[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
17496
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Wind Turbines work fine in Antarctica and Alaska...
URL: https://www.juancole.com/2021/02/turbines-antarctica-winterize.html
|
Dear Texas Gov. Abbott: Wind Turbines work fine in Antarctica and Alaska, you’re just too Cheap to Winterize them "Texas governor Greg Abbott alleged that the massive power outages in his state demonstrated the unwisdom of moving to renewable energy, attempting to blame the crisis on the state’s wind turbines. Like most of the things Republican politicians say publicly, this allegation was a lie. Here’s a wind turbine working just fine in Antarctica: Wind Turbine At Sunset. Mawson Station, Antarctica The southern-most wind farm in the world, at Ross Island in Antarctica, has three functioning turbines. Or consider Alaska’s wind turbines: Science Channel: “Wind Turbines Help Power Alaska Through Harsh Winters” We don’t have to go so far to find wind turbines working well in wintry, icy conditions. Take those at Syracuse in New York. They are equipped with sensors to discover when the blades have iced over. They are then turned off and a heating package on the blade is turned on to melt the ice. When that is done, the turbine is started right back up. Of course, the sensors and heating element cost a little money to install and run. The investment makes more sense in New York. But such packages could be installed on the Texas turbines if the owners were willing to cut a little into their profits. Since Texas has a big winter storm as often as every 5 years, that might make sense. But, again, two-thirds of the Texas wind turbines were unaffected by the storm, and they fed in crucial power when it was most needed. Some 42% of Iowa’s electricity comes from wind, and that state has some pretty bad winters but no outages of the Texas sort. Fernando Garcia-Franceschini reports for ABC affiliate KCRG in Dubuque, ”When we order our wind turbines we add cold-weather packages to them,” spokesperson Geoff Greenwood said. “That includes heating elements, for example, inside the gearbox that is behind the turbines and that keeps certain components warm and enables the turbines to operate throughout the year, summer and winter alike.” Greenwood said those cold-weather kits enable the turbines to produce energy down to roughly -20 degrees. About a year ago, a disinformation campaign was waged on Facebook against solar panels and wind turbines in Germany, alleging falsely that severe winter weather impeded their operation. I have solar panels in Michigan, so allow me to let you in on a little secret. Solar panels run warm, and they melt the snow. Of course if it is particularly heavy you can get a long-handled broom-like tool to wipe them clean. The panels work by transforming sunlight into electricity in accordance with a finding by Einstein. They aren’t affected by cold. The same campaign targeted Germany’s wind turbines. AFP explains that last February, “On claims that 30,000 wind turbines were idle in Germany, Wolfram Axthelm, managing director of the country’s Wind Energy Association, said by email that “the claim that weather conditions would cause thousands of wind turbines across the country to stand mostly idle is simply false.” Over the weekend of February 6 and 7, when temperatures dipped below 14 degrees Fahrenheit (-10 degrees Celsius), the amount of electricity generated from wind was actually above the monthly average, Axthelm said.” Texas in any case only gets 10% of its electricity from wind, and the vast majority of the state’s wind turbines functioned just fine. The crisis was caused when the equipment in the coal, gas and nuclear plants froze up. The freezing of the instruments happened because the Texas power plant owners did not want to dip into their profits to spend money on winterizing them, even though severe winter storms strike Texas twice every decade. If people like Greg Abbott and his cronies in the Texas energy industry cared as much about people as about profits, they would have winterized. In fact, they might have been forced to do so if the Texas grid were connected to the federal one. But the Texas elite deliberately did not connect to the federal one in order to avoid regulation. Abbott was the second great mistake of George W. Bush, with the first being the Iraq War fiasco. Bush appointed the attorney Abbott to the Texas supreme court. He later was elected attorney general and then governor. Abbott did his undergraduate degree in business administration and has none of the intellectual breadth a liberal arts education could have given him. He either doesn’t understand science or doesn’t want to, like a lot of high Texas GOP politicians. He is a creature of Big Oil, which funds his political campaigns. Abbott won’t acknowledge that human burning of fossil fuels is causing our climate emergency. He could not understand the urgency of mask-wearing and social distancing and lockdowns of certain businesses to fight the coronavirus pandemic, and killed a lot of people with his initial anti-science policies. Texas gets 25% of its electricity from wind because it is more economical than fossil fuels and the cost of its own fuel, wind, is zero and can be predicted out to twenty-five years. Texas mayors connected to the wind farms in the state’s wind corridor prefer the steady reliability of wind with regard to future costs. As noted, wind supplies 42% of Iowa’s electricity quite reliably, and likely the same thing will happen in Texas. Abbott should come clean about his lie regarding wind turbines, and should have the decency to admit that burning oil and gas is harming the planet and blighting human lives. All he has to lose is his prison of G.O.P.looniness." |
Responses:
[17498] [17503] [17506] [17521] [17524] [17500] [17504] [17509] [17512] [17515] [17516] [17513] [17517] [17522] [17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530] [17499] [17505] [17507] [17508] [17511] [17514] [17518] [17520] [17525] [17527] [17519]
17498
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: kind of a dumb article
|
Hi Akira, That is kind of a dumb article. Places like Texas as well as where I am in Tennessee get so little cold and snow/ice that we have very few snow plows and the smallest snow furry shuts down the entire area. Pipes burst because they rarely insulate their pipes and I'm sure there were cars with cracked engine blocks because they had water instead of antifreeze. Why? It doesn't make financial sense to invest large dollars for such rare events. I doubt the wind turbines in Alaska or Antarctica would handle Texas summer for even a few days. Unless of course the folks in Alaska and Antarctica want to spend the money for a once in a lifetime event. It is a shame the way this event is being politized, but all the articles I've read showed that about 1/3 of the electricity generation capacity that was offline in Texas was from wind turbines. The frozen wind turbines weren't the sole cause of the Texas energy failure... but they were a large part of it. So instead of stupid articles about Texas being too cheap to winterize their wind turbines hopefully the smart people are looking at and addressing the issue caused this problem. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17503] [17506] [17521] [17524] [17500] [17504] [17509] [17512] [17515] [17516] [17513] [17517] [17522] [17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530] [17499] [17505] [17507] [17508] [17511] [17514] [17518] [17520] [17525] [17527] [17519]
17503
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: kind of a dumb article
|
Wrong..I live in the sierras (southern) where we have the 2nd largest (last I checked) windmill farms in the nation. Because we're 4,000+ feet (some of the mills on the ridges are 5-6,000ft) we get plenty of snow and ice in the winter during storms. We're also right along side the Mojave desert, where windmill fields also are built..temps above 110+ in the summer. They operate just fine. They've been equipped to handle all kinds of temperature and weather conditions. They can handle "both" types of weather extremes of temperature. It is a shame the event is being politicized, I agree with you there...but it has nothing to do with windmill technology. It has to do with "You get what you pay for"...and they didn't weatherize them. They know better now. That goes for the plumbing in the gas/electric/nuclear power plants, too. It's not a dumb discussion, however. There most definitely is an issue, and it most definitely needs to be addressed so that it never happens again. |
17506
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: where's the meat?
