by Peter Galuszka

The Texas freeze and ensuing energy disaster has clear lessons for Virginia as it sorts out its energy future.

Yet much of the media coverage in Virginia and certainly on Bacon’s Rebellion conveniently leaves out pertinent observations.

The statewide freeze in Texas completely fouled up the entire energy infrastructure as natural gas pipelines and oil wells stopped working, coal at generating plants iced over and wind turbines stopped working.

Making matters much worse, Texas opted not to have power links with other states. Its “free market” system of purchasing power meant utilities skimped on maintenance and adding weather-relative preventive measures such as making sure key generation components were weatherproof.

The result? Scores dead and millions without electricity. Here are more points worth considering in Virginia:

Climate Change is For Real

It is a shame that so much comment in Bacon’s Rebellion is propaganda from people who are or were paid, either directly or indirectly, by the fossil fuel industry. Thus, the blog diminishes the importance of dealing with climate change in a progressive way. 

The fact is, carbon dioxide emissions have made the Arctic regions warmer, flip-flopping the polar vortex around. Many believe that’s what caused record low temperatures in Texas. Oceans are warmer, hurricanes are more powerful, deluges of rain last for days and animal and fish migration habits have shifted.

According to Bloomberg:

“Is the Texas cold blast connected to climate change? “I have argued a definitive yes,” said Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, part of risk analytics firm Verisk, who’s spent more than a decade studying what warming across the Arctic means to weather for the rest of the world. “

According to MSN:

“The cascade of failures in Texas signals what is perhaps the greatest challenge ahead in this climate-changed world: accepting that business as usual isn’t working. Across the planet, humans have built civilization to withstand the vagaries of a 20th century climate. The extreme weather events of the 21st century will look nothing like those that came before—and hundreds of years of past preparation will not suffice. “The future is not going to be like the past,” says Melissa Finucane, a co-director of the Rand Climate Resilience Center. If we could just plan a little better, we could anticipate some of these problems.” (note: Ms. Finucane has been associated with the Environmental Defense Fund)

When Libertarianism Fails

Texas is Exhibit A of how not to handle electricity generation. In recent years, state regulators, politicians and utility executives went for a “free market” pricing system for electricity. Homeowners and businesses could buy it at a wholesale rate or at retail.

This means that when the weather’s fine, consumers enjoy cheaper prices. But when catastrophe strikes, some Texans have been hit with short-term bills of as much as $17,000, according to Vox. It’s a double-whammy because if people have no power because of the deep freeze, their electricity could be cut off for lack of payment.

According to media reports, Texas chose this payment method to avoid a 1935 federal law that arranged states to swap power. The business elite in Texas wanted to avoid federal regulators from looking over their system.

This approach was used in Virginia Beach when Interstate 64 was built. For years, I-64 ended miles from the oceanfront and the freeway turned into a toll road. Why? The rumor years ago was that Virginia Beach leaders did not want federal regulators exploring their road construction contracts.

In Texas, the libertarian creed of the “free market” and less regulation resulted in utilities skimping on maintenance to make bigger profits and customers stuck with astronomical bills, not to mention the loss of work income and the deaths of scores of people.

Don’t Blame Renewables

Republican leaders in Texas were quick to blame the shift to renewables as the reason for the energy shortages. Even our esteemed Jim Bacon took that bait and swam with it. To his credit, he revised his blog post after new facts were available.

The Washington Post has reported that wind turbines account for only 10 percent of generating capacity in Texas during the winter. In warmer months it can be double that. So, how can wind turbines be the cause of the catastrophe?

Some on this blog complain that Gov. Ralph Northam and Dominion Energy Virginia officials are way off mark with plans to develop a large windmill colony off Virginia Beach. They claim wind is unreliable

Well, as news accounts have it, windmill turbines work just fine in Antarctica.

It Is Time To Rethink Nukes

Virginia has four nuclear generation units. Despite some problems over the years, they have been generally reliable producers of electricity with no carbon emissions.

The problem is that the units go back to the 1960s and 1970s and are getting old. Many fear the release of radiation and new units are exorbitantly expensive.

Even so, newer, smaller reactors may be available to help with reliability as Virginia moves to a goal of being carbon free with generation by 2050.

Meanwhile, there is a movement growing within the national environmental community about accepting nuclear power. For more detail, here is a piece just out in the New Yorker.

Thank God For Joe Biden

The last four years saw the crippling, illogical influence of Donald Trump who has to be the worst and most corrupt president in U.S. history.

He rolled back environmental protections, throttled the Environmental Protection Agency and boosted fossil fuel without much traction.

Biden has taken major steps early in his administration to undo Trump’s incompetence. Biden has rejoined the Paris Accord on a global effort to stem carbon pollution and has taken other worthy steps like ending fossil fuel production on federal lands. He has recognized some pipeline projects as unneeded dinosaurs.

In sum, Virginia should study Texas and be thankful that it has a regulated pricing system for power and can easily tap neighboring states as needed. The Old Dominion should stay the course with boosting renewables and ignore the critics.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/how-the-warming-arctic-helped-drive-a-deep-freeze-into-texas/ar-BB1dJHMg


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

208 responses to “What Texas’s Crisis Means for Virginia”

  1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Texas — Rugged individualism at $9,000 per KWh.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    Well, it started off with Conservatives almost INSTANTLY blaming the wind turbines before they even knew the facts!

    This seems to be their “go to” on issues these days – just go straight to their beliefs then sort out the facts later!

    What we’ve ended up with is comparing how Texas does power with ERCOT compared to how Virginia does power with PJM.

    And to this point, the fear mongers are still pitching their “renewables will freeze little kids and old guys to death” fairy tales.

    I’m NOT opposed to Nukes but at the same time all this fear and loathing about renewables and costs while ignoring what new nukes would cost us is less than satisfying.

    So how much would some new “nukes” cost us? Cheaper than wind/solar/gas?

    1. Re your last sentence: Not at all cheaper; more expensive.
      Here is the bottom line of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report for 2019:

      “The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.
      “Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs – which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output – for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.”

      The article also points out that in addition to the cost per unit of energy generated, nuclear power takes nearly 10 years to build, a delay that itself imposes many other costs.
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        How do they compare using LCOE?

    2. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      It’s my understanding that the major problem with the wind turbines was that the wind speeds dropped considerably when the temperatures dropped in Texas. https://www.americanexperiment.org/2021/02/wind-energy-fails-grading-the-reliability-of-energy-sources-during-the-texas-power-outages/

      From what I’ve read, winterizing the wind turbines would have helped but only when the wind is blowing.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Check the EIA data on energy produced from early February onward. I think that you will find that when the freeze hit wind was providing about 40% of the state’s electricity and then dropped to around 10%. Fossil fuels could ramp up fast enough to keep the lights on because of the impact of the freeze but coal and natural gas were still producing a lot of electricity.
        I think that the NYT finds a way to spin this to reflect their dislike for Texas.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          Through the month of January wind and solar were providing close to 30% of the blend in Texas (that was from ERCOT’s own website).

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            And,your point is? My comment was about February.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Bill O’Keefe | February 22, 2021 at 1:07 pm |
            And,your point is? My comment was about February.”

            Helping you disprove the notion that wind was only providing 10% of the power generation.

            Because it didn’t just go from 10% to 40% overnight, it was a slow increase. However, renewables have been providing Texas power generations to the tune of 30% of their blend since 2019.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          What does it mean when the Wall Street Journal agrees with the NYT , though?

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-freeze-power-grid-failure-electricity-market-incentives-11613777856

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    Well, it started off with Conservatives almost INSTANTLY blaming the wind turbines before they even knew the facts!

    This seems to be their “go to” on issues these days – just go straight to their beliefs then sort out the facts later!

    What we’ve ended up with is comparing how Texas does power with ERCOT compared to how Virginia does power with PJM.

    And to this point, the fear mongers are still pitching their “renewables will freeze little kids and old guys to death” fairy tales.

    I’m NOT opposed to Nukes but at the same time all this fear and loathing about renewables and costs while ignoring what new nukes would cost us is less than satisfying.

    So how much would some new “nukes” cost us? Cheaper than wind/solar/gas?

    1. Re your last sentence: Not at all cheaper; more expensive.
      Here is the bottom line of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report for 2019:

      “The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.
      “Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs – which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output – for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.”

      The article also points out that in addition to the cost per unit of energy generated, nuclear power takes nearly 10 years to build, a delay that itself imposes many other costs.
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        How do they compare using LCOE?

    2. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      It’s my understanding that the major problem with the wind turbines was that the wind speeds dropped considerably when the temperatures dropped in Texas. https://www.americanexperiment.org/2021/02/wind-energy-fails-grading-the-reliability-of-energy-sources-during-the-texas-power-outages/

      From what I’ve read, winterizing the wind turbines would have helped but only when the wind is blowing.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Check the EIA data on energy produced from early February onward. I think that you will find that when the freeze hit wind was providing about 40% of the state’s electricity and then dropped to around 10%. Fossil fuels could ramp up fast enough to keep the lights on because of the impact of the freeze but coal and natural gas were still producing a lot of electricity.
        I think that the NYT finds a way to spin this to reflect their dislike for Texas.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          Through the month of January wind and solar were providing close to 30% of the blend in Texas (that was from ERCOT’s own website).

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            And,your point is? My comment was about February.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Bill O’Keefe | February 22, 2021 at 1:07 pm |
            And,your point is? My comment was about February.”

            Helping you disprove the notion that wind was only providing 10% of the power generation.

            Because it didn’t just go from 10% to 40% overnight, it was a slow increase. However, renewables have been providing Texas power generations to the tune of 30% of their blend since 2019.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          What does it mean when the Wall Street Journal agrees with the NYT , though?

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-freeze-power-grid-failure-electricity-market-incentives-11613777856

  4. Mr. Galuszka,

    What’s up with all the empty space?

    “Well, as news accounts have it, windmill turbines work just fine in Antarctica.”

    Are Virginia windmills to be engineered to those standards? Does Antarctica have freezing rain in the winter?

    We’ve already committed to technologies that have not yet proven the test of time in large deployments in this area.

    And what happens when the war on merit discovers that the scientists and engineers at PJM aren’t sufficiently woke?

  5. Mr. Galuszka,

    What’s up with all the empty space?

    “Well, as news accounts have it, windmill turbines work just fine in Antarctica.”

