in the back' stance seems to be contradicted by wind comprising 25% of the power load over January, per one of the graphs.

Now, take that 25% and remove it. Completely. That is the opening bell to the saga, mind you. As opposed to the constant clamor of 'oh its just an insignificant part of the load' we have been hearing.

As opposed to lad's posting of 'one day forward expectations', and various 'plans' that need to be contradicted, I have here crystal clear raw data showing that all of his words about an 'insubstantial portion' (or somefink like that) is absolutely bunk. Garbage.

Adding in lads 'interpretation' of what ERCOT means by 'removed' (or whatever the word was), what we have is lad making supposition after supposition after supposition, and presenting it to me (and us) as supposed cold, hard fact. Amazing that.

Again, after the graphs are put up, I will repeat to him the question posited earlier:

Given one set of items on the intricacies of actual on the spot electric generation from a junior environmental engineer, and given a competing set from some of the literally most reknowned people around knee deep in the subject, whom should I believe?

And yes, I got permission to post these from literally the highest echelons of probably the most experienced energy data firm in the world. I definitely want at this point for the preceding question to be answered in light of them.

You keep missing the key issue here - was ERCOT planning to use the GWs associated with that 25% share of generation during a severe weather event?

I can tell you with certainly that they were NOT planning on losing just about every fing bit of it.

And, from others, ERCOT was expecting not 100% of that type of load factor but at least to the factor of 15% - 18% of a normalized load. Instead, they got less than 1% for several hours, and less than 5% for the vast time.

I will take it now that you are backing off your (interesting) statement of "winter months typically coincide with less overall energy production in wind" to try and downplay the load that wind had on the current situation -- given a 25% load factor in January that represents a fairly hefty % of the output there.

Given the previous graph that shows a fairly high wind load as well. Imagine that.

Again, supposition after supposition after supposition. Now you are moving the goalposts --- instead of 'it is in the winter, the winter load is lower, so therefore they didnt expect to lean on it in the slightest', you now seemingly take the position that apparently they 'didnt expect to have that load during an event'. Got it.

Or is this your new current backup position and supposition, or a long shot rhetorical answer (i.e. is any of the raw data 'in line' with the rest').

I've been pretty consistent with my comments, based on the information and analysis I've seen, and the bolded misrepresents that.

For starters, I've stated for a while that ERCOT never expects to have their entire wind capacity operating at 100% - I've provided multiple reports for that. Second, in those same reports it shows that ERCOT plans to have greater capacity available from wind in the spring as compared to the winter (huh, I wonder why!).

Yes, ERCOT does not expect to lose the X GW they expect wind to generate.

ERCOT also does not expect to lose the Y GW that they expect thermal to generate.

You seem to want to focus on X (7 GW) and not on Y (20+ GW) and that seems odd.

You then ignore that ERCOT, an entity whose sole purpose is to basically plan and manage the power system in Texas, has plans for power generation. Part of that plan is not assuming wind operates at 100% capacity because that is a bad assumption.

Anyways, I'm good here. We'll see how things shake out in a few weeks and whether it's worth revisiting this conversation. Stay safe until then.
(02-16-2021 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Uhhhh, I don't think I said that ERCOT could do anything about composition of energy sources. You made that one out of thin air.

"I wonder in what ways ERCOT will respond to this issue."

ERCOT has not a lot of say in what can happen lad.

The major player (the gorilla) is the PUC.

Capiche?

Again, stop making supposition after supposition on **** you have zero experience in. it is tiresome hearing you pull it out of your ass on this continuously.

Are you saying ERCOT can't change requirements for the power producers operating within its jurisdiction? ERCOT's "primary operational duties of ERCOT are to ensure the reliability of the ERCOT System." So if they tell producers they need to meet requirements X, Y, and Z to maintain system reliability, you're arguing they have no ability to do that?

You'll have to explain to me why you think ERCOT is a rather powerless entity that can't make changes that would help avoid a similar network failure in the future.

Because.

The.

Major.

Force.

And.

Player.

Is.

The.

PUC.

