Quote:Two states, two blackouts.

California suffered a heat wave in August that caused local utility companies to impose rolling blackouts. Now Texas is suffering a deep freeze that has likewise caused power shortages and rolling blackouts.

Both states saw “green” energy alternatives fail in bad weather. But both states also lost power because of government policy more generally: too many government mandates in California, and too little government oversight in Texas.

The California story is familiar to conservatives. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who turned leftward after failing to implement his promised reforms in the face of union opposition, signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, into law. The state set a limit to greenhouse gas emissions and issued tradable carbon permits. The cap-and-trade system, renewed in 2016, raised costs for local businesses but had almost no impact on global climate change.

In 2018, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democrat-dominated legislature went further, signing SB 100, which committed the state to 100% “clean” energy and a target of “carbon neutrality” by 2045. California’s utility companies expanded “renewable” energy sources such as solar and wind, even though there were already signs that the aging electricity transmission infrastructure needed upgrading because it was susceptible to causing wildfires in high winds.

When the heat wave hit, and there was a sudden urge for demand, California could not draw on solar power, because of overcast skies; nor could it draw on wind power, because of calm conditions. Gov. Gavin Newsom told Californians that the state needed to “sober up” about renewable energy as an alternative to fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, just weeks later, he announced that all passenger vehicles — cars and trucks — sold in California would have to be “zero emissions” by 2035.

Conservative Texas has also pursued renewable energy, though it is known for its fossil fuel industry. It is already the number-one producer of wind energy in the U.S. As the Austin American-Statesman reported recently, “Wind power has been the fastest-growing source of energy in Texas’ power grid. In 2015 winder power generation supplied 11% of Texas’ energy grid. Last year it supplied 23% and overtook coal as the system’s second-largest source of energy after natural gas.”

In the recent winter weather, nearly half of the wind turbines in Texas froze, taking out up to 12,000 megawatts from the state’s power supply.

But that was only part of the story.

Many of the state’s power plants had failed to “winterize” their equipment, leading to shutdowns. It was the same problem that regulators had noted in cold snaps in 2011 and in 1989. There are also questions about the management of the electricity grid, and whether state oversight boards did their jobs.

While California has been too ambitious, and draconian, in imposing “green” energy, Texas has been too lax in preparing for extreme weather events, which are not new.

Whether “blue” or “red,” America’s leaders seem to be putting ideology first, instead of prioritizing basic government functions.

Fighting climate change need not mean killing fossil fuel jobs or eliminating crucial power supplies. Nor should promoting small government mean neglecting citizens’ basic needs.

Link

Exactly.

The big problem that people seem to be having is understanding that "averages" mean nothing with electricity. It's all instantaneous. This was a demand-driven crisis, and nobody seems to be focusing on that. If you can't produce exactly the power that you need right now, then the system is going to trip offline. So you need excess capacity to keep that from happening. Wind and solar can't provide that, because if it happens at night when the wind is not blowing, or when windmills are frozen and seized up, as happened here, then they contribute virtually nothing to the solution at the exact moment you need it.

What needs to be done is to create more reserve capacity, together with the ability to turn it on in a hurry in times like these. A situation that requires a written request to, and approval from, FERC or EPA or whomever, is simply unacceptable. What Texas and ERCOT need are:

1) Much, much more battery capacity, to store excess power for times like this
2) More natural gas storage, instead of production simply being sent out of state
3) More wind and solar, with the understanding that they are not reliable for peak (or even base) loads, but can supplement whenever available
4) More natural gas and nuke, which are generally available for base load, and generally can be turned up to meet peaks
5) Probably not decommissioning any coal plants until the nuke/gas/renewable supply is adequate to provide sufficient cushion for events like this
6) Improvements to the transmission and distribution grid
7) Operating rules that allow judgmental spinning of generators of any sort in any location to meet needs like this one

What is not needed is connection to the national eastern or western grids. I am on Entergy, which is part of the Louisiana grid, not connected to ERCOT. I've been through two hurricanes where I wish I had been on ERCOT. I also wish I were on ERCOT so I could have Green Mountain (100% renewables) as a provider, although I am not sure whether Green Mountain can survive this spike. I can honestly say that this is the first time in 17 years that I was glad to be on Entergy instead of ERCOT.