    Are Virginia windmills to be engineered to those standards? Does Antarctica have freezing rain in the winter?

    We’ve already committed to technologies that have not yet proven the test of time in large deployments in this area.

    And what happens when the war on merit discovers that the scientists and engineers at PJM aren’t sufficiently woke?

  6. Nukes are nice. Virginia has two 1/2 completed sites .Finish them.

    1. I think that fight is more with Democrats. The New Yorker article was good, but I’m not seeing any large scale movement on this issue.

      The Progressives who say they support nuclear power need to take on those who don’t. Without a significant investment in nuclear, the push against fossil fuels is a massive train wreck waiting to happen.

  7. Nukes are nice. Virginia has two 1/2 completed sites .Finish them.

    1. I think that fight is more with Democrats. The New Yorker article was good, but I’m not seeing any large scale movement on this issue.

      The Progressives who say they support nuclear power need to take on those who don’t. Without a significant investment in nuclear, the push against fossil fuels is a massive train wreck waiting to happen.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    If you started today, how long would it take and how much would we pay on our bills?

    Or are we willing to wait 10 or more years and pay $50 more a month until we get them?

    Does any of that matter in terms of folks supporting that path?

    1. What are you talking about, and to whom? That’s not clear in your comment.

      I support migrating from coal to natural gas while we add limited renewable technologies to the mix and learn over time what might work reliably and cost effectively on a large scale.

      But if one is 100% committed to getting rid of everything that adds CO2 ASAP, there’s no getting there without nuclear. I don’t like high cost, but much of the cost for nuclear has historically been fighting leftists who oppose it.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Nukes are not more expensive because of opposition – another canard from the right. Nukes cost big bucks around the world even in countries that squash opposition.

        The question is – if it costs more – and it does – then is it worth it to combat climate change?

        If skeptics deny climate change – then a more expensive power source would not make sense.

        If one believes in climate change – more expensive but cleaner fuels do make sense – not only nukes but offshore wind and solar.

        I think if one start off either as a believer of climate change or a skeptic – and goes from there it would be easier to understand the logic than when it’s all mixed up.

        Skeptics ought to be in favor of the cheapest sources I’d think.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar

    If you started today, how long would it take and how much would we pay on our bills?

    Or are we willing to wait 10 or more years and pay $50 more a month until we get them?

    Does any of that matter in terms of folks supporting that path?

    1. What are you talking about, and to whom? That’s not clear in your comment.

      I support migrating from coal to natural gas while we add limited renewable technologies to the mix and learn over time what might work reliably and cost effectively on a large scale.

      But if one is 100% committed to getting rid of everything that adds CO2 ASAP, there’s no getting there without nuclear. I don’t like high cost, but much of the cost for nuclear has historically been fighting leftists who oppose it.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Nukes are not more expensive because of opposition – another canard from the right. Nukes cost big bucks around the world even in countries that squash opposition.

        The question is – if it costs more – and it does – then is it worth it to combat climate change?

        If skeptics deny climate change – then a more expensive power source would not make sense.

        If one believes in climate change – more expensive but cleaner fuels do make sense – not only nukes but offshore wind and solar.

        I think if one start off either as a believer of climate change or a skeptic – and goes from there it would be easier to understand the logic than when it’s all mixed up.

        Skeptics ought to be in favor of the cheapest sources I’d think.

  10. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    To borrow a line from something you might yet read: Imagine the week Texas would have had if once the power went out, they looked around and found they had no gasoline engines or generators, no propane heaters or cookers, no diesel snow plows, etc. That’s the 100% electric, 0% fossil fuel future that Peter, Larry and Joseph R. Biden (reading the teleprompter) and Wise King Ralph have in store for Virginia. The lesson of Texas is diversity — for electricity and for everything else. Texas had the week it had due to good ol’ fashioned human error.

    Climate change is real. It is also constant and largely natural and not to blame for normal winter weather. The temps in Texas last week were right in line with past norms. The historical lows for February were not reached and certainly not exceeded. You have to plan and design looking back for more than the 20 years…

  11. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    To borrow a line from something you might yet read: Imagine the week Texas would have had if once the power went out, they looked around and found they had no gasoline engines or generators, no propane heaters or cookers, no diesel snow plows, etc. That’s the 100% electric, 0% fossil fuel future that Peter, Larry and Joseph R. Biden (reading the teleprompter) and Wise King Ralph have in store for Virginia. The lesson of Texas is diversity — for electricity and for everything else. Texas had the week it had due to good ol’ fashioned human error.

    Climate change is real. It is also constant and largely natural and not to blame for normal winter weather. The temps in Texas last week were right in line with past norms. The historical lows for February were not reached and certainly not exceeded. You have to plan and design looking back for more than the 20 years…

  12. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Mark Twain once observed, I am not bothered by all that he doesn’t know, just all the things he knows that aren’t so. That applies here.
    Every time there is an extreme weather event, someone has to claim that it is climate change. The historical evidence doesn’t support that. For example, the National Hurricane Research Division data from 1900 to 2017 does not show any increasing trend in hurricanes. This is consistent with a 2012 review–Historical Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls JESSICA WEINKLE, Colorado State– “our quantitative analysis of global hurricane land- falls is consistent with previous research focused on normalized losses associated with hurricanes that have found no trends once data are properly adjusted for so- cietal factors.”
    In Texas, the state doesn’t count on wind to provide more than 10% of capacity. However, between February 7 and 11, wind power went from 42% to 8%. While it is true that gas generated power was not able to make up the short fall, it was providing more than normal. Check this data with the EIA statistics.
    The lesson to be learned is not to blame climate or free markets but to make sure than in pursuing the Virginia mandated renewables agenda, Dominion maintains an adequate based load capacity, continues to invest in reliability and more important in resilience so that recovery can be quick.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      And our entire economy is not tied to one energy source, electricity. Heard some Texas farmers on NPR this morning kicking themselves for not having additive in their tractor tanks to prevent frozen fuel, something other farmers all over the world have. But had those tractors been electric and the power out for five days? NPR didn’t ask that….

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        Didn’t former President Barack Obama say that the United States needed “all of the above” with respect to the different types of energy? Of course, Obama is an intelligent man (for all of his other faults) and his vice president, now president is, well, stupid.

  13. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Mark Twain once observed, I am not bothered by all that he doesn’t know, just all the things he knows that aren’t so. That applies here.
    Every time there is an extreme weather event, someone has to claim that it is climate change. The historical evidence doesn’t support that. For example, the National Hurricane Research Division data from 1900 to 2017 does not show any increasing trend in hurricanes. This is consistent with a 2012 review–Historical Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls JESSICA WEINKLE, Colorado State– “our quantitative analysis of global hurricane land- falls is consistent with previous research focused on normalized losses associated with hurricanes that have found no trends once data are properly adjusted for so- cietal factors.”
    In Texas, the state doesn’t count on wind to provide more than 10% of capacity. However, between February 7 and 11, wind power went from 42% to 8%. While it is true that gas generated power was not able to make up the short fall, it was providing more than normal. Check this data with the EIA statistics.
    The lesson to be learned is not to blame climate or free markets but to make sure than in pursuing the Virginia mandated renewables agenda, Dominion maintains an adequate based load capacity, continues to invest in reliability and more important in resilience so that recovery can be quick.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      And our entire economy is not tied to one energy source, electricity. Heard some Texas farmers on NPR this morning kicking themselves for not having additive in their tractor tanks to prevent frozen fuel, something other farmers all over the world have. But had those tractors been electric and the power out for five days? NPR didn’t ask that….

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        Didn’t former President Barack Obama say that the United States needed “all of the above” with respect to the different types of energy? Of course, Obama is an intelligent man (for all of his other faults) and his vice president, now president is, well, stupid.

  14. If Repubs were guilty of blaming Renewables early on in the TX crisis, then Dems are guilty of blaming Fossil Fuels after the fact. In reality, although power choice is a hot button political item, probably not the biggest problem in TX.

    The main thing I immediately see is Virginia Dems dropping their recent knee jerk liberal reaction to start mandating electric heat pumps, which Virginia already has a whole lot of heat pumps, more than most. Apparently the heat pumps have extraordinary electric demand when the cold gets really cold. That’s part of why we in Va. already consume more household electric than most states.

    So if we ban all fossil fuels, which Dems like Peter see as the correct approach, I do not see any way to power America in the winter. We’d have to have wind turbines all the way to London.

    To me it calls into question if full electric cars and other Democrat feel-good items are better for the environment and America.

    The Country has already made and enormous commitment to renewables…Peter infers that is nothing.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Just watched Bill Gates w Chris Matthews. In 30 years, mass migrations, ag failures and shortages, catastrophic fires and storms. Same message as 30 years ago w a new goalpost.

      1. Gates seems to be signaling he supports any and all draconian moves the Dems want to make under Biden, but I am not convinced of the approach. Ultimately the TX example shows extreme rapid shift to electrification is problematic. If climate change is going to kill us in 5 years, we’re already dead. But we probably have a longer time horizon and energy change is happening at a rapid pace already.

  15. If Repubs were guilty of blaming Renewables early on in the TX crisis, then Dems are guilty of blaming Fossil Fuels after the fact. In reality, although power choice is a hot button political item, probably not the biggest problem in TX.

    The main thing I immediately see is Virginia Dems dropping their recent knee jerk liberal reaction to start mandating electric heat pumps, which Virginia already has a whole lot of heat pumps, more than most. Apparently the heat pumps have extraordinary electric demand when the cold gets really cold. That’s part of why we in Va. already consume more household electric than most states.

    So if we ban all fossil fuels, which Dems like Peter see as the correct approach, I do not see any way to power America in the winter. We’d have to have wind turbines all the way to London.

    To me it calls into question if full electric cars and other Democrat feel-good items are better for the environment and America.

    The Country has already made and enormous commitment to renewables…Peter infers that is nothing.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Just watched Bill Gates w Chris Matthews. In 30 years, mass migrations, ag failures and shortages, catastrophic fires and storms. Same message as 30 years ago w a new goalpost.

      1. Gates seems to be signaling he supports any and all draconian moves the Dems want to make under Biden, but I am not convinced of the approach. Ultimately the TX example shows extreme rapid shift to electrification is problematic. If climate change is going to kill us in 5 years, we’re already dead. But we probably have a longer time horizon and energy change is happening at a rapid pace already.