'Powerless', not that extreme. In the mix of it, they march to the orders of someone else. They can give guidance, of course. But get off your bald supposition that ERCOT is the entity to make and enforce policy here.

P. U. C. Got it?

Or do I need to say it again?

Christ, you're an *******.

If all you wanted to say was that ERCOT could make changes, but PUC would be the better entity to enforce substantial changes, then say that.

I previously did.

Quote:"ERCOT has not a lot of say in what can happen lad.

The major player (the gorilla) is the PUC."

Its like you dont even gd bother to read before complaining and jawing.
(02-16-2021 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny thing, and I will summarize, is that lads 'never mind that wind load in the back' stance seems to be contradicted by wind comprising 25% of the power load over January, per one of the graphs.

Now, take that 25% and remove it. Completely. That is the opening bell to the saga, mind you. As opposed to the constant clamor of 'oh its just an insignificant part of the load' we have been hearing.

As opposed to lad's posting of 'one day forward expectations', and various 'plans' that need to be contradicted, I have here crystal clear raw data showing that all of his words about an 'insubstantial portion' (or somefink like that) is absolutely bunk. Garbage.

Adding in lads 'interpretation' of what ERCOT means by 'removed' (or whatever the word was), what we have is lad making supposition after supposition after supposition, and presenting it to me (and us) as supposed cold, hard fact. Amazing that.

Again, after the graphs are put up, I will repeat to him the question posited earlier:

Given one set of items on the intricacies of actual on the spot electric generation from a junior environmental engineer, and given a competing set from some of the literally most reknowned people around knee deep in the subject, whom should I believe?

And yes, I got permission to post these from literally the highest echelons of probably the most experienced energy data firm in the world. I definitely want at this point for the preceding question to be answered in light of them.

You keep missing the key issue here - was ERCOT planning to use the GWs associated with that 25% share of generation during a severe weather event?

I can tell you with certainly that they were NOT planning on losing just about every fing bit of it.

And, from others, ERCOT was expecting not 100% of that type of load factor but at least to the factor of 15% - 18% of a normalized load. Instead, they got less than 1% for several hours, and less than 5% for the vast time.

I will take it now that you are backing off your (interesting) statement of "winter months typically coincide with less overall energy production in wind" to try and downplay the load that wind had on the current situation -- given a 25% load factor in January that represents a fairly hefty % of the output there.

Given the previous graph that shows a fairly high wind load as well. Imagine that.

Again, supposition after supposition after supposition. Now you are moving the goalposts --- instead of 'it is in the winter, the winter load is lower, so therefore they didnt expect to lean on it in the slightest', you now seemingly take the position that apparently they 'didnt expect to have that load during an event'. Got it.

Or is this your new current backup position and supposition, or a long shot rhetorical answer (i.e. is any of the raw data 'in line' with the rest').

I've been pretty consistent with my comments, based on the information and analysis I've seen, and the bolded misrepresents that.

For starters, I've stated for a while that ERCOT never expects to have their entire wind capacity operating at 100% - I've provided multiple reports for that.

I dont think that I have asserted that, have I?

Quote:Second, in those same reports it shows that ERCOT plans to have greater capacity available from wind in the spring as compared to the winter (huh, I wonder why!).

And the raw fuel ration data fails to show that, as generally the raw data for wind alone over the years.

Quote:Yes, ERCOT does not expect to lose the X GW they expect wind to generate.

And the raw data shows an absolute wind load during the previous years, and the fuel ratio data from past years shows a corresponding heavier reliance on wind than your supposition.

Quote:ERCOT also does not expect to lose the Y GW that they expect thermal to generate.

They never expected thermal to do its own normal base + the work of another 15-25% of the normal ratio load when wind cratered absolutely + another 30% uptick + another 20% uptick all at once.

The data in the road into the 15th shows thermal taking over the roughly 20% of the load that wind failed on, plus the next 30% uptick. In short, the system did not have the design to compensate when wind cratered as thoroughly and completely as it did *and* another massive uptick.

Quote:You then ignore that ERCOT, an entity whose sole purpose is to basically plan and manage the power system in Texas, has plans for power generation. Part of that plan is not assuming wind operates at 100% capacity because that is a bad assumption.

