Severe Cold Is Messing with Texas

Frozen Texas wind turbine. Credit: Watts Up With That?

As I repeatedly remind people, you don’t build an electric power grid to handle routine weather conditions, you build them to survive rare but extreme weather events. Texas, which became enamored with wind power — wind accounted for between 22% of the state’s electricity in the first half of 2019 — has learned this lesson the hard way. In the midst of a bitter cold snap expected to last several days, ice storms knocked out nearly half the state’s wind-power generating supply. The spot price of electricity has surged to $9,000 per megawatt hour, compared to $100 per megawatt hour during periods of high summer demand. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas called on consumers and businesses to reduce electricity use as much as possible Feb. 14, through Feb. 16. Just imagine how bad the situation would be if Texas derived 100% of its electricity from renewable energy.

Meanwhile, the question Virginians need to be asking in anticipation of the commonwealth deriving much of its electricity from offshore wind power within a few years is this: What’s the freezing temperature for salt water?

Answer: 28.4° Fahrenheit.

Renewable-energy advocates say that one day Virginia’s electric grid can bank  plenty of energy reserves in electric batteries. The second question Virginians should ask is this: What’s the freezing temperature for electric batteries?

According to UFO Battery, lithium-ion batteries can be discharged over a range of temperatures from -20°C to 60°C. 20°C. (-20°C equals -4° F.). But there’s a catch. The lower the temperature, the lower the rate of safe charge and discharge. Says UFO Battery: “Don’t charge them when the temperature falls below freezing (0°C or 32°F) without reducing the charge current.” So, lithium-iron batteries still might work in extreme cold, but their capacity will be severely reduced.

Anyone who designs an electric grid without taking these factors into consideration is an idiot. Putting environmentalists and politicians in charge of Virginia’s electric grid is like giving monkeys machine guns.

Update: From today’s Wall Street Journal… Freezing temperatures also forced natural-gas an coal-fired power plants offline. The bitter cold also pushed oil and gas prices higher. In other words, the power shortages were not exclusively the result of wind turbines freezing up, as I strongly implied in my post. The article does not say, however, what percentage of wind power has been lost versus the percentage of coal and gas power.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

442 responses to “Severe Cold Is Messing with Texas”

  1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    I don’t believe the batteries are typically housed outside in the elements.

    1. Maybe the batteries will have back-up generators powered by…. fossil fuels… to keep them nice and warm. Ironies of ironies!

  2. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    I don’t believe the batteries are typically housed outside in the elements.

    1. Maybe the batteries will have back-up generators powered by…. fossil fuels… to keep them nice and warm. Ironies of ironies!

  3. Ben Slone Avatar

    More nukes, less…

  4. Ben Slone Avatar

    More nukes, less…

  5. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    My son and his family were in a powerless house in San Antonio this morning, 10 F outside. He didn’t know for sure, but power came back for periods so perhaps rolling brownouts. The people who think solar, wind and battery can do it all are pathetic fools.

    Friday and again today I listened to committee discussions on various energy bills. There is no word to describe the legislators but stupid. Stupid. A couple of them but not enough realize it. Not once in either meeting was a question posed to SCC staff. The legislators like being stupid.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Just checked in. They have power 5 minutes on, 15 off, until further notice. That much generation in Texas has failed.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        That’ll kill a heat pump.

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          The newer ones have a 5-minute power on delay so if the power fails they won’t start up right away.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          yep… and other equipment… – This is where you get in the car and drive til you find a motel with power!

          😉

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Or… just stay in the car with the engine idling.

            What do you call a legless blind deer?

            Still no idea.

  6. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    My son and his family were in a powerless house in San Antonio this morning, 10 F outside. He didn’t know for sure, but power came back for periods so perhaps rolling brownouts. The people who think solar, wind and battery can do it all are pathetic fools.

    Friday and again today I listened to committee discussions on various energy bills. There is no word to describe the legislators but stupid. Stupid. A couple of them but not enough realize it. Not once in either meeting was a question posed to SCC staff. The legislators like being stupid.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Just checked in. They have power 5 minutes on, 15 off, until further notice. That much generation in Texas has failed.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        That’ll kill a heat pump.

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          The newer ones have a 5-minute power on delay so if the power fails they won’t start up right away.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          yep… and other equipment… – This is where you get in the car and drive til you find a motel with power!

          😉

  7. Meanwhile, we have this news from Dominion Energy: More than 290,000 customers lost their power during the ice story, but company crews have restored energy to more than 85% of those customers.

    Question: What happens to solar power output when the panels are covered with snow and/or ice?

    1. I get no generation from my panels when ice or snow covered. Nor any during rain storms

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Stop writing ice stories. Instead cover the storm.

      1. Here’s a good ice story:

        https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-discover-strange-creatures-under-a-half-mile-of-ice/

        It doesn’t have a thing to do with the recent winter storms but it’s a good ice story…

          1. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
            Anonymous_Bosch

            I really appreciate your taste in Flemish Primitives.

    3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      The bio-diesel genset kicks on.

    4. Good old gasoline provided electricity to my house for the 47.5 hours we were without power.

  8. Meanwhile, we have this news from Dominion Energy: More than 290,000 customers lost their power during the ice story, but company crews have restored energy to more than 85% of those customers.

    Question: What happens to solar power output when the panels are covered with snow and/or ice?

    1. I get no generation from my panels when ice or snow covered. Nor any during rain storms

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Stop writing ice stories. Instead cover the storm.

      1. Here’s a good ice story:

        https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-discover-strange-creatures-under-a-half-mile-of-ice/

        It doesn’t have a thing to do with the recent winter storms but it’s a good ice story…

          1. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
            Anonymous_Bosch

            I really appreciate your taste in Flemish Primitives.

    3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      The bio-diesel genset kicks on.

    4. Good old gasoline provided electricity to my house for the 47.5 hours we were without power.

  9. Obviously we have successful wind power in the Appalachians in PA/MD/WV, and those wind turbines must be winter-proof due to the cold weather up there in the mountains. I wonder if on-shore wind power is cheaper in TX due to not needing winter-proofing? The question would be damage, and I would also be curious how the turbine performance in the Appalachians holds up with the tougher weather.

    It should be noted natural gas supplies are also freezing up in TX, basically they are not ready for winter down there.

  10. idiocracy Avatar

    It should be noted that charging and discharging batteries, including lithium-ion batteries, does raise their temperature. The chemical reactions aren’t 100% efficient and some energy is lost as heat.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The same morons have been killing people in the pandemic. Why should they behave differently in the name of climate change orthodoxy?

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Sit next to the battery.

  11. idiocracy Avatar

    It should be noted that charging and discharging batteries, including lithium-ion batteries, does raise their temperature. The chemical reactions aren’t 100% efficient and some energy is lost as heat.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The same morons have been killing people in the pandemic. Why should they behave differently in the name of climate change orthodoxy?

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Sit next to the battery.

  12. Most, if not all, school buses are parked outdoors. If Dominion’s plan to use electric school buses as power supply backups goes through,will school districts have to build garages for them?

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      They are probably equipped with battery heaters. So as long as they are plugged in, the battery will be heated to keep it ready for use.

      Most plug-in hybrids and EVs have battery heaters.

      1. So while Dominion uses the school bus batteries “as a grid stabilizing or peak-shaving resource …and “the utility shall own the associated batteries and charging stations” (SB1380), the batteries are somehow going to keep themselves heated.

        Meanwhile, the school districts get to pay for the charging, and as a ratepayer, they’ll have the added shared costs for PIPP and the $225,000 subsidy per bus. The whole plan doesn’t make sense.

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          I’m sure it makes sense for whomever makes all the money off the scam.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            In most all stand-alone backup generators, their batteries are on “maintainers” ( “smart” trickle chargers).

            But even batteries that sit in vehicles for weeks on end still have enough juice to start the motor.

            I wonder how long a prius or other EV can “sit” and still have juice? is it weeks or months or days?

          2. idiocracy Avatar

            GM recommends keeping their EVs plugged in whenever possible.

            In extremely cold weather, if not plugged in, the battery can freeze and you won’t even be able to start the EV. If that happens, you will have to plug it in to allow the battery heater to warm the battery.

  13. Most, if not all, school buses are parked outdoors. If Dominion’s plan to use electric school buses as power supply backups goes through,will school districts have to build garages for them?

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      They are probably equipped with battery heaters. So as long as they are plugged in, the battery will be heated to keep it ready for use.

      Most plug-in hybrids and EVs have battery heaters.

      1. So while Dominion uses the school bus batteries “as a grid stabilizing or peak-shaving resource …and “the utility shall own the associated batteries and charging stations” (SB1380), the batteries are somehow going to keep themselves heated.

        Meanwhile, the school districts get to pay for the charging, and as a ratepayer, they’ll have the added shared costs for PIPP and the $225,000 subsidy per bus. The whole plan doesn’t make sense.

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          I’m sure it makes sense for whomever makes all the money off the scam.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            In most all stand-alone backup generators, their batteries are on “maintainers” ( “smart” trickle chargers).

            But even batteries that sit in vehicles for weeks on end still have enough juice to start the motor.

            I wonder how long a prius or other EV can “sit” and still have juice? is it weeks or months or days?

          2. idiocracy Avatar

            GM recommends keeping their EVs plugged in whenever possible.

            In extremely cold weather, if not plugged in, the battery can freeze and you won’t even be able to start the EV. If that happens, you will have to plug it in to allow the battery heater to warm the battery.

  14. LarrytheG Avatar

    Just to point out that even if you had gas or oil heat, it still takes electricity to run the furnace- unless you have one of those old-fashioned oil circulators or a propane fireplace.

    If you live in Minot, ND or Yellowknife NWT – this is not “bad” weather… it’s normal… 😉 And the big thing is to have good insulation and not just to stay warm, to stay financially solvent.

    The one thing I agree with is that anyone who think we are going to go 100% wind/solar, they truly do live in LA LA land. But on the other hand, if you could cut your heating/cooling costs by 30% SOME of the time – why not?

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      We could cut our heating/cooling costs by 30% ALL of the time if we taught the knuckle-draggers who build houses what caulk is for.

      Actually, I think the mandatory blower door test taught them what caulk is for…

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Fiberglass houses!

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          Fiberglass resin is pretty flammable.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Wood isn’t?

        2. idiocracy Avatar

          Try lighting up a piece of fiberglass from a boat and then try lighting up a 2×4 and you tell me which one goes up first.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Do I get to pick the wood? Then heart of pine. What’s beneath your feet?

            Boats burn like Roman candles. Of course, the gas/diesel doesn’t hurt.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      The goal isn’t 100% wind/solar. It’s 0% fossil. We will succeed.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Yes, because 100 years ago jet airliners and solar panels were all the rage.

          Where there is a will…

    3. “Just to point out that even if you had gas or oil heat, it still takes electricity to run the furnace- unless you have one of those old-fashioned oil circulators or a propane fireplace.”

      That’s not completely accurate.

      If someone on town water has a natural gas or propane water heater, the water heater will work just fine without external electricity. If they have a well, the well would need backup power, but that’s very doable.

      Gas and propane heaters can also work just fine without external electricity. They normally have a Thermocouple and Thermopile which produces sufficient energy to monitor the temperature and open and close valves to regulate your heat.

      They are also very safe. If the pilot goes out, the Thermocouple will stop producing energy. The absence of electricity will cause the valve providing gas to the pilot to close. The absence of the pilot also prevents the valve leading to the mean burner from opening (Thermopile).

      All that’s needed to support a gas furnace is about 600 watts of power to support the fan for a forced hot air system. It’s best to have an electrician prepare the wiring to support this, but its easily done, and a generator to support that is small light and cheap.

      Supporting an electric furnace and water heater with backup power, that’s a whole different story! Those can run 4,500 – 5,000 watts each. A generator to support those plus the other essentials one would need in an outage would be very expensive, very large and require lots of fuel. If that fuel is gas or diesel, those have limited shelf life and must be maintained and cycled so that it doesn’t go bad.

      Mandating that we migrate from fossil fuels at this stage is a mistake.

  15. LarrytheG Avatar

    Just to point out that even if you had gas or oil heat, it still takes electricity to run the furnace- unless you have one of those old-fashioned oil circulators or a propane fireplace.

    If you live in Minot, ND or Yellowknife NWT – this is not “bad” weather… it’s normal… 😉 And the big thing is to have good insulation and not just to stay warm, to stay financially solvent.

    The one thing I agree with is that anyone who think we are going to go 100% wind/solar, they truly do live in LA LA land. But on the other hand, if you could cut your heating/cooling costs by 30% SOME of the time – why not?

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      We could cut our heating/cooling costs by 30% ALL of the time if we taught the knuckle-draggers who build houses what caulk is for.

      Actually, I think the mandatory blower door test taught them what caulk is for…

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Fiberglass houses!

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          Try lighting up a piece of fiberglass from a boat and then try lighting up a 2×4 and you tell me which one goes up first.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      The goal isn’t 100% wind/solar. It’s 0% fossil. We will succeed.

    3. “Just to point out that even if you had gas or oil heat, it still takes electricity to run the furnace- unless you have one of those old-fashioned oil circulators or a propane fireplace.”

      That’s not completely accurate.

      If someone on town water has a natural gas or propane water heater, the water heater will work just fine without external electricity. If they have a well, the well would need backup power, but that’s very doable.

      Gas and propane heaters can also work just fine without external electricity. They normally have a Thermocouple and Thermopile which produces sufficient energy to monitor the temperature and open and close valves to regulate your heat.

      They are also very safe. If the pilot goes out, the Thermocouple will stop producing energy. The absence of electricity will cause the valve providing gas to the pilot to close. The absence of the pilot also prevents the valve leading to the mean burner from opening (Thermopile).

      All that’s needed to support a gas furnace is about 600 watts of power to support the fan for a forced hot air system. It’s best to have an electrician prepare the wiring to support this, but its easily done, and a generator to support that is small light and cheap.

      Supporting an electric furnace and water heater with backup power, that’s a whole different story! Those can run 4,500 – 5,000 watts each. A generator to support those plus the other essentials one would need in an outage would be very expensive, very large and require lots of fuel. If that fuel is gas or diesel, those have limited shelf life and must be maintained and cycled so that it doesn’t go bad.

      Mandating that we migrate from fossil fuels at this stage is a mistake.

  16. Obviously we have successful wind power in the Appalachians in PA/MD/WV, and those wind turbines must be winter-proof due to the cold weather up there in the mountains. I wonder if on-shore wind power is cheaper in TX due to not needing winter-proofing? The question would be damage, and I would also be curious how the turbine performance in the Appalachians holds up with the tougher weather.

    1. It should be noted natural gas supplies are also freezing up in TX, basically they are not ready for harsh winter weather down there.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        There were problems with natural gas meters freezing in Michigan a few years ago.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          And a few years ago, there was something about gas pipelines having trouble in the polar vortex and before that piles of coal freezing due to freezing rain.

          Freezing rain takes down trees and no matter what kind of energy you have – it’s the transmission lines that go down and when you lose electricity – it mostly don’t matter whether folks are using all electric or natural gas or even oil if the furnace needs electricity to operate.

          There are a number of things that could lower the heating requirements for any house including doing what Europeans and Asians do – not heat the rooms not in use. We could develop residential units that do zone heating and air… or just block off manually. We use far, far more energy per capita than other countries – even countries that generate more CO2 than us – like China and India. It’s not their per capita use – it’s just the siple fact that have a bunch more folks but their per capita use is low.

          1. idiocracy Avatar

            ” We could develop residential units that do zone heating and air”

            I have that at my house. Upstairs and downstairs zones with an Aprilaire zone controller.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            per room?

          3. idiocracy Avatar

            No, upstairs and downstairs. Per room zone control gets very expensive and the money is better spent on improving the sealing and insulation of the building envelope.

            Additionally, simple things like not putting ducts and HVAC equipment in unconditioned spaces (like the attic) also really help, but the logic of that seems to escape most Virginia homebuilders.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            wireless sensors in individual rooms is already easy. I have them. The duct feeders would each have to have an actuated door… that don’t sound that hard.

            /www.lennox.com/buyers-guide/guide-to-hvac/glossary/zoning-system#:~:text=An%20HVAC%20zoning%20system%20(also,for%20increased%20comfort%20and%20efficiency.

            also – HVACs that cut way back when no one is in the home and fire back up on a scheduled or smartphone command.

            There are quite a few ways to reduce energy consumption that are well within the means of most of us, but we’d have to choose to have less money spent on other goodies or saved.

            We CHOOSE to not save energy because it is so cheap. Places where energy is much more expensive, they conserve much more – even in the US:

            interesting chart:

            https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2018.09.04/main.png

          5. Matt Adams Avatar

            “idiocracy | February 16, 2021 at 7:08 am |
            No, upstairs and downstairs. Per room zone control gets very expensive and the money is better spent on improving the sealing and insulation of the building envelope.

            Additionally, simple things like not putting ducts and HVAC equipment in unconditioned spaces (like the attic) also really help, but the logic of that seems to escape most Virginia homebuilders.”

            I believe they finally made putting HVAC in unconditioned spaces against code in VA.

          6. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Exposed duct work is cool looking too. Love industrial design in loft spaces. Lots of glass and metal.

          7. idiocracy Avatar

            Yes, it is, you can see if the ducts were actually sealed with duct mastic like they are supposed to be (another fairly new code requirement for residential, though this has been standard for commercial for a long time).

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      the weather in Texas is uncommon but not unheard of. One would think the turbines would be designed for that OR that that kind of icing , no matter where it happens just shuts them down. But maybe not, one might think the turbines in the North Sea would see those conditions.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        The after-action reports will be important. The story a day or so ago was they expected a record winter peak, and might even exceed their summer peak, so clearly this was not just a supply failure.

      2. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
        Anonymous_Bosch

        This is true. My Grandmother has talked several times about the bay in Riviera freezing over when she was a kid in the 1930s. That was difficult for me to believe.

    3. Matt Adams Avatar

      Those Wind Turbines in the Laurel Highlands hardly ever turn. They are a big eye soar when driving on the PA turnpike.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        more than eye sores like this:

        https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/styles/flexslider_full/public/mtr_ovec_1066.jpg?itok=wRM4DUC7

        is it the actual damage done to the environment that bothers people or just what they can see that messes up their view? If they can’t see it – no problem, right?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          How does one compare what I stated to condoning “strip mining”?

          “is it the actual damage done to the environment that bothers people or just what they can see that messes up their view? If they can’t see it – no problem, right?”

          Spoken like someone who doesn’t have an iota of a clue of the environmental impact to build, maintain and dispose of those wind turbines.

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

          https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy

          Tell me more about how clueless you are on “clean energy” and the “environment” you claim to care about?

        2. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Larry, that looks like a picture I recently posted of the mining of rare metals for batteries … if not very similar picture.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Here’s what fracking in Pennsylvania looks like:

        https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/aerial-view-of-fracking.jpg

        which is worse – the turbines or the fracking?

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Depends on whether you like the taste of dissolved methane in your drinking water, or not.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nancy_Naive | February 16, 2021 at 7:48 am | Reply
            Depends on whether you like the taste of dissolved methane in your drinking water, or not.”

            Depends on if you can tell me where in PA this photo is from?

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Is that not what fracing looks like? Like they don’t frack in Pa.? Like the fracing wells don’t look similar from place to place? Like fracing doesn’t leech into the ground water?