  16. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Nathan, not sure about the empty space but both my laptop and desktop have been on the fritz. It was tough writing on them

  17. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Nathan, not sure about the empty space but both my laptop and desktop have been on the fritz. It was tough writing on them

  18. The biggest difference between Virginia and Texas is PJM, the regional transmission organization of which we are part. One key to focus on, as Acbar mentioned in a different thread, is that PJM has two markets — one for energy and one for capacity. Texas does not have a capacity market. That’s a big part of went wrong. I cannot properly explain how capacity markets work — perhaps Acbar can step in again — but their purpose is to ensure that electric utilities always have access to enough generating capacity.

    Here’s what I’m trying to wrap my head around. Virginia is mandated to move to a zero-carbon grid by 2045 (Dominion) and 2050 (APCo). Assuming that Virginia is still part of the PJM system, Dominion and APCo still will be required to maintain adequate capacity. They won’t have to build the backup capacity themselves, they can buy capacity at auction from other utilities, but they have to have it. Here’s a question: Will that backup capacity have to be “green,” as in renewable? Which mandate prevails — Virginia’s, to use 100% renewables, or PJM’s, to maintain 100% capacity? My head hurts trying to get it straight.

    1. Only space for a quick answer here:
      “Will that backup capacity have to be “green,” as in renewable? Which mandate prevails — Virginia’s, to use 100% renewables, or PJM’s, to maintain 100% capacity?”
      Both will apply; the solution will have to meet both. But some clarifications.

      First, there’s a lot of fuzziness in a “100 % renewables” mandate. If you mean the energy consumed in ordinary circumstances has to come from a renewable source somewhere on the grid, then you are allowing the use of workarounds like RECs (tradeable renewable energy credits) and capacity reserves under contract from fossil-fueled plants. If you mean capacity reserves have to be “renewables” also, you are talking astronomical (read, politically unacceptable) costs to consumers.

      Second, PJM’s mandate is for each LSE to have under contract at all times an amount of capacity that equals (a) its forecast peak load for that planning year, plus (b) an additional percentage for reserves, fixed annually by PJM and applicable to every LSE equally. That reserve amount is a catch-all based mainly on historical experience with forced and maintenance outages — i.e., a certain amount of generating capacity can’t or won’t run even when you need it — and the adder also reflects the overall risk of capacity unavailability for other reasons, such as the risk of fuel shortage, risk of loss of water for hydro or wind for windmills, risk of cloudy weather for solar (and of course solar only has limited availability to begin with) — offset somewhat by positives such as the ability to time-shift power to meet demand (e.g., from the sunny middle of the day until the high-demand late afternoon and evening), through batteries and hydro pumped-storage. As the percentage of renewables goes up, that reserves adder is likely to increase as availability experience indicates.

      And third, the reserves adder is a statistical calculation: there is always some risk of a shortfall leading to rolling blackouts, but the general idea is to keep that risk below a probability of 1 such day in 10 years.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        The question about PJM and renewables is a good one. At one time, we were told that PJM would not allow/support/agree ? to more than 30% renewables.

        Not sure where that came from and certainly in conflict with the claimed Virginia “mandate” for 100%. Is it a “mandate” or a “goal” ? How is it enforced?

  19. The biggest difference between Virginia and Texas is PJM, the regional transmission organization of which we are part. One key to focus on, as Acbar mentioned in a different thread, is that PJM has two markets — one for energy and one for capacity. Texas does not have a capacity market. That’s a big part of went wrong. I cannot properly explain how capacity markets work — perhaps Acbar can step in again — but their purpose is to ensure that electric utilities always have access to enough generating capacity.

    Here’s what I’m trying to wrap my head around. Virginia is mandated to move to a zero-carbon grid by 2045 (Dominion) and 2050 (APCo). Assuming that Virginia is still part of the PJM system, Dominion and APCo still will be required to maintain adequate capacity. They won’t have to build the backup capacity themselves, they can buy capacity at auction from other utilities, but they have to have it. Here’s a question: Will that backup capacity have to be “green,” as in renewable? Which mandate prevails — Virginia’s, to use 100% renewables, or PJM’s, to maintain 100% capacity? My head hurts trying to get it straight.

    1. Only space for a quick answer here:
      “Will that backup capacity have to be “green,” as in renewable? Which mandate prevails — Virginia’s, to use 100% renewables, or PJM’s, to maintain 100% capacity?”
      Both will apply; the solution will have to meet both. But some clarifications.

      First, there’s a lot of fuzziness in a “100 % renewables” mandate. If you mean the energy consumed in ordinary circumstances has to come from a renewable source somewhere on the grid, then you are allowing the use of workarounds like RECs (tradeable renewable energy credits) and capacity reserves under contract from fossil-fueled plants. If you mean capacity reserves have to be “renewables” also, you are talking astronomical (read, politically unacceptable) costs to consumers.

      Second, PJM’s mandate is for each LSE to have under contract at all times an amount of capacity that equals (a) its forecast peak load for that planning year, plus (b) an additional percentage for reserves, fixed annually by PJM and applicable to every LSE equally. That reserve amount is a catch-all based mainly on historical experience with forced and maintenance outages — i.e., a certain amount of generating capacity can’t or won’t run even when you need it — and the adder also reflects the overall risk of capacity unavailability for other reasons, such as the risk of fuel shortage, risk of loss of water for hydro or wind for windmills, risk of cloudy weather for solar (and of course solar only has limited availability to begin with) — offset somewhat by positives such as the ability to time-shift power to meet demand (e.g., from the sunny middle of the day until the high-demand late afternoon and evening), through batteries and hydro pumped-storage. As the percentage of renewables goes up, that reserves adder is likely to increase as availability experience indicates.

      And third, the reserves adder is a statistical calculation: there is always some risk of a shortfall leading to rolling blackouts, but the general idea is to keep that risk below a probability of 1 such day in 10 years.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        The question about PJM and renewables is a good one. At one time, we were told that PJM would not allow/support/agree ? to more than 30% renewables.

        Not sure where that came from and certainly in conflict with the claimed Virginia “mandate” for 100%. Is it a “mandate” or a “goal” ? How is it enforced?

  20. Steve, I want to underscore something you said above: “Climate change is real. It is also constant and largely natural and not to blame for normal winter weather. ” PG’s basic premise is that the Texas debacle can be blamed on climate change. No! Not at all! Texas wrote reports on what to do about the problems revealed in the last bitter-weather incident in 2011 and let all that hard work sit on the shelf unheeded. It wasn’t politically convenient. Why winterize to prepare for a low-likelihood (but not zero) possibility? Keep the base price of energy as low as possible; let the high energy prices during emergencies be a sufficient reward for those sellers who prepared, a sufficient penalty for those who didn’t — but, at the same time, ignoring the efforts by retail electricity suppliers to pass that risk on to consumers through “wholesale market price pass-through” retail rate designs. So who has the burden, now, of those high energy prices? Not the retailers, but their consumers who signed up for the cheap market-price pass-through rates. And many of them also suffered long rolling blackouts during at least part of the same time that high-priced emergency power was being bought at their expense by their suppliers!

    All of this was a foreseen, fully preventable consequence of weather well within the range of past experience, poor grid reliability planning, inadequate wholesale rate incentives for reliability, and atrocious retail rate regulation. Welcome to utility regulation by the legislature.

  21. Steve, I want to underscore something you said above: “Climate change is real. It is also constant and largely natural and not to blame for normal winter weather. ” PG’s basic premise is that the Texas debacle can be blamed on climate change. No! Not at all! Texas wrote reports on what to do about the problems revealed in the last bitter-weather incident in 2011 and let all that hard work sit on the shelf unheeded. It wasn’t politically convenient. Why winterize to prepare for a low-likelihood (but not zero) possibility? Keep the base price of energy as low as possible; let the high energy prices during emergencies be a sufficient reward for those sellers who prepared, a sufficient penalty for those who didn’t — but, at the same time, ignoring the efforts by retail electricity suppliers to pass that risk on to consumers through “wholesale market price pass-through” retail rate designs. So who has the burden, now, of those high energy prices? Not the retailers, but their consumers who signed up for the cheap market-price pass-through rates. And many of them also suffered long rolling blackouts during at least part of the same time that high-priced emergency power was being bought at their expense by their suppliers!

    All of this was a foreseen, fully preventable consequence of weather well within the range of past experience, poor grid reliability planning, inadequate wholesale rate incentives for reliability, and atrocious retail rate regulation. Welcome to utility regulation by the legislature.

  22. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Texas — Rugged individualism at $9,000 per KWh.

  23. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2021/02/ERCOT-Crisis.jpg

    That shows the generation sources serving the part of Texas served by ERCOT, the grid operator, each recent day. An interesting chart, revealing and misleading at the same time. What is misleading is it ignores that total power output actually shrank significantly during the crisis’ early days. It measures 100% of the output, but ignores how deeply that output dropped. NG did not spike like that, not at all. It provided a growing share of a shrinking supply.

    Acbar, like Jim I need to know more about how capacity markets operate. It is my understanding the renewable industry resists it, because of course it cannot earn any revenue from it. It cannot deliver guaranteed electricity on demand when the call comes. But it also resents and resists those payments to the nuclear and fossil fuel generators.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” I need to know more about how capacity markets operate”

      there’s a pretty good PJM article :

      https://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/buying-and-selling-energy/capacity-markets.aspx

      but I still ask the question – even with a commitment to pay for backup – what happens if weather takes down that backup – essentially like what happened i n Texas. Is there some rule in PJM that requires backup plants to be weatherized for cold weather whereas ERCOAT did not?

      1. Read my answer to Jim; will try to supplement later.

  24. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2021/02/ERCOT-Crisis.jpg

    That shows the generation sources serving the part of Texas served by ERCOT, the grid operator, each recent day. An interesting chart, revealing and misleading at the same time. What is misleading is it ignores that total power output actually shrank significantly during the crisis’ early days. It measures 100% of the output, but ignores how deeply that output dropped. NG did not spike like that, not at all. It provided a growing share of a shrinking supply.