|
Hi Red, So where you live in Southern California the temperature varies greatly. And because of this you have to have wind turbines that will perform in both the summer and winter. That is probably budgeted in and planned maintenance to ensure they can perform in both he cold and the heat. But do you think the wind turbines in Alaska and Antarctica are prepared to endure the same low and high temperature extremes? I'm betting they are designed for cold exclusively, from the tolerances to their lubrication to their built in heaters. So were the wind turbines in Texas budgeted for both the heat and cold? And is you political BS you slimy political people put out because the officials in Texas planned for and budged for cold temperatures but then were too cheap to spend the money? Or is it simply because you are political beasts? So where's the meat? Where are the facts? That is what seems to be missing from these political based articles. Cheers Jim |
17521
From: redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: where's the meat?
|
My question is, why weren't they budgeted for that? "Blue Northers" happen in Texas, and it's been a known phenomenea in years past. (at link above) They had been warned a decade ago. El Paso upgraded there's, and didn't suffer the same fate. Someone told them..and they made wise decisions, and others made bad choices. https://kvia.com/news/el-paso/2021/02/15/el-pasos-not- seeing-power-outages-like-the-rest-of-texas-and-heres- why/ This is weather science and infrastructure wisdom...not political unless one makes it that way. California made it's own mistakes in the past...Enron, same company that rolled california also had a hand in the current form of the grid in Texas. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/23/ener gy-deregulation-worsened-texas-crisis-enron-is-partly- blame/ Like California had to learn and adapt, so does Texas. |
Responses:
[17524]
17524
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: where's the meat?
|
Hi Redhart, I live in the south and have spent time in Texas so I'm aware they have the occasional cold snap. Alan has documented previous failures of the grid during previous cold snaps. But to us in the south these things happen so seldom it isn't economical to prepare. When I lived in Nebraska school was in session with 8-12 inches of snow. They are prepared for such weather in Nebraska and it is a normal part of life. In Tennessee they close the schools if snow is forecast because we don't have sufficient equipment to plow and clean all the streets. We could spend hundreds of millions of dollars and be prepared to clean our streets in winter weather... but the equipment might literally be old and antiquated by the next time it is needed. We were unable to leave the house for 5 days last week.. first time in the 33 years we have lived here that has happened. Interesting article on El Paso Electric. The irony is that the only wind power in their grid is 2 turbines at the Hueco Mountain Wind Ranch. No reports if those 2 turbines are winterized or how they survived the cold snap. And El Paso Electric is private and owned by JP Morgan Chase. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
17500
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: admittedly this is better...
URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/opinion/green-new-deal-texas-blackout.html
|
Why Texas Republicans Fear the Green New Deal "Small government is no match for a crisis born of the state’s twin addictions to market fixes and fossil fuels. Since the power went out in Texas, the state’s most prominent Republicans have tried to pin the blame for the crisis on, of all things, a sweeping progressive mobilization to fight poverty, inequality and climate change. “This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal,” Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said Wednesday on Fox News. Pointing to snow-covered solar panels, Rick Perry, a former governor who was later an energy secretary for the Trump administration, posted on Twitter a quotation from a Forbes article by Robert Bryce, who wrote that “if we humans want to keep surviving frigid winters, we are going to have to keep burning natural gas — and lots of it — for decades to come.” The claims are outlandish. The Green New Deal is, among other things, a plan to tightly regulate and upgrade the energy system so the United States gets 100 percent of its electricity from renewables in a decade. Texas, of course, still gets the majority of its energy from gas and coal; much of that industry’s poorly insulated infrastructure froze up last week when it collided with wild weather that prompted a huge surge in demand. (Despite the claims of many conservatives, renewable energy was not to blame.) It was the very sort of freakish weather system now increasingly common, thanks to the unearthing and burning of fossil fuels like coal and gas. While the link between global warming and rare cold fronts like the one that just slammed Texas remains an area of active research, Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, says the increasing frequency of such events should be “a wake up call.” But weather alone did not cause this crisis. Texans are living through the collapse of a 40-year experiment in free-market fundamentalism, one that has also stood in the way of effective climate action. Fortunately, there’s a way out — and that’s precisely what Republican politicians in the state most fear. A fateful series of decisions were made in the late-’90s, when the now- defunct, scandal-plagued energy company Enron led a successful push to radically deregulate Texas’s electricity sector. As a result, decisions about the generation and distribution of power were stripped from regulators and, in effect, handed over to private energy companies. Unsurprisingly, these companies prioritized short-term profit over costly investments to maintain the grid and build in redundancies for extreme weather. Today, Texans are at the mercy of regulation-allergic politicians who failed to require that energy companies plan for shocks or weatherize their infrastructure (renewables and fossil fuel alike). In a recent appearance on NBC’s “Today” show, Austin’s mayor, Steve Adler, summed it up: “We have a deregulated power system in the state and it does not work, because it does not build in the incentives in order to protect people.” This energy-market free-for-all means that as the snow finally melts, many Texans are discovering that they owe their private electricity providers thousands of dollars — a consequence of leaving pricing to the whims of the market. The $200,000 energy bills some people received, the photos of which went viral online, were, it seems, a mistake. But some bills approaching $10,000 are the result of simple supply and demand in a radically underregulated market. “The last thing an awful lot of people need right now is a higher electric bill,” said Matt Schulz, chief industry analyst with LendingTree. “And that’s unfortunately something a lot of people will get stuck with.” This is bad news for those customers, but great news for shale gas companies like Comstock Resources Inc. On an earnings call last Wednesday, its chief financial officer said, “This week is like hitting the jackpot with some of these incredible prices.” Put bluntly, Texas is about as far from having a Green New Deal as any place on earth. So why have Republicans seized it as their scapegoat of choice? A Shock to the System Blame right-wing panic. For decades, the Republicans have met every disaster with a credo I have described as “the shock doctrine.” When disaster strikes, people are frightened and dislocated. They focus on handling the emergencies of daily life, like boiling snow for drinking water. They have less time to engage in politics and a reduced capacity to