(02-21-2021 02:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly.

The big problem that people seem to be having is understanding that "averages" mean nothing with electricity. It's all instantaneous. This was a demand-driven crisis, and nobody seems to be focusing on that. If you can't produce exactly the power that you need right now, then the system is going to trip offline. So you need excess capacity to keep that from happening. Wind and solar can't provide that, because if it happens at night when the wind is not blowing, or when windmills are frozen and seized up, as happened here, then they contribute virtually nothing to the solution at the exact moment you need it.

What needs to be done is to create more reserve capacity, together with the ability to turn it on in a hurry in times like these. A situation that requires a written request to, and approval from, FERC or EPA or whomever, is simply unacceptable. What Texas and ERCOT need are:

1) Much, much more battery capacity, to store excess power for times like this
2) More natural gas storage, instead of production simply being sent out of state
3) More wind and solar, with the understanding that they are not reliable for peak (or even base) loads, but can supplement whenever available
4) More natural gas and nuke, which are generally available for base load, and generally can be turned up to meet peaks
5) Probably not decommissioning any coal plants until the nuke/gas/renewable supply is adequate to provide sufficient cushion for events like this
6) Improvements to the transmission and distribution grid
7) Operating rules that allow judgmental spinning of generators of any sort in any location to meet needs like this one

What is not needed is connection to the national eastern or western grids. I am on Entergy, which is part of the Louisiana grid, not connected to ERCOT. I've been through two hurricanes where I wish I had been on ERCOT. I also wish I were on ERCOT so I could have Green Mountain (100% renewables) as a provider, although I am not sure whether Green Mountain can survive this spike. I can honestly say that this is the first time in 17 years that I was glad to be on Entergy instead of ERCOT.

I disagree with the bolded. Everyone can point to bad experiences with the energy utility, but most do their jobs well. But this cold snap proved to be one of those rare events where grid integration would have provided the reserve capacity Texas needed. Now, you mentioned building new plants, winterizing and keeping more production capacity in state, which would allow for ERCOT to maintain its independence. The question will the rate payers accept the increase cost? Would grid merger prove to be a cheaper option?

(02-22-2021 10:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 02:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly.
The big problem that people seem to be having is understanding that "averages" mean nothing with electricity. It's all instantaneous. This was a demand-driven crisis, and nobody seems to be focusing on that. If you can't produce exactly the power that you need right now, then the system is going to trip offline. So you need excess capacity to keep that from happening. Wind and solar can't provide that, because if it happens at night when the wind is not blowing, or when windmills are frozen and seized up, as happened here, then they contribute virtually nothing to the solution at the exact moment you need it.
What needs to be done is to create more reserve capacity, together with the ability to turn it on in a hurry in times like these. A situation that requires a written request to, and approval from, FERC or EPA or whomever, is simply unacceptable. What Texas and ERCOT need are:
1) Much, much more battery capacity, to store excess power for times like this
2) More natural gas storage, instead of production simply being sent out of state
3) More wind and solar, with the understanding that they are not reliable for peak (or even base) loads, but can supplement whenever available
4) More natural gas and nuke, which are generally available for base load, and generally can be turned up to meet peaks
5) Probably not decommissioning any coal plants until the nuke/gas/renewable supply is adequate to provide sufficient cushion for events like this
6) Improvements to the transmission and distribution grid
7) Operating rules that allow judgmental spinning of generators of any sort in any location to meet needs like this one
What is not needed is connection to the national eastern or western grids. I am on Entergy, which is part of the Louisiana grid, not connected to ERCOT. I've been through two hurricanes where I wish I had been on ERCOT. I also wish I were on ERCOT so I could have Green Mountain (100% renewables) as a provider, although I am not sure whether Green Mountain can survive this spike. I can honestly say that this is the first time in 17 years that I was glad to be on Entergy instead of ERCOT.