    Acbar, like Jim I need to know more about how capacity markets operate. It is my understanding the renewable industry resists it, because of course it cannot earn any revenue from it. It cannot deliver guaranteed electricity on demand when the call comes. But it also resents and resists those payments to the nuclear and fossil fuel generators.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” I need to know more about how capacity markets operate”

      there’s a pretty good PJM article :

      https://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/buying-and-selling-energy/capacity-markets.aspx

      but I still ask the question – even with a commitment to pay for backup – what happens if weather takes down that backup – essentially like what happened i n Texas. Is there some rule in PJM that requires backup plants to be weatherized for cold weather whereas ERCOAT did not?

      1. Read my answer to Jim; will try to supplement later.

  25. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Don’t get the chart. This is for Texas? Doesn’t say so.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Peter: ERCOT = Energy Reliability Council of Texas.

      Larry: I suspect the answer is yes, PJM and or NERC have standards for weatherization if you are playing in the capacity market. Never 100% but can do better than ERCOT did.

    2. I think the caption was supposed to read “ERCOT” but it got misspelled.

  26. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Don’t get the chart. This is for Texas? Doesn’t say so.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Peter: ERCOT = Energy Reliability Council of Texas.

      Larry: I suspect the answer is yes, PJM and or NERC have standards for weatherization if you are playing in the capacity market. Never 100% but can do better than ERCOT did.

    2. I think the caption was supposed to read “ERCOT” but it got misspelled.

  27. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Haner. It might help if you took the five seconds or so to define your chart.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Amended.

  28. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Haner. It might help if you took the five seconds or so to define your chart.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Amended.

  29. Matt Adams Avatar

    The free market had nothing to do with the issues at hand in Texas. It managed to give them a 9 cent per kw/h price prior to the weather event compared to the national average of 13 cents per kw/h.

    The failure was a result of several cascading items. Lessons learned in 2011 were not implemented by ERCOT (which the Texas Utility Commission and Texas Legislature should have ensured happened).

    Texas’s energy supply in January of 2021 was a 27.41% blend of solar and wind. The notion that only 10% was being supplied by renewables is fallacious. Also of that 27.41% only 13.71% were operational and supply power due to the weather conditions.

    http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation

    Yes, a lions share is still supplied by Gas. Yes, a lack of storage prevented that gas supply from reaching the power plants, there was also diminished gas supply from residential needs for heat and the overall temp is not conducive to gas extraction. However, the failures of the system were as result of inclement weather conditions and failure to adhere to lessons learned.

    FPOTUS Trump and POTUS Biden have nothing to do with it, so drop the BS Peter. If you want to discuss energy, perhaps you should use the “science” that you and your crew are so fond of bring up.

  30. Matt Adams Avatar

    The free market had nothing to do with the issues at hand in Texas. It managed to give them a 9 cent per kw/h price prior to the weather event compared to the national average of 13 cents per kw/h.

    The failure was a result of several cascading items. Lessons learned in 2011 were not implemented by ERCOT (which the Texas Utility Commission and Texas Legislature should have ensured happened).

    Texas’s energy supply in January of 2021 was a 27.41% blend of solar and wind. The notion that only 10% was being supplied by renewables is fallacious. Also of that 27.41% only 13.71% were operational and supply power due to the weather conditions.

    http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation

    Yes, a lions share is still supplied by Gas. Yes, a lack of storage prevented that gas supply from reaching the power plants, there was also diminished gas supply from residential needs for heat and the overall temp is not conducive to gas extraction. However, the failures of the system were as result of inclement weather conditions and failure to adhere to lessons learned.

    FPOTUS Trump and POTUS Biden have nothing to do with it, so drop the BS Peter. If you want to discuss energy, perhaps you should use the “science” that you and your crew are so fond of bring up.

  31. warrenhollowbooks Avatar
    warrenhollowbooks

    “Climate Change is For Real” . . . because Texas is cold

    And apparently when Texas is hot it ALSO proves climate change
    And if Texas is wet it proves climate change
    Andi if Texas is dry it proves climate change.

    If anything that can possibly happen proves your theory correct then I detect a detach from any true scientific method.

    “Thank God For Joe Biden”

    Yes, I’m sure that thought provided so much comfort to those sitting there in the cold

  32. warrenhollowbooks Avatar
    warrenhollowbooks

    “Climate Change is For Real” . . . because Texas is cold

    And apparently when Texas is hot it ALSO proves climate change
    And if Texas is wet it proves climate change
    Andi if Texas is dry it proves climate change.

    If anything that can possibly happen proves your theory correct then I detect a detach from any true scientific method.

    “Thank God For Joe Biden”

    Yes, I’m sure that thought provided so much comfort to those sitting there in the cold

  33. warrenhollowbooks Avatar
    warrenhollowbooks

    “Thank god for Joe Biden”

    That’s interesting; because according to the theory of Executive responsibility put forth by Democrats over the past fours Joe Biden is responsible for every single death and injury . . .

  34. warrenhollowbooks Avatar
    warrenhollowbooks

    “Thank god for Joe Biden”

    That’s interesting; because according to the theory of Executive responsibility put forth by Democrats over the past fours Joe Biden is responsible for every single death and injury . . .

  35. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Can’t elect people who believe government will always fail and expect them to succeed.

    “Plenty of room in Cancun. C’mon down!”

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      That was a level of stupid you cannot fix. I can only hope he was getting the hell beat out of him by his wife and kids. “Daddeeeee..why can’t we go!” Another future contender crashes and burns….

  36. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Can’t elect people who believe government will always fail and expect them to succeed.

    “Plenty of room in Cancun. C’mon down!”

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      That was a level of stupid you cannot fix. I can only hope he was getting the hell beat out of him by his wife and kids. “Daddeeeee..why can’t we go!” Another future contender crashes and burns….

  37. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Matt adams. You are putting together figures for wind and solar. My blig post states clearly that it is 10 percent wind in the winter. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Washington Post

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      “Matt adams. You are putting together figures for wind and solar. My blig post states clearly that it is 10 percent wind in the winter. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Washington Post”

      I pulled data directly from ERCOT, the summation of power generation of wind and solar for the month of January 2021 resulted in 27.41% of the entire blend of providers. If you want just wind I can do that too and it’s far above 10%. The total for wind alone was 25.04% of the power generated (7702255.378 watts).

      Why should I take it up with the post? Aren’t you suppose to fact check and verify what you write? ERCOT has a website, where you can download the table of data for 2021 in 10 seconds. I’m finding your standard response of take up with someone else as nothing more a deflection and poor reflection upon you.

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The Post wrong? Biased? Never would have thought that!

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Every major news outlet INCLUDING the Wall Street Journal are now reporting similar conclusions they have gathered from authoritative sources.

        When the Wall Street Journal AGREEs with WaPo, what does that mean? That WSJ is also lying? 😉

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          Argumentum ad populum doesn’t make something true. The math says otherwise, I’d believe the math.

    3. Actually both Peter and Matt are correct. The January energy (MWh) production in ERCOT was 25% wind, 2.4% solar, for a total of 27.4% from those two categories. From the same website, ERCOT’s winter 20/21 “Seasonal Assessment of Resource Adequacy, the official measure of available capacity (MW) for ERCOT, is: 82,513 MW total gen, of which 6411 MW, or 7.8%, was wind and solar. That’s not the WaPo’s loosely rounded “10%” but it is the real figure.

      Why the difference? Because the amount of “capacity” attributed to wind and solar resources is only a percentage of the maximum (“nameplate rating”) of wind generation and an even smaller percentage of the maximum solar generation. This is a way of discounting the value of these resources (since they are, obviously, dependent upon wind or sun availability) to come up with a statistically probability of the availability of these megawatts of generation when they are needed.

      The crediting of wind and solar generation with any capacity value is a big bone of contention in utility circles. On the one hand you can’t guarantee these resources will be there at all when needed. On the other hand, they probably will be there, to some extent anyway. How to give wind and solar some capacity credit (probabilistically) without going to either extreme, 100% or zero, is a tough call but, as Steve Haner’s graph above shows clearly, wind and solar generation actually did contribute lots of energy to ERCOT through this crisis (and wind power’s contribution dropped off substantially on 02/09 when a number of those wind generators were frozen out of service).

      As for “take it up with the Washington Post,” Peter, you can do better than that. Matt and I could find the real answers, and did.

  38. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Matt adams. You are putting together figures for wind and solar. My blig post states clearly that it is 10 percent wind in the winter. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Washington Post

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      “Matt adams. You are putting together figures for wind and solar. My blig post states clearly that it is 10 percent wind in the winter. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Washington Post”

      I pulled data directly from ERCOT, the summation of power generation of wind and solar for the month of January 2021 resulted in 27.41% of the entire blend of providers. If you want just wind I can do that too and it’s far above 10%. The total for wind alone was 25.04% of the power generated (7702255.378 watts).

      Why should I take it up with the post? Aren’t you suppose to fact check and verify what you write? ERCOT has a website, where you can download the table of data for 2021 in 10 seconds. I’m finding your standard response of take up with someone else as nothing more a deflection and poor reflection upon you.

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The Post wrong? Biased? Never would have thought that!

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Every major news outlet INCLUDING the Wall Street Journal are now reporting similar conclusions they have gathered from authoritative sources.

        When the Wall Street Journal AGREEs with WaPo, what does that mean? That WSJ is also lying? 😉

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          Argumentum ad populum doesn’t make something true. The math says otherwise, I’d believe the math.

    3. Actually both Peter and Matt are correct. The January energy (MWh) production in ERCOT was 25% wind, 2.4% solar, for a total of 27.4% from those two categories. From the same website, ERCOT’s winter 20/21 “Seasonal Assessment of Resource Adequacy, the official measure of available capacity (MW) for ERCOT, is: 82,513 MW total gen, of which 6411 MW, or 7.8%, was wind and solar. That’s not the WaPo’s loosely rounded “10%” but it is the real figure.

      Why the difference? Because the amount of “capacity” attributed to wind and solar resources is only a percentage of the maximum (“nameplate rating”) of wind generation and an even smaller percentage of the maximum solar generation. This is a way of discounting the value of these resources (since they are, obviously, dependent upon wind or sun availability) to come up with a statistically probability of the availability of these megawatts of generation when they are needed.