protect their rights. They often regress, deferring to strong and decisive leaders — think of New York’s ill-fated love affairs with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani after the 9/11 attacks and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the early months of the Covid- 19 pandemic. Large-scale shocks — natural disasters, economic collapse, terrorist attacks — become ideal moments to smuggle in unpopular free-market policies that tend to enrich elites at everyone else’s expense. Crucially, the shock doctrine is not about solving underlying drivers of crises: It’s about exploiting those crises to ram through your wish list even if it exacerbates the crisis. To explain this phenomenon, I often quote a guru of the free market revolution, the late economist Milton Friedman. In 1982, he wrote about what he saw as the mission of right-wing economists like him: “Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Republicans have effectively deployed this tactic even after crises like the 2008 market collapse, created by financial deregulation and made deadlier by decades of austerity. Democrats have, largely, been willing partners. This seems counterintuitive, but it all comes back to Friedman’s credo: The change doesn’t depend on the reasons for the crisis, only on who has the ideas “lying around” — a kind of intellectual disaster preparedness. And for a long time, it was only the right, bolstered by a network of free-market think tanks linked to both major parties, that had its ideas at the ready. When Hurricane Katrina broke through New Orleans’s long-neglected levees in 2005, there was, briefly, some hope that the catastrophe might serve as a kind of wake-up call. Witnessing the abandonment of thousands of residents on their rooftops and in the Superdome, small-government fetishists suddenly lost their religion. “When a city is sinking into the sea and rioting runs rampant, government probably should saddle-up,” Jonah Goldberg, a prominent right-wing commentator, wrote at the time. In environmental circles, there was also discussion that the disaster could spur climate action. Some dared to predict that the collapsed levees would be for the small-government, free-market legacy of Reaganism what the fall of the Berlin Wall was for Soviet Communism. None of it happened. Instead, New Orleans became a laboratory for the shock doctrine. Public schools were shut down en masse, replaced by charter schools. Public housing was demolished, and costly townhouses sprang up, preventing thousands of the city’s poorest residents, the majority of them Black, from ever returning. The reconstruction of the city became a feeding ground for private contractors. Republicans used the cover of crisis to call for expanded oil and gas exploration and new refinery capacity, much as Mr. Perry is doing right now in Texas with his calls for doubling down on gas. Many tried to stop them. Teachers’ unions, despite having their members scattered throughout the country, did their best to fight the privatizations. Residents of public housing and their supporters faced tear gas to try to stop the demolition of their homes. But there were no readily available, alternate ideas lying around for how New Orleans could be rebuilt to make it both greener and fairer for all of its residents. Even if there had been, there was no political muscle to turn such ideas into reality. Though the environmental justice movement has deep roots in Louisiana’s “cancer alley,” the climate justice movement was only just emerging at the time Katrina struck. There was no Sunrise Movement, the youth-led organization that occupied Nancy Pelosi’s office after the 2018 midterms to demand “good jobs, and a livable planet.” There was no “squad,” the ad hoc alliance of congressional progressives whose most visible member, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, sent shock waves through Washington by joining the Sunrisers in their occupation. There had not yet been two Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns to show Americans how popular these ideas really are. And there was certainly no national movement for a Green New Deal. Lying in Ruin The difference between then and now goes a very long way toward explaining why Mr. Abbott is railing against a policy plan that, as of now, exists primarily on paper. In a crisis, ideas matter — he knows this. He also knows that the Green New Deal, which promises to create millions of union jobs building out shock-resilient green energy infrastructure, transit and affordable housing, is extremely appealing. This is especially true now, as so many Texans suffer under the overlapping crises of unemployment, houselessness, racial injustice, crumbling public services and extreme weather. All that Texas’s Republicans have to offer, in contrast, is continued oil and gas dependence — driving more climate disruption — alongside more privatizations and cuts to public services to pay for their state’s mess, which we can expect them to push in the weeks and months ahead. Will it work? Unlike when the Republican Party began deploying the shock doctrine, its free-market playbook is no longer novel. It has been tried and repeatedly tested: by the pandemic, by spiraling hunger and joblessness, by extreme weather. And it is failing all of those tests — so much so that even the most ardent cheerleaders of deregulation now point to Texas’s energy grid as a cautionary tale. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, for instance, called the deregulation of Texas’s energy system “a fundamental flaw.” In short, Republican ideas are no longer lying around — they are lying in ruin. Small government is simply no match for this era of big, interlocking problems. Moreover, for the first time since Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s former prime minister, declared that “there is no alternative” to leaving our fates to the market, progressives are ready with a host of problem-solving plans. The big question is whether the Democrats who hold power in Washington will have the courage to implement them. The horrors currently unfolding in Texas expose both the reality of the climate crisis and the extreme vulnerability of fossil fuel infrastructure in the face of that crisis. So of course the Green New Deal finds itself under fierce attack. Because for the first time in a long time, Republicans face the very thing that they claim to revere but never actually wanted: competition — in the battle of ideas." |
Responses:
[17504] [17509] [17512] [17515] [17516] [17513] [17517] [17522] [17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17504
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: seems to be more political bullshit
|
Hi Akira, Well... seems to be more political bullshit. I never saw them talk about what contributed to the Texas energy crisis.. only about various political positions. Do you read issue focused articles or just political BS? You typically seem more balanced but these seem to be anti-Republican articles without addressing the actual issues. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17509] [17512] [17515] [17516] [17513] [17517] [17522] [17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17509
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: seems to be more political bullshit
|
It would appear that concept of deregulation and its consequences are over your head. |
Responses:
[17512] [17515] [17516] [17513] [17517] [17522] [17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17512
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: seems to be more political bullshit
|