            Yep, that’s Wyoming. Good thing they don’t drink ground water in Wyoming.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nancy_Naive | February 16, 2021 at 7:59 am |
            Is that not what fracing looks like? Like they don’t frack in Pa.? Like the fracing wells don’t look similar from place to place? Like fracing doesn’t leech into the ground water?

            Yep, that’s Wyoming. Good thing they don’t drink ground water in Wyoming.”

            I seemed to recall you being a horses ass last week about adding something to autocorrect. Notice anything funny in your comment?

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            https://www.britannica.com/technology/fracking

            “Fracking, also spelled fracing or fraccing, also called hydrofracking, in full hydraulic fracturing”

            Nope. You?

            And, since moving more to an iPad, I have come to hate the spellchecker algorithm because if you accept or ignore a misspelling, the damned thing adds it to the dictionary. At least Microsoft used to ask first.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nancy_Naive | February 16, 2021 at 8:30 am |
            https://www.britannica.com/technology/fracking

            So that’s your go to huh? Well why did you use “frack” in the same statement. It was a typo, they happen. Despite what you believe you’re not infallible.

          6. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Don’t like that one?
            Here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fracking

            Keep it up Matt. You started out looking stupid, you’ve no place to go except imbecilic.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nancy_Naive | February 16, 2021 at 8:44 am |
            Don’t like that one?
            Here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fracking

            Keep it up Matt. You started out looking stupid, you’ve no place to go except imbecilic.”

            I started out looking stupid for pointing out Larry made a claim that wasn’t true? Also, so instead of admitting a typo, you double down on being a HA?

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          Your photo isn’t PA, it’s Wyoming.

          The next time you paste an image at least know where it was taken.

          I highly suspect you’ve never been to PA if you someone believed this photo is of PA.

          Oh and again where did I say it was better, I’m tying of the strawman arguments of an individual who clearly doesn’t cannot generate a rationale argument to save his life.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            What the H do you actually KNOW Matt?

            grist.org/climate-energy/with-eyes-in-the-sky-researchers-try-to-link-fracking-and-illness/

            Pennsylvania is a place I’ve been probably dozens, maybe hundreds times or more – all across the state. I’ve been canoeing the rivers in that state for 40 years.

            You said that the turbines were an “eye soar”… and I asked if they were any more of less compared to other energy sites – for coal – and gas and yes that photo is representative of what fracking looking like in Pennsylvania WITH IT’s FORESTs UNLIKE Wyoming!

            https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PA-2019-Fracked-Gas-Production-Feature.jpg

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            What he can find on Wiki.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            Um Google Image search is a wonderful tool. That’s how I know.

            http://instbioingecosist.blogspot.com/2013/06/fracking-for-shale-natural-gas-and-oil.html

            “Pennsylvania is a place I’ve been probably dozens, maybe hundreds times or more – all across the state. I’ve been canoeing the rivers in that state for 40 years.”

            That’s odd you posted a picture of a plans state and concluded it was fracking in PA. Now I don’t know about you (I just was born, raised, went to college, still have family that lives all over the state) but there isn’t a section of PA that’s “flat” It’s not Ohio, hence why we call them flatlanders.

            The Wind Turbines on I-70 are an eye soar. They don’t operate, they positioned them in the Laurel Highlands to use the wind to generate power, they don’t.

            No you posted photos of a strip mine and Wyoming as if they had anything to do with my statement. They didn’t, they were the strawman of someone who doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nancy_Naive | February 16, 2021 at 8:00 am |
            What he can find on Wiki.”

            Why would I need to use Wikipedia about a place where I spent a vast majority of my life?

        3. LarrytheG Avatar

          That photo is very representative of what fracking looks like wherever fracking takes place and it’s probably more apparent in places that are forested – LIKE Pennsylvania.

          What Matt does this stupid stuff is beyond me. He says he is a “smart” guy but….geeze…

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            Your comment was as follows:

            “LarrytheG | February 16, 2021 at 7:41 am | Reply
            Here’s what fracking in Pennsylvania looks like:

            which is worse – the turbines or the fracking?”

            Forested? PA is mountainous terrain and you literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

            I’ve never once said I was a “smart guy”.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Here, Wyoming… County, Pa.

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQfCzZiF9a8

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Shale-oil-and-gas-wells-in-Pennsylvania-Fracktracker-768×467.jpg
            Well, you haven’t claimed you are a EE and you “know stuff”?

            😉

            talk about “clueless”… guy…

            ” Forested? PA is mountainous terrain and you literally have no idea what you’re talking about.”

            Matt, do you know what an aerial photo of the eastern Appalachians looks like in Pennsylvania? You obviously do not.

            For someone who says they are from Pennsylvania you seem even more clueless than you accuse others!

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            What’s the relevance of your image?

            I haven’t claimed to have a EE, I have one.

            “Well, you haven’t claimed you are a EE and you “know stuff”?

            😉

            talk about “clueless”… guy…

            you are who you accuse others of and worse… go sit down.”

            So where have I claimed I’m a “smart guy”.

            Why would I sit down, I’m already sitting.

            Would you like a tour of Pens Cave or Uniontown?

          5. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nancy_Naive | February 16, 2021 at 8:14 am |
            Here, Wyoming… County, Pa.

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQfCzZiF9a8

            Here comes Mary Shelley’s well meaning Dr. to save his bumbling assistant, right on cue.

            I’m still trying to figure out the relevance between images Larbear is posting (which he’s incorrectly attributed merely because he googled an article and posted it) and me saying that Wind Turbines in the Laurel Highlands are eye soars.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            Matt – can you tell me what ” eye soars” are?

            What I posted early on was that virtually ALL energy sources and generation have major visual impacts on the landscape and just picking one of them to cite as a disadvantage of THAT source, (i.e. – the “eye soar”) is basically ignoring the reality that things like mountaintop removal for coal or fracking – YES in Pennsylvania (and other states) – ALL have visual impacts. You really don’t have to litigate which state – they’re all similar.

            We have someone who claims to be an EE but how does he actually act? like some fool who can’t help but do silly stuff like claim others are “clueless”? This is the mark of a EE “smart guy”?

          7. Matt Adams Avatar

            Larry,

            Excuse my typo, but eyesore. To which the definition is as follows:

            “: something offensive to view”

            In the current parlance, a Giant Wind Turbine that is standing like a statue and not operating as it was intended (much like a dilapidated building) .

            Given the sheer number of oil wells that are sunk in the ground in NW PA along with storage tanks that you aren’t aware of, I’d say no. They are no more visible lease for logging.

            “What Matt does this stupid stuff is beyond me. He says he is a “smart” guy but….geeze…”

            Again, I’ve never once claimed to be a “smart guy”. Personal attacks are just one of the various reasons why people take issue with your comments. The moment you’re out of your depth you attack the other poster.

            I’m sorry that you posted an image and incorrectly attributed it, I’m sorry those images had nothing to do with my comment. Take the knowledge and drop the BS.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar

            Matt… there was no “wrong” attribution. Only in your own addled mind where you do focus on inane things that have nothing what-so-ever to do with the principle issue.

            Either you cannot maintain focus or you have some other disability that you then inflict on others… a pattern..not just with me….

            The imagines were quick grabs to illustrate visual impacts of different kinds of energy sources – to make the point – that all of them have their impacts – and focusing on one as a disadvantage to that one – is basically ignoring the simple fact that all have impacts.

            when saying “eye soar” while calling others clueless… geeze guy..

          9. Matt Adams Avatar

            “LarrytheG | February 16, 2021 at 9:03 am |
            Matt… there was no “wrong” attribution. Only in your own addled mind where you do focus on inane things that have nothing what-so-ever to do with the principle issue.

            Either you cannot maintain focus or you have some other disability that you then inflict on others… a pattern..not just with me….

            The imagines were quick grabs to illustrate visual impacts of different kinds of energy sources – to make the point – that all of them have their impacts – and focusing on one as a disadvantage to that one – is basically ignoring the simple fact that all have impacts.

            when saying “eye soar” while calling others clueless… geeze guy..”

            Yes, yes there was. You claimed it was PA when it was clearly not PA.

            I think you just described yourself in a nutshell.

            No, they didn’t prove anything. It was your standard kneejerk reaction when you’re questioned for a dubious post.

            “The imagines were quick grabs to illustrate visual impacts of different kinds of energy sources – to make the point – that all of them have their impacts – and focusing on one as a disadvantage to that one – is basically ignoring the simple fact that all have impacts.”

            I have no idea what you’re tying to say, it’s a bunch of words with individual meanings that when hurled together mean nothing.

            Umm I outed myself for the typo you didn’t catch until I pointed it out. Personal attacks are pointless and illustrate you’ve got nothing.

        4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Sometimes they look like this
          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ9Kct75u_0

          Well, more often than you’d think…

        5. Larry- That is not what fracking in Pa looks like.

          You always post Armageddon pictures.

          Most places I see one well and if it is in eye-site it is pretty well camouflaged. The point of fracking is one well covers a lot of space.
          I do not know what site you are showing, but it does not look typical to me. Looks like non-fracking op to me.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            It’s an imagine that has been used by 100 fossil fuels are the devil articles and it’s Wyoming.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Tbill – okay, how about you find an image of what fracking in PA looks like.

            I’ve been to a variety of sites and I personally know someone that lives in PA and they say that fracking is cleared sites connected by corridors of piping…

            “what does fracking look like from the air” (or “aerial images of fracking” – pick your own phrases:

            https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+fracking+look+like+from+the+air&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS915US915&sxsrf=ALeKk02LeGvEqkg_rCbYxfCi3SCeX5_FZg:1613485221030&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie-svrzO7uAhXhFFkFHRVgDvQQ_AUoAXoECAkQAw&biw=1280&bih=578

            why don’t you get an image and explain different from what I have posted?

            in terms of ” Armageddon pictures” – I’ve posted REAL pictures of what REAL extraction of coal in mountain regions actually does look like.

            We’ve done that kind of mining for decades and few who are complaining now about visual impacts of wind/solar had much to say about those coal impacts.

            double standard?

      3. Matt Adams Avatar

        How does one compare what I stated to condoning “strip mining”?

        “is it the actual damage done to the environment that bothers people or just what they can see that messes up their view? If they can’t see it – no problem, right?”

        Spoken like someone who doesn’t have an iota of a clue of the environmental impact to build, maintain and dispose of those wind turbines.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

        https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy

        Tell me more about how clueless you are on “clean energy” and the “environment” you claim to care about?

  17. Obviously we have successful wind power in the Appalachians in PA/MD/WV, and those wind turbines must be winter-proof due to the cold weather up there in the mountains. I wonder if on-shore wind power is cheaper in TX due to not needing winter-proofing? The question would be damage, and I would also be curious how the turbine performance in the Appalachians holds up with the tougher weather.

    1. It should be noted natural gas supplies are also freezing up in TX, basically they are not ready for harsh winter weather down there.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        There were problems with natural gas meters freezing in Michigan a few years ago.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      the weather in Texas is uncommon but not unheard of. One would think the turbines would be designed for that OR that that kind of icing , no matter where it happens just shuts them down. But maybe not, one might think the turbines in the North Sea would see those conditions.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        The after-action reports will be important. The story a day or so ago was they expected a record winter peak, and might even exceed their summer peak, so clearly this was not just a supply failure.

      2. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
        Anonymous_Bosch

        This is true. My Grandmother has talked several times about the bay in Riviera freezing over when she was a kid in the 1930s. That was difficult for me to believe.

    3. Matt Adams Avatar

      Those Wind Turbines in the Laurel Highlands hardly ever turn. They are a big eye soar when driving on the PA turnpike.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        more than eye sores like this:

        https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/styles/flexslider_full/public/mtr_ovec_1066.jpg?itok=wRM4DUC7

        is it the actual damage done to the environment that bothers people or just what they can see that messes up their view? If they can’t see it – no problem, right?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          How does one compare what I stated to condoning “strip mining”?

          “is it the actual damage done to the environment that bothers people or just what they can see that messes up their view? If they can’t see it – no problem, right?”

          Spoken like someone who doesn’t have an iota of a clue of the environmental impact to build, maintain and dispose of those wind turbines.

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

          https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy

          Tell me more about how clueless you are on “clean energy” and the “environment” you claim to care about?

        2. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Larry, that looks like a picture I recently posted of the mining of rare metals for batteries … if not very similar picture.

  18. LarrytheG Avatar

    yes, the “king” of personal attacks is lecturing others… while he also overloads of pure blather… don’t you actually have a real job anymore?

    https://skytruth.org/2017/03/fracking-coming-to-a-backyard-near-you/

    ballotpedia.org/Fracking_in_Pennsylvania#:~:text=As%20of%20May%201%2C%202017,vertical%20wells%20stimulated%20by%20fracking.

  19. Ben Slone Avatar

    And for some more fun, this just in from the WSJ – https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002

  20. Wow I happened on a Twitter thread…boy are they mad in TX and cold!
    https://twitter.com/JudgeClayJ/status/1361508189024509954?s=20

    Don’t forget Texas is its own grid, whereas we have PJM grid.

    You know, not too many years ago, Texas was planning I dunno something like 25 or 30 new coal plants to meet their power needs. I was very happy that did not happen. But obviously they took short-cuts (if you look at the Twitter thread).

    I mean I am going to go to my grave being upset about state/utility management of power. It is not like regular industry that works, it is public opinion powered.

    1. …and politics

      1. Ben Slone Avatar

        Yes, grid and generation design, maintenance, and operation is a fascinating art. And unfortunately not an engineering matter.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      Doesn’t Texas have their own version of PJM, though?

      One would think, given Texas economy with oil and gas that they’d have LOTS and LOTS of cheap gas to power gas plants AND that it would be a good idea to have them – at the ready – not only for winter storms but summer hurricanes and hot summers with peak demand for air conditioning…

      Wind will never be a 100% replacement but wind is cheaper than gas – when it is available and you can use it instead of gas.

      that’s all this really is. It was never about trying to replace all gas with all wind… only in the minds of those who want to make it a political or climate change issue. The vast majority of folks just want a reliable and cost-effective grid – and to use cheaper fuel by all means when you can.

  21. When Texas ever gets around to building off-shore wind, they will not have to contend with winter weather in the Gulf like we do. They will have hurricane threat but so do we.

  22. LarrytheG Avatar

    de-icing systems for turbines actually already exist…

    A dual de-icing system for wind turbine blades

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960148115004048-gr5.jpg

    and of course, they’d have to be heating the blades BEFORE they ice up and stop!

    did Texas do their turbines on the cheap?

  23. LarrytheG Avatar

    And to point out – that Nukes require grid power themselves – to power the pumps when they get shut down. No grid power , and the backup-gens fail and you get this:

    https://sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/files/2015/10/Fukushima-Daiichi-Nuclear-Plant.jpg

    yes… Armageddon… and yes.. this is Fukushima – sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/2015/10/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster/

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      I’m not sure where that image is from, but that’s not the Fukushima Daiichi I know. That appears to be a petrochemical process plant.

      Loss of outside power has happened a number of times at nuclear plants in the US. Fukushima Daiichi was a different matter and design.

      1. Ben Slone Avatar

        Sorry, I meant offsite…

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        here’s the link I provided in my original post upthread:

        sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/2015/10/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster/

        check it and let me know if it’s wrong.

        here’s another:

        stevehart.co.nz/fukushima-radiation-disaster-in-japan/

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          Larry Lies — not news there. But to sell their unreliable wind and solar, attacking nuclear has been a standard ploy for forty years. Meanwhile my granddaughter is in an unheated home because of these morons.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        That dastardly kaiju!

      2. Ben Slone Avatar

        Wait a minute, wasn’t Godzilla a result of nuclear weapon testing? He should have more respect…

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          By George I think you right, well at least one of the meanings behind him.

      3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        I wonder if the Japanese will come up with a new monster to fight Godzilla… Fukuzilla.

  24. LarrytheG Avatar

    Father was a Marine. We moved around every 2-3 years. We rented a lot of houses and in the early days – they were heated with oil circulators… there were no heat pumps… In places like Texas, SW USA, “swamp coolers” were the “central air”.

    I’d have to think that way back then – that on a per-capita basis – we used LESS energy to heat/cool homes… AND bad weather might take down power lines but that oil circulator just kept on heating. Of course, one of the side effects wa the amount of dust/dirt that would accumulate in the house.

    2000 people still without power in the REC cooperative district.

  25. LarrytheG Avatar

    Father was a Marine. We moved around every 2-3 years. We rented a lot of houses and in the early days – they were heated with oil circulators… there were no heat pumps… In places like Texas, SW USA, “swamp coolers” were the “central air”.

    I’d have to think that way back then – that on a per-capita basis – we used LESS energy to heat/cool homes… AND bad weather might take down power lines but that oil circulator just kept on heating. Of course, one of the side effects wa the amount of dust/dirt that would accumulate in the house.

    2000 people still without power in the REC cooperative district.

  26. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Abilene is dry. Outta water. No whiskey either.

  27. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Abilene is dry. Outta water. No whiskey either.

  28. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” So when confronted with the fact that you’ve attributed not one but two pictures incorrectly today, you attack me”

    let’s say returned the favor… maybe once for every ten

    go cry

  29. Ben Slone Avatar

    That image space contains a number of Fukushima images, but not all. But that aside…

    The loss of offsite power is a risk that is addressed by the incorporation of battery backup, redundant emergency diesel generation capacity, and steam driven pumps. Most types of new nuclear plants don’t have as much reliance on those systems (e.g., AP 1000 & 600, most SMR, and metal).

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Perhaps the newer ones – but distinctly remember a time when the North Anna plant was going to have to shut down because it had lost grid power and they were not confident about their onsite backups… I think it might have been the case that they had not been regularly exercised and at least one was not starting up like it should have…

      Bigger point – even Nukes have to shut down sometimes on short notice – and the rest of the sources on the grid have to come online and generate.

      It’s what grids have to do. It’s what PJM establishes as it’s standard for reliability. It’s not a new or novel concept.

  30. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    https://abc13.com/weather/systemwide-power-failure-reported-during-winter-storm/10340431/

    “The CEO of Texas’ Electric Reliability Council of Texas, better known as ERCOT, announced Sunday that the supply of natural gas to power plants was limited, and half of the system’s wind turbines had frozen, keeping at least 12k megawatts offline. ERCOT has a grid condition alert system that is now in ‘conservation alert’ status as consumption spikes across the state.”

    What can the environmentalists do to ensure that wind turbines don’t freeze in Virginia?

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      You cannot control the environment much to peoples chagrin. They should have other resources that they can bring online to stabilize power requirements in the case of episodes like this.

      Batteries only last so long when they got a good draw on them, complete reliance of Wind and Solar farms in unrealistic. We’d be better of following Canada’s lead and get a vast majority from Hydro.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Not as much as one might think:

        ” Yellowknifers asked to conserve power as Snare Falls hydro plant goes offline

        Broken turbine in N.W.T. costs $40K/day in extra diesel

        A broken turbine at the Snare Falls hydroelectric plant caused a power outage in Yellowknife last Sunday and continues to cost $40,000 a day in supplementary diesel power, says the N.W.T. Power Corporation.

        It will take an estimated two to six weeks to repair the turbine depending on the availability of parts, according to a news release issued Friday.”

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          That has what do with my comment?

          https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/snare-falls-nwt-offline-1.5557179

          A reduction in power isn’t “no” power.