      The crediting of wind and solar generation with any capacity value is a big bone of contention in utility circles. On the one hand you can’t guarantee these resources will be there at all when needed. On the other hand, they probably will be there, to some extent anyway. How to give wind and solar some capacity credit (probabilistically) without going to either extreme, 100% or zero, is a tough call but, as Steve Haner’s graph above shows clearly, wind and solar generation actually did contribute lots of energy to ERCOT through this crisis (and wind power’s contribution dropped off substantially on 02/09 when a number of those wind generators were frozen out of service).

      As for “take it up with the Washington Post,” Peter, you can do better than that. Matt and I could find the real answers, and did.

  39. LarrytheG Avatar

    Reporting from the Wall Street Journal:

    The “free market”, without regulation like PJM does – fails – has zero to do with renewables… and wind turbines all over the world in Artic conditions work just fine if they are weatherized.

    ” The Texas Freeze: Why the Power Grid Failed
    The state’s electricity system was considered a model. This week’s outages revealed shortcomings in the market structure.

    A fundamental flaw in the freewheeling Texas electricity market left millions powerless and freezing in the dark this week during a historic cold snap.

    The core problem: Power providers can reap rewards by supplying electricity to Texas customers, but they aren’t required to do it and face no penalties for failing to deliver during a lengthy emergency.

    That led to the fiasco that left millions of people in the nation’s second-most-populous state without power for days. A severe storm paralyzed almost every energy source, from power plants to wind turbines, because their owners hadn’t made the investments needed to produce electricity in subfreezing temperatures.

    While power providers collectively failed, the companies themselves didn’t break any rules. Texas officials don’t require plant owners to prepare for the worst by spending extra money to ensure they can continue operating through severe cold or heat. The high prices operators can reap from such periods of peak demand were supposed to be incentive enough for them to invest in safeguarding their equipment from severe weather.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-freeze-power-grid-failure-electricity-market-incentives-11613777856

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      As I said about a week ago, the after-action on this is going to be fascinating and this time people should pay close attention.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Yep… and , will it be about the failure of renwables or the failure of that “free market”?

        There is no question that Texas and ERCOT are a much less fettered “free market” than PJM , right? One can argue, in fact, that PJM rules actually drive up the cost of electricity by requiring costly backup plants.

    2. “The core problem: Power providers can reap rewards by supplying electricity to Texas customers, but they aren’t required to do it and face no penalties for failing to deliver during a lengthy emergency.”

      It’s most unfortunate that little attention is paid to the fact that it’s been over a week and Virginia still has over 12,000 outages, 11,590 of those are in Southside Electrical Cooperative’s footprint.

      If we want to talk about Virginia, lets talk about Virginia. That sounds to me like “failing to deliver during a lengthy emergency.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        so this is a problem that requires the government to fix it?

  40. LarrytheG Avatar

    Reporting from the Wall Street Journal:

    The “free market”, without regulation like PJM does – fails – has zero to do with renewables… and wind turbines all over the world in Artic conditions work just fine if they are weatherized.

    ” The Texas Freeze: Why the Power Grid Failed
    The state’s electricity system was considered a model. This week’s outages revealed shortcomings in the market structure.

    A fundamental flaw in the freewheeling Texas electricity market left millions powerless and freezing in the dark this week during a historic cold snap.

    The core problem: Power providers can reap rewards by supplying electricity to Texas customers, but they aren’t required to do it and face no penalties for failing to deliver during a lengthy emergency.

    That led to the fiasco that left millions of people in the nation’s second-most-populous state without power for days. A severe storm paralyzed almost every energy source, from power plants to wind turbines, because their owners hadn’t made the investments needed to produce electricity in subfreezing temperatures.

    While power providers collectively failed, the companies themselves didn’t break any rules. Texas officials don’t require plant owners to prepare for the worst by spending extra money to ensure they can continue operating through severe cold or heat. The high prices operators can reap from such periods of peak demand were supposed to be incentive enough for them to invest in safeguarding their equipment from severe weather.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-freeze-power-grid-failure-electricity-market-incentives-11613777856

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      As I said about a week ago, the after-action on this is going to be fascinating and this time people should pay close attention.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Yep… and , will it be about the failure of renwables or the failure of that “free market”?

        There is no question that Texas and ERCOT are a much less fettered “free market” than PJM , right? One can argue, in fact, that PJM rules actually drive up the cost of electricity by requiring costly backup plants.

    2. “The core problem: Power providers can reap rewards by supplying electricity to Texas customers, but they aren’t required to do it and face no penalties for failing to deliver during a lengthy emergency.”

      It’s most unfortunate that little attention is paid to the fact that it’s been over a week and Virginia still has over 12,000 outages, 11,590 of those are in Southside Electrical Cooperative’s footprint.

      If we want to talk about Virginia, lets talk about Virginia. That sounds to me like “failing to deliver during a lengthy emergency.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        so this is a problem that requires the government to fix it?

  41. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Matt Adams,
    I do this for free. I can’t afford to look up every detail published in one of the best newspapers in the country. I have jobs that actually pay me. I don’t think you understanding what blogging is all about. It is opinion quoting other sources.
    The Post article said wind is 10 percent IN THE WINTER. It goes up in warmer months.
    Lastly, it would really help if you actually read the blog posts before launching nit picks and character hits. If you keep it up, you may be hearing from my lawyer. Don’t think I don’t know how libel and defamation lawsuits work. I’ve only been doing this for 48 years.
    Cheers!

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      So because you do it for free you not required to fact check and or validate your statements?

      You can’t afford to type Texas Energy Blend into Google and it spits out ERCOT’s website. Where you download a csv and do three equations? That took a sum total of 5 minutes.

      Merely because something is a blog doesn’t mean it should be devoid of facts and you as a “journalist and editor” shouldn’t supply facts.

      Sound awfully similar to an excuse when people are caught cheating on tests or when they get nabbed for plagiarism.

      “Lastly, it would really help if you actually read the blog posts before launching nit picks and character hits. If you keep it up, you may be hearing from my lawyer. Don’t think I don’t know how libel and defamation lawsuits work. I’ve only been doing this for 48 years.”

      Ad Hom attack? I provided links, facts and math and told you to cut the crap regarding FPOTUS and POTUS. None of that is a “ad hom” and your use of it as a means to deflect is in it of itself an ad hom.

      Furthermore, you’re going to threaten legal action again? You do know that between that statement here and the private unsolicited e-mail you sent me that’s the legal definition of harassment right?

  42. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Matt Adams,
    I do this for free. I can’t afford to look up every detail published in one of the best newspapers in the country. I have jobs that actually pay me. I don’t think you understanding what blogging is all about. It is opinion quoting other sources.
    The Post article said wind is 10 percent IN THE WINTER. It goes up in warmer months.
    Lastly, it would really help if you actually read the blog posts before launching nit picks and character hits. If you keep it up, you may be hearing from my lawyer. Don’t think I don’t know how libel and defamation lawsuits work. I’ve only been doing this for 48 years.
    Cheers!

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      So because you do it for free you not required to fact check and or validate your statements?

      You can’t afford to type Texas Energy Blend into Google and it spits out ERCOT’s website. Where you download a csv and do three equations? That took a sum total of 5 minutes.

      Merely because something is a blog doesn’t mean it should be devoid of facts and you as a “journalist and editor” shouldn’t supply facts.

      Sound awfully similar to an excuse when people are caught cheating on tests or when they get nabbed for plagiarism.

      “Lastly, it would really help if you actually read the blog posts before launching nit picks and character hits. If you keep it up, you may be hearing from my lawyer. Don’t think I don’t know how libel and defamation lawsuits work. I’ve only been doing this for 48 years.”

      Ad Hom attack? I provided links, facts and math and told you to cut the crap regarding FPOTUS and POTUS. None of that is a “ad hom” and your use of it as a means to deflect is in it of itself an ad hom.

      Furthermore, you’re going to threaten legal action again? You do know that between that statement here and the private unsolicited e-mail you sent me that’s the legal definition of harassment right?

  43. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Saturday’s WSJ Review section had a lengthly article by Ted Nordhaus, founder of the Breakthrough Institute–How Serious are Biden and Democrats About Fighting Climate Change? It is well worth reading and thinking about.
    The emissions problem is China, India, and developing countries. Virginia’s zero emissions mandate is like spitting in the ocean.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The problem with China and India is sheer numbers of people. They use far less energy per capita than we do but the population numbers take them to higher overall numbers.

      They live lives with far lower standards of living and they are striving for better.

      Are they entitled to use as much energy per capita as we do or what?

      I think that is where leadership comes in. What country can demonstrate lower energy use per capita that is a equitable goal for all people regardless of the country they live in?

      Or is that a wrong goal?

      https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/energy-use-per-capita-600×401.png

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Larry, yours is a non-sequitur argument. The atmosphere really doesn’t care the source of emissions does it? If the US emissions and carbon intensity are going down, why do we think that more of the same makes more sense than helping those developing countries use more energy efficient technology and help them increase their standards of living more cost-effectively?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Bill – the atmosphere does not care but should WE care in terms of each person’s standard of living if we need to make changes to consumption?

          Are we essentially accusing India and China of having too many people and if they had less, then us folks in the US could continue to use 4 times as much energy per capita?

          Some of this depends on whether you believe global warming is a problem to start with and if you don’t really believe that – then this other stuff is really about what if not about global warming?

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Either you didn’t read my post or it went over your head. I said none of those things. What is you solution to reducing atmospheric concentrations?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            my solution: to keep working to reduce it , to accept it is real and we need to work to reduce it and not blame others ….

          3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Three “it”s not defined and there is no path forward that you articulate.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            The path forward is to reduce the use of fossil fuel pollution when we can without deficits to reliability.

            The average American house can cut it’s energy usage in half without harm to our lifestyle. We waste energy hand over fist because it’s cheap money-wise but not pollution-wise.

            Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate

            https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/06/PS_2020.06.23_government-and-climate_00-01.png?w=640

          5. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Fossil fuels are heavily regulated so that pollutants emitted are below standards designed to protect the most sensitive people with a margin of safety.
            People should be free to use whatever electricity they are willing to pay for. Neither you or anyone else should be telling them to cut consumption by 50%.

          6. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            Larry, responding to your Pew Research Center results. Fairfax County is requesting residents take three short surveys on climate change and sustainability. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FFXCECAPenergy

            The reason for the new surveys was as follows:

            “In a previous survey, we learned that many Fairfax County residents are unlikely to change their behavior in the near future to reduce their carbon footprints. This survey seeks to understand what it would take for you as an individual to make changes that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

            It’s easy to be virtuous when it doesn’t cost anything or you are using other people’s money.