Hi Akira, Well is the issue deregulation?? I read your latest article... but again it seems more political than factual even starting with "Republican leaders" and it doesn't make much of a case for deregulation as the root cause. As Alan showed wind turbines in the Southwest don't use the "cold weather package". I would have to guess that wind turbines in Alaska and Antarctica don't use the hot weather package for the same reason... which is why as said the original article you posted was dumb. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17515] [17516] [17513] [17517] [17522] [17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17515
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: like it or not, it's a political issue
URL: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lessons-texas-grid-disaster-planning-and-investing-different-future
|
Lessons From the Texas Grid Disaster: Planning and Investing for a Different Future "It is now a week out from the start of the massive Texas grid failure that has resulted in numerous deaths; millions of people plunged into darkness; scores of communities without clean water or heat in record cold temperatures; and billions of dollars in catastrophic damage to homes, businesses and the physical infrastructure that supports them. Critical questions surround the causes of this massive disaster and how to plan for the future so that a tragedy of this scale does not happen again. At this point, there are many facts that Americans already know. Contrary to the spurious claims by Governor Greg Abbott as well as numerous right- wing politicians and pundits, freezing wind turbines and the state’s history of supporting renewable energy development did not cause the grid to fail. Indeed, wind turbines outperformed grid operator expectations, despite the extreme cold, and the outages would have been worse without the wind energy that remained online. Instead, the state’s electric grid failed for a very simple reason—because Texas power plant operators do not insulate their facilities for sustained cold temperatures. As a result, pipes and equipment needed to run the state’s natural gas plants, nuclear plants, and wind turbines froze, taking a large fraction of them offline at precisely the moment that energy demand statewide skyrocketed in an attempt to heat homes and businesses. When all was said and done, wind energy performed fairly well overall and natural gas, which provides the vast majority of the state’s electricity in the winter months, failed spectacularly. While there are ongoing, important debates over the need to invest in more renewable energy in Texas and nationwide, the problems in Texas this week were not the state’s current mix of energy resources, but the fact that the state’s energy resources were not prepared to perform in the low temperatures the entire state saw this week. The important question now is what can Texas—as well as the rest of the country—learn from this disaster to avoid similar outcomes in the future? One area of inquiry of course is Texas’s unique electric grid. In the rest of the continental United States, electricity flows freely within two large, interconnected networks of intrastate and interstate electric transmission lines, or “grids,” called the Eastern Interconnection and Western Interconnection, with the dividing line being approximately at the Rocky Mountains. Almost all of Texas, however, has its own grid, known as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which does not transmit electricity outside its borders. By establishing its own self-contained electric grid many decades ago, Texas was able to avoid transmitting electricity in interstate commerce and thus intentionally avoided the bulk of federal regulation of prices, charges, and other activities related to the sale and transmission of electricity under the Federal Power Act. In other words, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which regulates those activities in the rest of the continental United States, has very limited jurisdiction in Texas. For a state that sometimes aspires to be its own nation, it has in fact largely succeeded in that goal when it comes to the electricity realm. In many ways, ERCOT’s autonomy has worked well for Texas even if it could never be a model for the rest of the country. Texas is unique not only in having its own grid but also in being home to ample fossil fuel resources— coal, natural gas and oil—as well as vast renewable energy resources such as solar and wind, and large population centers to consume that energy. Moreover, with such a large land mass, Texas has historically counted on the fact that heat waves, cold spells and power plant outages are generally limited to only parts of the state at any one time, allowing energy resources in other regions of the state to make up the difference in times of outages or high consumer demand. Texas in general and ERCOT in particular have used this autonomy to be innovative in many ways. Texas has by the far the most installed wind energy capacity of any state; it has built the nation’s most impressive set of electric transmission lines—known as the CREZ lines—to bring that wind to population centers; it is becoming a leading state in solar energy; its deregulated market has led to the early retirement of coal plants; and it has accomplished these goals without renewable energy mandates or similar regulations that other states, like California, have used to attempt to accomplish similar goals. But this week ERCOT’s isolation and Texas’s deregulated electricity markets were liabilities, not assets. Texas could not call on energy resources from other parts of the nation, as is done everywhere else in the country, because of its physical and regulatory barriers. Likewise, ERCOT’s lack of a “capacity market,” which pays generators in advance to have reserve power available in times of high demand, meant that when ERCOT’s energy demand forecasts proved too low, there was no extra power available as backup. Ironically, regulators and other experts always knew these factors posed a risk to the Texas electric grid, but they generally believed that this risk was highest in the summer, when hot weather and the use of air conditioning often sends demand skyrocketing. A wintertime energy peak well beyond the capacity of the state’s energy system was more of a surprise, although not unprecedented. The fundamental problem last week was not ERCOT’s isolation or the lack of a capacity market but a failure of investment. A failure of investment in insulation of individual homes, businesses and pipes. A failure of investment in insulation of wind turbines, natural gas pipelines, wells, water lines, water treatment systems, natural gas plants, coal plants and nuclear plants. In northern climates in the United States, all of this infrastructure is built or retrofitted for prolonged cold weather. Wind turbines don’t freeze in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and neighboring states in sustained cold weather, and neither do natural gas plants, nuclear plants, water treatment plants or pipes in most individual homes. Infrastructure in cold weather states is built to withstand such weather because it is anticipated to occur on a regular basis, so it’s worth the money. In warm weather states, that money is not spent, making the energy plant or the individual home less expensive up front to build but vulnerable to changing weather patterns. We make decisions on how much to spend on precautions, whether for hot or cold weather or for a terrorist attack, based primarily on the past. If all of Texas doesn’t regularly experience sustained cold weather or sustained heat at the same time, then some may argue that it’s overkill to spend the money to protect against it. Another problem is that these extreme weather events won’t be so rare going forward. Climate change means the past is no longer an accurate guide for the future or even for the present. The sustained cold throughout Texas and the sustained heat waves and fires in California in 2020 are unfortunately the