        2. Things break, Larry. A single mechanical failure at a hydro-electric plant does not mean hydro-electric power is not viable and that its use should not be increased.

          Matt A. posted an opinion that the use of hydro power should be increased in the U.S. You posted a headline about a single mechanical failure at one hydro-electric power plant, along with the snide comment “Not as much as one might think”. Why did you do that? Are you saying hydro-electric power is not a viable source of electricity?

          By the way, the turbine was shut down on Dec 11, 2020 and was put back on line December 23/24, 2020. So it looks like they were closer to two weeks than six in completing their repair.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            I don’t believe he’s aware that close to 60% of Canada’s power generation comes from Hydro. Which is why they comically refer to them as hydro poles vs utility poles.

  31. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    https://abc13.com/weather/systemwide-power-failure-reported-during-winter-storm/10340431/

    “The CEO of Texas’ Electric Reliability Council of Texas, better known as ERCOT, announced Sunday that the supply of natural gas to power plants was limited, and half of the system’s wind turbines had frozen, keeping at least 12k megawatts offline. ERCOT has a grid condition alert system that is now in ‘conservation alert’ status as consumption spikes across the state.”

    What can the environmentalists do to ensure that wind turbines don’t freeze in Virginia?

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      You cannot control the environment much to peoples chagrin. They should have other resources that they can bring online to stabilize power requirements in the case of episodes like this.

      Batteries only last so long when they got a good draw on them, complete reliance of Wind and Solar farms in unrealistic. We’d be better of following Canada’s lead and get a vast majority from Hydro.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Not as much as one might think:

        ” Yellowknifers asked to conserve power as Snare Falls hydro plant goes offline

        Broken turbine in N.W.T. costs $40K/day in extra diesel

        A broken turbine at the Snare Falls hydroelectric plant caused a power outage in Yellowknife last Sunday and continues to cost $40,000 a day in supplementary diesel power, says the N.W.T. Power Corporation.

        It will take an estimated two to six weeks to repair the turbine depending on the availability of parts, according to a news release issued Friday.”

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          That has what do with my comment?

          https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/snare-falls-nwt-offline-1.5557179

          A reduction in power isn’t “no” power.

        2. Things break, Larry. A single mechanical failure at a hydro-electric plant does not mean hydro-electric power is not viable and that its use should not be increased.

          Matt A. posted an opinion that the use of hydro power should be increased in the U.S. You posted a headline about a single mechanical failure at one hydro-electric power plant, along with the snide comment “Not as much as one might think”. Why did you do that? Are you saying hydro-electric power is not a viable source of electricity?

          By the way, the turbine was shut down on Dec 11, 2020 and was put back on line December 23/24, 2020. So it looks like they were closer to two weeks than six in completing their repair.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            I don’t believe he’s aware that close to 60% of Canada’s power generation comes from Hydro. Which is why they comically refer to them as hydro poles vs utility poles.

  32. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    Texas debacle is all as predicted here many years ago. And as clearly demonstrated in California for many years too. Ideology of a few is a disease that does great harm to many other innocent people. Here we have a classic example of the pernicious consequences of that horrible disease.

  33. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    Texas debacle is all as predicted here many years ago. And as clearly demonstrated in California for many years too. Ideology of a few is a disease that does great harm to many other innocent people. Here we have a classic example of the pernicious consequences of that horrible disease.

  34. People are missing an essential aspect of the problem. Yes, gas plants sometimes go offline. So do nukes. So do coal plants. But typically they go offline for different reasons, and they don’t all go offline at the same time. What we’re doing in Virginia is moving toward a system that relies exclusively on wind and solar (and perhaps nuclear, if environmental groups don’t kill them off, too). The more diverse your sources of energy, the less vulnerable you are to a system-wide disaster. Conversely, the more you depend upon wind and solar, the more vulnerable you are to system-wide disruptions by extreme weather events.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Jim, as you say, individual plants of any kind go offline – other plants stay up.

      How likely is it that hundreds or thousands of solar panels and wind across a wide region will go down at once?

      And even if they did, all that really means is that we DO NEED diverse sources to back up all the others.

      It’s no more an argument against any source than another.

      wind/solar are no more or less vulnerable on the whole than other sources and the more sites you have for wind/solar, the higher th likelihood that some will stay up and running and not be affected by weather.

      No one in their right mind is saying wind/solar exclusively and shut down everything else. Those people do exist on the far left just as we have wackadoodles on the far right.

      What do more reasonable people – in the middle – both Conservative and Liberal think?

      You guys are always bringing up boogeymen in your narratives and to what effect?

      It just demonstrates a bias not really an objective perspective.

      You guys have been around for ages – and always, too many of you arguing against change… ya’ll were opposed to cleaner cars, HVAC efficiency, just about every advance to lower pollution is met with opposition and whataboutism…. geeze..

      1. “How likely is it that hundreds or thousands of solar panels and wind across a wide region will go down at once?”

        Ask Texas. Almost half of their 10,000+ turbines are down due to freezing.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Even when they don’t go offline…

      Remember Enron? Duke? California?

    3. Matt Adams Avatar

      They aren’t missing the point, they were being willfully obtuse. Instead of admitting that complete reliance on “green” tech is a bad thing, they’ll gladly go over Niagara Falls saying everything is fine.

      I pointed out in my home state that the Wind Turbines in the Laurel Highlands sit idle most every day. They are and eyesore if they aren’t operating as intended. What was the point of their construction along a stretch that most often doesn’t have wind, if they aren’t operating and generating power.

      All these green energy solutions have environmental impacts that people just want to excuse because well it’s green. If they were outraged by Horizon spill and it’s damaging effects on the wildlife they should be similarly upset about the wind turbines destroying birds, turtles and the likes habitats.

      We should operating under an all of the above energy production method, slowly phasing out fossil fuels (realizing if you just cut bait you’re making more poor people to support). However, you’re never going to really get away from protroluem, there are too many goods produced as it’s byproducts that people will not give up.

      Murphy always gets a say, so plan accordingly.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        re: ” Instead of admitting that complete reliance on “green” tech is a bad thing,”

        This guy has NEVER said that and says over and over , we should NEVER do that and we should continue to use gas when we can and even more Nukes when we can make them safer.

        It’s never been an all or nothing, either/or, black and white argument and those that portray it as such just simply lack any kind of a reasonable perspective.

        We CAN …….. REDUCE our reliance on fossil fuels, and we can do it without sacrificing reliability or capacity. No one I know is proposing otherwise.

        Yes, there are some wackadoodles on the left – as well as on the right – but continuing to point to them as the prevailing view is as strawman as you can get… and totally disingenuous to boot!

      2. “What was the point of their construction along a stretch that most often doesn’t have wind, if they aren’t operating and generating power.”

        Modern art?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          I suppose, I did type incorrectly. That section gets plenty of wind, they turbines just don’t operate for whatever reason.

        2. idiocracy Avatar

          I am reminded of the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket saying, “You’re so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!”

    4. Texas is waiting on the expensive off-shore wind, for costs to come down. We are going full speed ahead because we want to “Take the Lead”. But if we put solar on every acre of level Va. ground and on every roof top, we may not need to so much off-shore wind.

    5. Ben Slone Avatar

      And for some more fun, this just in from the WSJ – https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        yep – that WSJ Opinion – and what I expected.. WSJ opinions are more often than not – Conservative rhetoric and beliefs rather than realities.

        ” Yet the power grid is becoming less reliable due to growing reliance on wind and solar, which can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

        What justifies that statement?
        How is that statement backed up beyond just opinion? I suspect it’s not.

        One presumes that Texas already had all the gas plants (and other sources) they needed PRIOR to them building their first wind turbine and that they just cut back on the gas production when wind was available – as opposed to dismantling them. Did they shut them down and dismantle them when they built wind?

        If they did, it clearly was dumb. Why not keep those plants and have them “ready” when they might be needed – LIKE when there are other power outages NOT DUE to winter weather but maybe peak demand in the summer?

        I’m not one that thinks we can switch over from gas to wind/solar 100%. You still need to maintain backup reserves – like always so here’s the question to get answered.

        What does the Electric Reliability Council of Texas say about grid reliability? Are THEY saying that the grid has been rendered unreliable due to building wind turbines?

        If they have, it would be nothing short of say PJM allowing more and more renewables and essentially shirking their namesake role – reliability.

        We hear in BR that PJM actually has a number – for the max number of renewables without harming reliability. I presume the Texas version of them has also.

        So is this yet another right-wing canard or is there actually something do it? TBD?

        1. “WSJ opinions are more often than not – Conservative rhetoric and beliefs rather than realities.”

          In your opinion…

        2. “” Yet the power grid is becoming less reliable due to growing reliance on wind and solar, which can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

          What justifies that statement?
          How is that statement backed up beyond just opinion? I suspect it’s not.”

          How about almost half of Texas’s wind power generation capabilities being out of service due to frozen turbines? Texas is behind only the U.S. as a country, China, and a couple of European countries in its use of wind power – as of last year more than 20% of their electricity production depended on wind power. Is the sudden loss of 10% of their total generating capacity a result of INCREASED reliability?

        3. “One presumes that Texas already had all the gas plants (and other sources) they needed PRIOR to them building their first wind turbine and that they just cut back on the gas production when wind was available – as opposed to dismantling them. ”

          Why would one “presume” that? And why are you allowed to “presume” but others must provide you with cold, hard, facts or be accused of not knowing what they are talking about?

    6. wonderbread Avatar
      wonderbread

      I think there’s going to be an interesting story here about how best to set up energy markets. It seems like the Texas market prizes low cost over edge case reliability. This isn’t the first, or even second, time their grid has completely crapped out during extreme cold, and renewables weren’t part of the picture before.

      Renewables are no different than any other energy source, in that they bring their own set of mitigatable failure modes. Market architecture will be crucial to making sure these are managed acceptably as the grid decarbonizes.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Uh yep. Happens roughly every 10 years in Texas.

        There are 4 words the native Texans used a lot when I was there, “It’s usually not so…,” followed by “hot”, “cold”, “wet”, “dry”, “windy”,…

        Had a buddy plumbed in a NG genset for the outages. They lost power the next year and after 3 days, the gas company shutdown the pipelines because of fear of fires. They got power back two days later.

  35. People are missing an essential aspect of the problem. Yes, gas plants sometimes go offline. So do nukes. So do coal plants. But typically they go offline for different reasons, and they don’t all go offline at the same time. What we’re doing in Virginia is moving toward a system that relies exclusively on wind and solar (and perhaps nuclear, if environmental groups don’t kill them off, too). The more diverse your sources of energy, the less vulnerable you are to a system-wide disaster. Conversely, the more you depend upon wind and solar, the more vulnerable you are to system-wide disruptions by extreme weather events.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Jim, as you say, individual plants of any kind go offline – other plants stay up.

      How likely is it that hundreds or thousands of solar panels and wind across a wide region will go down at once?

      And even if they did, all that really means is that we DO NEED diverse sources to back up all the others.

      It’s no more an argument against any source than another.

      wind/solar are no more or less vulnerable on the whole than other sources and the more sites you have for wind/solar, the higher th likelihood that some will stay up and running and not be affected by weather.

      No one in their right mind is saying wind/solar exclusively and shut down everything else. Those people do exist on the far left just as we have wackadoodles on the far right.

      What do more reasonable people – in the middle – both Conservative and Liberal think?

      You guys are always bringing up boogeymen in your narratives and to what effect?

      It just demonstrates a bias not really an objective perspective.

      You guys have been around for ages – and always, too many of you arguing against change… ya’ll were opposed to cleaner cars, HVAC efficiency, just about every advance to lower pollution is met with opposition and whataboutism…. geeze..

      1. “How likely is it that hundreds or thousands of solar panels and wind across a wide region will go down at once?”

        Ask Texas. Almost half of their 10,000+ turbines are down due to freezing.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Even when they don’t go offline…

      Remember Enron? Duke? California?

    3. Matt Adams Avatar

      They aren’t missing the point, they were being willfully obtuse. Instead of admitting that complete reliance on “green” tech is a bad thing, they’ll gladly go over Niagara Falls saying everything is fine.

      I pointed out in my home state that the Wind Turbines in the Laurel Highlands sit idle most every day. They are and eyesore if they aren’t operating as intended. What was the point of their construction along a stretch that most often doesn’t have wind, if they aren’t operating and generating power.

      All these green energy solutions have environmental impacts that people just want to excuse because well it’s green. If they were outraged by Horizon spill and it’s damaging effects on the wildlife they should be similarly upset about the wind turbines destroying birds, turtles and the likes habitats.

      We should operating under an all of the above energy production method, slowly phasing out fossil fuels (realizing if you just cut bait you’re making more poor people to support). However, you’re never going to really get away from protroluem, there are too many goods produced as it’s byproducts that people will not give up.

      Murphy always gets a say, so plan accordingly.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        re: ” Instead of admitting that complete reliance on “green” tech is a bad thing,”

        This guy has NEVER said that and says over and over , we should NEVER do that and we should continue to use gas when we can and even more Nukes when we can make them safer.

        It’s never been an all or nothing, either/or, black and white argument and those that portray it as such just simply lack any kind of a reasonable perspective.

        We CAN …….. REDUCE our reliance on fossil fuels, and we can do it without sacrificing reliability or capacity. No one I know is proposing otherwise.

        Yes, there are some wackadoodles on the left – as well as on the right – but continuing to point to them as the prevailing view is as strawman as you can get… and totally disingenuous to boot!

      2. “What was the point of their construction along a stretch that most often doesn’t have wind, if they aren’t operating and generating power.”

        Modern art?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          I suppose, I did type incorrectly. That section gets plenty of wind, they turbines just don’t operate for whatever reason.

        2. idiocracy Avatar

          I am reminded of the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket saying, “You’re so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!”

    4. Texas is waiting on the expensive off-shore wind, for costs to come down. We are going full speed ahead because we want to “Take the Lead”. But if we put solar on every acre of level Va. ground and on every roof top, we may not need to so much off-shore wind.

    5. Ben Slone Avatar

      And for some more fun, this just in from the WSJ – https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        yep – that WSJ Opinion – and what I expected.. WSJ opinions are more often than not – Conservative rhetoric and beliefs rather than realities.

        ” Yet the power grid is becoming less reliable due to growing reliance on wind and solar, which can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

        What justifies that statement?
        How is that statement backed up beyond just opinion? I suspect it’s not.

        One presumes that Texas already had all the gas plants (and other sources) they needed PRIOR to them building their first wind turbine and that they just cut back on the gas production when wind was available – as opposed to dismantling them. Did they shut them down and dismantle them when they built wind?

        If they did, it clearly was dumb. Why not keep those plants and have them “ready” when they might be needed – LIKE when there are other power outages NOT DUE to winter weather but maybe peak demand in the summer?

        I’m not one that thinks we can switch over from gas to wind/solar 100%. You still need to maintain backup reserves – like always so here’s the question to get answered.

        What does the Electric Reliability Council of Texas say about grid reliability? Are THEY saying that the grid has been rendered unreliable due to building wind turbines?

        If they have, it would be nothing short of say PJM allowing more and more renewables and essentially shirking their namesake role – reliability.

        We hear in BR that PJM actually has a number – for the max number of renewables without harming reliability. I presume the Texas version of them has also.

        So is this yet another right-wing canard or is there actually something do it? TBD?

        1. “” Yet the power grid is becoming less reliable due to growing reliance on wind and solar, which can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

          What justifies that statement?
          How is that statement backed up beyond just opinion? I suspect it’s not.”

          How about almost half of Texas’s wind power generation capabilities being out of service due to frozen turbines? Texas is behind only the U.S. as a country, China, and a couple of European countries in its use of wind power – as of last year more than 20% of their electricity production depended on wind power. Is the sudden loss of 10% of their total generating capacity a result of INCREASED reliability?

        2. “One presumes that Texas already had all the gas plants (and other sources) they needed PRIOR to them building their first wind turbine and that they just cut back on the gas production when wind was available – as opposed to dismantling them. ”

          Why would one “presume” that? And why are you allowed to “presume” but others must provide you with cold, hard, facts or be accused of not knowing what they are talking about?

        3. “WSJ opinions are more often than not – Conservative rhetoric and beliefs rather than realities.”

          In your opinion…

    6. wonderbread Avatar
      wonderbread

      I think there’s going to be an interesting story here about how best to set up energy markets. It seems like the Texas market prizes low cost over edge case reliability. This isn’t the first, or even second, time their grid has completely crapped out during extreme cold, and renewables weren’t part of the picture before.

      Renewables are no different than any other energy source, in that they bring their own set of mitigatable failure modes. Market architecture will be crucial to making sure these are managed acceptably as the grid decarbonizes.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Uh yep. Happens roughly every 10 years in Texas.

        There are 4 words the native Texans used a lot when I was there, “It’s usually not so…,” followed by “hot”, “cold”, “wet”, “dry”, “windy”,…

        Had a buddy plumbed in a NG genset for the outages. They lost power the next year and after 3 days, the gas company shutdown the pipelines because of fear of fires. They got power back two days later.

  36. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    If we are going all in on green energy then legislatures need to outlaw any personal residential generators or fireplaces that utilize fossil fuels. These wealthy Wypipo who push this on the public (including economically disadvantaged people largely BIPOCs who can’t afford “backup” power) should have to suffer the same power/ heat outages as us little people.

  37. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    If we are going all in on green energy then legislatures need to outlaw any personal residential generators or fireplaces that utilize fossil fuels. These wealthy Wypipo who push this on the public (including economically disadvantaged people largely BIPOCs who can’t afford “backup” power) should have to suffer the same power/ heat outages as us little people.

  38. LarrytheG Avatar

    yes, the “king” of personal attacks is lecturing others… while he also overloads of pure blather… don’t you actually have a real job anymore?

    https://skytruth.org/2017/03/fracking-coming-to-a-backyard-near-you/

    ballotpedia.org/Fracking_in_Pennsylvania#:~:text=As%20of%20May%201%2C%202017,vertical%20wells%20stimulated%20by%20fracking.

  39. Wow I happened on a Twitter thread…boy are they mad in TX and cold!
    https://twitter.com/JudgeClayJ/status/1361508189024509954?s=20

    Don’t forget Texas is its own grid, whereas we have PJM grid.

    You know, not too many years ago, Texas was planning I dunno something like 25 or 30 new coal plants to meet their power needs. I was very happy that did not happen. But obviously they took short-cuts (if you look at the Twitter thread).

    I mean I am going to go to my grave being upset about state/utility management of power. It is not like regular industry that works, it is public opinion powered.

    1. …and politics

      1. Ben Slone Avatar

        Yes, grid and generation design, maintenance, and operation is a fascinating art. And unfortunately not an engineering matter.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      Doesn’t Texas have their own version of PJM, though?

      One would think, given Texas economy with oil and gas that they’d have LOTS and LOTS of cheap gas to power gas plants AND that it would be a good idea to have them – at the ready – not only for winter storms but summer hurricanes and hot summers with peak demand for air conditioning…

      Wind will never be a 100% replacement but wind is cheaper than gas – when it is available and you can use it instead of gas.

      that’s all this really is. It was never about trying to replace all gas with all wind… only in the minds of those who want to make it a political or climate change issue. The vast majority of folks just want a reliable and cost-effective grid – and to use cheaper fuel by all means when you can.