          7. “The average American house can cut it’s energy usage in half without harm to our lifestyle. ”

            How, Larry? How can I cut the energy usage at my house in half while not causing harm to my lifestyle?

            Provide a list of specific things I can do which meet the above criteria and I will implement them immediately.

          8. “Are we essentially accusing India and China of having too many people…”

            You did. I did not notice anyone else doing so.

    2. China thinks fighting climate change is great, for them.

      The U.S. and developed countries destroy their ability to compete with China in manufacturing. Meanwhile, China gets yet another product to produce and sell to the West- solar panels.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Well, give credit to China also:

        China to build six to eight new reactors a year between 2020 and 2025

        https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschina-to-build-six-to-eight-new-reactors-a-year-between-2020-and-2025-8022479

        1. And I’m sure they will be entirely for energy production.

          1. And they will, of course, meet all the same safety standards as nuke plants built in the U.S.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            I wonder how many have melted down in China. a secret?

          3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Except for Chernobyl, there have been no deaths from nuclear accidents. The narrative that you accept is all hype by the anti-nuclear crowd. Check out the research going on with small modular reactors.

    3. Thanks for the tip to read the Nordhaus essay – a good one, and I missed it on Saturday (recovering from 2d vaccination shot). A quote relevant to this discussion:

      “Wind and solar are great as far as they go. But there are limits to how far that is. Because the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, powering an electrical grid entirely with wind and solar energy is a dubious proposition. To reliably provide electricity when and where it is needed without fossil fuels, most analyses find that electrical grids need substantial reserves of what the Princeton engineering professor Jesse Jenkins has dubbed “firm, low-carbon generation. The most likely candidates are nuclear energy or natural gas turbines capable of capturing and storing their carbon. We will probably need both. ”

      My reaction: Pushing renewables above 30% of total generating capacity is asking for unacceptable trouble with grid reliability and costs, unless you can store and recapture much of it (i.e., timeshift it) through batteries or pumped-storage hydro. The call for Virginia to go to 100% renewables is grossly impractical and at best symbolic; if actually attempted it would be grossly too costly with today’s technology. Elon Musk notwithstanding, battery technology has not made the quantity or cost breakthroughs needed to get there, and other countries (notably Germany) are already showing us what comes from pushing above that 30% threshold without lots of cheap storage.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Not sure where the 30% came from but until or unless we can “store” whatever energy wind/solar generate – it will never be a source, we can rely on and not have to have fossil fuel backup.

        As long as some folks insist on “100%” goals it’s about a dumb as advocating “defunding” the police.

        OTOH – wind/solar ARE valuable fuels that can cut energy costs if we use them when they are available.

        Can we use them more than 30% when they ARE available as long as we have backup when they are not?

  44. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Saturday’s WSJ Review section had a lengthly article by Ted Nordhaus, founder of the Breakthrough Institute–How Serious are Biden and Democrats About Fighting Climate Change? It is well worth reading and thinking about.
    The emissions problem is China, India, and developing countries. Virginia’s zero emissions mandate is like spitting in the ocean.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The problem with China and India is sheer numbers of people. They use far less energy per capita than we do but the population numbers take them to higher overall numbers.

      They live lives with far lower standards of living and they are striving for better.

      Are they entitled to use as much energy per capita as we do or what?

      I think that is where leadership comes in. What country can demonstrate lower energy use per capita that is a equitable goal for all people regardless of the country they live in?

      Or is that a wrong goal?

      https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/energy-use-per-capita-600×401.png

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Larry, yours is a non-sequitur argument. The atmosphere really doesn’t care the source of emissions does it? If the US emissions and carbon intensity are going down, why do we think that more of the same makes more sense than helping those developing countries use more energy efficient technology and help them increase their standards of living more cost-effectively?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Bill – the atmosphere does not care but should WE care in terms of each person’s standard of living if we need to make changes to consumption?

          Are we essentially accusing India and China of having too many people and if they had less, then us folks in the US could continue to use 4 times as much energy per capita?

          Some of this depends on whether you believe global warming is a problem to start with and if you don’t really believe that – then this other stuff is really about what if not about global warming?

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Either you didn’t read my post or it went over your head. I said none of those things. What is you solution to reducing atmospheric concentrations?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            my solution: to keep working to reduce it , to accept it is real and we need to work to reduce it and not blame others ….

          3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Three “it”s not defined and there is no path forward that you articulate.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            The path forward is to reduce the use of fossil fuel pollution when we can without deficits to reliability.

            The average American house can cut it’s energy usage in half without harm to our lifestyle. We waste energy hand over fist because it’s cheap money-wise but not pollution-wise.

            Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate

            https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/06/PS_2020.06.23_government-and-climate_00-01.png?w=640

          5. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Fossil fuels are heavily regulated so that pollutants emitted are below standards designed to protect the most sensitive people with a margin of safety.
            People should be free to use whatever electricity they are willing to pay for. Neither you or anyone else should be telling them to cut consumption by 50%.

          6. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            Larry, responding to your Pew Research Center results. Fairfax County is requesting residents take three short surveys on climate change and sustainability. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FFXCECAPenergy

            The reason for the new surveys was as follows:

            “In a previous survey, we learned that many Fairfax County residents are unlikely to change their behavior in the near future to reduce their carbon footprints. This survey seeks to understand what it would take for you as an individual to make changes that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

            It’s easy to be virtuous when it doesn’t cost anything or you are using other people’s money.

          7. “The average American house can cut it’s energy usage in half without harm to our lifestyle. ”

            How, Larry? How can I cut the energy usage at my house in half while not causing harm to my lifestyle?

            Provide a list of specific things I can do which meet the above criteria and I will implement them immediately.

          8. “Are we essentially accusing India and China of having too many people…”

            You did. I did not notice anyone else doing so.

    2. China thinks fighting climate change is great, for them.

      The U.S. and developed countries destroy their ability to compete with China in manufacturing. Meanwhile, China gets yet another product to produce and sell to the West- solar panels.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Well, give credit to China also:

        China to build six to eight new reactors a year between 2020 and 2025

        https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschina-to-build-six-to-eight-new-reactors-a-year-between-2020-and-2025-8022479

        1. And I’m sure they will be entirely for energy production.

          1. And they will, of course, meet all the same safety standards as nuke plants built in the U.S.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            I wonder how many have melted down in China. a secret?

          3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Except for Chernobyl, there have been no deaths from nuclear accidents. The narrative that you accept is all hype by the anti-nuclear crowd. Check out the research going on with small modular reactors.

    3. Thanks for the tip to read the Nordhaus essay – a good one, and I missed it on Saturday (recovering from 2d vaccination shot). A quote relevant to this discussion:

      “Wind and solar are great as far as they go. But there are limits to how far that is. Because the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, powering an electrical grid entirely with wind and solar energy is a dubious proposition. To reliably provide electricity when and where it is needed without fossil fuels, most analyses find that electrical grids need substantial reserves of what the Princeton engineering professor Jesse Jenkins has dubbed “firm, low-carbon generation. The most likely candidates are nuclear energy or natural gas turbines capable of capturing and storing their carbon. We will probably need both. ”

      My reaction: Pushing renewables above 30% of total generating capacity is asking for unacceptable trouble with grid reliability and costs, unless you can store and recapture much of it (i.e., timeshift it) through batteries or pumped-storage hydro. The call for Virginia to go to 100% renewables is grossly impractical and at best symbolic; if actually attempted it would be grossly too costly with today’s technology. Elon Musk notwithstanding, battery technology has not made the quantity or cost breakthroughs needed to get there, and other countries (notably Germany) are already showing us what comes from pushing above that 30% threshold without lots of cheap storage.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Not sure where the 30% came from but until or unless we can “store” whatever energy wind/solar generate – it will never be a source, we can rely on and not have to have fossil fuel backup.

        As long as some folks insist on “100%” goals it’s about a dumb as advocating “defunding” the police.

        OTOH – wind/solar ARE valuable fuels that can cut energy costs if we use them when they are available.

        Can we use them more than 30% when they ARE available as long as we have backup when they are not?

  45. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Full disclosure. In response to Steve Haner’s comment, I actually benefited from natural gas. Last week’s ice storm cut our power for nearly two days. We pulled through in part because I have a gas fireplace, range and hot water heater. So we stayed warm, cooked and could take a bath.
    Go ahead! Call me a hypocrite.

  46. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Full disclosure. In response to Steve Haner’s comment, I actually benefited from natural gas. Last week’s ice storm cut our power for nearly two days. We pulled through in part because I have a gas fireplace, range and hot water heater. So we stayed warm, cooked and could take a bath.
    Go ahead! Call me a hypocrite.

  47. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    About 10 years ago James fallows wrote Artie about how enlightened Chinese engineers and Party people wanted to build an ultra clean coal station. In China, access to capital and Regs are not problems

  48. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    About 10 years ago James fallows wrote Artie about how enlightened Chinese engineers and Party people wanted to build an ultra clean coal station. In China, access to capital and Regs are not problems

  49. djrippert Avatar

    This just in … Slow Joe Biden called former president Obama with an idea. “I want to send Hunter to Texas. He’s an expert in this stuff.” Slow Joe said. “They have cracked pipes, not crack pipes” countered Obama.

    H/T Jeanine’s Memes

  50. djrippert Avatar

    This just in … Slow Joe Biden called former president Obama with an idea. “I want to send Hunter to Texas. He’s an expert in this stuff.” Slow Joe said. “They have cracked pipes, not crack pipes” countered Obama.

    H/T Jeanine’s Memes

  51. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” TooManyTaxes | February 22, 2021 at 3:57 pm |
    Larry, responding to your Pew Research Center results. Fairfax County is requesting residents take three short surveys on climate change and sustainability.”

    And you are correct but that doesn’t change the underlying sentiment in play that over time – people will consider what they can and are willing to do in reality.

    For instance, people have not only accepted hybrids, they are now in demand and popular.

    The same thing with appliance efficiency and home insulation, and the use of smart thermostats.

    As time goes by – people gradually start to change but the thing about energy is – it actually saves money too and even Conservatives like that idea!