new normal, not to mention more frequent floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. This requires officials to create new cost-benefit analyses for investments in new infrastructure and retrofits of existing infrastructure. In California, that may mean placing more electric transmission lines underground, despite the higher up-front cost, so the power doesn’t go out during heat waves. In Texas, that may mean creating new connections between ERCOT and the rest of the country to ship large amounts of renewable energy around the country, to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase power availability over multiple time zones and weather zones. Indeed, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s “Interconnections Seams Study” released in October 2020 proposes just such a plan in order to create a national “Supergrid” to facilitate the clean energy transition we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, save energy-related costs, and address the increased vulnerabilities to the electric grid from the weather-related adverse effects of climate change. Other experts in the field have conducted similar analyses and made similar recommendations. Increased and better regulation at both the federal and state levels must play a role in these efforts. To create the new “Supergrid” required to transport large quantities of wind and solar energy from where it is generated to where it is needed across multiple time zones requires federal coordination, collaboration, investment and regulation. The U.S. Department of Energy and FERC are well suited to this task. In Texas, ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission of Texas must also consider greater regulation of the industry to ensure appropriate investments in weatherization and consider coordination with other states and the federal government. Governor Abbott has taken at least a first step in that direction. He appears to have stopped talking about frozen wind turbines and instead has requested that state lawmakers “mandate the winterization of the electric system.” Finally, it is critical that Americans not focus solely on the technical and regulatory aspects of this disaster in moving forward but also on the human cost. People have died, have lost their homes and livelihoods, and are losing faith in the ability of U.S. institutions to protect the country, particularly its most vulnerable residents, in a crisis. Most Texans are not as lucky as Sen. Ted Cruz, who was able to plan an impromptu trip to Cancun with his family to weather the storm when his house went cold. Those most affected by this disaster are poor, non-white, and the most removed from the regulators and industry leaders who will do the cost-benefit analyses that will determine how much is spent to ensure that American homes and energy systems are protected from increasingly severe weather—hot and cold, wet and dry, fire and fury. While many people decry the cost of the Green New Deal or similar ambitious energy transition proposals, last week’s disaster makes clear that the status quo is not cheap. There are solutions to the problems that lie ahead, if Americans are willing to plan and invest in the nation’s future." |
Responses:
[17516]
17516
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: like it or not, it's a political issue
|
Hi Akira, That is true but unfortunate. Political people make every issue political. Looking around I see a lot of slamming of Texas and their politicians.. but as I said to Redhart where's the meat? See the graphic above from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Texas power production during the recent cold weather crisis. And removing politics from the equation we can see that during the energy crisis both wind and solar did not perform well. Now it is up to the politicians to decide if the price of cold weather packages for their wind turbines and extra capacity as backup for when renewable energy isn't performing should be spent. I'm sure it is a hefty price tag and as I already said I'm very curious if these costs were considered when the decision was made to install this renewable energy. I totally support renewable energy, however what is the price of winterizing a fleet of wind turbines yearly to prepare for an event that happens once every 10 years at most. A lot of politics and finger pointing but this episode shows the cost of renewable energy may be higher... even much higher than just the installation costs. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
17513
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: seems to be more political bullshit
|
"As Alan showed wind turbines in the Southwest don't use the "cold weather package". I would have to guess that wind turbines in Alaska and Antarctica don't use the hot weather package for the same reason" *Sigh* Alaska / Antartica don't quite have heatwaves as frequently as Texas getting chilly. Someone in Texas has thought it acceptable that about once every decade it will grind to a halt, and ignored multiple advice to take foreseeable preventative measures to better cope. Dereuglation comes into it as Texas has chosen to go it alone and is independant from energy coming in via grid from outside when their systems fail, plus the recommendations from reports they get after each time thay have a crisis aren't mandatory and is seemingly mainly ignored. |
Responses:
[17517] [17522] [17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17517
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: seems to be more political bullshit
|
Hi Alan, > Someone in Texas has thought it acceptable that > about once every decade it will grind to a halt, > and ignored multiple advice to take foreseeable > preventative measures to better cope. But again... when these wind farms were proposed did the proposals include yearly winterization costs for the turbines along with the price of reliable backups? While you political folks are kicking folks of the other political persuasion the facts seem to be missing. You political folks still can't seem to pull your heads out of your own asses long enough to take an objective look at anything. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17522] [17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17522
From: redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: seems to be more political bullshit
|
you seem to be the one making it political. If the proposals didn't have the weatherization included, it seems one should be asking the deregulated state energy companies why. Someone put the money in the pocket and their customers at risk. Sounds like private corporations at work, to me. |
Responses:
[17523] [17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17523
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: looking forward to your reference
|
Hi Redhart, > you seem to be the one making it political That's kind of a stupid thing to say, don't you think? I mean the first article in the top post was started off by telling the Texas governor that wind turbines work in Alaska and Antarctica. Then Akira responded with an article titled "Why Texas Republicans Fear the Green New Deal". But sure, I'm the one making it political. LMAO > Someone put the money in the pocket and their customers at risk. Wow... that's a serious allegation and not too surprising since we are talking about government. Still... it feels like a baseless accusation. Or have I missed the news on this one. Would you mind supporting that with a link? Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17526] [17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17526
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: looking forward to your reference
|