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      I hope they’re also heating the oil in the gear box. That can be a problem depending on the temperature.

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      I hope they’re also heating the oil in the gear box. That can be a problem depending on the temperature.

  40. When Texas ever gets around to building off-shore wind, they will not have to contend with winter weather in the Gulf like we do. They will have hurricane threat but so do we.

  41. LarrytheG Avatar

    de-icing systems for turbines actually already exist…

    A dual de-icing system for wind turbine blades

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960148115004048-gr5.jpg

    and of course, they’d have to be heating the blades BEFORE they ice up and stop!

    did Texas do their turbines on the cheap?

  42. LarrytheG Avatar

    And to point out – that Nukes require grid power themselves – to power the pumps when they get shut down. No grid power , and the backup-gens fail and you get this:

    https://sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/files/2015/10/Fukushima-Daiichi-Nuclear-Plant.jpg

    yes… Armageddon… and yes.. this is Fukushima – sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/2015/10/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster/

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      I’m not sure where that image is from, but that’s not the Fukushima Daiichi I know. That appears to be a petrochemical process plant.

      Loss of outside power has happened a number of times at nuclear plants in the US. Fukushima Daiichi was a different matter and design.

      1. Ben Slone Avatar

        Sorry, I meant offsite…

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        here’s the link I provided in my original post upthread:

        sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/2015/10/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster/

        check it and let me know if it’s wrong.

        here’s another:

        stevehart.co.nz/fukushima-radiation-disaster-in-japan/

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          Larry Lies — not news there. But to sell their unreliable wind and solar, attacking nuclear has been a standard ploy for forty years. Meanwhile my granddaughter is in an unheated home because of these morons.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Steve – no more or less than folks in Virginia right now without power also.

            It’s not a wind/solar thing. It’s weather.. and it works the same way no matter where it happens and has that way for decades LONG BEFORE wind/solar or Nukes!

            Why do you guys insist on this partisan narrative when it’s simple not the truth? We’ve had weather and outages for as long as I can remember way back before wind/solar. Isn’t that the truth?

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          It’s on the internet, it must be true.

          https://atomicinsights.com/absurd-photo-linked-fukushima-fear-mongering-site/

          It’s a Liquefied Petroleum Gas facility in east Japan.

          0 for 2 today.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            it’s right here – fool:

            https://sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/2015/10/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster/

            can you not follow a link?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar

            “LarrytheG | February 16, 2021 at 10:57 am |
            it’s right here – fool:

            https://sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/2015/10/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster/

            can you not follow a link?”

            Again, your image is not Fukushima, merely because someone with the user name of jstraka posted it to suffolk.edu in 2015 doesn’t make it true.

            It’s a LPG facility in east Japan, as indicated by the article that I linked.

            0 of 2 doubling down on the 0.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+disaster&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS915US915&sxsrf=ALeKk03GrJevMv8B-ykiDrwQDirleocp7Q:1613488305491&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj10bCq2O7uAhWpGFkFHZkvAD8Q_AUoA3oECBcQBQ&biw=1280&bih=578#imgrc=MgRm8IcDrZZ_YM

            the “picture” is not the point anyhow… even if it was wrong and it appears there are other “pictures” but even if it was/is wrong, it’s not the point – the point is that even Nuclear plants have risks of losing grid power and having to rely on fossil fuels to keep from disaster. no different for nukes than other energy sources.

            “doubling down” on dufus ?

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            “the “picture” is not the point anyhow… even if it was wrong and it appears there are other “pictures” but even if it was/is wrong, it’s not the point – the point is that even Nuclear plants have risks of losing grid power and having to rely on fossil fuels to keep from disaster. no different for nukes than other energy sources.

            “doubling down” on dufus ?”

            So when confronted with the fact that you’ve attributed not one but two pictures incorrectly today, you attack me.

            If you ever question why people won’t engage you for any form of rational debate, here’s your proof.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        That dastardly kaiju!

      2. Ben Slone Avatar

        Wait a minute, wasn’t Godzilla a result of nuclear weapon testing? He should have more respect…

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          By George I think you right, well at least one of the meanings behind him.

      3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        I wonder if the Japanese will come up with a new monster to fight Godzilla… Fukuzilla.

  43. Ben Slone Avatar

    Unfortunately the images at that site are incorrect. The tanks and process lines like this are typically found at a petrochemical plant and usually not close to a nuclear plant. Too much risk that can be easily avoided.

    There are some images in some of the reports at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) at http://fukushima.ans.org/additionalresources. And a few more at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) page at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard.html.

    The general site appeared like this pre-event…
    http://trendintech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Fukushima-Daiichi-Site.jpg

      1. One way to tell a fake from a real photo of Fukushima: Most of the buildings at Fukushima are rectangular. If an aerial photo includes a bunch of round or cylindrical tanks/structures then it is probably not a photo of the reactors at Fukushima.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          and I agree after looking through several and an actual satellite view of the site, and an objective comment from someone who does NOT traffic in personal attacks like some here do, I sure enough got the wrong photo. My bad. My apologies to most but not to idiots who continue to engage in personal attacks. And if that shoe fits , put in on.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            One word: Disingenuous.

            PS: That shoes goes no further than you own feet, Igor.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      “The tanks and process lines like this are typically found at a petrochemical plant and usually not close to a nuclear plant. Too much risk that can be easily avoided.”

      I can think of one exception. Cove Point is 3 miles from Calvert Hills. But, 3 miles… that’s a good separation distance between an LNG facility and a nuke… maybe.

  44. Ben Slone Avatar

    Unfortunately the images at that site are incorrect. The tanks and process lines like this are typically found at a petrochemical plant and usually not close to a nuclear plant. Too much risk that can be easily avoided.

    There are some images in some of the reports at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) at http://fukushima.ans.org/additionalresources. And a few more at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) page at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard.html.

    The general site appeared like this pre-event…
    http://trendintech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Fukushima-Daiichi-Site.jpg

      1. One way to tell a fake from a real photo of Fukushima: Most of the buildings at Fukushima are rectangular. If an aerial photo includes a bunch of round or cylindrical tanks/structures then it is probably not a photo of the reactors at Fukushima.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          and I agree after looking through several and an actual satellite view of the site, and an objective comment from someone who does NOT traffic in personal attacks like some here do, I sure enough got the wrong photo. My bad. My apologies to most but not to idiots who continue to engage in personal attacks. And if that shoe fits , put in on.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            One word: Disingenuous.

            PS: That shoes goes no further than you own feet, Igor.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      “The tanks and process lines like this are typically found at a petrochemical plant and usually not close to a nuclear plant. Too much risk that can be easily avoided.”

      I can think of one exception. Cove Point is 3 miles from Calvert Hills. But, 3 miles… that’s a good separation distance between an LNG facility and a nuke… maybe.

  45. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” So when confronted with the fact that you’ve attributed not one but two pictures incorrectly today, you attack me”

    let’s say returned the favor… maybe once for every ten

    go cry

  46. Ben Slone Avatar

    That image space contains a number of Fukushima images, but not all. But that aside…

    The loss of offsite power is a risk that is addressed by the incorporation of battery backup, redundant emergency diesel generation capacity, and steam driven pumps. Most types of new nuclear plants don’t have as much reliance on those systems (e.g., AP 1000 & 600, most SMR, and metal).

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Perhaps the newer ones – but distinctly remember a time when the North Anna plant was going to have to shut down because it had lost grid power and they were not confident about their onsite backups… I think it might have been the case that they had not been regularly exercised and at least one was not starting up like it should have…

      Bigger point – even Nukes have to shut down sometimes on short notice – and the rest of the sources on the grid have to come online and generate.

      It’s what grids have to do. It’s what PJM establishes as it’s standard for reliability. It’s not a new or novel concept.

  47. Ben Slone Avatar

    I’m not aware of the specific incident, but if NAPS or any US operated nuclear plant has concerns regarding its backup power, it must shutdown, notify the NRC, and take other actions. Out of curiosity, I’ll take a look at the NRC notices on NAPS.

    Nuclear power plants generally have to shut down due to refueling or system repairs. On a very infrequent basis, they “trip” due to actuation of the protection system. Refuelings are scheduled years in advance. System repair outages are minimal due very good preventative maintenance. Trips are a rarity.

    Electric grids are designed for redundancy and backup with generation availability in consideration. Of course that can’t stop the ice storm and the tree falling across the line down the street.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      https://www.nirs.org/east-coast-earthquake-north-anna/

      there are other reports ……different time periods…

  48. Ben Slone Avatar

    I’m not aware of the specific incident, but if NAPS or any US operated nuclear plant has concerns regarding its backup power, it must shutdown, notify the NRC, and take other actions. Out of curiosity, I’ll take a look at the NRC notices on NAPS.

    Nuclear power plants generally have to shut down due to refueling or system repairs. On a very infrequent basis, they “trip” due to actuation of the protection system. Refuelings are scheduled years in advance. System repair outages are minimal due very good preventative maintenance. Trips are a rarity.

    Electric grids are designed for redundancy and backup with generation availability in consideration. Of course that can’t stop the ice storm and the tree falling across the line down the street.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      https://www.nirs.org/east-coast-earthquake-north-anna/

      there are other reports ……different time periods…

  49. Ben Slone Avatar

    Quickly looking at the NAPS’s Technical Specifications, they have four EDGs and need two of the four to be operable when the plants are at power. They also have steam driven cooling pumps. I’ll have to do some more reading when I get a chance.

  50. Ben Slone Avatar

    Quickly looking at the NAPS’s Technical Specifications, they have four EDGs and need two of the four to be operable when the plants are at power. They also have steam driven cooling pumps. I’ll have to do some more reading when I get a chance.

  51. Jim,

    You really touched a nerve with this one. But let me inject some utility realism to the discussion.

    Texas has added a great deal of wind generation to their grid in the past decade. During the peak season, wind can contribute up to 60% of the total demand for electricity in Texas. In winter, grid managers know that wind is likely to contribute only 20%-40% of the maximum wind output available at other times of the year.

    The grid in Texas is designed to primarily rely on other sources of generation in the winter. Most of the recent outages resulted from 27,000 MW of coal, nuclear and gas capacity being unavailable. Gas was diverted for heating uses and often not available for generating electricity. I am guessing, but it is possible that coal piles froze in some locations (as happened here during a polar vortex). And the grid became overloaded because of excessive demand. This caused outages in the grid which could have resulted in nuclear plants tripping offline because there was no outlet for their generation (the same could apply to coal plants). It takes a long time to bring a nuclear plant back online after it makes an emergency shutdown, and it can only do so after the grid is restored so its output has someplace to go.

    Blaming the Texas situation on renewables is an incorrect assumption. Wind generation in Texas exceeded what was forecast during this past weekend. On Monday, solar generation was just slightly below what was in the plan.

    That doesn’t mean that wind output was not affected by the severe weather. The real culprit for the lack of reliability was the freakish nature of the storm. Such severe cold is very rare in Texas, especially when it is accompanied by much higher than normal moisture levels.

    Wind turbines farther north, or those planned for use offshore, would have special provisions (such as heaters) that would avoid icing and other problems. But the need for such measures only once or twice every 100 years would make them an uneconomic investment – which is why they were not installed in the Texas wind turbines.

    Texas also has its own Independent System Operator – ERCOT (which operates like PJM), except that it runs sort of like an island and is not well connected to either the eastern or western grids in the U.S. – so they can’t get much help from elsewhere in times of extreme need.

    You and Steve are important sources of energy-related information in Virginia. I hope this information is not too late to provide some balance to the discussion.

    You are correct to say that we must pay careful attention to how we add new technologies to our grid, but portraying new technologies with a taint of “unreliability” without the proper context can rob us of choices that can result in lower costs and greater reliability if developed in the right way.

    1. Tom, what would the situation in Texas be like if the state had achieved what Virginia hopes to achieve, which is a 100% carbon-free grid by 2050? No gas. No coal. And, who knows, no nuclear. And lots of battery storage. Would the situation be better than now?

      As for the point that the cold snap is a once-in-a-hundred-year phenomenon. I don’t know about that. Global warming orthodoxy tells us that while the planet warms up overall, the jet stream will become more stable and we’ll get more episodes of polar air descending into the 50 states.

      1. Jim,

        Meteorologists say the Texas storm was a once in every 50-year event. But it is possible to have a 1-in-50 year storm two years in a row. Grids are designed to meet circumstances that occur with a certain degree of probability. Ratepayers would not be happy to pay for grids designed for 100% reliability. None are designed that way in the U.S. today.

        I was trying only to point out that the situation in Texas wasn’t a result of the recent expansion of renewable energy in the state, as many were quick to assume. It was a failure of the conventional units that were intended to shoulder the bulk of the winter-time demand.

        While output of solar and wind generation in Texas was affected by the storm, it appears that those sources were still able to contribute within the range that was expected of them.

        There is a general misunderstanding that solar and wind are unreliable. From a grid manager’s perspective they are “intermittent” not “unreliable.” A power dispatcher knows not to count on solar generation at night. Both wind and solar output can now quite accurately be predicted an hour or so in advance, which is plenty of time to arrange for other generators to be available.

        Today, the biggest problems occur when large nuclear or fossil-fired units go offline without notice. That is why a certain amount of generation is kept in spinning-reserve to be able to quickly fill the void in available capacity.

        I think the issue that you and many others are concerned about is how do we maintain reliability when few, if any, fossil-fired units are available.

        We do have several decades to work this out. Independent Systems Operators (such as PJM), state and federal regulators, research institutions, industry trade groups, and innovative new organizations are working on the solutions. Maintaining or improving reliability is foremost on their minds.

        We should focus on the results we want to achieve, such as high reliability, affordable costs, cleaner energy, etc. rather than assume only the old answers are adequate. The ISOs and regulators will determine that the choices made result in reliable service.

        1. Tom said, I think the issue that you and many others are concerned about is how do we maintain reliability when few, if any, fossil-fired units are available.

          That is precisely my concern. The latest I’ve heard, PJM says the grid can handle up to 30% renewables with no concern for reliability. Thus, I’ll all on board for 30% renewables. When PJM says we’ve reached the point where we can handle 50% renewables, I’m all on board for 50%. When PJM says 100%, I’m all on board. Well, price is important, too — I’m still dubious about offshore wind at this point in time — but I’m most concerned about reliability.

          Unfortunately, Virginia’s legislative mandate doesn’t give two hoots about what PJM has to say. It’s damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

    2. Tom,

      Thanks for your contribution. You are apparently more familiar with what’s happening in Texas than most of us.

      “…we must pay careful attention to how we add new technologies to our grid,”

      Now let me add some “realism” to your post with regard to what’s happening in Virginia. In Virginia, we’re not just adding new technologies to the grid. Virginia has mandated migration away from fossil fuels.

      “The Act requires Dominion Energy Virginia to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2045 and Appalachian Power to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2050. It requires nearly all coal-fired plants to close by the end of 2024.”

      https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/april/headline-856056-en.html

    3. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Some records are permanently broken, playing the same tune over and over, going down into oblivion, have an excuse for everything but the obvious truth of the matter, another iteration of the ideologue.

  52. Jim,

    You really touched a nerve with this one. But let me inject some utility realism to the discussion.

    Texas has added a great deal of wind generation to their grid in the past decade. During the peak season, wind can contribute up to 60% of the total demand for electricity in Texas. In winter, grid managers know that wind is likely to contribute only 20%-40% of the maximum wind output available at other times of the year.

    The grid in Texas is designed to primarily rely on other sources of generation in the winter. Most of the recent outages resulted from 27,000 MW of coal, nuclear and gas capacity being unavailable. Gas was diverted for heating uses and often not available for generating electricity. I am guessing, but it is possible that coal piles froze in some locations (as happened here during a polar vortex). And the grid became overloaded because of excessive demand. This caused outages in the grid which could have resulted in nuclear plants tripping offline because there was no outlet for their generation (the same could apply to coal plants). It takes a long time to bring a nuclear plant back online after it makes an emergency shutdown, and it can only do so after the grid is restored so its output has someplace to go.

    Blaming the Texas situation on renewables is an incorrect assumption. Wind generation in Texas exceeded what was forecast during this past weekend. On Monday, solar generation was just slightly below what was in the plan.

    That doesn’t mean that wind output was not affected by the severe weather. The real culprit for the lack of reliability was the freakish nature of the storm. Such severe cold is very rare in Texas, especially when it is accompanied by much higher than normal moisture levels.

    Wind turbines farther north, or those planned for use offshore, would have special provisions (such as heaters) that would avoid icing and other problems. But the need for such measures only once or twice every 100 years would make them an uneconomic investment – which is why they were not installed in the Texas wind turbines.

    Texas also has its own Independent System Operator – ERCOT (which operates like PJM), except that it runs sort of like an island and is not well connected to either the eastern or western grids in the U.S. – so they can’t get much help from elsewhere in times of extreme need.

    You and Steve are important sources of energy-related information in Virginia. I hope this information is not too late to provide some balance to the discussion.

    You are correct to say that we must pay careful attention to how we add new technologies to our grid, but portraying new technologies with a taint of “unreliability” without the proper context can rob us of choices that can result in lower costs and greater reliability if developed in the right way.

    1. Tom, what would the situation in Texas be like if the state had achieved what Virginia hopes to achieve, which is a 100% carbon-free grid by 2050? No gas. No coal. And, who knows, no nuclear. And lots of battery storage. Would the situation be better than now?

      As for the point that the cold snap is a once-in-a-hundred-year phenomenon. I don’t know about that. Global warming orthodoxy tells us that while the planet warms up overall, the jet stream will become more stable and we’ll get more episodes of polar air descending into the 50 states.

      1. Jim,

        Meteorologists say the Texas storm was a once in every 50-year event. But it is possible to have a 1-in-50 year storm two years in a row. Grids are designed to meet circumstances that occur with a certain degree of probability. Ratepayers would not be happy to pay for grids designed for 100% reliability. None are designed that way in the U.S. today.

        I was trying only to point out that the situation in Texas wasn’t a result of the recent expansion of renewable energy in the state, as many were quick to assume. It was a failure of the conventional units that were intended to shoulder the bulk of the winter-time demand.

        While output of solar and wind generation in Texas was affected by the storm, it appears that those sources were still able to contribute within the range that was expected of them.

        There is a general misunderstanding that solar and wind are unreliable. From a grid manager’s perspective they are “intermittent” not “unreliable.” A power dispatcher knows not to count on solar generation at night. Both wind and solar output can now quite accurately be predicted an hour or so in advance, which is plenty of time to arrange for other generators to be available.

        Today, the biggest problems occur when large nuclear or fossil-fired units go offline without notice. That is why a certain amount of generation is kept in spinning-reserve to be able to quickly fill the void in available capacity.

        I think the issue that you and many others are concerned about is how do we maintain reliability when few, if any, fossil-fired units are available.

        We do have several decades to work this out. Independent Systems Operators (such as PJM), state and federal regulators, research institutions, industry trade groups, and innovative new organizations are working on the solutions. Maintaining or improving reliability is foremost on their minds.

        We should focus on the results we want to achieve, such as high reliability, affordable costs, cleaner energy, etc. rather than assume only the old answers are adequate. The ISOs and regulators will determine that the choices made result in reliable service.

        1. Tom said, I think the issue that you and many others are concerned about is how do we maintain reliability when few, if any, fossil-fired units are available.