Where in the fk have I assumed 'wind at 100%', lad? Where have I 'ignored ERCOT', lad? I would suggest stop making bald ass assumptions -- they tend to land you in bad places. Its like you grab **** from thin air and sling them around like silly putty.

Quote:Anyways, I'm good here. We'll see how things shake out in a few weeks and whether it's worth revisiting this conversation. Stay safe until then.

Bye.
(02-16-2021 03:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny thing, and I will summarize, is that lads 'never mind that wind load in the back' stance seems to be contradicted by wind comprising 25% of the power load over January, per one of the graphs.

Now, take that 25% and remove it. Completely. That is the opening bell to the saga, mind you. As opposed to the constant clamor of 'oh its just an insignificant part of the load' we have been hearing.

As opposed to lad's posting of 'one day forward expectations', and various 'plans' that need to be contradicted, I have here crystal clear raw data showing that all of his words about an 'insubstantial portion' (or somefink like that) is absolutely bunk. Garbage.

Adding in lads 'interpretation' of what ERCOT means by 'removed' (or whatever the word was), what we have is lad making supposition after supposition after supposition, and presenting it to me (and us) as supposed cold, hard fact. Amazing that.

Again, after the graphs are put up, I will repeat to him the question posited earlier:

Given one set of items on the intricacies of actual on the spot electric generation from a junior environmental engineer, and given a competing set from some of the literally most reknowned people around knee deep in the subject, whom should I believe?

And yes, I got permission to post these from literally the highest echelons of probably the most experienced energy data firm in the world. I definitely want at this point for the preceding question to be answered in light of them.

You keep missing the key issue here - was ERCOT planning to use the GWs associated with that 25% share of generation during a severe weather event?

I can tell you with certainly that they were NOT planning on losing just about every fing bit of it.

And, from others, ERCOT was expecting not 100% of that type of load factor but at least to the factor of 15% - 18% of a normalized load. Instead, they got less than 1% for several hours, and less than 5% for the vast time.

I will take it now that you are backing off your (interesting) statement of "winter months typically coincide with less overall energy production in wind" to try and downplay the load that wind had on the current situation -- given a 25% load factor in January that represents a fairly hefty % of the output there.

Given the previous graph that shows a fairly high wind load as well. Imagine that.

Again, supposition after supposition after supposition. Now you are moving the goalposts --- instead of 'it is in the winter, the winter load is lower, so therefore they didnt expect to lean on it in the slightest', you now seemingly take the position that apparently they 'didnt expect to have that load during an event'. Got it.

Or is this your new current backup position and supposition, or a long shot rhetorical answer (i.e. is any of the raw data 'in line' with the rest').

I've been pretty consistent with my comments, based on the information and analysis I've seen, and the bolded misrepresents that.

For starters, I've stated for a while that ERCOT never expects to have their entire wind capacity operating at 100% - I've provided multiple reports for that.

I dont think that I have asserted that, have I?
In your very first post.

"Wind can supply 25 Mw, and usually does."

https://csnbbs.com/thread-881624-post-17...id17275547

The entire wind capacity for ERCOT this winter was 25 GW.

See the 2020 seasonal assessment (can be downloaded here: http://www.ercot.com/news/releases/show/216844) where ERCOT lists their resources and forecasted capacity.

Quote:
Quote:Second, in those same reports it shows that ERCOT plans to have greater capacity available from wind in the spring as compared to the winter (huh, I wonder why!).

And the raw fuel ration data fails to show that, as generally the raw data for wind alone over the years.

Quote:Yes, ERCOT does not expect to lose the X GW they expect wind to generate.

And the raw data shows an absolute wind load during the previous years, and the fuel ratio data from past years shows a corresponding heavier reliance on wind than your supposition.

That isn't reliance, it's operation. Reliance is what they planned to use - go to the document I have cited multiple times.

ERCOT relied on 67.5 GW from thermal and hydro and ~7 GW from wind. They assumed there would be some thermal outages in a winter storm, but only around 4 GW.
Quote:
Quote:ERCOT also does not expect to lose the Y GW that they expect thermal to generate.