The republicans are in control "now", they haven't always been in the past, and they may not be in the future. But, right now, they're calling the shots on regulation. I haven't researched it at this time, but when the windmills were proposed, I do not know who was in power. Their choices, no matter which party it was, were not good ones. I'm looking at the choices made..and who made them, so better choices can be made in the future and this particular scenario does not happen again putting all the people of Texas, no matter what party, at risk again. Blue Northers happen frequently enough that they should have been taken into consideration. In fact, so frequently for Christmas I sent some of the Texas grandkids snow sleds for Christmas before this event (they had just had another snowstorm). If I knew enough to select gifts like that, you would think the energy operating companies would know enough too. So, the question is..where they really that blind and dumb about it, or were the choices made to line pockets at the citizens' expense? Next is, what are they going to do about this to fix it. My own kids and other family members were put at risk. This is rather personal for me. Some of them fled to Oklahoma to a brother's home, slightly further north, just as cold, but managed to keep their power and water. |
Responses:
[17529] [17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17529
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: looking forward to your reference
|
Hi Redhart, I also have family in Texas that are suffering from the rolling blackouts so I can relate. But as I keep saying, what are the economics of this? Across the south the economics of winter weather doesn't support enough equipment to clear a major snow event. Did the manufacturer of these wind turbines recommend winterization for places that have a once a decade ice/snow event? How much would such changes add to the electricity bills of Texans? (which is something unility companies always have to consider) Was there corruption? Bad management? Or just difficult economic decisions that bit them in the ass with this unprecedented weather event? Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17531] [17538] [17539] [17543] [17540] [17542] [17530]
17531
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: looking forward to your reference
|
"Across the south the economics of winter weather doesn't support enough equipment to clear a major snow event. .." This is where we seem to have a primary disagreement. I think it does support snow equipment. And as far as the economics passed on to the consumer..$5,000 - $17K electric bills doesn't seem to be working for those consumers, either. |
17538
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: looking forward to your reference
|
Hi Redhart, > This is where we seem to have a primary > disagreement. I think it does support snow > equipment. What is the basis for this belief? This is a long standing issue in the south. The cost to tax payers to invest in equipment for events that don't even happen every 5 years is rarely seen as providing enough ROI. Have you run the numbers for any of this to grasp the high cost for something that is rarely needed? And as far as those Texas wind turbines.. I'd be interested in just what the yearly cost would be to winterize and unwinterized yearly. And unless I missed it I still haven't see your reference to support your claim that someone put the money in their pocket and their customer at risk. Or was it just bold words with no actual knowledge? Cheers Jim |
17539
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: looking forward to your reference
|
Well, if it's cold enough often enough to send snow sleds to my grandchildren there, then-to me--it makes sense to put a sweater on the power grid (or at least have one in the closet to activate). Just common sense. Blue northers are a standard feature of Texas. We saw El Paso put the money into safeguarding theirs and the out come of that (which was good). I don't hear their customers complaining. I hear the tax payers that didn't have the safe guards complaining (and remember, much of the grid is privatized..but the state is now going to have a big bill for much of the mess). Sounds like good business sense, too. I think we just saw the other outcome. This has happened before, it will happen again. They best fix it and "put a sweater on". Pretty simple. I don't have a reference for "money in the pocket" other than observation and my opinion. I lived through the enron scandal in california--I've seen things "like" this, and if people are getting mega bills, if the grid's falling apart and precautions were paid for...seems that money was going somewhere. (That's an opinion, btw). Remember, and it's in some of the previous articles posted, that Enron--though now defunct, had a hand in setting up the Texas system which like the manufactured rolling black outs in california and pocketing profits meant to attend to increased maintenance that never happened, seems like a familiar story. Is it the correct one? Time will tell, I'm sure. No doubt there's going to be investigations and hearings all over the place. |
17543
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: looking forward to your reference
|
Hi Redhart, So at first it was someone putting money in their pocket and now it is "Just common sense". LOL What you seem to be missing is the total cost. People can afford to buy snow sleds and keep them in the garage for years for those every decade or so cold spells... but the cost of modifying their entire network for cold weather costs a bit more than a snow sled. Most people in my area were stranded in their homes for many days because of the ice storm and a lack of equipment. Hell I bet no one in my area owns a snow blower while my work colleagues who live in the north have them to clear their snow. The ROI just isn't there for the occasional cold weather/snow/ice events. Oh, and since you mentioned Enron.... El Paso electric who everyone keeps bragging about was involved in the Enron scandal and paid a $10 million settlement. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
17540
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: about El Paso electric...
|
Caption for the above image: The United States has three major power grids with six, regional electric reliability organizations overseeing the grids. Those are Midwest Reliability Corp., or MRO; Northeast Power Coordinating Council, or NPCC; Reliability First, or RF; Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, or SERC; Texas Reliability Entity, or Texas RE; and Western Electricity Coordinating Council, or WECC. (Photo: Courtesy North American Electric Reliability Corp.) El Paso electric corp is a non profit corporation and belongs to the Western Power Grid. Why couldn't the rest of Texas join one of the other power grids adjacent to them? Because they would then be subject to regulations! Being a "for profit" co. they don't want regulations which is why they chose to be a stand alone grid. If they either sell or buy from out of state, regulations kick in. After the 2011 cold snap, El Paso Electric paid 4.5 million dollars to winterize their system. That according to the article at the link. Seems to me that the investment was well worth it and since they belong to the Western power grid, they abide by the regulations, and can get power as far away as Montana if needs arise. In any case, according to the same article, Gov. Gregg Abbot has called for the resignation of the entire board of ERCOT! Pretty sure things will change for the better or not if short memories prevail. Bearing in mind that extreme weather events are increasing in number due to climate change, it's time to overhaul the electrical grid in Texas as well as any other areas that aren't hardened to withstand these extremes. |
Responses:
[17542]
17542
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: about El Paso electric...
