The Energy Thread

[Moliere]

Stoopid wind power...

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...on/4483230001/

https://twitter.com/lukelegate/statu...072208896?s=20



So far we have power and water but I'm just waiting for the minute we lose it. Half the ward is without power so my house is lucky so far.

[Northwestcoug]

Embedded Tweet

[fusnik]

Stoopid wind power...

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...on/4483230001/

Stoopid posters...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...ty-crisis/amp/

[Uncle Ted]

Stoopid posters...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...ty-crisis/amp/

The WSJ has an article on this...

Texas Spins Into the Wind

An electricity grid that relies on renewables also needs nuclear or coal power.

While millions of Texans remain without power for a third day, the wind industry and its advocates are spinning a fable that gas, coal and nuclear plants—not their frozen turbines—are to blame. PolitiFact proclaims “Natural gas, not wind turbines, main driver of Texas power shortage.” Climate-change conformity is hard for the media to resist, but we don’t mind. So here are the facts to cut through the spin.

Texas energy regulators were already warning of rolling blackouts late last week as temperatures in western Texas plunged into the 20s, causing wind turbines to freeze. Natural gas and coal-fired plants ramped up to cover the wind power shortfall as demand for electricity increased with falling temperatures.
[...]
Texas has about 30,000 MW of wind capacity, but winds aren’t constant or predictable. Winds this past month have generated between about 600 and 22,500 MW. Regulators don’t count on wind to provide much more than 10% or so of the grid’s total capacity since they can’t command turbines to increase power like they can coal and gas plants.

Wind turbines at times this month have generated more than half of the Texas power generation, though this is only about a quarter of the system’s power capacity. Last week wind generation plunged as demand surged. Fossil-fuel generation increased and covered the supply gap. Thus between the mornings of Feb. 7 and Feb. 11, wind as a share of the state’s electricity fell to 8% from 42%, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Gas-fired plants produced 43,800 MW of power Sunday night and coal plants chipped in 10,800 MW—about two to three times what they usually generate at their peak on any given winter day—after wind power had largely vanished. In other words, gas and coal plants held up in the frosty conditions far better than wind turbines did.

It wasn’t until temperatures plunged into the single digits early Monday morning that some conventional power plants including nuclear started to have problems, which was the same time that demand surged for heating. Gas plants also ran low on fuel as pipelines froze and more was diverted for heating.

“It appears that a lot of the generation that has gone offline today has been primarily due to issues on the natural gas system,” Electric Reliability Council of Texas senior director Dan Woodfin said Tuesday. The wind industry and its friends are citing this statement as exoneration. But note he used the word “today.” Most wind power had already dropped offline last week.

Gas generation fell by about one-third between late Sunday night and Tuesday, but even then was running two to three times higher than usual before the Arctic blast. Gas power nearly made up for the shortfall in wind, though it wasn’t enough to cover surging demand.

Change.png

Now here is the good part...

Between 12 a.m. on Feb. 8 and Feb. 16, wind power plunged 93% while coal increased 47% and gas 450%, according to the EIA. Yet the renewable industry and its media mouthpieces are tarring gas, coal and nuclear because they didn’t operate at 100% of their expected potential during the Arctic blast even though wind turbines failed nearly 100%.

The policy point here is that an electricity grid that depends increasingly on subsidized but unreliable wind and solar needs baseload power to weather surges in demand. Natural gas is crucial but it also isn’t as reliable as nuclear and coal power.

Politicians and regulators don’t want to admit this because they have been taking nuclear and coal plants offline to please the lords of climate change. But the public pays the price when blackouts occur because climate obeisance has made the grid too fragile. We’ve warned about this for years, and here we are.

https://apple.news/AojXapDxPQ9-i9zGJ4PzSoA

Nuke power! Nuke power! Nuke Power!

[Moliere]

Stoopid posters...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...ty-crisis/amp/

Wind energy isn’t the only issue but it’s most certainly partially at fault. The state regulators are probably the most at fault starting with the railroad commission and ercot. Honestly, the biggest culprit is at the top of state leadership. Abbott has been MIA on anything including just basic information. At least Cuomo gives people hope even if it’s false hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beefytee]

While I generally agree with the WSH article. The lead line is confusing to me though.

"An electricity grid that relies on renewables also needs nuclear or coal power."

Why did they leave off natural gas there? Because it is less controversial than nuclear or coal?

Everyone is trying to make a type of Energy the boogie man here. I don't know that the type of energy matters as they all can potentially function in the extreme cold. Bottom line is that Texas didn't take the precautions they needed to to keep things running in the cold.