They never expected thermal to do its own normal base + the work of another 15-25% of the normal ratio load when wind cratered absolutely + another 30% uptick + another 20% uptick all at once.

The data in the road into the 15th shows thermal taking over the roughly 20% of the load that wind failed on, plus the next 30% uptick. In short, the system did not have the design to compensate when wind cratered as thoroughly and completely as it did *and* another massive uptick.

They expected a peak demand of 57.7 GW and that there would be a reserve capacity of 24 GW. Of that 24 GW of capacity, they would lose ~9 GW of thermal and ~5 GW of wind.

So they actually only assumed they would get about 2 GW of wind in a worst-case-scenario.
Quote:
Quote:You then ignore that ERCOT, an entity whose sole purpose is to basically plan and manage the power system in Texas, has plans for power generation. Part of that plan is not assuming wind operates at 100% capacity because that is a bad assumption.

Where in the fk have I assumed 'wind at 100%', lad? Where have I 'ignored ERCOT', lad? I would suggest stop making bald ass assumptions -- they tend to land you in bad places. Its like you grab **** from thin air and sling them around like silly putty.

Quote:Anyways, I'm good here. We'll see how things shake out in a few weeks and whether it's worth revisiting this conversation. Stay safe until then.

Bye.

darn, I came back.

I highly recommend you look at the forecast I keep referencing, as you seem to have not looked at it.
Funny how their 'forecast' and their operation vary by a huge factor. Even in supposed normal operation. You seemingly havent clued in to that distinction. Especially when wind load was 21,000 Mw 1.5 days before the entire thing slammed into the ground.

But, that difference between your comments and actual world carries over into your fing asinine assertion that 'winter usage is significantly lower' -- but by god that assertion lives in spite of actual raw data to the contrary.

And, your assessment there is at odds with what the operational aspect at that time.

Again, do I believe some environmental dude who is preaching about 'what they expected'; or do I instead believe what the actual people (some whom actually know what was going on) in the biz think and did?

Funny you never answer that question for all the hand waving you do.

Remember the VP of HR name I put out there -- I am sure that they are really searching for such inherent geniuses like you to show them what to think and how to think, since you are doing such an admirable job of telling everyone else 'how' they did their function, and what everyone was doing and thinking at that time.

You get piqued when I call you an omniscient lord, but..... what else describes that as full as that lad?
(02-16-2021 04:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny how their 'forecast' and their operation vary by a huge factor. Even in supposed normal operation. You seemingly havent clued in to that distinction. Especially when wind load was 21,000 Mw 1.5 days before the entire thing slammed into the ground.

But, that difference between your comments and actual world carries over into your fing asinine assertion that 'winter usage is significantly lower' -- but by god that assertion lives in spite of actual raw data to the contrary.

And, your assessment there is at odds with what the operational aspect at that time.

Again, do I believe some half assed junior environmental dude who is screeching about 'what they expected'; or do I instead believe what the actual people (some whom actually know what was going on) in the biz think and did?

Funny you never fing answer that question for all the hand waving you do. I suggest you go drill another one of your wells or whatever the fk you do and spout off about how the real electric world operates to your cohorts there.

Remember the VP of HR name I put out there -- I am sure that they are really searching for such inherent geniuses like you to show them what to think and how to think, since you are doing such an admirable job of telling everyone else 'how' they did their function, and what everyone was doing and thinking at that time.

You get piqued when I call you an omniscient lord, but..... what else describes that as full as that lad?

Wow, really cranky and full of ad homs today.

I've read a number of opinions/articles from people who either work in the energy industry or study the energy industry. What I am saying was informed by their takes - same way your takes are informed by your connections.

But notice how I don't act like an *******, call you an omniscient lord, denigrate your career choice, etc. just because your sources of info seem to disagree with my sources of info? I don't remember being the one to start flinging dirt - sorry if that was me. But boy are you an ******* right now.

To the details, do we agree with wind energy production not being constant and consistent?

If we do, you have the answer as to why the project assessment/projection of wind output is below some of the actual output observed (as in, why their forecast and operation vary by a huge factor).

