‘Things are going to break’: Texas power plants are running nonstop(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
‘Things are going to break’: Texas power plants are running nonstop
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-15/texas-power-plants-are-skipping-maintenance-to-run-nonstop
259 comments
AIUI (as someone who as on one of these plans), the primary provider, Griddy, went into bankruptcy (and was scapegoated for making a plan that had regulatory approval...).
A lesser provider, Octopus Energy (which is rooted in the UK) disabled new subscriptions for their market-rate plan and has probably phased out all users by now. They have been running a month-to-month plan, though they were giving customers $100 to leave the month-to-month service (in late May? Early June?).
I'm not 100% sure what this is about. They framed it as being about having to charge really high rates as the summer went on, but it could since it too is a pre-deposit plan, they might be fearing a similar circumstance (grid goes into crisis, prices once again get pegged at $8.99/kwh, and they get stuck with the choice of either turning people off and letting them potentially die in the heat, or being stuck with a massive shortfall).
FWIW, Griddy tried this as well (shedding customers), but the notice came late on a Friday and it wasn't clear who (if anyone) would be taking customers on a Saturday.
That aside, a cap would help, though it's not clear to me that the power infrastructure has controls that are fine-grained enough to actually enforce it? Unless maybe you had your own ~smart-breaker?
A lesser provider, Octopus Energy (which is rooted in the UK) disabled new subscriptions for their market-rate plan and has probably phased out all users by now. They have been running a month-to-month plan, though they were giving customers $100 to leave the month-to-month service (in late May? Early June?).
I'm not 100% sure what this is about. They framed it as being about having to charge really high rates as the summer went on, but it could since it too is a pre-deposit plan, they might be fearing a similar circumstance (grid goes into crisis, prices once again get pegged at $8.99/kwh, and they get stuck with the choice of either turning people off and letting them potentially die in the heat, or being stuck with a massive shortfall).
FWIW, Griddy tried this as well (shedding customers), but the notice came late on a Friday and it wasn't clear who (if anyone) would be taking customers on a Saturday.
That aside, a cap would help, though it's not clear to me that the power infrastructure has controls that are fine-grained enough to actually enforce it? Unless maybe you had your own ~smart-breaker?
>That aside, a cap would help, though it's not clear to me that the power infrastructure has controls that are fine-grained enough to actually enforce it? Unless maybe you had your own ~smart-breaker?
Yeah I was thinking it'd be CPE, not on the provider-side since I have no idea what the Texas' grid capabilities are like but my default assumption for anything grid related based on experiences up north is that there is a lot of ancient stuff there that nobody is touching ever. But CPE should fine in this case (installation cost aside), the provider can offer pricing information in real time and each customer could then decide when to drop off the grid themselves. Which I think would also be politically helpful in terms of agency and thus avoiding that scapegoating situation. With customer set CPE nobody ever gets "cut off" they "decide the cost is no longer worth it until price goes back down" so it's still their choice, they get very cheap power much of the year. Could also offer opportunities for partnership with players like Tesla or other newer power storage providers, the Tesla PWs have some customization modes already (see Powerwall Modes [0]). Not hard to envision extending that interface to handle going off grid based on price supplied by the provider, which then has the added advantage of meaning the customer doesn't actually lose power immediately they have 13+ kWh of buffer first. That could further encourage users to drop sooner vs later.
Sort of a shame Griddy died, I don't think the idea of that kind of provider or rapid market response is necessarily a bad one long term. But they didn't flesh things out enough in terms of the customer experience and ability to react to negative price signals not use the upside of positive ones. Maybe it was just too early, and some sort of energy storage as a practical matter would be a requirement for a market-rate plan to work for the general public. I think in the next 10-20 years that might become sort of a gimme, if only because BEVs (and 2-way power work seems to be rapidly developing too) will become common enough that lots of people will have a big chunk of storage "by default" when they're home. Perhaps then a market-rate plan can see a revival all over.
----
0: https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/mobile-app/po...
Yeah I was thinking it'd be CPE, not on the provider-side since I have no idea what the Texas' grid capabilities are like but my default assumption for anything grid related based on experiences up north is that there is a lot of ancient stuff there that nobody is touching ever. But CPE should fine in this case (installation cost aside), the provider can offer pricing information in real time and each customer could then decide when to drop off the grid themselves. Which I think would also be politically helpful in terms of agency and thus avoiding that scapegoating situation. With customer set CPE nobody ever gets "cut off" they "decide the cost is no longer worth it until price goes back down" so it's still their choice, they get very cheap power much of the year. Could also offer opportunities for partnership with players like Tesla or other newer power storage providers, the Tesla PWs have some customization modes already (see Powerwall Modes [0]). Not hard to envision extending that interface to handle going off grid based on price supplied by the provider, which then has the added advantage of meaning the customer doesn't actually lose power immediately they have 13+ kWh of buffer first. That could further encourage users to drop sooner vs later.