[beefytee]

Texas leaders failed to heed warnings that left the state's power grid vulnerable to winter extremes (chron.com)

Texas politicians and regulators were warned after the 2011 storm that more “winterizing” of power infrastructure was necessary, a report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation shows. The large number of units that tripped offline or couldn’t start during that storm “demonstrates that the generators did not adequately anticipate the full impact of the extended cold weather and high winds,” regulators wrote at the time. More thorough preparation for cold weather could have prevented the outages, the report said.

“This should have been addressed in 2011 by the Legislature after that market meltdown, but there was no substantial follow up,” by state politicians or regulators, said Ed Hirs, an energy fellow and economics professor at the University of Houston. “They skipped on down the road with business as usual.”

[Uncle Ted]

While I generally agree with the WSH article. The lead line is confusing to me though.

"An electricity grid that relies on renewables also needs nuclear or coal power."

Why did they leave off natural gas there? Because it is less controversial than nuclear or coal?

Everyone is trying to make a type of Energy the boogie man here. I don't know that the type of energy matter as they all can potentially function in the extreme cold. Bottom line is that Texas didn't take the precautions they needed to to keep things running in the cold.

Yeah, I didn't understand why natural gas isn't there... Maybe Moli will clue us in why natural gas isn't reliable (especially in cold weather). I wonder if it had something with natural gas prices going up with the executive order on the keystone xl shutdown.

[Pelado]

Yeah, I didn't understand why natural gas isn't there... Maybe Moli will clue us in why natural gas isn't reliable (especially in cold weather). I wonder if it had something with natural gas prices going up with the executive order on the keystone xl shutdown.

Maybe because of natural gas pipelines freezing? Is that a thing?

[beefytee]

Maybe because of natural gas pipelines freezing? Is that a thing?

I'm sure it can, but lots of cold places (Canada/Siberia) have figured it out and can have it work through much colder temperatures.

Like I said. All these energy sources can work just fine in the cold. Texas just screwed it up.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm sure it can, but lots of cold places (Canada/Siberia) have figured it out and can have it work through much colder temperatures.

Like I said. All these energy sources can work just fine in the cold. Texas just screwed it up.

Maybe Canada/Siberia (same place) put their NG gas pipes in the ground? In texas, what's the point if there is only going to be a hard freeze once every 30 years or so? Let's build more nuke plants and get that Yucca Mountain opened back up! (Damn you Harry Reid!) Or maybe we can just start dumping it in the ocean again.

[Moliere]

Yeah, I didn't understand why natural gas isn't there... Maybe Moli will clue us in why natural gas isn't reliable (especially in cold weather). I wonder if it had something with natural gas prices going up with the executive order on the keystone xl shutdown.

Given that keystone XL is a crude pipeline, I doubt that had any effect

AFAIK the biggest issue again is that infrastructure wasn't winterized properly when built. Or put another way, pipeline companies decided to not pay for equipment that would run reliably in subfreezing temperatures because it's Texas and only freezes once or twice a year and never at 8 degrees. This is why the railroad commission is partly at fault, because they regulate instate pipelines. When temps fell, the compressors and other equipment that push the gas along froze, which made pressure low and not enough gas was getting to the generation. The state did make what was probably a good (or less worse) decision to route what gas pressure they had to homes, which allowed those with power to at least run their furnaces for heat and those without power to run a fireplace. Most homes in the suburbia of Houston have gas or wood fireplaces and they come in very handy in times like this.

So if the pipeline equipment was properly ready for winter weather and the gas generators were also properly equipped, the situation would have been less bad. Gas makes up more than half of all power in Texas with wind making up about 1/4 of power. Coal and nuclear make up what is left with a very small amount of solar as well.

[Moliere]

Maybe Canada/Siberia (same place) put their NG gas pipes in the ground? In texas, what's the point if there is only going to be a hard freeze once every 30 years or so? Let's build more nuke plants and get that Yucca Mountain opened back up! (Damn you Harry Reid!) Or maybe we can just start dumping it in the ocean again.

All gas pipelines in teh US are in the ground, at least AFAIK. And gas doesn't freeze at 10 degrees F. Heck, it's not even a liquid at that point. That's why it's called gas

[BigFatMeanie]

All gas pipelines in teh US are in the ground, at least AFAIK. And gas doesn't freeze at 10 degrees F. Heck, it's not even a liquid at that point. That's why it's called gas

Gas does not freeze at 10F but valves and other fittings can and do. But frozen gas valves are nothing that can't be overcome with some prior planning and preparation. Texas should have been more prepared for the cold.

[falafel]

Maybe Canada/Siberia (same place) put their NG gas pipes in the ground? In texas, what's the point if there is only going to be a hard freeze once every 30 years or so? Let's build more nuke plants and get that Yucca Mountain opened back up! (Damn you Harry Reid!) Or maybe we can just start dumping it in the ocean again.

West Texas is as big an open wasteland as Nevada is. Probably bigger. Let’s just dump it out there.