It would be piss poor planning to assume an entity known to be inconsistent would provide a high capacity output. Or would you disagree with that assessment?

edit: I actually analyzed the data you sent me and showed you that spring wind output in the data set exceeded winter output...
(02-16-2021 05:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2021 04:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny how their 'forecast' and their operation vary by a huge factor. Even in supposed normal operation. You seemingly havent clued in to that distinction. Especially when wind load was 21,000 Mw 1.5 days before the entire thing slammed into the ground.

But, that difference between your comments and actual world carries over into your fing asinine assertion that 'winter usage is significantly lower' -- but by god that assertion lives in spite of actual raw data to the contrary.

And, your assessment there is at odds with what the operational aspect at that time.

Again, do I believe some half assed junior environmental dude who is screeching about 'what they expected'; or do I instead believe what the actual people (some whom actually know what was going on) in the biz think and did?

Funny you never fing answer that question for all the hand waving you do. I suggest you go drill another one of your wells or whatever the fk you do and spout off about how the real electric world operates to your cohorts there.

Remember the VP of HR name I put out there -- I am sure that they are really searching for such inherent geniuses like you to show them what to think and how to think, since you are doing such an admirable job of telling everyone else 'how' they did their function, and what everyone was doing and thinking at that time.

You get piqued when I call you an omniscient lord, but..... what else describes that as full as that lad?

Wow, really cranky and full of ad homs today.

I've read a number of opinions/articles from people who either work in the energy industry or study the energy industry. What I am saying was informed by their takes - same way your takes are informed by your connections.

But notice how I don't act like an *******, call you an omniscient lord, denigrate your career choice, etc. just because your sources of info seem to disagree with my sources of info? I don't remember being the one to start flinging dirt - sorry if that was me. But boy are you an ******* right now.

To the details, do we agree with wind energy production not being constant and consistent?

If we do, you have the answer as to why the project assessment/projection of wind output is below some of the actual output observed (as in, why their forecast and operation vary by a huge factor).

It would be piss poor planning to assume an entity known to be inconsistent would provide a high capacity output. Or would you disagree with that assessment?

edit: I actually analyzed the data you sent me and showed you that spring wind output in the data set exceeded winter output...

Actually lad, i am not 'denigrating' your work and your career choice. I think it is great that you are doing it.

What I am denoting, and emphasizing your position, is precisely how far you are from the others I have talked to.

It would be like me opining as to the inner workings of a company that I had zero contact or a clue about, and you did.

But apparently you know far better than I, and, far better than the people whom I know within ERCOT, PUC, and the top energy data companies combined. Bravo. Quite the feat. Please keep preaching on it.

If you are unable to discern that avenue, well, not my prob, is it.

Have fun. Go figure out the world's problems there, you junior omniscient owl. It seems that you know implicitly far more than anyone else on the issue, so please keep preaching. Me? I will just write you off as a true know it all for that on this issue.

Have fun, lad.

An *******? Yep. Better than being a know-it-all jckass, but hey, who's counting.

And at this point, Ive kind of had it with the mr junior know it all who seemingly knows exactly what has happened -- better than the people at ERCOT, PUC, Enverus, and a few others on top of that.

I am just rather sick and tired of listening to you blow air out of your ass in space and a situation that you have zero personal knowledge or insight. Fair enough?

As I said, you are a friggin' national treasure and wasting yourself digging holes or whatever it is you do; my apologies but, with all due respect, I really dont know what an 'environmental engineer' does. But, unlike you in all your glory, I actually admit that and dont pretend to be the fing expert in that line. Perhaps you will educate us so we can blow smoke out of our ass on your field in the same manner that you do on so many others.
Quote: Don’t point too many fingers at Texas wind turbines, because they’re not the main reason broad swaths of the state have been plunged into darkness.

While ice has forced some turbines to shut down just as a brutal cold wave drives record electricity demand, that’s been the least significant factor in the blackouts, according to Dan Woodfin, a senior director for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s power grid.

That darn know it all, a senior director at ERCOT...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...power-woes
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Reference URL's