          That is precisely my concern. The latest I’ve heard, PJM says the grid can handle up to 30% renewables with no concern for reliability. Thus, I’ll all on board for 30% renewables. When PJM says we’ve reached the point where we can handle 50% renewables, I’m all on board for 50%. When PJM says 100%, I’m all on board. Well, price is important, too — I’m still dubious about offshore wind at this point in time — but I’m most concerned about reliability.

          Unfortunately, Virginia’s legislative mandate doesn’t give two hoots about what PJM has to say. It’s damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

    2. Tom,

      Thanks for your contribution. You are apparently more familiar with what’s happening in Texas than most of us.

      “…we must pay careful attention to how we add new technologies to our grid,”

      Now let me add some “realism” to your post with regard to what’s happening in Virginia. In Virginia, we’re not just adding new technologies to the grid. Virginia has mandated migration away from fossil fuels.

      “The Act requires Dominion Energy Virginia to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2045 and Appalachian Power to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2050. It requires nearly all coal-fired plants to close by the end of 2024.”

      https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/april/headline-856056-en.html

    3. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Some records are permanently broken, playing the same tune over and over, going down into oblivion, have an excuse for everything but the obvious truth of the matter, another iteration of the ideologue.

  53. The implications for us is to learn more about how the design and cost of on-shore wind in the Appalachians compares to Texas. I drive through that Appalachian wind corridor often, and I can tell you winters are quite severe up there in the PA/MD mountains. Maybe we have smaller turbines with heaters – I just do not know, because that kind of info is restricted- restricted because liberals feel it is a treasonous offense to talk about the negatives and cost. But the findings of that review pertain to the off-shore wind design situation on the East Coast.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Hey man I got called every name in the book for pointing out the Wind Turbines you can see on the turnpike in PA hardly ever turn (that’s not just in winter) and they are therefore an eyesore.

      I just don’t see the point of something causing an environmental impact if it’s not going to operate as intended.

      1. Well there is really only one long mountaintop ridge that extends from PA to MD to WV that has the awesome wind power potential. If you drive down the ridge, say get off PA Trnpke at Somerset and cut down to I68 via Rt 60 or something you realize there must be thousands of turbines. Some places its so cool it looks like its going cut your car in half. I do not find it a particular problem…I think that’s where Va. should build out before off-shore – but I am assuming it is cost- effective and eco-sound. Too bad we do not have that ridge in Va.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          You would be correct, it’s the Laurel Highlands.

          My in-laws live at the bottom of that mountain. However, if I’m stopping at Somerset, it’s winter and for skiing.

          I don’t have a problem with their construction, I take issue with the fact that they are hardly ever operate. So what was the point of their construction in the first place.

          1. I don’t know if anyone knows more about how/when the operate. Presumably they are optimizing maintenance costs vs. energy profits. Subsidies presumably made it economic to build them.

  54. The implications for us is to learn more about how the design and cost of on-shore wind in the Appalachians compares to Texas. I drive through that Appalachian wind corridor often, and I can tell you winters are quite severe up there in the PA/MD mountains. Maybe we have smaller turbines with heaters – I just do not know, because that kind of info is restricted- restricted because liberals feel it is a treasonous offense to talk about the negatives and cost. But the findings of that review pertain to the off-shore wind design situation on the East Coast.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Hey man I got called every name in the book for pointing out the Wind Turbines you can see on the turnpike in PA hardly ever turn (that’s not just in winter) and they are therefore an eyesore.

      I just don’t see the point of something causing an environmental impact if it’s not going to operate as intended.

      1. Well there is really only one long mountaintop ridge that extends from PA to MD to WV that has the awesome wind power potential. If you drive down the ridge, say get off PA Trnpke at Somerset and cut down to I68 via Rt 60 or something you realize there must be thousands of turbines. Some places its so cool it looks like its going cut your car in half. I do not find it a particular problem…I think that’s where Va. should build out before off-shore – but I am assuming it is cost- effective and eco-sound. Too bad we do not have that ridge in Va.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          You would be correct, it’s the Laurel Highlands.

          My in-laws live at the bottom of that mountain. However, if I’m stopping at Somerset, it’s winter and for skiing.

          I don’t have a problem with their construction, I take issue with the fact that they are hardly ever operate. So what was the point of their construction in the first place.

          1. I don’t know if anyone knows more about how/when the operate. Presumably they are optimizing maintenance costs vs. energy profits. Subsidies presumably made it economic to build them.

  55. From Larry’s world: WSJ opinions are more often than not – Conservative rhetoric and beliefs rather than realities.”
    Yet the power grid is becoming less reliable due to growing reliance on wind and solar, which can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
    What justifies that statement? How is that statement backed up beyond just opinion? I suspect it’s not.

    I wonder if he even reads what he says sometimes. Not counting the fact that it has to be daytime to use solar, the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy says: “The wind does not always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine.”

    https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-radiation-basics
    “Atmospheric conditions can reduce direct beam radiation by 10% on clear, dry days and by 100% during thick, cloudy days.”

    I suppose that’s conservative rhetoric, too.

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      Well you’ve heard that they are working on developing a version of solar that works at night? It’s called “lunar”.

      Bad joke, yes it is.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      No. Conservative rhetoric is claiming that wind/solar are not useful fuels because they are intermittent and then DUMBLY and ignorantly blaming them for things like Texas when we have decades of events like Texas long before there was wind/solar.

      That’s what’s “Conservative” AND DUMB!

      It’s not an objective position. It’s purely a partisan one that has no basis in realities , just what some want to believe no matter the facts and that’s WHY it is on the OPINION page – even WSJ knows that’s not the facts.

      I’ll tell you the truth Carol I do not understand folks who think this way It’s clearly not objective. It’s blind opposition to things you don’t like without rhyme or reason other than the canards and disinformation that some seem to thrive on.

      Wind and Solar have their place in the energy mix just like the other fuels. And they have their impacts and they have their shortcomings – just like other fuels.

      It’s not a all or nothing proposition – except to some folks, often Conservative and yep, the other side also.

      1. No sir. You don’t EVER engage in personal attacks. Nope.

  56. From Larry’s world: WSJ opinions are more often than not – Conservative rhetoric and beliefs rather than realities.”
    Yet the power grid is becoming less reliable due to growing reliance on wind and solar, which can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
    What justifies that statement? How is that statement backed up beyond just opinion? I suspect it’s not.

    I wonder if he even reads what he says sometimes. Not counting the fact that it has to be daytime to use solar, the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy says: “The wind does not always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine.”

    https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-radiation-basics
    “Atmospheric conditions can reduce direct beam radiation by 10% on clear, dry days and by 100% during thick, cloudy days.”

    I suppose that’s conservative rhetoric, too.

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      Well you’ve heard that they are working on developing a version of solar that works at night? It’s called “lunar”.

      Bad joke, yes it is.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      No. Conservative rhetoric is claiming that wind/solar are not useful fuels because they are intermittent and then DUMBLY and ignorantly blaming them for things like Texas when we have decades of events like Texas long before there was wind/solar.

      That’s what’s “Conservative” AND DUMB!

      It’s not an objective position. It’s purely a partisan one that has no basis in realities , just what some want to believe no matter the facts and that’s WHY it is on the OPINION page – even WSJ knows that’s not the facts.

      I’ll tell you the truth Carol I do not understand folks who think this way It’s clearly not objective. It’s blind opposition to things you don’t like without rhyme or reason other than the canards and disinformation that some seem to thrive on.

      Wind and Solar have their place in the energy mix just like the other fuels. And they have their impacts and they have their shortcomings – just like other fuels.

      It’s not a all or nothing proposition – except to some folks, often Conservative and yep, the other side also.

      1. No sir. You don’t EVER engage in personal attacks. Nope.

  57. i kinda agreed with your analysis when i first read it hours ago…but i’ve since read at Bloomberg that one-third of US oil production is down, including most of that in western Texas, and at Reuters that almost every Gulf Coast refinery from Houston north is also down, as if hit by a hurricane…that plus the Cushing to Patoka pipeline, the main north south oil artery, is also down, seems to suggest that we’re in a unique situation that no amount of preparation could have forecast for…

    editing to add these links:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/u-s-oil-production-has-plunged-by-a-third-amid-deep-freeze?sref=5dj0X2VO

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-texas-weather/oil-refineries-shut-as-texas-energy-industry-reels-from-deep-freeze-idINKBN2AF1QV?utm_source=Energy+News+Network+daily+email+digests&utm_campaign=8684ca8885-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_11_11_39_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_724b1f01f5-8684ca8885-89268535

    1. ok, i guess it doesn’t matter if the Texas oil refineries are down or not, because with both Texas oil production down and the Houston ship channel closed by the cold, there wouldn’t be any oil for them to refine anyhow…

      poor planning on the part of the oil companies, don’t you think?

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        The poorest planning I ever saw on the part of an oil company is when Mobil moved their HQ to Fairfax.

  58. i kinda agreed with your analysis when i first read it hours ago…but i’ve since read at Bloomberg that one-third of US oil production is down, including most of that in western Texas, and at Reuters that almost every Gulf Coast refinery from Houston north is also down, as if hit by a hurricane…that plus the Cushing to Patoka pipeline, the main north south oil artery, is also down, seems to suggest that we’re in a unique situation that no amount of preparation could have forecast for…

    editing to add these links:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/u-s-oil-production-has-plunged-by-a-third-amid-deep-freeze?sref=5dj0X2VO

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-texas-weather/oil-refineries-shut-as-texas-energy-industry-reels-from-deep-freeze-idINKBN2AF1QV?utm_source=Energy+News+Network+daily+email+digests&utm_campaign=8684ca8885-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_11_11_39_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_724b1f01f5-8684ca8885-89268535

    1. ok, i guess it doesn’t matter if the Texas oil refineries are down or not, because with both Texas oil production down and the Houston ship channel closed by the cold, there wouldn’t be any oil for them to refine anyhow…

      poor planning on the part of the oil companies, don’t you think?

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        The poorest planning I ever saw on the part of an oil company is when Mobil moved their HQ to Fairfax.

  59. LarrytheG Avatar

    Too many folks are way too willing to delude themselves with partisan fairy tales and then spread that disinformation, no matter the facts:

    Much of the Texas grid is reliant primarily on gas which should not be that surprising as Texas has an abundance of it.

    Here are the facts from a couple of credible news outlets:

    “CenterPoint Energy Inc., which distributes power to the Houston area, said that Texans’ demand for electricity far outstripped the available generation—and that would likely continue well into Wednesday. “We do expect this to be an extended outage for customers,” it said.

    The crisis began in the early hours of Monday when a series of power plants shut down in rapid succession, prompting Ercot to initially call for rolling blackouts and then institute longer, widespread outages.

    Details of individual failures remained hard to come by on Tuesday, but available information indicated the deep freeze interfered with operations, affecting nearly every major category of electricity producer, from wind to natural gas to even nuclear power. Equipment at power plants froze up, forcing them to shut down, said state officials.

    “The outages were mechanical in nature,” said Andrew Barlow, a spokesman for the state’s Public Utility Commission. Ercot officials said power plants that use gas, coal, nuclear energy and the wind to generate electricity all shut down.”

    wsj.com/articles/texas-power-outages-after-deep-freeze-prompt-governor-to-urge-probe-11613513090?mod=hp_lead_pos2

    “Texas largely relies on natural gas for power. It wasn’t ready for the extreme cold.

    Failures across Texas’ natural gas operations and supply chains due to extreme temperatures are the most significant cause of the power crisis that has left millions of Texans without heat and electricity during the winter storm sweeping the U.S.

    From frozen natural gas wells to frozen wind turbines, all sources of power generation have faced difficulties during the winter storm. But Texans largely rely on natural gas for power and heat generation, especially during peak usage, experts said.

    Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said that the primarily cause of the outages on Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers. Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production.”

    https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/#:~:text=Failures%20across%20Texas'%20natural%20gas,winter%20storm%20sweeping%20the%20U.S.

  60. LarrytheG Avatar

    Too many folks are way too willing to delude themselves with partisan fairy tales and then spread that disinformation, no matter the facts:

    Much of the Texas grid is reliant primarily on gas which should not be that surprising as Texas has an abundance of it.

    Here are the facts from a couple of credible news outlets:

    “CenterPoint Energy Inc., which distributes power to the Houston area, said that Texans’ demand for electricity far outstripped the available generation—and that would likely continue well into Wednesday. “We do expect this to be an extended outage for customers,” it said.

    The crisis began in the early hours of Monday when a series of power plants shut down in rapid succession, prompting Ercot to initially call for rolling blackouts and then institute longer, widespread outages.

    Details of individual failures remained hard to come by on Tuesday, but available information indicated the deep freeze interfered with operations, affecting nearly every major category of electricity producer, from wind to natural gas to even nuclear power. Equipment at power plants froze up, forcing them to shut down, said state officials.

    “The outages were mechanical in nature,” said Andrew Barlow, a spokesman for the state’s Public Utility Commission. Ercot officials said power plants that use gas, coal, nuclear energy and the wind to generate electricity all shut down.”

    wsj.com/articles/texas-power-outages-after-deep-freeze-prompt-governor-to-urge-probe-11613513090?mod=hp_lead_pos2

    “Texas largely relies on natural gas for power. It wasn’t ready for the extreme cold.

    Failures across Texas’ natural gas operations and supply chains due to extreme temperatures are the most significant cause of the power crisis that has left millions of Texans without heat and electricity during the winter storm sweeping the U.S.

    From frozen natural gas wells to frozen wind turbines, all sources of power generation have faced difficulties during the winter storm. But Texans largely rely on natural gas for power and heat generation, especially during peak usage, experts said.

    Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said that the primarily cause of the outages on Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers. Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production.”

    https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/#:~:text=Failures%20across%20Texas'%20natural%20gas,winter%20storm%20sweeping%20the%20U.S.

  61. LarrytheG Avatar

    More reporting and more alternative realities… from Conservatives:

    ” The grid operator said it lost about 34,000 megawatts of supply as freezing temperatures forced natural-gas- and coal-fired power plants offline in quick succession. The weather also reduced natural-gas supplies to power plants and caused wind turbines in West Texas to freeze.”

    wsj.com/articles/winter-storm-forces-rolling-power-outages-in-texas-11613407767?mod=article_inline

    ” The storm, among the worst in a generation in Texas, led to the state’s grid becoming overwhelmed as supply withered against a soaring demand.

    At the same time, many of the state’s gas-fired power plants were knocked offline amid icy conditions, and some plants appeared to suffer fuel shortages as natural gas demand spiked nationwide.”

    nytimes.com/2021/02/16/us/texas-winter-storm-power-outages.html

    ” What has sent Texas reeling is not an engineering problem, nor is it the frozen wind turbines blamed by prominent Republicans. It is a financial structure for power generation that offers no incentives to power plant operators to prepare for winter. In the name of deregulation and free markets, critics say, Texas has created an electric grid that puts an emphasis on cheap prices over reliable service.

    It’s a “Wild West market design based only on short-run prices,” said Matt Breidert, a portfolio manager at a firm called TortoiseEcofin.

    Fossil fuel groups and their Republican allies blamed the power failures on frozen wind turbines and warned against the supposed dangers of alternative power sources. Some turbines did in fact freeze — though Greenland and other northern outposts are able to keep theirs going through the winter.”

    But wind accounts for just 10 percent of the power in Texas generated during the winter. And the loss of power to the grid caused by shutdowns of thermal power plants, primarily those relying on natural gas, dwarfed the dent caused by frozen wind turbines, by a factor of five or six.”

    washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/16/ercot-texas-electric-grid-failure/

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      So basically, the gas lines froze but the solar and wind continued to generate?

      Maybe we should condition Federal Relief Funding on Governor Abbott publishing the truth? Nah, that would be a slippery slope. Better to let them take the money and still stab you in the back than force a politician to the facts.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        No.. the turbines froze up also because they did not have deicing equipment often found on turbines further north – but the article said only 8% of Texas power (in the winter) comes from wind and the major failure was gas – both plants/pipelines freezing and supply/demand throughout the midwest that spiked prices.

        Texas prioritizes free-market approach to electricity. Lowest cost so investments in reliability are not incentivized or rewarded.

        Bottom Line – that market works just fine as long as there is not a large region-wide cold snap.

        Those same natural gas plants, in the summer heat waves, have no trouble providing enough power.

        If PJM functioned the same way the Texas ERCOT did , the same thing could happen in Virginia and, in fact, we had issues with the Polar Vortex a few years back – 2014:

        “Polar vortex: Stressed about the cold? So is the power grid.
        The polar vortex that has swept much of the US in the past days is creating a headache for utilities struggling to keep up with increased demand and spiking prices. The impact of the polar vortex is particularly harsh on New England, where natural gas pipeline infrastructure is lacking.”

        https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0108/Polar-vortex-Stressed-about-the-cold-So-is-the-power-grid

        So , what I will admit (and have all along) is that we still need to retain ojr natural gas pipelines and power plants if we are going to assure reliability.

        I do not agree with those who say we can operate the grid solely on wind/solar, now, or for the foreseeable future, and 2045 without nukes or similar.

        We should build and use wind/solar when we can, because it is a lower polluting and cheaper fuel, just as we have switched to gas from coal because it thought to be less polluting and cheaper.

        When, if we reach some breakthroughs, on battery, hydrogen, safer nukes, we should adopt of course.

        There is no magic bullet in wind/solar and I’d actually share the same concerns that some have with respect to believing we can shut down fossil fuels and operate solely on wind/solar.

  62. LarrytheG Avatar

    More reporting and more alternative realities… from Conservatives:

    ” The grid operator said it lost about 34,000 megawatts of supply as freezing temperatures forced natural-gas- and coal-fired power plants offline in quick succession. The weather also reduced natural-gas supplies to power plants and caused wind turbines in West Texas to freeze.”

    wsj.com/articles/winter-storm-forces-rolling-power-outages-in-texas-11613407767?mod=article_inline

    ” The storm, among the worst in a generation in Texas, led to the state’s grid becoming overwhelmed as supply withered against a soaring demand.

    At the same time, many of the state’s gas-fired power plants were knocked offline amid icy conditions, and some plants appeared to suffer fuel shortages as natural gas demand spiked nationwide.”

    nytimes.com/2021/02/16/us/texas-winter-storm-power-outages.html

    ” What has sent Texas reeling is not an engineering problem, nor is it the frozen wind turbines blamed by prominent Republicans. It is a financial structure for power generation that offers no incentives to power plant operators to prepare for winter. In the name of deregulation and free markets, critics say, Texas has created an electric grid that puts an emphasis on cheap prices over reliable service.

    It’s a “Wild West market design based only on short-run prices,” said Matt Breidert, a portfolio manager at a firm called TortoiseEcofin.

    Fossil fuel groups and their Republican allies blamed the power failures on frozen wind turbines and warned against the supposed dangers of alternative power sources. Some turbines did in fact freeze — though Greenland and other northern outposts are able to keep theirs going through the winter.”

    But wind accounts for just 10 percent of the power in Texas generated during the winter. And the loss of power to the grid caused by shutdowns of thermal power plants, primarily those relying on natural gas, dwarfed the dent caused by frozen wind turbines, by a factor of five or six.”

    washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/16/ercot-texas-electric-grid-failure/

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      So basically, the gas lines froze but the solar and wind continued to generate?