    As usual, it’s never an all or nothing proposition – it’s a continuum.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      I agree, Larry, that, overtime, people will make changes when those changes make sense for them. My wife and I are going to build a house in North Carolina. It will be more energy efficient than the house we bought in Fairfax County in 2008 and that was built in 1995. And my next car might be a hybrid. When light bulbs burn out, I replace them with LEDs.

      But I won’t go out and make major changes (most of which would be expensive) to retrofit my current house because I want to reduce my carbon footprint (if we weren’t moving out of state). Keep in mind that I live in a county that still lets builders construct houses in floodplains. I’m not going to take transit to work since I only go to the office two or three days a week now and before COVID.

      I live in a county that voted for a President that wants to allow all sorts of relatives to all the illegal immigrants he wants to legalize. Do you think a person living in the United States will have a bigger carbon footprint and add to the consumption of energy and other resources than if the person remained in Central America? It strikes me that elected officials aren’t ready to walk their climate change talk. So why should I make financial and personal sacrifice to reduce my carbon footprint?

      I’ll take Bill Gates seriously when he razes his 66,000 square foot house and replaces it with a 3500 square foot house and flies commercial to his climate change conferences in Italy. Better yet, when he use Microsoft Teams to attend virtually.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        TMT – did you know how much BIll Gates has given to others to help mankind? $45 billion dollars.

        You asked what he is doing about his carbon footprint.

        read this:

        Bill Gates and Big Oil back this company that’s trying to solve climate change by sucking CO2 out of the air

        https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/carbon-engineering-co2-capture-backed-by-bill-gates-oil-companies.html

        You guys keep demonizing those who actually are working for change..just because they are rich… this guys has not only given away much of his fortune but what is left he is investing in mankind.

        1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
          TooManyTaxes

          Gates has a 66,000 square foot house. If he didn’t have such a house, he wouldn’t need to offset such a huge carbon footprint. It’s obscene to have a house that big or to fly in private jets to climate change conferences. I don’t care what else you do.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            So you’re advocating a standard for all? And anyone who is over that is an enemy of the state?

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Clearly, the comment of someone who is envious or a deep red progressive/socialist. He earned his wealth and has every right to spend it as he and his wife please. He is very generous in philanthropy and along with a number of other billionaires has pledged to give away 50% of his wealth.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Is Bill Gates an enemy of fossil fuels?

        2. “You asked what he is doing about his carbon footprint.”

          Actually, Larry, TMT did NOT ask what Bill Gates is doing about his carbon footprint…

          But you sure told him!

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            you don’t read or understand Wayne?

            ” I’ll take Bill Gates seriously when he razes his 66,000 square foot house and replaces it with a 3500 square foot house and flies commercial to his climate change conferences in Italy.”

            Wayne… are we bored today? Wife sent you away? What?

  52. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” TooManyTaxes | February 22, 2021 at 3:57 pm |
    Larry, responding to your Pew Research Center results. Fairfax County is requesting residents take three short surveys on climate change and sustainability.”

    And you are correct but that doesn’t change the underlying sentiment in play that over time – people will consider what they can and are willing to do in reality.

    For instance, people have not only accepted hybrids, they are now in demand and popular.

    The same thing with appliance efficiency and home insulation, and the use of smart thermostats.

    As time goes by – people gradually start to change but the thing about energy is – it actually saves money too and even Conservatives like that idea!

    As usual, it’s never an all or nothing proposition – it’s a continuum.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      I agree, Larry, that, overtime, people will make changes when those changes make sense for them. My wife and I are going to build a house in North Carolina. It will be more energy efficient than the house we bought in Fairfax County in 2008 and that was built in 1995. And my next car might be a hybrid. When light bulbs burn out, I replace them with LEDs.

      But I won’t go out and make major changes (most of which would be expensive) to retrofit my current house because I want to reduce my carbon footprint (if we weren’t moving out of state). Keep in mind that I live in a county that still lets builders construct houses in floodplains. I’m not going to take transit to work since I only go to the office two or three days a week now and before COVID.

      I live in a county that voted for a President that wants to allow all sorts of relatives to all the illegal immigrants he wants to legalize. Do you think a person living in the United States will have a bigger carbon footprint and add to the consumption of energy and other resources than if the person remained in Central America? It strikes me that elected officials aren’t ready to walk their climate change talk. So why should I make financial and personal sacrifice to reduce my carbon footprint?

      I’ll take Bill Gates seriously when he razes his 66,000 square foot house and replaces it with a 3500 square foot house and flies commercial to his climate change conferences in Italy. Better yet, when he use Microsoft Teams to attend virtually.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        TMT – did you know how much BIll Gates has given to others to help mankind? $45 billion dollars.

        You asked what he is doing about his carbon footprint.

        read this:

        Bill Gates and Big Oil back this company that’s trying to solve climate change by sucking CO2 out of the air

        https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/carbon-engineering-co2-capture-backed-by-bill-gates-oil-companies.html

        You guys keep demonizing those who actually are working for change..just because they are rich… this guys has not only given away much of his fortune but what is left he is investing in mankind.

        1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
          TooManyTaxes

          Gates has a 66,000 square foot house. If he didn’t have such a house, he wouldn’t need to offset such a huge carbon footprint. It’s obscene to have a house that big or to fly in private jets to climate change conferences. I don’t care what else you do.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            So you’re advocating a standard for all? And anyone who is over that is an enemy of the state?

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Clearly, the comment of someone who is envious or a deep red progressive/socialist. He earned his wealth and has every right to spend it as he and his wife please. He is very generous in philanthropy and along with a number of other billionaires has pledged to give away 50% of his wealth.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Is Bill Gates an enemy of fossil fuels?

        2. “You asked what he is doing about his carbon footprint.”

          Actually, Larry, TMT did NOT ask what Bill Gates is doing about his carbon footprint…

          But you sure told him!

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            you don’t read or understand Wayne?

            ” I’ll take Bill Gates seriously when he razes his 66,000 square foot house and replaces it with a 3500 square foot house and flies commercial to his climate change conferences in Italy.”

            Wayne… are we bored today? Wife sent you away? What?

  53. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
    vaconsumeradvocate

    Many of us are not surprised that a tremendous variation in weather has resulted in a Texas failure. Their system depends completely on the competitive market. The problem is that the competitive market assumes “someone else” will pick up the parts no one wants to take care of. It doesn’t happen.

    The 2011 Texas situation resulted in reports indicating that Texas needed to address super cold, although rare, conditions. Ten years later, nothing has been done. Generators still sit out in the air and have no insulated structure to keep them warm and operating in super cold times, for example.

    Further, the marketplace in Texas was allowed to provide variable plans to consumers. It’s meant that rates have been super low for years. But in last week’s cold snap, the other side of the coin came home to roost, resulting in things like a consumer’s credit card being charged $16,000+. No one had experienced that side of variable rates, so it seemed that all was well. It wasn’t.

    A competitive market without any requirements of participants, and without regular checking on the participants to ensure that basics are taken care of, cannot be expected to meet everyone’s needs. When everyone needs power, there’s got to be some management and some planning for the very rare event that’s expensive to cover that no one wants to cover.

    No one could know when this would occur, but it was predictable that it would. We could talk about energy sources, and even about how the ERCOT system works. Many things influenced the situation in some way. The bottom line is: Nobody took responsibility to ensure that things were set up so the very rare event was covered, not the companies trying to earn as much as possible, not the PUC running an unregulated market, not the legislature allowing the totally unregulated market.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” The bottom line is: Nobody took responsibility to ensure that things were set up so the very rare event was covered, not the companies trying to earn as much as possible, not the PUC running an unregulated market, not the legislature allowing the totally unregulated market.”

      In a “free market” – it’s about opportunities more than responsibility though.

      My question is – can this be fixed without government regulation?

      And PJM/The East have had similar problems in the not too distant past: (2019)

      ” Polar Vortex Tests Resiliency of U.S. Power System
      Brutally cold temperatures in the midwestern and northeastern U.S. spurred grid operator alerts as natural gas demand has surged, power prices have soared, and there have been forced generator outages.

      The polar vortex, an extreme cold event characterized by back-to-back cold fronts, has so far prompted states of emergency in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan. On Jan. 30, several cities reported record-breaking lows as Arctic air arrived, and dangerous snow squalls beset the Northeast. Power outages were reported across Illinois and other areas in the Midwest. On Thursday morning morning, nearly 20,000 customers in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and New Jersey had no power, according to poweroutage.us.”

      https://www.powermag.com/polar-vortex-tests-resiliency-of-u-s-power-system/

      Was it just bad luck for Texas and PJM has similar risks?

      I don’t know the answer but PJM does have a capacity market and ERCOT doesn’t. But can pipelines and infrastructure freeze in Virginia too in super-cold weather?

  54. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
    vaconsumeradvocate

    Many of us are not surprised that a tremendous variation in weather has resulted in a Texas failure. Their system depends completely on the competitive market. The problem is that the competitive market assumes “someone else” will pick up the parts no one wants to take care of. It doesn’t happen.

    The 2011 Texas situation resulted in reports indicating that Texas needed to address super cold, although rare, conditions. Ten years later, nothing has been done. Generators still sit out in the air and have no insulated structure to keep them warm and operating in super cold times, for example.

    Further, the marketplace in Texas was allowed to provide variable plans to consumers. It’s meant that rates have been super low for years. But in last week’s cold snap, the other side of the coin came home to roost, resulting in things like a consumer’s credit card being charged $16,000+. No one had experienced that side of variable rates, so it seemed that all was well. It wasn’t.

    A competitive market without any requirements of participants, and without regular checking on the participants to ensure that basics are taken care of, cannot be expected to meet everyone’s needs. When everyone needs power, there’s got to be some management and some planning for the very rare event that’s expensive to cover that no one wants to cover.

    No one could know when this would occur, but it was predictable that it would. We could talk about energy sources, and even about how the ERCOT system works. Many things influenced the situation in some way. The bottom line is: Nobody took responsibility to ensure that things were set up so the very rare event was covered, not the companies trying to earn as much as possible, not the PUC running an unregulated market, not the legislature allowing the totally unregulated market.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” The bottom line is: Nobody took responsibility to ensure that things were set up so the very rare event was covered, not the companies trying to earn as much as possible, not the PUC running an unregulated market, not the legislature allowing the totally unregulated market.”

      In a “free market” – it’s about opportunities more than responsibility though.