Sort of a shame Griddy died, I don't think the idea of that kind of provider or rapid market response is necessarily a bad one long term. But they didn't flesh things out enough in terms of the customer experience and ability to react to negative price signals not use the upside of positive ones. Maybe it was just too early, and some sort of energy storage as a practical matter would be a requirement for a market-rate plan to work for the general public. I think in the next 10-20 years that might become sort of a gimme, if only because BEVs (and 2-way power work seems to be rapidly developing too) will become common enough that lots of people will have a big chunk of storage "by default" when they're home. Perhaps then a market-rate plan can see a revival all over.
----
0: https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/mobile-app/po...
Inside the article a nice contrast can be found:
>> “Things are going to break,” she said. “We have an aging fleet that’s being run harder than it’s ever been run.”
>> Also See: Texas Confident Stressed Grid Will Hold Up Amid Summer Heat
Seems to me that one statement is rooted in experience, science and measurable facts, while the other is nonsense.
>> “Things are going to break,” she said. “We have an aging fleet that’s being run harder than it’s ever been run.”
>> Also See: Texas Confident Stressed Grid Will Hold Up Amid Summer Heat
Seems to me that one statement is rooted in experience, science and measurable facts, while the other is nonsense.
Also, they are running 100% for longer periods - so they skip some maintenance. That's not good for systems like this. The breakage will likely be bigger and more exciting.
>> That's not good for systems like this.
Do you have insider maintenance knowledge or is this a hunch? How many fluid samples have you sent to the lab?
Big machines are thermally designed to run at 100%. Oil and lube can be stretched for the proper economic incentive.
Do you have insider maintenance knowledge or is this a hunch? How many fluid samples have you sent to the lab?
Big machines are thermally designed to run at 100%. Oil and lube can be stretched for the proper economic incentive.
12 years experience in hydro:it does not matter, if it has moving parts, it will require maintenance.
You need to stop the machines to measure critical parts are in good shape. You need to change consumables too.
And some controls are by law every X hours of operation.
You need to stop the machines to measure critical parts are in good shape. You need to change consumables too.
And some controls are by law every X hours of operation.
People forget: you must stop machines at a time of your choosing because if you find out it won't start up again it better be at a time where it doesn't cause huge problems to have to fix it.
In a snappy aphorism:
Schedule your downtime or your equipment will do it for you.
Schedule your downtime or your equipment will do it for you.
Procrastination delegates decisions from you to circumstance.
> And some controls are by law every X hours of operation.
In Texas?
In Texas?
Well the article mentions it. My numerous tours of power plants. And 20 years of stories from my uncle (now retired) who was an engineer on power generation (mostly hydroelectric, a little nuclear). And a bit of my own experiences with mechanical systems.
I read that in the article quoting from the trade association person. My experience is big plants can run at 100% for a long time, if during past downtime the PM was completed and not just penciled-in. At this scale, the PM is recorded and signed. I guess most or all of the plants should do okay. Anyway, too late for worry to be useful!
The Gov. of Texas called for PMs this spring to be cut short due to an early heat wave. That means that some plants lost 1/3 of their planned PM time to be back online.
Even worse, it seems a majority of Texans are not concerned at all or even want the grid to fail for politically motivated reasons. There is also a mentality that the government shouldn’t be telling us to raise our thermostats especially after the blackouts during the state wide freezing event last year.
>> “Things are going to break,” she said. “We have an aging fleet that’s being run harder than it’s ever been run.”
The conclusion that something will break just because it’s been run harder than ever is not based on “science and measurable facts”. Either the plants an grid are within their performance envelopes or they aren’t. These things are over provisioned precisely for these scenarios.
A meaningful statement would have been based on how close to design capacity they are at. Previous usage is completely irrelevant.
The conclusion that something will break just because it’s been run harder than ever is not based on “science and measurable facts”. Either the plants an grid are within their performance envelopes or they aren’t. These things are over provisioned precisely for these scenarios.
A meaningful statement would have been based on how close to design capacity they are at. Previous usage is completely irrelevant.
If you don't schedule maintenance your equipment will schedule it for you.
It's not that they are being run at 110% of designed standards, it's that are being 'run harder' by skipping maintenance windows to keep uptime. Things will break.
It's clear a lot of people in this thread have no exposure to operations.
It's clear a lot of people in this thread have no exposure to operations.
I'd be curious to see exactly how much of the energy consumption is due to crypto. I can't imagine it's a huge amount given the cost of energy in TX versus elsewhere in the world.
I was seeing something about them having a 2.5c/kwh deal, I think?
Edit: I think I was remembering this: https://twitter.com/DigiEconomist/status/1546844815140216835
Edit: I think I was remembering this: https://twitter.com/DigiEconomist/status/1546844815140216835
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/15/crypto-energy-texas-...
(from another comment to this post)
(from another comment to this post)
1,500 megawatt is what i heard, so about 2% of grid and growing.
Why is it growing? BTC is past the point that even asics get you to breakeven right? Eth2 went to proof of stake. What are people mining?
Cryptocurrency is not at all something I've gone deep in, but don't "miners" always earn something in return for processing transactions?
Otherwise how on earth would you incentivize the network existing in the long-term? Nobody is going to acquire/power/maintain/network/operate these hashing machines if there's no return for their efforts.