      Maybe we should condition Federal Relief Funding on Governor Abbott publishing the truth? Nah, that would be a slippery slope. Better to let them take the money and still stab you in the back than force a politician to the facts.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        No.. the turbines froze up also because they did not have deicing equipment often found on turbines further north – but the article said only 8% of Texas power (in the winter) comes from wind and the major failure was gas – both plants/pipelines freezing and supply/demand throughout the midwest that spiked prices.

        Texas prioritizes free-market approach to electricity. Lowest cost so investments in reliability are not incentivized or rewarded.

        Bottom Line – that market works just fine as long as there is not a large region-wide cold snap.

        Those same natural gas plants, in the summer heat waves, have no trouble providing enough power.

        If PJM functioned the same way the Texas ERCOT did , the same thing could happen in Virginia and, in fact, we had issues with the Polar Vortex a few years back – 2014:

        “Polar vortex: Stressed about the cold? So is the power grid.
        The polar vortex that has swept much of the US in the past days is creating a headache for utilities struggling to keep up with increased demand and spiking prices. The impact of the polar vortex is particularly harsh on New England, where natural gas pipeline infrastructure is lacking.”

        https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0108/Polar-vortex-Stressed-about-the-cold-So-is-the-power-grid

        So , what I will admit (and have all along) is that we still need to retain ojr natural gas pipelines and power plants if we are going to assure reliability.

        I do not agree with those who say we can operate the grid solely on wind/solar, now, or for the foreseeable future, and 2045 without nukes or similar.

        We should build and use wind/solar when we can, because it is a lower polluting and cheaper fuel, just as we have switched to gas from coal because it thought to be less polluting and cheaper.

        When, if we reach some breakthroughs, on battery, hydrogen, safer nukes, we should adopt of course.

        There is no magic bullet in wind/solar and I’d actually share the same concerns that some have with respect to believing we can shut down fossil fuels and operate solely on wind/solar.

  63. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    WaPo reports wind turbine is only 10 percent of winter generation. Texas has no problem and has a bizarre “free market” system of buying. Gas and oil wells and a nuke froze up. What was the point of this blog post again?

  64. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    WaPo reports wind turbine is only 10 percent of winter generation. Texas has no problem and has a bizarre “free market” system of buying. Gas and oil wells and a nuke froze up. What was the point of this blog post again?

  65. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    JAB, several reputable news organizations are reporting that the grid issues in Texas are not due to iced wind turbines. You need to do a retraction.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      “Eric the Half a Troll | February 17, 2021 at 8:40 am | Reply
      JAB, several reputable news organizations are reporting that the grid issues in Texas are not due to iced wind turbines. You need to do a retraction.”

      That’s not what they are saying at all, they are saying all forms of power generation are diminished and causing issues.

      https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/

    2. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
      Eric the Half a Troll

      Just saw JAB’s update to original article. Seems like he agrees he was way off base with his original piece.

  66. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    JAB, several reputable news organizations are reporting that the grid issues in Texas are not due to iced wind turbines. You need to do a retraction.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      “Eric the Half a Troll | February 17, 2021 at 8:40 am | Reply
      JAB, several reputable news organizations are reporting that the grid issues in Texas are not due to iced wind turbines. You need to do a retraction.”

      That’s not what they are saying at all, they are saying all forms of power generation are diminished and causing issues.

      https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/

    2. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
      Eric the Half a Troll

      Just saw JAB’s update to original article. Seems like he agrees he was way off base with his original piece.

  67. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    “Failures across Texas’ natural gas operations and supply chains due to extreme temperatures are the most significant cause of the power crisis that has left millions of Texans without heat and electricity during the winter storm sweeping the U.S.

    From frozen natural gas wells to frozen wind turbines, all sources of power generation have faced difficulties during the winter storm. But Texans largely rely on natural gas for power and heat generation, especially during peak usage, experts said.

    Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers. Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production.”

    “Texas Grid Collapses – Relies Too Heavily on Fossil Fuel Generation” should be the headline.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Umm they are down 16 gigawatts in production from wind turbine freezing. They also have 6 gigawatts down for maintenance, and typically don’t see high demand in winter (hence it’s their maintenance season). NG is used for house heating so the demand is higher and therefore taking form the supply to power plants. Not to mention the extreme cold temperatures cause issues extracting the NG (which btw doesn’t freeze unless it’s at a sustained temperature of approx. -260 degrees F).

      From frozen natural gas wells to frozen wind turbines, all sources of power generation have faced difficulties during the winter storm. But Texans largely rely on natural gas for power and heat generation, especially during peak usage, experts said.”

      However, if their reliance on turbines had been greater they would’ve suffered larger power losses. Only 30 % of their nonhydro power plants production is down, while over half of wind turbine generation is.

      Troll harder and continue reading less.

      1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
        Eric the Half a Troll

        “Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers.”

        I read that!!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          nah….that’s trolling…. 😉

          1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
            Eric the Half a Troll

            Come on! Trolling would have been this headline: “Texans Reject Government Regulation of Utilities – Innocent Consumers Freeze”

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            good one! 😉

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          Well without the context of the rest of the article and understanding the allocation of production you don’t understand much.

          50% of the wind production was down because of the weather, while 30% of the fossil fuel production was down. If the energy source blend were different (ie. over 20% of that 80% capacity they are running) were placed into wind turbines or solar there would’ve been even less production available.

          Total = 80%
          Wind/Solar=20%
          FF = 50%

          Their production was decreased by 30% on the FF side and 50% on the wind/solar side.

  68. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    “Failures across Texas’ natural gas operations and supply chains due to extreme temperatures are the most significant cause of the power crisis that has left millions of Texans without heat and electricity during the winter storm sweeping the U.S.

    From frozen natural gas wells to frozen wind turbines, all sources of power generation have faced difficulties during the winter storm. But Texans largely rely on natural gas for power and heat generation, especially during peak usage, experts said.

    Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers. Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production.”

    “Texas Grid Collapses – Relies Too Heavily on Fossil Fuel Generation” should be the headline.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Umm they are down 16 gigawatts in production from wind turbine freezing. They also have 6 gigawatts down for maintenance, and typically don’t see high demand in winter (hence it’s their maintenance season). NG is used for house heating so the demand is higher and therefore taking form the supply to power plants. Not to mention the extreme cold temperatures cause issues extracting the NG (which btw doesn’t freeze unless it’s at a sustained temperature of approx. -260 degrees F).

      From frozen natural gas wells to frozen wind turbines, all sources of power generation have faced difficulties during the winter storm. But Texans largely rely on natural gas for power and heat generation, especially during peak usage, experts said.”

      However, if their reliance on turbines had been greater they would’ve suffered larger power losses. Only 30 % of their nonhydro power plants production is down, while over half of wind turbine generation is.

      Troll harder and continue reading less.

      1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
        Eric the Half a Troll

        “Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers.”

        I read that!!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          nah….that’s trolling…. 😉

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          Well without the context of the rest of the article and understanding the allocation of production you don’t understand much.

          50% of the wind production was down because of the weather, while 30% of the fossil fuel production was down. If the energy source blend were different (ie. over 20% of that 80% capacity they are running) were placed into wind turbines or solar there would’ve been even less production available.

          Total = 80%
          Wind/Solar=20%
          FF = 50%

          Their production was decreased by 30% on the FF side and 50% on the wind/solar side.

  69. LarrytheG Avatar

    Conservative types seem to get their “news” from the echo chamber and then parrot it as if it’s the truth and when it comes to renewables, conservatives are often lined up against it, just waiting for a “fail” they can “report”.

    But none other than the Conservative Wall Street Journal is saying this and there is agreement among the major news outlets about the facts. Give WSJ credit. Give BR a demerit:

    “Don’t Blame Wind for Texas Electricity Woes
    Renewable energy and market design are easy targets during electricity failures but they are inadequate explanations

    Just as observers blamed high solar penetration for California’s electricity blackouts last year, Texas’s bounty of wind power has been an easy target. Yet Texas counts on wind to meet only 10% of its winter capacity, according to the state’s grid manager. Natural gas and coal make up the lion’s share, comprising 82%. Sure, some wind turbines glitched under cold weather conditions, but so did natural gas- and coal-fired power. That is partly because water intake facilities froze for these generators, just as they did in the last extreme winter seen in February 2011. At least some natural gas had to be redirected for heating rather than power, adding to the supply shortage.

    Another point of criticism is market design. While other regional markets are designed to reward power plants for being on standby in case of unexpected demand peaks, Texas’s approach is fairly market-driven. That has meant the state historically has had a smaller cushion of electricity when demand has peaked, but this is no longer a problem.

    https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-FQ901_TEXASH_4U_20210216133438.png

    wsj.com/articles/dont-blame-wind-for-texas-electricity-woes-11613500788#:~:text=Yet%20Texas%20counts%20on%20wind,%2D%20and%20coal%2Dfired%20power.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Did you just complain yesterday about WSJ?

      Why yes, yes you did. So does your statement from yesterday still ring true?

      “LarrytheG | February 16, 2021 at 9:44 am | Reply
      yep – that WSJ Opinion – and what I expected.. WSJ opinions are more often than not – Conservative rhetoric and beliefs rather than realities.”

      You using your standard faulty logic, it doesn’t have to be one or the other it can be both.

      FF generation was down 30%, where wind was down 50%. While that 50% was a lesser value it was still a contributing factor you don’t seem to want to admit.

      Decreased production across the board has caused power issues in TX. If you were to have a larger portion provided by wind in this situation you’d have even less generation at your disposal. As it stands their blend works for them IAW the time of year we are at. A 50 to 100 year event has shown issues with how they operate. There have been some entities who haven’t put the lessons learned from 2011 into use, that should be the primary point of contention.

      Welcome to the “False Dichotomy fallacy” you’re peddling.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I pointed out the DIFFERENCE between OPINION and NEWS, mr. false dichotomy.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          “LarrytheG | February 17, 2021 at 10:18 am | Reply
          I pointed out the DIFFERENCE between OPINION and NEWS, mr. false dichotomy.”

          You did not because what you cited today was “opinion” as well.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          you ARE clueless aren’t you! 😉

        3. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
          Eric the Half a Troll

          He learned a new phrase on the internet today….

  70. LarrytheG Avatar

    Conservative types seem to get their “news” from the echo chamber and then parrot it as if it’s the truth and when it comes to renewables, conservatives are often lined up against it, just waiting for a “fail” they can “report”.

    But none other than the Conservative Wall Street Journal is saying this and there is agreement among the major news outlets about the facts. Give WSJ credit. Give BR a demerit:

    “Don’t Blame Wind for Texas Electricity Woes
    Renewable energy and market design are easy targets during electricity failures but they are inadequate explanations

    Just as observers blamed high solar penetration for California’s electricity blackouts last year, Texas’s bounty of wind power has been an easy target. Yet Texas counts on wind to meet only 10% of its winter capacity, according to the state’s grid manager. Natural gas and coal make up the lion’s share, comprising 82%. Sure, some wind turbines glitched under cold weather conditions, but so did natural gas- and coal-fired power. That is partly because water intake facilities froze for these generators, just as they did in the last extreme winter seen in February 2011. At least some natural gas had to be redirected for heating rather than power, adding to the supply shortage.

    Another point of criticism is market design. While other regional markets are designed to reward power plants for being on standby in case of unexpected demand peaks, Texas’s approach is fairly market-driven. That has meant the state historically has had a smaller cushion of electricity when demand has peaked, but this is no longer a problem.

    https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-FQ901_TEXASH_4U_20210216133438.png

    wsj.com/articles/dont-blame-wind-for-texas-electricity-woes-11613500788#:~:text=Yet%20Texas%20counts%20on%20wind,%2D%20and%20coal%2Dfired%20power.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Did you just complain yesterday about WSJ?

      Why yes, yes you did. So does your statement from yesterday still ring true?

      “LarrytheG | February 16, 2021 at 9:44 am | Reply
      yep – that WSJ Opinion – and what I expected.. WSJ opinions are more often than not – Conservative rhetoric and beliefs rather than realities.”

      You using your standard faulty logic, it doesn’t have to be one or the other it can be both.

      FF generation was down 30%, where wind was down 50%. While that 50% was a lesser value it was still a contributing factor you don’t seem to want to admit.

      Decreased production across the board has caused power issues in TX. If you were to have a larger portion provided by wind in this situation you’d have even less generation at your disposal. As it stands their blend works for them IAW the time of year we are at. A 50 to 100 year event has shown issues with how they operate. There have been some entities who haven’t put the lessons learned from 2011 into use, that should be the primary point of contention.

      Welcome to the “False Dichotomy fallacy” you’re peddling.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I pointed out the DIFFERENCE between OPINION and NEWS, mr. false dichotomy.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          you ARE clueless aren’t you! 😉

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          “LarrytheG | February 17, 2021 at 10:18 am | Reply
          I pointed out the DIFFERENCE between OPINION and NEWS, mr. false dichotomy.”

          You did not because what you cited today was “opinion” as well.

        3. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
          Eric the Half a Troll

          He learned a new phrase on the internet today….

  71. Clearly, the situation in Texas is much more complicated than I portrayed it in my original post. Knowing what I know now, I would write the piece very differently. I try to admit when I get something wrong. So, here goes… I got it wrong. I way over-simplified the causes of the Texas blackouts.

    Hopefully, we’ll get some answers that aren’t hopelessly skewed by pre-existing ideologies regarding climate change and renewables. If nothing else, the mess in Texas shows the stakes involved — how badly things can go wrong if we fail to prioritize energy grid reliability.

    1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
      Eric the Half a Troll

      Yep, saw your update, JAB. Kudos to you for taking responsibility.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar

      You outlined position A of a false dichotomy where as the posters who contested it outlined position B of that very same fallacy.

      “If nothing else, the mess in Texas shows the stakes involved — how badly things can go wrong if we fail to prioritize energy grid reliability.”

      I think the larger picture is that entities in Texas failed to use the lessons learned from 2011 to update their SOP’s. That needs to be priority.

    3. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      188 comments demonstrates the relevance and “charged” nature of the energy debate.

    4. Larry who lacks that ability, applauds your willingness to admit error.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        for Matt? are you kidding? I WILL return the favor after repeated attacks but I seldom if ever initiate attacks like some idiots here do. Pay attention – there is a pattern. And then there’s the other guy who plays grammar police for giggle and grins but only for some folks.

  72. Clearly, the situation in Texas is much more complicated than I portrayed it in my original post. Knowing what I know now, I would write the piece very differently. I try to admit when I get something wrong. So, here goes… I got it wrong. I way over-simplified the causes of the Texas blackouts.

    Hopefully, we’ll get some answers that aren’t hopelessly skewed by pre-existing ideologies regarding climate change and renewables. If nothing else, the mess in Texas shows the stakes involved — how badly things can go wrong if we fail to prioritize energy grid reliability.

    1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
      Eric the Half a Troll

      Yep, saw your update, JAB. Kudos to you for taking responsibility.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar

      You outlined position A of a false dichotomy where as the posters who contested it outlined position B of that very same fallacy.

      “If nothing else, the mess in Texas shows the stakes involved — how badly things can go wrong if we fail to prioritize energy grid reliability.”

      I think the larger picture is that entities in Texas failed to use the lessons learned from 2011 to update their SOP’s. That needs to be priority.

    3. Larry who lacks that ability, applauds your willingness to admit error.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        for Matt? are you kidding? I WILL return the favor after repeated attacks but I seldom if ever initiate attacks like some idiots here do. Pay attention – there is a pattern. And then there’s the other guy who plays grammar police for giggle and grins but only for some folks.

    4. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      188 comments demonstrates the relevance and “charged” nature of the energy debate.

  73. One thing it sounds like Texas has a lot of heat pumps and electric space heating, so that goes on overload in times like this. But I am not sure Texas has as much dependence on elec heat pumps as Virginia does. according the Va. liberals, we must mandate *everything* be converted to run on electricity: the new panacea. Linerals demand rapid and Manhatten project urgency to convert to a massive electrified-only society.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Parts of Texas are one big heat rash in the summer… wouldn’t they be using heat pumps for that or is it just air conditioning?

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        The extra $400 it costs for a heat pump over a straight cool unit might not be seen as a worthwhile expense in Texas.

    2. Liberals are famous for demanding one thing of others while doing the opposite themselves. I’m sure this will work out the same way.

      They will surely demand that others rid their homes of dependence on fossil fuels, as they equip their own homes with storage tanks and backup capabilities.

      John Kerry is a prime example, with his yacht and private jet.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Is this the SAME govt that will force property owners to give up their land for a private venture pipeline or force you to get a vaccination if you teach school ? We seem to have BOTH sides talking about the govt “forcing”, no?

        You govt forcing folks to do things is good but if the “left” forces, it’s bad?

        hmmmm

        by the way – on nursing homes:

        ” Roughly Half Of Caregivers At Long-Term Care Facilities Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine”

        https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/jan/15/half-caregivers-refusing-covid-19-vaccine/

        1. It sounds like California is reaping the results of the fear mongering about the vaccine that they generated to make Trump look bad.

          Thankfully my mother is in a facility here where people aren’t as loony.

          I lived in California for many years. It was great years ago, but these days it’s too far left for me.

          Eminent domain is justified for critical infrastructure. If you don’t think energy is critical, try living without it.

          Do you think your electricity would function without the use of eminent domain? If you do, you are mistaken.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            yes, do you think long term care workers should be FORCED to take the vaccine?

            on eminent domain.

            I agree for public infrastructure but private owners?

            you take from one private owner and give to another for “critical infrastructure” and the folks that own those pipelines do not do what is necessary to keep them from freezing? really?

            So you DO think the government has the right to take private property for other private folks personal gain with not responsibility to the public to provide reliable service?

            would you also support that for water systems and other public infrastructure?

            I’m just trying to understand where you are on the role of govt.

            no harm. no foul… just trying to get it calibrated.

            For myself , I DO support the role of govt in building roads, public schools, and energy infrastructure as long as the entities that provide that infrastructure actually do serve the public – at cost – not profit or if at profit – a regulated profit.

          2. Larry,

            You want me to take the time to answer your questions so you can “calibrate” where I stand? How about a more even handed give and take from both sides?

            For starters, how about some acknowledgement that legislation signed by the governor does a hell of a lot more than provide “incentives.” It’s iron fisted mandates about what can and cannot be used to generate power in Virginia. Agree or disagree, this sets us on a path of uncharted territory that may or may not prove to be successful.

            Also, power companies are very different from most private enterprises. They are deemed essential, and are highly regulated by the state. Power companies are granted monopoly rights by the state to operate within a defined area. Do you get that? Competition is unlawful. That being the case, the state bears responsibility for how well they serve their customers. If people freeze to death from lack of service, it’s not just “all on them.”

            No matter if its a cooperative owned by the customers or a private company owned by shareholders, the services they provide are just as critical to the citizens they serve.

            Public or private, Railroads, pipelines or electrical power, all are granted rights to provide essential services. You may own a lovely tree that you cherish, but if the electric company decides to trim it because it might threaten power distribution, you have no say whatsoever.

            Land does not necessarily need to be owned by them either. I believe most are easements.

            Now for your question.

            Anyone taking care of my aged mother or yours MUST take all necessary measures to ensure that they don’t transmit a life threatening disease to them. That means they must wear special clothing, use disinfectants, and yes, get vaccinated. They are perfectly free to not do those things, but will need to find another line of work if that’s the case.