|
Hi shelia, > El Paso electric corp is a non profit corporation As usual you have your facts confused. ERCOT who had major problems with their power grid is a 501(c) non-profit while El Paso electric is a for profit utility company currently owned by JP Morgan Chase. It is also good to keep in mind that El Paso electric could spend $4.5 million on winterization because they are fairly small servicing only 400,000 customers while ERCOT has 25 million customers. Also El Paso electric has just 2 wind turbines while ERCOT generates 25% of their electricity from wind farms. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
17530
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: looking forward to your reference
|
From the 2011 report. It has been a known problem going back 3 decades ""The (2011) storm, however, was not without precedent. There were prior severe cold weather events in the Southwest in 1983, 1989, 2003, 2006, 2008, and 2010. The experiences of 1989 are instructive, particularly on the electric side. In that year, as in 2011, cold weather caused many generators to trip, derate, or fail to start. The PUCT investigated the occurrence and issued a number of recommendations aimed at improving winterization on the part of the generators. These recommendations were not mandatory, and over the course of time implementation lapsed. Many of the generators that experienced outages in 1989 failed again in 2011. |
Responses:
None
17499
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Texas Was Warned a Decade Ago Its Grid Was Unready for Cold Read
URL: Texas Was Warned a Decade Ago Its Grid Was Unready for Cold
|
"So instead of stupid articles about Texas being too cheap to winterize their wind turbines hopefully the smart people are looking at and addressing the issue caused this problem. " Ignoring it and not investing in measures to cope with its effects on people and economy and emphasising spending money instead on building a wall to the south isn't going to make temperature extremes go away... (Bloomberg) -- Federal regulators warned Texas that its power plants couldn’t be counted on to reliably churn out electricity in bitterly cold conditions a decade ago, when the last deep freeze plunged 4 million people into the dark. They recommended that utilities use more insulation, heat pipes and take other steps to winterize plants -- strategies commonly observed in cooler climates but not in cooler climates but not in normally balmy Texas. As investigators probe the current power crisis in Texas, which has left millions of people without power or a promise of when it will be restored, questions are sure to be raised about how the state responded to the urgings from the 2011 analysis, issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North America Electric Reliability Corporation, which sets reliability standards. The February 2011 incident occurred when an Arctic cold front descended on the Southwest, sending temperatures below freezing for four days in a row. The result was disastrous. Equipment and instruments froze, forcing the shutdown of power plants and rolling blackouts, according to the report. Moreover, some of the same equipment, the report noted, had failed during previous cold snaps. One in December 1989 prompted the state’s grid operator to resort to system-wide rolling blackouts for the first time. “Many generators failed to adequately apply and institutionalize knowledge and recommendations from previous severe winter weather events, especially as to winterization of generation and plant auxiliary equipment,” the 2011 report said. Effects, lessons of 1983 freeze evident on Texas ecosystem During the '83 freeze, water temperature in Texas bays dropped to as low as 28 degrees and remained below 40 degrees for seven consecutive days. ... https://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors/article/Effects-lessons-of-1983- freeze-evident-on-Texas-5092926.php The December 1989 Cold Wave Waco dropped to an astounding -4 on December 23, 1989, just one degree shy of the all-time record low set in 1949 https://www.weather.gov/ilx/dec1989-cold Intense Cold Wave of February 2011 On Tuesday, February 1st, 2011, an intense arctic air mass moved into southern New Mexico ... the afternoon of the 2nd, and was followed by several days of sub- freezing temperatures. ... deep into Central Texas, with single-digit temperatures. https://www.weather.gov/media/epz/Storm_Reports/Cold11/Feb2011Cold Wx.pdf |
Responses:
[17505] [17507] [17508] [17511] [17514] [17518] [17520] [17525] [17527] [17519]
17505
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Texas Was Warned a Decade Ago Its Grid Was Unready for Cold Read
|
Hi Alan, OK, so they had experienced issues with cold in Texas before. Were there studies done to show how the addition of a large amount of wind power would be more/less susceptible to cold power outages? When the wind farms were proposed and funded was the cost of preparing them for cold temperatures included in the wind turbine budget? You've shown this isn't the first time Texas has had power outages from cold temperatures but was this taken into account in building a large amount of wind power? Can you possibly remove the politics and think about the question? Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17507] [17508] [17511] [17514] [17518] [17520] [17525] [17527] [17519]
17507
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Texas Was Warned a Decade Ago Its Grid Was Unready for Cold Read
|
Hard to not be politcial as the energy set up in Texas is set be laissez faire and the recommendations here weren't mandatory. Report that the article refers to: Report on Outages and Curtailments During the Southwest Cold Weather Event of February 1-5, 2011 Prepared by the Staffs of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Causes and Recommendations August 2011 Winterization Generators and natural gas producers suffered severe losses of capacity despite having received accurate forecasts of the storm. Entities in both categories report having winterization procedures in place. However, the poor performance of many of these generating units and wells suggests that these procedures were either inadequate or were not adequately followed. The experiences of 1989 are instructive, particularly on the electric side. In that year, as in 2011, cold weather caused many generators to trip, derate, or fail to start. The PUCT investigated the occurrence and issued a number of recommendations aimed at improving winterization on the part of the generators. These recommendations were not mandatory, and over the course of time implementation lapsed. Many of the generators that experienced outages in 1989 failed again in 2011. On the gas side, producers experienced production declines in all of the recent prior cold weather events. While these declines rarely led to any significant curtailments, electric generators in 2003 did experience, as a result of gas shortages, widespread derates and in some cases outright unit failure. It is reasonable to assume from this pattern that the level of winterization put in place by producers is not capable of withstanding unusually cold temperatures. While extreme cold weather events are obviously not as common in the Southwest as elsewhere, they do occur every few years. And when they do, the cost in terms of dollars and human hardship is considerable. The question of what to do about it is not an easy one to answer, as all preventative measures entail some cost. However, in many cases, the needed fixes would not be unduly expensive. Indeed, many utilities have already undertaken improvements in light of their experiences during the February event. This report makes a number of recommendations that the task force believes are both reasonable economically and which would substantially reduce the risk of blackouts and natural gas curtailments during the next extreme cold weather event that hits the Southwest. Electric and Gas Interdependency The report also addresses the interdependency of the electric and natural gas industries. Utilities are becoming increasingly reliant on gas-fired generation, in large part because shale production has dramatically reduced the cost of gas. Likewise, compressors used in the gas industry are more likely than in the past to be powered with electricity, rather than gas. As a result, deficiencies in the supply of either electricity or natural gas affect not only consumers of that commodity, but of the other commodity as well. Gas shortages were not a significant cause of the electric generator outages experienced during the February 2011 event, nor were rolling blackouts a primary