      My question is – can this be fixed without government regulation?

      And PJM/The East have had similar problems in the not too distant past: (2019)

      ” Polar Vortex Tests Resiliency of U.S. Power System
      Brutally cold temperatures in the midwestern and northeastern U.S. spurred grid operator alerts as natural gas demand has surged, power prices have soared, and there have been forced generator outages.

      The polar vortex, an extreme cold event characterized by back-to-back cold fronts, has so far prompted states of emergency in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan. On Jan. 30, several cities reported record-breaking lows as Arctic air arrived, and dangerous snow squalls beset the Northeast. Power outages were reported across Illinois and other areas in the Midwest. On Thursday morning morning, nearly 20,000 customers in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and New Jersey had no power, according to poweroutage.us.”

      https://www.powermag.com/polar-vortex-tests-resiliency-of-u-s-power-system/

      Was it just bad luck for Texas and PJM has similar risks?

      I don’t know the answer but PJM does have a capacity market and ERCOT doesn’t. But can pipelines and infrastructure freeze in Virginia too in super-cold weather?

  55. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Was a time America was spelled “Ambitious.” No longer “can do,” the live-for-today Republicans have turn the nation to “don’t try.”

    Big things are for others, not us.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/world-s-largest-solar-farm-to-pipe-power-internationally-from-australia-under-the-sea

  56. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Was a time America was spelled “Ambitious.” No longer “can do,” the live-for-today Republicans have turn the nation to “don’t try.”

    Big things are for others, not us.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/world-s-largest-solar-farm-to-pipe-power-internationally-from-australia-under-the-sea

  57. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    This is Paul Krugman of the The New York Times. He’s one of my favorite columnists.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/opinion/texas-electricity-storm.html

  58. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    This is Paul Krugman of the The New York Times. He’s one of my favorite columnists.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/opinion/texas-electricity-storm.html

  59. POSTING here too:
    This info just came to my attention, not sure who is right and who is wrong. Just saying…

    “… The pro-renewables crowd have been spinning the lie that thermal electricity sources (coal/nuclear/gas) were the culprit in the Texas rolling blackout fiasco. This is now undeniably false. The chart below shows electricity generation by source through end-of-day 2/16/21. While there was a slight decrease in coal and nuclear electric, the wind component went to near zero while natural gas increased from about 25,000 MWHrs to ~42,000 MWH. Natural gas is NOT the culprit, it is the hero.”

    as I mentioned yesterday, cause seems to be lack of winterization. Fuel choice is a political football that everyone wants to derive as their choice held up best, and we should hate the other power choices.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      This is from an acquaintance who is very knowledgeable and careful.
      Media Launches Texas Counter Attack…

      Texas has suffered terrible consequences as the result of blackouts.

      The real reason for the blackouts is that wind and solar are unreliable and shouldn’t be included in reserve margins, but the advocates of wind and solar, with the media’s support, have tried to muddy the waters by pointing to other reasons for the blackouts.

      Ocasio Cortez said Texas would be fine if they implemented the green new deal.

      Or this quote from the media referencing climate change:

      “Republican leaders have found a way to shift blame onto renewable energy and use the statewide crisis to spread lies about proposed climate legislation.”

      The media has reported, for example:

      Nuclear plants shut down due to frozen water lines.
      There was insufficient gas for natural gas turbines.
      There should be a connection between MISO and ERCOT to provide electricity from MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator)
      The fundamental reason for the disaster, however, is that there were insufficient reserves of baseload power, i.e., coal, natural gas and nuclear.

      With adequate reserve margins, the problems with the nuclear plants and with inadequate gas for natural gas power plants, would not have resulted in the extensive blackouts that occurred in Texas. If reserves, using baseload power only, i.e., coal, natural gas and nuclear, had been at the 13.7% level, nearly 10,000 MW of baseload power could have been lost without seriously disrupting the grid,

      This graph makes it clear that Texas historically had reserve margins of 13.7%, but in 2019 the margins from baseload power were 6% and forecast to fall to nearly zero in 2020.

      Figure 8, from The Looming Energy Crisis
      The claim that MISO could have provided power to ERCOT, if there had been a link between the systems, was false, because MISO didn’t have enough power to share.

      The area covered by MISO was also suffering from freezing weather. They were spared the blackouts because they had not yet relied on wind and solar to the extent that Texas had.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I was curious what the definition of “reserve margin” is.

        And why would it be reduced by ERCOT?

        1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          Larry, this is from the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power–“All else equal, a higher reserve margin (which essentially equates to a greater supply of energy) should mean less likelihood of certain kinds of reliability problems, as well as lower wholesale prices. ERCOT’s CDR Reports are closely watched by ERCOT market observers because they often are cast as an indicator of the market’s health. For instance, in 2018 and 2019 the CDR Reports sparked concern because they showed reserve margins dropping below ERCOT’s targeted level of 13.75%, which is the capacity cushion that the organization believes it needs to operate the grid reliably.”

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Ok Thanks Bill.. Was it ERCOTs responsibility to assure a reserve margin or did they leave that to the market and just observed it?

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Here’s a link to an article that explains Ercot’s mission. In short, it is responsible for making sure that there is an adequate reserve.–https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2020/august/ogelman.php

  60. POSTING here too:
    This info just came to my attention, not sure who is right and who is wrong. Just saying…

    “… The pro-renewables crowd have been spinning the lie that thermal electricity sources (coal/nuclear/gas) were the culprit in the Texas rolling blackout fiasco. This is now undeniably false. The chart below shows electricity generation by source through end-of-day 2/16/21. While there was a slight decrease in coal and nuclear electric, the wind component went to near zero while natural gas increased from about 25,000 MWHrs to ~42,000 MWH. Natural gas is NOT the culprit, it is the hero.”

    as I mentioned yesterday, cause seems to be lack of winterization. Fuel choice is a political football that everyone wants to derive as their choice held up best, and we should hate the other power choices.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      This is from an acquaintance who is very knowledgeable and careful.
      Media Launches Texas Counter Attack…

      Texas has suffered terrible consequences as the result of blackouts.

      The real reason for the blackouts is that wind and solar are unreliable and shouldn’t be included in reserve margins, but the advocates of wind and solar, with the media’s support, have tried to muddy the waters by pointing to other reasons for the blackouts.

      Ocasio Cortez said Texas would be fine if they implemented the green new deal.

      Or this quote from the media referencing climate change:

      “Republican leaders have found a way to shift blame onto renewable energy and use the statewide crisis to spread lies about proposed climate legislation.”

      The media has reported, for example:

      Nuclear plants shut down due to frozen water lines.
      There was insufficient gas for natural gas turbines.
      There should be a connection between MISO and ERCOT to provide electricity from MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator)
      The fundamental reason for the disaster, however, is that there were insufficient reserves of baseload power, i.e., coal, natural gas and nuclear.

      With adequate reserve margins, the problems with the nuclear plants and with inadequate gas for natural gas power plants, would not have resulted in the extensive blackouts that occurred in Texas. If reserves, using baseload power only, i.e., coal, natural gas and nuclear, had been at the 13.7% level, nearly 10,000 MW of baseload power could have been lost without seriously disrupting the grid,

      This graph makes it clear that Texas historically had reserve margins of 13.7%, but in 2019 the margins from baseload power were 6% and forecast to fall to nearly zero in 2020.

      Figure 8, from The Looming Energy Crisis
      The claim that MISO could have provided power to ERCOT, if there had been a link between the systems, was false, because MISO didn’t have enough power to share.

      The area covered by MISO was also suffering from freezing weather. They were spared the blackouts because they had not yet relied on wind and solar to the extent that Texas had.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I was curious what the definition of “reserve margin” is.

        And why would it be reduced by ERCOT?

        1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          Larry, this is from the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power–“All else equal, a higher reserve margin (which essentially equates to a greater supply of energy) should mean less likelihood of certain kinds of reliability problems, as well as lower wholesale prices. ERCOT’s CDR Reports are closely watched by ERCOT market observers because they often are cast as an indicator of the market’s health. For instance, in 2018 and 2019 the CDR Reports sparked concern because they showed reserve margins dropping below ERCOT’s targeted level of 13.75%, which is the capacity cushion that the organization believes it needs to operate the grid reliably.”

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Ok Thanks Bill.. Was it ERCOTs responsibility to assure a reserve margin or did they leave that to the market and just observed it?

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Here’s a link to an article that explains Ercot’s mission. In short, it is responsible for making sure that there is an adequate reserve.–https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2020/august/ogelman.php

  61. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Mr. O’Keefe. Are you the same person who was executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute? If so, you have an interesting background.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Peter, yes I am.

  62. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Mr. O’Keefe. Are you the same person who was executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute? If so, you have an interesting background.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Peter, yes I am.

  63. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    It would be great to have a conversation with you some day. I covered a lot of gas and oil back in Moscow.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Unfortunately, most of my knowledge about Russian oil and gas is second hand.

  64. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    It would be great to have a conversation with you some day. I covered a lot of gas and oil back in Moscow.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Unfortunately, most of my knowledge about Russian oil and gas is second hand.

  65. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” WayneS | February 23, 2021 at 2:20 pm |
    “The average American house can cut it’s energy usage in half without harm to our lifestyle. ”

    How, Larry? How can I cut the energy usage at my house in half while not causing harm to my lifestyle?

    Provide a list of specific things I can do which meet the above criteria and I will implement them immediately.”

    Already a reality in much of the world… many people use 1/2 the electricity that others do ….

    “WayneS | February 23, 2021 at 2:22 pm |
    “Are we essentially accusing India and China of having too many people…”

    You did. I did not notice anyone else doing so.”

    twas a question not a statement… know the difference?

  66. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” WayneS | February 23, 2021 at 2:20 pm |
    “The average American house can cut it’s energy usage in half without harm to our lifestyle. ”

    How, Larry? How can I cut the energy usage at my house in half while not causing harm to my lifestyle?

    Provide a list of specific things I can do which meet the above criteria and I will implement them immediately.”

    Already a reality in much of the world… many people use 1/2 the electricity that others do ….

    “WayneS | February 23, 2021 at 2:22 pm |
    “Are we essentially accusing India and China of having too many people…”

    You did. I did not notice anyone else doing so.”

    twas a question not a statement… know the difference?

Leave a Reply