I disagree with the bolded. Everyone can point to bad experiences with the energy utility, but most do their jobs well. But this cold snap proved to be one of those rare events where grid integration would have provided the reserve capacity Texas needed. Now, you mentioned building new plants, winterizing and keeping more production capacity in state, which would allow for ERCOT to maintain its independence. The question will the rate payers accept the increase cost? Would grid merger prove to be a cheaper option?

As I said, I am not on ERCOT. I'm on Entergy, which is part of the eastern national grid. Overall, looking back over 17 years, I'd much rather have been on ERCOT for the entirety of that time. I'd say this is the isolated experience for ERCOT, whereas there have been multiple failures of the national grid in that time frame. If ERCOT learns from this and makes the necessary changes, as I think they will, I don't see anything to be gained from joining the national grid. Given the nature of the problem, I'm not sure the national grid could have supplied very much help. Everybody around us was dealing from the same issues, so I'm not sure there was much slack anywhere in the system. And a lot of the distribution issues were internal, which a national grid interconnect would have done nothing about.

(02-22-2021 11:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 10:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 02:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly.
The big problem that people seem to be having is understanding that "averages" mean nothing with electricity. It's all instantaneous. This was a demand-driven crisis, and nobody seems to be focusing on that. If you can't produce exactly the power that you need right now, then the system is going to trip offline. So you need excess capacity to keep that from happening. Wind and solar can't provide that, because if it happens at night when the wind is not blowing, or when windmills are frozen and seized up, as happened here, then they contribute virtually nothing to the solution at the exact moment you need it.
What needs to be done is to create more reserve capacity, together with the ability to turn it on in a hurry in times like these. A situation that requires a written request to, and approval from, FERC or EPA or whomever, is simply unacceptable. What Texas and ERCOT need are:
1) Much, much more battery capacity, to store excess power for times like this
2) More natural gas storage, instead of production simply being sent out of state
3) More wind and solar, with the understanding that they are not reliable for peak (or even base) loads, but can supplement whenever available
4) More natural gas and nuke, which are generally available for base load, and generally can be turned up to meet peaks
5) Probably not decommissioning any coal plants until the nuke/gas/renewable supply is adequate to provide sufficient cushion for events like this
6) Improvements to the transmission and distribution grid
7) Operating rules that allow judgmental spinning of generators of any sort in any location to meet needs like this one
What is not needed is connection to the national eastern or western grids. I am on Entergy, which is part of the Louisiana grid, not connected to ERCOT. I've been through two hurricanes where I wish I had been on ERCOT. I also wish I were on ERCOT so I could have Green Mountain (100% renewables) as a provider, although I am not sure whether Green Mountain can survive this spike. I can honestly say that this is the first time in 17 years that I was glad to be on Entergy instead of ERCOT.

I disagree with the bolded. Everyone can point to bad experiences with the energy utility, but most do their jobs well. But this cold snap proved to be one of those rare events where grid integration would have provided the reserve capacity Texas needed. Now, you mentioned building new plants, winterizing and keeping more production capacity in state, which would allow for ERCOT to maintain its independence. The question will the rate payers accept the increase cost? Would grid merger prove to be a cheaper option?

As I said, I am not on ERCOT. I'm on Entergy, which is part of the eastern national grid. Overall, looking back over 17 years, I'd much rather have been on ERCOT for the entirety of that time. I'd say this is the isolated experience for ERCOT, whereas there have been multiple failures of the national grid in that time frame. If ERCOT learns from this and makes the necessary changes, as I think they will, I don't see anything to be gained from joining the national grid. Given the nature of the problem, I'm not sure the national grid could have supplied very much help. Everybody around us was dealing from the same issues, so I'm not sure there was much slack anywhere in the system. And a lot of the distribution issues were internal, which a national grid interconnect would have done nothing about.

That's true, but there will be a price. I'm fine with the new units of nuclear power and converting all the coal plant to NATGAS in Georgia, but there is an associated rate hike that residents aren't thrilled about.