cause of the production declines at the wellhead. Both, however, contributed to the problem, and in the case of natural gas shortfalls in the Permian and Fort Worth Basins, approximately a quarter of the decline was attributed to rolling blackouts or customer curtailments affecting producers. The report explores some of the issues relating to the effects of shortages of one commodity on the other, including the question of whether gas production and processing facilities should be deemed “human needs” customers and thus exempted or given special consideration for purposes of electric load shedding. However, any resolution of the many issues arising from electric and natural gas interdependency must be informed by an examination of more than one cold weather event in one part of the country. For that reason, the report does not offer specific recommendations in this area, but urges regulatory and industry bodies to explore solutions to the many interdependency problems which are likely to remain of concern in the future. A sample of the ERCOT generating units that experienced weather- related failures, categorized by the specific cause of failure, provides some insight into the variety of concerns with which the generator operators had to contend during the event, and illustrates the complexity of the protections needed for generating plant systems. Frozen Sensing Lines: Instrumentation provides operational data necessary to monitor and control the generator’s systems. Typically, sensing lines containing a standing water column sense changes in pressure and a transducer produces an electronic signal that is transmitted to instrumentation or controls. In sub-freezing temperatures, if freeze protection is not employed on critical unit systems, the water in the sensing lines freezes, causing faulty signals and subsequent unit trips or derates. During the February event, frozen sensing lines were the leading cause of outages, with steam drum sensing lines being the most prevalent (43 units tripped from this cause alone). JK Spruce Unit 2, a 785 MW coal unit, tripped due to frozen sensing lines that caused a false high water level reading in the steam drum. Ingleside Cogeneration lost two units due to frozen sensing lines. The lines were heat traced, but the ground fault interrupter breakers protecting the heat trace circuits tripped, resulting in a loss of 176 MW. Another unit tripped due to frozen sensing lines on feedwater heater level controls. The freezing caused a high condensate level in a feedwater heater, which in turn incorrectly initiated a trip of the unit. Non-drum sensing line failures included a unit whose vacuum system became erratic when the sensing line to the auxiliary steam pressure indication froze. Another unit tripped when the sensing lines to the rotor air cooler level transmitters froze. |
Responses:
[17508] [17511] [17514] [17518] [17520] [17525] [17527] [17519]
17508
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Texas Was Warned a Decade Ago Its Grid Was Unready for Cold Read
|
Low Temperature Limits: Wind turbines are typically designed to operate within a designated range of temperatures, and have an automatic shutdown feature to protect their components if the range is exceeded. Although manufacturers offer a “cold weather package”210 that allows a turbine to continue operating in colder temperatures, it does not appear that the package is used in the Southwest. Virtually all types of generating units encountered problems, whether viewed from the perspective of fuel type or unit type, suggesting that the problems could not be attributed to a particular fuel or unit design. The breakdown is as follows: SortedbyFuelType: o Coal: 8 units; 4669 MW o Natural Gas: 29 units; 3881 MW o Distillate Oil: 1 unit; 257 MW o Dual Fuel – Gas & Oil: 15 units; 4418 MW o Dual Fuel – Coal & Gas: 1 unit; 670 MW o Nuclear: 1 unit; 1250 MW * o Petroleum Coke: 1 unit; 160 MW This unit was forced off line the previous weekend due to the failure of an expansion joint in a steam condenser. An attempt was made to start it up during the December 21-23 cold spell, but that failed due to equipment freeze-ups. SortedbyUnitType: o Conventional Steam Turbine Generators: 32 units; 13,298 MW o Simple Cycle Gas Turbines: 7 units; 235 MW o Combined Cycle Units: 17 units; 1772 MW PUCT Recommendations The PUCT staff investigated the cold weather event of 1989 and issued a report the following year that evaluated the causes of the generator outages and made recommendations. Because the circumstances of the event, and the causes of the outages, are so similar to those of the 2011 event, it is worth reproducing those recommendations verbatim:232 All utilities should ensure that they incorporate the lessons learned during December of 1989 into the design of new facilities in order to ensure their reliability in extreme weather conditions. All utilities should implement procedures requiring a timely annual (each Fall) review of unit equipment and procedures to ensure readiness for cold weather operations. |
Responses:
[17511] [17514] [17518] [17520] [17525] [17527] [17519]
17511
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Texas Was Warned a Decade Ago Its Grid Was Unready for Cold Read
|
Hi Alan, This seems to be the most relevant passage: "Although manufacturers offer a “cold weather package”210 that allows a turbine to continue operating in colder temperatures, it does not appear that the package is used in the Southwest." So not just in Texas but in the Southwest they don't use the cold weather package. This doesn't surprise me as in the south we get so little cold weather it doesn't make economic sense to invest in cold weather equipment. So while you political people are slinging mud it doesn't appear this is politics but basic economics. Cheers Jim |
17514
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Texas Was Warned a Decade Ago Its Grid Was Unready for Cold Read
|
So not just in Texas but in the Southwest they don't use the cold weather package. This doesn't surprise me as in the south we get so little cold weather it doesn't make economic sense to invest in cold weather equipment. "The (2011) storm, however, was not without precedent. There were prior severe cold weather events in the Southwest in 1983, 1989, 2003, 2006, 2008, and 2010. The experiences of 1989 are instructive, particularly on the electric side. In that year, as in 2011, cold weather caused many generators to trip, derate, or fail to start. The PUCT investigated the occurrence and issued a number of recommendations aimed at improving winterization on the part of the generators. These recommendations were not mandatory, and over the course of time implementation lapsed. Many of the generators that experienced outages in 1989 failed again in 2011." |
17518
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Yup, cold happens occasionally in even Texas
|
Hi Alan, Yup, cold happens occasionally even in Texas. But I still don't see anything saying they had planned for and budgeted the winterization of these wind turbines. You keep posting about how panels looking at past failures made recommendations. But when these wind farms were planned did they state these would need to be winterized yearly for events that happen every decade or so? Cheers Jim |
17520
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: any thoughts about the deregulation issue?(NT)
| (NT) |
17525
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: seems like a red herring
|
Hi Akira, It seems like a bit of a red herring. Redhart pointed out how El Paso Electric did plan for the cold and had very few outages. Still this is for the extreme southwest area that had less of an impact. Still El Paso Electric performed well under deregulation and is even owned by mega-corporation JP Morgan Chase. I'm still willing to consider it... I have just seen no sign deregulation had any impact on the situation being discussed. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17527]
17527
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: it's not(NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
17519
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Yup, cold happens occasionally in even Texas
|
Look up what the 'R' stands for in ERCOT ;-) Maybe the accountants will work out that the economic losses every decade or so from extreme freezes are less than the cost in investing in and servicing winter kit preparedness. I personally think the billions ($15bn?) spent on the southern border wall could have been better spent on counter measures from more devestating invaders from the north... |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]