            When it comes to national security, life threatening or life sustaining issues it doesn’t matter about public or private. Let’s say you are in a for-profit hospital and need a ventilator to survive. If necessary, the government will require that GM or some other company make them and provide them to the hospital.

            If the private profit making companies making vaccines need something, they will get it. Period.

            The government doesn’t own the companies that make our nuclear subs, but if those companies need my land or an easement across it, they will get it.

            How do you think the land was acquired for the power station at Smith Mountain Lake? The company that generates the hydroelectric power makes a profit. Do you think that’s right? Should the project have been scuttled if one property owner at the bottom of what is now the lake didn’t want to sell?

            https://www.visitsmithmountainlake.com/sml-history/

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nathan, I appreciate your response and even more so that it’s not a personal attack like I see from some so thank you.

            Several issues here.. trying to sort out.

            Yes, when the Govt determines that land is needed for a government purpose, the govt usually ends up owning that land – not private individuals engaged in for-profit activities.

            Roads, military facilities, etc, the govt does not own pipelines or rail.

            If a company seeks to provide “critical” infrastructure, the Govt has to agree that it is and usually ends up limiting profit to a capped amount and regulating their activities to ensure things like safety and reliability, etc. If it’s truly a “public need” – then the public (govt) decides the requirements as a condition of forcing property owners to sell or allow access to their land.

            In other words, the govt does not take the land, turn it over and walk away and leave the company to do it’s thing. There are rules.

            So, a private entity FIRST has to PROVE there is an actual critical need – they can’t just use that as a convenient justification for essentially wanting to use the police powers of the government to take private property from someone and give or give access to another private individual for their own profit.

            AND they must meet government standards. This is what ultimately killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It was a private for-profit venture of which there was disagreement the gas was truly needed in the first place and they tried to skirt govt rules for crossing public land and streams. It was a private for-profit endeavor where they intended to sell the gas at market rates.

            With rail – long ago – it worked that the govt gave the land in return for the rail – but much more land than needed for the rail itself. Railroads became real estate owners of vast land holdings and still own. It has been considered a huge give-away that they will not do again.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1996/10/21/the-sale-of-rfp-complicates-the-future-of-potomac-yard/f848b115-00fd-44f6-b255-24ab8758324c/

            So I stop there so the follow-on threads stay short.

            Are you familiar with PJM and how it works? I’d bring that up next.

            .

          4. “This is what ultimately killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It was a private for-profit venture of which there was disagreement the gas was truly needed in the first place…”

            I think you are completely missing the potential lesson from Texas. What is deemed to be sufficient may not be. Disagreements about the need for natural gas were the result of activist extremists and overly rosy scenarios that I guarantee you will not prove accurate.

            But by then, like in Texas, it will be too late.

            I actually read the court documents regarding the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The safety issues could have easily been resolved if those complaining were acting in good faith. They were not. They wanted to get the project killed, and they did so. We will all suffer as a result down the road.

            Other states will suffer too. The ability to export liquified natural would have benefited other states in need.

            We also could have potentially sold LNG to our allies in Europe who rely on Russia for power.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nathan – Texas has LOTS of gas , it froze at the well-heads and gas plants intakes.

            re: ” I actually read the court documents regarding the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The safety issues could have easily been resolved if those complaining were acting in good faith. They were not. They wanted to get the project killed, and they did so. We will all suffer as a result down the road.”

            The opponents DID want to kill it and they used the law to litigate it. Dominion tried to skirt the laws – and the opponents used that to stop them.

            “Other states will suffer too. The ability to export liquified natural would have benefited other states in need.”

            We also could have potentially sold LNG to our allies in Europe who rely on Russia for power.”

            so , was the gas NEEDED domestically that justified eminent domain for a public need or was this for private profit? And if we exported gas, wouldn’t that make it more expensive domestically from higher demand overall?

            The thing is – aren’t you arguing in favor of GOVT power to force people to sell their land? I thought you were opposed to the govt doing things like that. no?

  74. One thing it sounds like Texas has a lot of heat pumps and electric space heating, so that goes on overload in times like this. But I am not sure Texas has as much dependence on elec heat pumps as Virginia does. according the Va. liberals, we must mandate *everything* be converted to run on electricity: the new panacea. Linerals demand rapid and Manhatten project urgency to convert to a massive electrified-only society.

    1. Liberals are famous for demanding one thing of others while doing the opposite themselves. I’m sure this will work out the same way.

      They will surely demand that others rid their homes of dependence on fossil fuels, as they equip their own homes with storage tanks and backup capabilities.

      John Kerry is a prime example, with his yacht and private jet.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Is this the SAME govt that will force property owners to give up their land for a private venture pipeline or force you to get a vaccination if you teach school ? We seem to have BOTH sides talking about the govt “forcing”, no?

        You govt forcing folks to do things is good but if the “left” forces, it’s bad?

        hmmmm

        by the way – on nursing homes:

        ” Roughly Half Of Caregivers At Long-Term Care Facilities Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine”

        https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/jan/15/half-caregivers-refusing-covid-19-vaccine/

        1. It sounds like California is reaping the results of the fear mongering about the vaccine that they generated to make Trump look bad.

          Thankfully my mother is in a facility here where people aren’t as loony.

          I lived in California for many years. It was great years ago, but these days it’s too far left for me.

          Eminent domain is justified for critical infrastructure. If you don’t think energy is critical, try living without it.

          Do you think your electricity would function without the use of eminent domain? If you do, you are mistaken.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            yes, do you think long term care workers should be FORCED to take the vaccine?

            on eminent domain.

            I agree for public infrastructure but private owners?

            you take from one private owner and give to another for “critical infrastructure” and the folks that own those pipelines do not do what is necessary to keep them from freezing? really?

            So you DO think the government has the right to take private property for other private folks personal gain with not responsibility to the public to provide reliable service?

            would you also support that for water systems and other public infrastructure?

            I’m just trying to understand where you are on the role of govt.

            no harm. no foul… just trying to get it calibrated.

            For myself , I DO support the role of govt in building roads, public schools, and energy infrastructure as long as the entities that provide that infrastructure actually do serve the public – at cost – not profit or if at profit – a regulated profit.

          2. Larry,

            You want me to take the time to answer your questions so you can “calibrate” where I stand? How about a more even handed give and take from both sides?

            For starters, how about some acknowledgement that legislation signed by the governor does a hell of a lot more than provide “incentives.” It’s iron fisted mandates about what can and cannot be used to generate power in Virginia. Agree or disagree, this sets us on a path of uncharted territory that may or may not prove to be successful.

            Also, power companies are very different from most private enterprises. They are deemed essential, and are highly regulated by the state. Power companies are granted monopoly rights by the state to operate within a defined area. Do you get that? Competition is unlawful. That being the case, the state bears responsibility for how well they serve their customers. If people freeze to death from lack of service, it’s not just “all on them.”

            No matter if its a cooperative owned by the customers or a private company owned by shareholders, the services they provide are just as critical to the citizens they serve.

            Public or private, Railroads, pipelines or electrical power, all are granted rights to provide essential services. You may own a lovely tree that you cherish, but if the electric company decides to trim it because it might threaten power distribution, you have no say whatsoever.

            Land does not necessarily need to be owned by them either. I believe most are easements.

            Now for your question.

            Anyone taking care of my aged mother or yours MUST take all necessary measures to ensure that they don’t transmit a life threatening disease to them. That means they must wear special clothing, use disinfectants, and yes, get vaccinated. They are perfectly free to not do those things, but will need to find another line of work if that’s the case.

            When it comes to national security, life threatening or life sustaining issues it doesn’t matter about public or private. Let’s say you are in a for-profit hospital and need a ventilator to survive. If necessary, the government will require that GM or some other company make them and provide them to the hospital.

            If the private profit making companies making vaccines need something, they will get it. Period.

            The government doesn’t own the companies that make our nuclear subs, but if those companies need my land or an easement across it, they will get it.

            How do you think the land was acquired for the power station at Smith Mountain Lake? The company that generates the hydroelectric power makes a profit. Do you think that’s right? Should the project have been scuttled if one property owner at the bottom of what is now the lake didn’t want to sell?

            https://www.visitsmithmountainlake.com/sml-history/

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nathan, I appreciate your response and even more so that it’s not a personal attack like I see from some so thank you.

            Several issues here.. trying to sort out.

            Yes, when the Govt determines that land is needed for a government purpose, the govt usually ends up owning that land – not private individuals engaged in for-profit activities.

            Roads, military facilities, etc, the govt does not own pipelines or rail.

            If a company seeks to provide “critical” infrastructure, the Govt has to agree that it is and usually ends up limiting profit to a capped amount and regulating their activities to ensure things like safety and reliability, etc. If it’s truly a “public need” – then the public (govt) decides the requirements as a condition of forcing property owners to sell or allow access to their land.

            In other words, the govt does not take the land, turn it over and walk away and leave the company to do it’s thing. There are rules.

            So, a private entity FIRST has to PROVE there is an actual critical need – they can’t just use that as a convenient justification for essentially wanting to use the police powers of the government to take private property from someone and give or give access to another private individual for their own profit.

            AND they must meet government standards. This is what ultimately killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It was a private for-profit venture of which there was disagreement the gas was truly needed in the first place and they tried to skirt govt rules for crossing public land and streams. It was a private for-profit endeavor where they intended to sell the gas at market rates.

            With rail – long ago – it worked that the govt gave the land in return for the rail – but much more land than needed for the rail itself. Railroads became real estate owners of vast land holdings and still own. It has been considered a huge give-away that they will not do again.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1996/10/21/the-sale-of-rfp-complicates-the-future-of-potomac-yard/f848b115-00fd-44f6-b255-24ab8758324c/

            So I stop there so the follow-on threads stay short.

            Are you familiar with PJM and how it works? I’d bring that up next.

            .

          4. “This is what ultimately killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It was a private for-profit venture of which there was disagreement the gas was truly needed in the first place…”

            I think you are completely missing the potential lesson from Texas. What is deemed to be sufficient may not be. Disagreements about the need for natural gas were the result of activist extremists and overly rosy scenarios that I guarantee you will not prove accurate.

            But by then, like in Texas, it will be too late.

            I actually read the court documents regarding the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The safety issues could have easily been resolved if those complaining were acting in good faith. They were not. They wanted to get the project killed, and they did so. We will all suffer as a result down the road.

            Other states will suffer too. The ability to export liquified natural would have benefited other states in need.

            We also could have potentially sold LNG to our allies in Europe who rely on Russia for power.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nathan – Texas has LOTS of gas , it froze at the well-heads and gas plants intakes.

            re: ” I actually read the court documents regarding the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The safety issues could have easily been resolved if those complaining were acting in good faith. They were not. They wanted to get the project killed, and they did so. We will all suffer as a result down the road.”

            The opponents DID want to kill it and they used the law to litigate it. Dominion tried to skirt the laws – and the opponents used that to stop them.

            “Other states will suffer too. The ability to export liquified natural would have benefited other states in need.”

            We also could have potentially sold LNG to our allies in Europe who rely on Russia for power.”

            so , was the gas NEEDED domestically that justified eminent domain for a public need or was this for private profit? And if we exported gas, wouldn’t that make it more expensive domestically from higher demand overall?

            The thing is – aren’t you arguing in favor of GOVT power to force people to sell their land? I thought you were opposed to the govt doing things like that. no?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      Parts of Texas are one big heat rash in the summer… wouldn’t they be using heat pumps for that or is it just air conditioning?

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        The extra $400 it costs for a heat pump over a straight cool unit might not be seen as a worthwhile expense in Texas.

  75. LarrytheG Avatar

    If anyone thinks there is NIMBY for wind turbines, try putting up a nuke!

  76. LarrytheG Avatar

    If anyone thinks there is NIMBY for wind turbines, try putting up a nuke!

  77. LarrytheG Avatar

    In fact, and to be fair, Oklahoma is also having problems…

    1. minus 11 will do that.

  78. the question we all should have asked is why Texas wind froze while New England, Lake Erie, and Norwegian wind kept on chugging…it’s pretty simple to hook up electric heaters inside an installation that generates electricity, which is where Texas wind failed…

    that, by the way, is also the reason Texas gas production froze whereas PA gas didn’t…

    so it’s obvious you still have another article to write…

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Well… Gov Abbot says it was the Green New Deal – and maybe he got part of that right – but is Oklahoma also having the problem Texas is? Same weather, right?”

      ” In 2017, Oklahoma’s installed wind generation capacity was almost 7,500 megawatts, supplying almost a third of the state’s generated electricity.[”

      This is what Jim B says is the limit of renewables without endangering reliability, right?

      “Being centrally located, the western half of Oklahoma is in America’s wind corridor, which stretches from Canada into North Dakota and Montana, south into west Texas, where the vast majority of the country’s best on-shore wind resources are located.[14] Oklahoma has the potential to install 517,000 MW of wind turbines, capable of generating 1,521,652 GWh each year. This is over one third of all the electricity generated in the United States in 2011.[

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Oklahoma

      https://windexchange.energy.gov/files/u/visualization/image/ok_80m.jpg

  79. the question we all should have asked is why Texas wind froze while New England, Lake Erie, and Norwegian wind kept on chugging…it’s pretty simple to hook up electric heaters inside an installation that generates electricity, which is where Texas wind failed…

    that, by the way, is also the reason Texas gas production froze whereas PA gas didn’t…

    so it’s obvious you still have another article to write…

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Well… Gov Abbot says it was the Green New Deal – and maybe he got part of that right – but is Oklahoma also having the problem Texas is? Same weather, right?”

      ” In 2017, Oklahoma’s installed wind generation capacity was almost 7,500 megawatts, supplying almost a third of the state’s generated electricity.[”

      This is what Jim B says is the limit of renewables without endangering reliability, right?

      “Being centrally located, the western half of Oklahoma is in America’s wind corridor, which stretches from Canada into North Dakota and Montana, south into west Texas, where the vast majority of the country’s best on-shore wind resources are located.[14] Oklahoma has the potential to install 517,000 MW of wind turbines, capable of generating 1,521,652 GWh each year. This is over one third of all the electricity generated in the United States in 2011.[

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Oklahoma

      https://windexchange.energy.gov/files/u/visualization/image/ok_80m.jpg

  80. LarrytheG Avatar

    In fact, and to be fair, Oklahoma is also having problems…

    1. minus 11 will do that.

  81. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Burn more trees.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ1K6HzowAE

    “Newspaper logs. Fun to make; last a long time.” — CRH.

    1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
      Baconator with extra cheese

      Poor people will be burning anything they can get their hands on to stay warm… and killing themselves with CO or actually fires.
      And the rich will be firing up their whole house generators.
      Neither option is green.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Well, it’s Texas. At least they won’t (can’t) burn books.

  82. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Burn more trees.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ1K6HzowAE

    “Newspaper logs. Fun to make; last a long time.” — CRH.

    1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
      Baconator with extra cheese

      Poor people will be burning anything they can get their hands on to stay warm… and killing themselves with CO or actually fires.
      And the rich will be firing up their whole house generators.
      Neither option is green.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Well, it’s Texas. At least they won’t (can’t) burn books.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Yep. More opinion, not facts.

      The facts are that wind provides about 10% of Texas power in the winter. If only the turbines went down, it would have been easily handled.

      Oklahoma, to the north of Texas gets about 1/3 of it’s power from wind overall, and while their grid is stressed from the cold, nothing like what is going on in Texas.

      True for all the states around Texas – why?

      You can actually find the truth in the WSJ NEWs section – not opinion :

      “Don’t Blame Wind for Texas Electricity Woes
      Renewable energy and market design are easy targets during electricity failures but they are inadequate explanations

      Just as observers blamed high solar penetration for California’s electricity blackouts last year, Texas’s bounty of wind power has been an easy target.
      Yet Texas counts on wind to meet only 10% of its winter capacity, according to the state’s grid manager.

      Natural gas and coal make up the lion’s share, comprising 82%. Sure, some wind turbines glitched under cold weather conditions, but so did natural gas- and coal-fired power.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-blame-wind-for-texas-electricity-woes-11613500788

      Conservatives these days, more and more, seem to prefer lies and misinformation to truth. It works just fine with much of their base.

      1. “Yep. More opinion, not facts.”

        That’s certainly true of your post. If we go down the path California did, we can expect similar results. But in Virginia it isn’t just air conditioning at risk. It gets much colder here than in most parts of California. If funds are diverted from maintenance for renewables here, it will spell trouble.

        “In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables.”

        We can also expect higher costs.

        “California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.”

        The bias against nuclear is unjustified and foolish.

        “Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.”

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/08/15/why-californias-climate-policies-are-causing-electricity-black-outs/?sh=1e23ff981591

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Nope. I’m citing facts here… not opinion.

          Okay, so you need to understand PJM and it’s role. We can’t just add renewables – PJM has to approve.

          https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/pjm_explainer_-_sustainableferc.pdf

          for Nukes – I support modern Nukes that are safer, not 60-year old designs and if you think there is nimby against wind/solar – try proposing a Nuke next to a city.

          And I support keeping the current 60-some year old Nukes also but putting a new Nuke on a known earthquake site is just plain dumb.

          How would you build a new nuke if people where it was proposed – were opposed to it? Would you use the force of government to overrule people and build it anyhow? which government – the Feds or the State ?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Yep. More opinion, not facts.

      The facts are that wind provides about 10% of Texas power in the winter. If only the turbines went down, it would have been easily handled.

      Oklahoma, to the north of Texas gets about 1/3 of it’s power from wind overall, and while their grid is stressed from the cold, nothing like what is going on in Texas.

      True for all the states around Texas – why?

      You can actually find the truth in the WSJ NEWs section – not opinion :

      “Don’t Blame Wind for Texas Electricity Woes
      Renewable energy and market design are easy targets during electricity failures but they are inadequate explanations

      Just as observers blamed high solar penetration for California’s electricity blackouts last year, Texas’s bounty of wind power has been an easy target.
      Yet Texas counts on wind to meet only 10% of its winter capacity, according to the state’s grid manager.

      Natural gas and coal make up the lion’s share, comprising 82%. Sure, some wind turbines glitched under cold weather conditions, but so did natural gas- and coal-fired power.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-blame-wind-for-texas-electricity-woes-11613500788

      Conservatives these days, more and more, seem to prefer lies and misinformation to truth. It works just fine with much of their base.

      1. “Yep. More opinion, not facts.”

        That’s certainly true of your post. If we go down the path California did, we can expect similar results. But in Virginia it isn’t just air conditioning at risk. It gets much colder here than in most parts of California. If funds are diverted from maintenance for renewables here, it will spell trouble.

        “In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables.”

        We can also expect higher costs.

        “California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.”

        The bias against nuclear is unjustified and foolish.

        “Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.”

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/08/15/why-californias-climate-policies-are-causing-electricity-black-outs/?sh=1e23ff981591

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Nope. I’m citing facts here… not opinion.

          Okay, so you need to understand PJM and it’s role. We can’t just add renewables – PJM has to approve.

          https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/pjm_explainer_-_sustainableferc.pdf

          for Nukes – I support modern Nukes that are safer, not 60-year old designs and if you think there is nimby against wind/solar – try proposing a Nuke next to a city.

          And I support keeping the current 60-some year old Nukes also but putting a new Nuke on a known earthquake site is just plain dumb.