As far as experiences, I've only been up and down the east coast. But what I can say is that the U.S. need way more (non-renewable) generation along with major investments in burying transmission lines.

(02-22-2021 12:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 11:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 10:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 02:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly.
The big problem that people seem to be having is understanding that "averages" mean nothing with electricity. It's all instantaneous. This was a demand-driven crisis, and nobody seems to be focusing on that. If you can't produce exactly the power that you need right now, then the system is going to trip offline. So you need excess capacity to keep that from happening. Wind and solar can't provide that, because if it happens at night when the wind is not blowing, or when windmills are frozen and seized up, as happened here, then they contribute virtually nothing to the solution at the exact moment you need it.
What needs to be done is to create more reserve capacity, together with the ability to turn it on in a hurry in times like these. A situation that requires a written request to, and approval from, FERC or EPA or whomever, is simply unacceptable. What Texas and ERCOT need are:
1) Much, much more battery capacity, to store excess power for times like this
2) More natural gas storage, instead of production simply being sent out of state
3) More wind and solar, with the understanding that they are not reliable for peak (or even base) loads, but can supplement whenever available
4) More natural gas and nuke, which are generally available for base load, and generally can be turned up to meet peaks
5) Probably not decommissioning any coal plants until the nuke/gas/renewable supply is adequate to provide sufficient cushion for events like this
6) Improvements to the transmission and distribution grid
7) Operating rules that allow judgmental spinning of generators of any sort in any location to meet needs like this one
What is not needed is connection to the national eastern or western grids. I am on Entergy, which is part of the Louisiana grid, not connected to ERCOT. I've been through two hurricanes where I wish I had been on ERCOT. I also wish I were on ERCOT so I could have Green Mountain (100% renewables) as a provider, although I am not sure whether Green Mountain can survive this spike. I can honestly say that this is the first time in 17 years that I was glad to be on Entergy instead of ERCOT.

I disagree with the bolded. Everyone can point to bad experiences with the energy utility, but most do their jobs well. But this cold snap proved to be one of those rare events where grid integration would have provided the reserve capacity Texas needed. Now, you mentioned building new plants, winterizing and keeping more production capacity in state, which would allow for ERCOT to maintain its independence. The question will the rate payers accept the increase cost? Would grid merger prove to be a cheaper option?

As I said, I am not on ERCOT. I'm on Entergy, which is part of the eastern national grid. Overall, looking back over 17 years, I'd much rather have been on ERCOT for the entirety of that time. I'd say this is the isolated experience for ERCOT, whereas there have been multiple failures of the national grid in that time frame. If ERCOT learns from this and makes the necessary changes, as I think they will, I don't see anything to be gained from joining the national grid. Given the nature of the problem, I'm not sure the national grid could have supplied very much help. Everybody around us was dealing from the same issues, so I'm not sure there was much slack anywhere in the system. And a lot of the distribution issues were internal, which a national grid interconnect would have done nothing about.

That's true, but there will be a price. I'm fine with the new units of nuclear power and converting all the coal plant to NATGAS in Georgia, but there is an associated rate hike that residents aren't thrilled about.
As far as experiences, I've only been up and down the east coast. But what I can say is that the U.S. need way more (non-renewable) generation along with major investments in burying transmission lines.

Absolutely agree. My only point is that I don't see where it really helps ERCOT, which has been relatively problem-free during hurricanes and other cold snaps, to hook it up to a national grid that has far more problems. The big problem in Texas is that the shift to wind has been accompanied by a reduction in firm and reserve capacity as fossil plants have been decommissioned. Bring some of them back, if we can, to add to the reserve capacity, add nuke capacity (that goes for everywhere, not just Texas), improve the transmission and distribution grid, add some battery storage and also some natural gas storage, weatherize everything, and we should be good to go.

All the arguing about wether gas or wind production declined the most overlooks the essential fact that this was primarily a demand issue, and when you get that big a demand spike, with that little reserve capacity, you need all hand on deck and wind was a no-show. Reserve capacity, transmission, and storage are the solutions.