          How would you build a new nuke if people where it was proposed – were opposed to it? Would you use the force of government to overrule people and build it anyhow? which government – the Feds or the State ?

  83. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    In lieu of the usual daily blast of lies (and here we refer to the chronic lies we have been fed for decades) by the green power industry, here is today’s link to the WSJ editorial “Texas Spins Into the Wind”:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613605698

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      OPINION –

      FACTS: – ” Don’t Blame Wind for Texas Electricity Woes
      Renewable energy and market design are easy targets during electricity failures but they are inadequate explanations”

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-blame-wind-for-texas-electricity-woes-11613500788#:~:text=Yet%20Texas%20counts%20on%20wind,%2D%20and%20coal%2Dfired%20power.

      You have to WANT to KNOW the actual real acts before you just believe an opinion laced with beliefs.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        You’re citing opinion, you just happen to agree with it’s sentiment and therefore you “determine” it’s fact.

        That’s called bias, something everyone displays daily, you however cannot admit your own “ever”.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I’m pointing out that WSJ itself on it’s banner is calling that OPINION.

          not me. WSJ knows the difference. You guys don’t or won’t admit it.

          Opinion is not facts… facts are not opinion

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            The article you’re citing is “opinion” and you agree with it, therefore you believe it to be “fact”.

            Who is “you guys”?

            “You’re entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”

            “Opinion is not facts… facts are not opinion”

            That statement is pure incoherent garbage.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            no.. most all of what you blather is garbage…. and vitriol… go away idiot.

  84. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    In lieu of the usual daily blast of lies (and here we refer to the chronic lies we have been fed for decades) by the green power industry, here is today’s link to the WSJ editorial “Texas Spins Into the Wind”:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613605698

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      OPINION –

      FACTS: – ” Don’t Blame Wind for Texas Electricity Woes
      Renewable energy and market design are easy targets during electricity failures but they are inadequate explanations”

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-blame-wind-for-texas-electricity-woes-11613500788#:~:text=Yet%20Texas%20counts%20on%20wind,%2D%20and%20coal%2Dfired%20power.

      You have to WANT to KNOW the actual real acts before you just believe an opinion laced with beliefs.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        You’re citing opinion, you just happen to agree with it’s sentiment and therefore you “determine” it’s fact.

        That’s called bias, something everyone displays daily, you however cannot admit your own “ever”.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I’m pointing out that WSJ itself on it’s banner is calling that OPINION.

          not me. WSJ knows the difference. You guys don’t or won’t admit it.

          Opinion is not facts… facts are not opinion

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            The article you’re citing is “opinion” and you agree with it, therefore you believe it to be “fact”.

            Who is “you guys”?

            “You’re entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”

            “Opinion is not facts… facts are not opinion”

            That statement is pure incoherent garbage.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            no.. most all of what you blather is garbage…. and vitriol… go away idiot.

  85. Ben Slone Avatar

    The data is available at http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation/. “Fuel Mix 2021” has a 15 minute breakdown of electric generation fuels.

  86. OK, that’s it. This personal back-and-forth is useless. This thread is closed. I’m deleting any more comments.

  87. OK, that’s it. This personal back-and-forth is useless. This thread is closed. I’m deleting any more comments.

  88. Ben Slone Avatar

    Good news for the Texas grid:

    “STP Nuclear Operating Co.’s 1,312-MW South Texas Project-1, which automatically shut Feb. 15 amid bitter cold, connected to the grid at 9:07 pm CT Feb. 17 “and is currently ascending to 100% power,” company spokeswoman Vicki Rowland said Feb. 18.”

    “Weather conditions did not impact the 1,312-MW South Texas Project-2, which operated at 100% early Feb. 15-18, according to NRC.”

    See https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/021821-texas-nuclear-unit-returns-to-service-after-outage-related-to-cold-weather

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” which automatically shut Feb. 15 amid bitter cold”

      why?

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        The reactor is cooled by water and the system that supplied that water had a pipe burst. It’s in the article.

        1. Ben Slone Avatar

          Matt,

          Which article? The NRC report (below) says the FW pumps on the secondary side were lost. This could be caused by a number of reasons, but I don’t see any mention of a pipe break.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Rowland said the unit shut at 5:37 am CT Feb. 15. STPNOC said in an event report filed with NRC that the unit tripped at 5:26 am due to low steam generator levels. “The low steam generator levels were due to loss of Feedwater pumps 11 and 13,” according to the report.”

            I inferred it was a pipe burst, you are correct given though they did not specific. I’ve seen the following elsewhere:

            “One of the two reactors of the South Texas Nuclear Power Station in Matagorda County shut down, knocking out about half of its 2,700 megawatts of generating capacity. On Monday, Unit 1 went offline cold weather-related issues in the plant’s feedwater system, said Vicki Rowland, lead of internal communications at STP Nuclear Operating Co.”

            https://www.lmtonline.com/business/energy/article/Power-tight-across-Texas-winter-storm-blackouts-15953686.php

      2. Ben Slone Avatar

        Sorry, I didn’t reply at the correct level. Too much of a rush.

        Please see the NRC report below.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Unrelated to weather? Just a coincidence?

          1. Ben Slone Avatar

            Impossible to tell without more information. It doesn’t appear to be an electrical problem (“There were no electrical problems.”) and there is no mention of a pipe or component break. There should be a trip report filed, but I didn’t see it on the NRC site. The root cause is known, otherwise the unit wouldn’t be restarted.

  89. Ben Slone Avatar

    The data is available at http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation/. “Fuel Mix 2021” has a 15 minute breakdown of electric generation fuels.

  90. Ben Slone Avatar

    Good news for the Texas grid:

    “STP Nuclear Operating Co.’s 1,312-MW South Texas Project-1, which automatically shut Feb. 15 amid bitter cold, connected to the grid at 9:07 pm CT Feb. 17 “and is currently ascending to 100% power,” company spokeswoman Vicki Rowland said Feb. 18.”

    “Weather conditions did not impact the 1,312-MW South Texas Project-2, which operated at 100% early Feb. 15-18, according to NRC.”

    See https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/021821-texas-nuclear-unit-returns-to-service-after-outage-related-to-cold-weather

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” which automatically shut Feb. 15 amid bitter cold”

      why?

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        The reactor is cooled by water and the system that supplied that water had a pipe burst. It’s in the article.

        1. Ben Slone Avatar

          Matt,

          Which article? The NRC report (below) says the FW pumps on the secondary side were lost. This could be caused by a number of reasons, but I don’t see any mention of a pipe break.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Rowland said the unit shut at 5:37 am CT Feb. 15. STPNOC said in an event report filed with NRC that the unit tripped at 5:26 am due to low steam generator levels. “The low steam generator levels were due to loss of Feedwater pumps 11 and 13,” according to the report.”

            I inferred it was a pipe burst, you are correct given though they did not specific. I’ve seen the following elsewhere:

            “One of the two reactors of the South Texas Nuclear Power Station in Matagorda County shut down, knocking out about half of its 2,700 megawatts of generating capacity. On Monday, Unit 1 went offline cold weather-related issues in the plant’s feedwater system, said Vicki Rowland, lead of internal communications at STP Nuclear Operating Co.”

            https://www.lmtonline.com/business/energy/article/Power-tight-across-Texas-winter-storm-blackouts-15953686.php

      2. Ben Slone Avatar

        Sorry, I didn’t reply at the correct level. Too much of a rush.

        Please see the NRC report below.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Unrelated to weather? Just a coincidence?

          1. Ben Slone Avatar

            Impossible to tell without more information. It doesn’t appear to be an electrical problem (“There were no electrical problems.”) and there is no mention of a pipe or component break. There should be a trip report filed, but I didn’t see it on the NRC site. The root cause is known, otherwise the unit wouldn’t be restarted.

  91. Ben Slone Avatar

    From https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2021/20210216en.html, the loss of two FW pumps induced a low SG level.

    “EN Revision Imported Date: 2/16/2021

    EN Revision Text: AUTOMATIC REACTOR TRIP DUE TO LOW STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL

    “At 0526 [CST] on 02/15/2021, Unit 1 automatically tripped due to low steam generator levels. The low steam generator levels were due to loss of Feedwater pumps 11 and 13 (cause unknown).

    “Auxiliary Feedwater and Feedwater Isolation actuated as designed. All Control and Shutdown Rods fully inserted. No primary or secondary relief valves opened. There were no electrical problems. Normal operating temperature and pressure (NOT/NOP) is 567 degrees F and 2235 psig.

    “There were no significant TS LCOs entered.

    “This event was not significant to the health and safety of the public based on all safety systems performed as designed. Unit 2 was not affected. Decay heat removal is being controlled via Steam Dumps. [Auxiliary Feedwater is supplying water to the Steam Generators.] Offsite power is in the normal electrical lineup.

    “The NRC Resident inspector has been notified.”

    Unit 2 was not affected and remains at 100% power.

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      @LarrytheG and @Matt Adams

      From a distant friend’s site at https://atomicinsights.com/south-texas-project-unit-1-tripped-at-0537-on-feb-15-2021/, Rod reports that “Vicki Rowland, the lead for Internal Communications at the STP Nuclear Operating Company provided the following narrative about the unit’s operating status.”

      “On Monday, Feb. 15, 2021, at 0537, an automatic reactor trip occurred at South Texas Project in Unit 1. The trip resulted from a loss of feedwater attributed to a cold weather-related failure of a pressure sensing lines to the feedwater pumps, causing a false signal, which in turn, caused the feedwater pump to trip. This event occurred in the secondary side of the plant (non-nuclear part of the unit). The reactor trip was a result of the feedwater pump trips. The primary side of the plant (nuclear side) is safe and secured.”

      So the small pressure sensing lines froze which caused an incorrect pressure signal for the pump protection system which caused the pump trip and then the reactor trip. Therefore the cold weather caused the problem. At a northern plant, those lines would be inside a hall/building.

      There is good discussion on the event and plant on the site including comments.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        so hard to really classify this as truly weather related except perhaps the part that froze was not anticipated in design to encounter frozen conditions.

        But this also points out the problems with Nukes in general in that we are so concerned with one of them melting down or similar that we go to extreme measures to monitor everything in case something might go wrong and really bad stuff happen.

        I’d like to see modern nukes get beyond this so we don’t have to obsess over things like this – to the point – like in this case – where – even in the middle of a crisis where every single KWH is needed, we still shut this plant down.

  92. Ben Slone Avatar

    From https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2021/20210216en.html, the loss of two FW pumps induced a low SG level.

    “EN Revision Imported Date: 2/16/2021

    EN Revision Text: AUTOMATIC REACTOR TRIP DUE TO LOW STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL

    “At 0526 [CST] on 02/15/2021, Unit 1 automatically tripped due to low steam generator levels. The low steam generator levels were due to loss of Feedwater pumps 11 and 13 (cause unknown).

    “Auxiliary Feedwater and Feedwater Isolation actuated as designed. All Control and Shutdown Rods fully inserted. No primary or secondary relief valves opened. There were no electrical problems. Normal operating temperature and pressure (NOT/NOP) is 567 degrees F and 2235 psig.

    “There were no significant TS LCOs entered.

    “This event was not significant to the health and safety of the public based on all safety systems performed as designed. Unit 2 was not affected. Decay heat removal is being controlled via Steam Dumps. [Auxiliary Feedwater is supplying water to the Steam Generators.] Offsite power is in the normal electrical lineup.

    “The NRC Resident inspector has been notified.”

    Unit 2 was not affected and remains at 100% power.

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      @LarrytheG and @Matt Adams

      From a distant friend’s site at https://atomicinsights.com/south-texas-project-unit-1-tripped-at-0537-on-feb-15-2021/, Rod reports that “Vicki Rowland, the lead for Internal Communications at the STP Nuclear Operating Company provided the following narrative about the unit’s operating status.”

      “On Monday, Feb. 15, 2021, at 0537, an automatic reactor trip occurred at South Texas Project in Unit 1. The trip resulted from a loss of feedwater attributed to a cold weather-related failure of a pressure sensing lines to the feedwater pumps, causing a false signal, which in turn, caused the feedwater pump to trip. This event occurred in the secondary side of the plant (non-nuclear part of the unit). The reactor trip was a result of the feedwater pump trips. The primary side of the plant (nuclear side) is safe and secured.”

      So the small pressure sensing lines froze which caused an incorrect pressure signal for the pump protection system which caused the pump trip and then the reactor trip. Therefore the cold weather caused the problem. At a northern plant, those lines would be inside a hall/building.

      There is good discussion on the event and plant on the site including comments.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        so hard to really classify this as truly weather related except perhaps the part that froze was not anticipated in design to encounter frozen conditions.

        But this also points out the problems with Nukes in general in that we are so concerned with one of them melting down or similar that we go to extreme measures to monitor everything in case something might go wrong and really bad stuff happen.

        I’d like to see modern nukes get beyond this so we don’t have to obsess over things like this – to the point – like in this case – where – even in the middle of a crisis where every single KWH is needed, we still shut this plant down.

  93. Ben Slone Avatar

    Looking at the plant design (open secondary and no building – and no apparent heat tracing), I’ll go with weather related. The pressure sensing lines are usually small and could freeze in conditions like described.

    It points out a problem with large, base load plants of which Nukes are part of. Any large plant will have control circuitry for the loss of feedwater. In general, you don’t want to run your boilers dry or crater pumps. Base load plant (high generation MW) should always be protected, well-maintained, and have high capacity factors.

    We have a number of large generation Nukes operating in far colder climates than STP-1. I think they need better preventative maintenance and design. In one way, it comes down to the discussion between base load plants and lots of small generation plants. The small modular reactors (SMRs) will change it for Nukes, but I’m still not sure about their economy of scale for practical grid cost efficiency.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      A good question in my mind is that if Nukes are cost-effective then why don’t they power inhabited islands that typically have to pay 40 cent KWH for electricity produced from imported diesel fuel?

      You would think it would be a hands-down solution but I know of none on any of the worlds inhabited islands that now have to burn diesel fuel.

      What’s a good answer to that question?

      1. Ben Slone Avatar

        There are nuclear plants operating on islands. For example, Taiwan has 3 plants with a combined 6 reactors. I think they have two more reactors, out of the 54 or so worldwide, in the construction phase. Of course Japan has its fleet of nuclear plants too.

        For small islands, I believe it is initial cost, grid base load considerations, load following, protected area size, and risk considerations make a Nuke impracticable. By today’s small standards, a 500 MWe Nuke will supply around 500,000 homes assuming that each household, on average, uses energy at a rate of about 1 kilowatt. Of course that doesn’t take into account the normal load curve over a day.

        This may change with the SMRs though since they have smaller output (10 to 200 MWe) and may be able to load follow too.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Yes. I’m primarily asking about islands that pay 40 cents kwh for electricity from imported diesel when nuclear is said to provide power for 1/4 of that.

          If true, then why not?

          When we fix this – we fix the bigger issue IMHO.

  94. Ben Slone Avatar

    Looking at the plant design (open secondary and no building – and no apparent heat tracing), I’ll go with weather related. The pressure sensing lines are usually small and could freeze in conditions like described.

    It points out a problem with large, base load plants of which Nukes are part of. Any large plant will have control circuitry for the loss of feedwater. In general, you don’t want to run your boilers dry or crater pumps. Base load plant (high generation MW) should always be protected, well-maintained, and have high capacity factors.

    We have a number of large generation Nukes operating in far colder climates than STP-1. I think they need better preventative maintenance and design. In one way, it comes down to the discussion between base load plants and lots of small generation plants. The small modular reactors (SMRs) will change it for Nukes, but I’m still not sure about their economy of scale for practical grid cost efficiency.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      A good question in my mind is that if Nukes are cost-effective then why don’t they power inhabited islands that typically have to pay 40 cent KWH for electricity produced from imported diesel fuel?

      You would think it would be a hands-down solution but I know of none on any of the worlds inhabited islands that now have to burn diesel fuel.

      What’s a good answer to that question?

      1. Ben Slone Avatar

        There are nuclear plants operating on islands. For example, Taiwan has 3 plants with a combined 6 reactors. I think they have two more reactors, out of the 54 or so worldwide, in the construction phase. Of course Japan has its fleet of nuclear plants too.

        For small islands, I believe it is initial cost, grid base load considerations, load following, protected area size, and risk considerations make a Nuke impracticable. By today’s small standards, a 500 MWe Nuke will supply around 500,000 homes assuming that each household, on average, uses energy at a rate of about 1 kilowatt. Of course that doesn’t take into account the normal load curve over a day.

        This may change with the SMRs though since they have smaller output (10 to 200 MWe) and may be able to load follow too.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Yes. I’m primarily asking about islands that pay 40 cents kwh for electricity from imported diesel when nuclear is said to provide power for 1/4 of that.

          If true, then why not?

          When we fix this – we fix the bigger issue IMHO.

  95. Ben Slone Avatar

    I think the SMRs will provide the solution. The current generation of Nukes output too much electricity at a constant rate. Most islands don’t require a lot and need a small plant that can follow their load curve.

    A quick search shows a group in Puerto Rico may have SMRs under review – see https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Puerto-Rico-to-begin-nuclear-feasibility-study.

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      I didn’t realize that the DoE had already conducted a study – see https://www.ans.org/news/article-204/study-advanced-reactors-a-good-fit-for-puerto-rico/.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        And I’d welcome this and it may well be what we need to go forward.

        Does this mean, we could help power NoVa without putting another nuke at North Anna on top of an active earthquake fault?

        1. Ben Slone Avatar

          Maybe, but the siting becomes the problem. I can’t see Dominion Energy going through another site study. It’s too much time and money. I would think they’ll stick to windmills, some solar, and gas generation for new generation for a while. But then again I don’t know how easy or logical it would be for them to add a couple of SMRs at North Anna instead of the BWR. I haven’t studied the fault there.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            When we get to the point where “siting” is not a problem, we will have made some significant progress.

            If SMRs won’t melt down , then it ought not matter whether they are at North Anna or Manassas or Norfolk. After all, we see ships that have nukes on them righ there, right?

            If we could replace coal and gas plants with SMRs I’m on board.

  96. Ben Slone Avatar

    I think the SMRs will provide the solution. The current generation of Nukes output too much electricity at a constant rate. Most islands don’t require a lot and need a small plant that can follow their load curve.

    A quick search shows a group in Puerto Rico may have SMRs under review – see https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Puerto-Rico-to-begin-nuclear-feasibility-study.

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      I didn’t realize that the DoE had already conducted a study – see https://www.ans.org/news/article-204/study-advanced-reactors-a-good-fit-for-puerto-rico/.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        And I’d welcome this and it may well be what we need to go forward.

        Does this mean, we could help power NoVa without putting another nuke at North Anna on top of an active earthquake fault?

        1. Ben Slone Avatar

          Maybe, but the siting becomes the problem. I can’t see Dominion Energy going through another site study. It’s too much time and money. I would think they’ll stick to windmills, some solar, and gas generation for new generation for a while. But then again I don’t know how easy or logical it would be for them to add a couple of SMRs at North Anna instead of the BWR. I haven’t studied the fault there.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            When we get to the point where “siting” is not a problem, we will have made some significant progress.

            If SMRs won’t melt down , then it ought not matter whether they are at North Anna or Manassas or Norfolk. After all, we see ships that have nukes on them righ there, right?

            If we could replace coal and gas plants with SMRs I’m on board.

Leave a Reply