Otherwise how on earth would you incentivize the network existing in the long-term? Nobody is going to acquire/power/maintain/network/operate these hashing machines if there's no return for their efforts.
Well the point of proof of stake is that you don’t need the excessive wasted cpu power to prove transactions. So the whole concept of big expensive mining operations just evaporates for coins that use this.
Proof of work (bitcoin) will always have them though. The lower bitcoin price will just wipe out the viability of a lot of miners and hash rate will decrease globally. At that point the network will adjust the difficulty until the target block rate is reached with the remaining miners who can afford at that expected payout.
Proof of work (bitcoin) will always have them though. The lower bitcoin price will just wipe out the viability of a lot of miners and hash rate will decrease globally. At that point the network will adjust the difficulty until the target block rate is reached with the remaining miners who can afford at that expected payout.
> don't "miners" always earn something in return for processing transactions?
Yes, but that is still subject to the cost of actually doing the processing. It's perfectly possible that it's net-negative for anyone without free power in a certain area.
There can even be load differences when it's just not worth enough that every gamer will bother setting their machine to hash in off hours.
Yes, but that is still subject to the cost of actually doing the processing. It's perfectly possible that it's net-negative for anyone without free power in a certain area.
There can even be load differences when it's just not worth enough that every gamer will bother setting their machine to hash in off hours.
Smart miners mine during the slumps in BTC prices when there is less competition. They get more BTC, even if it is currently worth less USD. They then hold the BTC for the next rally. Most large miners are also cash flush early BTC adopters who do it for hobby and ideology.
Sounds smart until it isn't.
... honestly doesn't sound smart at all. Are they also buying or just overpaying by mining?
... honestly doesn't sound smart at all. Are they also buying or just overpaying by mining?
no idea, but turning them off saved 1,500mw - our senators have been working hard to get more to move down here. It’s all power arbitration to me anyway.
Why aren't they investing massively into solar power? It's one of the cheapest energy sources currently available, and since a lot of the energy in Texas goes into cooling when the sun is shining, the load should perfectly match the production time.
First world version of the resource curse.
We're an oil and gas state, 14th largest producer in the world, 2 million jobs, $10 billion economy, owned by oil and gas lobbyists.
Lifelong Texan, will never understand it, but fear of any disruption to that world stops any discussion about green energy in its tracks.
We're an oil and gas state, 14th largest producer in the world, 2 million jobs, $10 billion economy, owned by oil and gas lobbyists.
Lifelong Texan, will never understand it, but fear of any disruption to that world stops any discussion about green energy in its tracks.
If you look at the ERCOT demand/supply graphs, the recently spikes really do perfectly match solar. They start just before noon and tail off in late afternoon. Build the PV to point a bit to the west or use single axis trackers.
It’ll be painful, but I suspect Texas will come out of this in the medium term stronger as the they will actually build new generation driven by economic price signals, and not be hampered by excessive regulation with regards to permitting new assets.
> they will actually build new generation driven by economic price signals, and not be hampered by excessive regulation with regards to permitting new assets.
The problem with this theory is that it has not been born out in reality: Despite lacking excessive regulation, Texas has a large quantity of plants stuck in permit hell, and we've been stuck in this situation for years.
Texas likes to sell itself as being small on regulations, but the truth of the matter is the bureaucracy is as bad as anywhere else.
The problem with this theory is that it has not been born out in reality: Despite lacking excessive regulation, Texas has a large quantity of plants stuck in permit hell, and we've been stuck in this situation for years.
Texas likes to sell itself as being small on regulations, but the truth of the matter is the bureaucracy is as bad as anywhere else.
Progress has never been made without a little blood, sweat and tears. I can see Texas' model expanding across the entire country as a success, as it has proven to be the most stable, reliable and consistent energy delivery system in the world.
You cannot be serious. Here in Maine, we have a partially deregulated system, and our wind turbines do not shut down in the Winter.
Let’s see between 2015 and 20120electricity growth in Maine was essentially flat (~11GW), Texas added ~50GW in the same time period, comparing apples and peas…
I'm an advocate for the free market, not a partial free market. In addition, I cannot find any _trustworthy _news sources that claim the turbines shut down in winter.
It's like talking with a madman.
https://www.texastribune.org/series/winter-storm-power-outag...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962...
https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/resources/reports/UTAustin_...
There is no doubt at all that there were serious power outages in early 2021. None. What is wrong with you??
https://www.texastribune.org/series/winter-storm-power-outag...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962...
https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/resources/reports/UTAustin_...
There is no doubt at all that there were serious power outages in early 2021. None. What is wrong with you??
> What is wrong with you??
I don't believe I'm a madman. Please make sure you're following the HN Guidelines when responding to comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I don't believe I'm a madman. Please make sure you're following the HN Guidelines when responding to comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> as it has proven to be the most stable, reliable and consistent energy delivery system in the world.
I think what horrifies me most about today is that literally delusional people such as yourself seem to be in positions of power everywhere.
I think what horrifies me most about today is that literally delusional people such as yourself seem to be in positions of power everywhere.
I suspect Texas companies will build out energy in a way that works for 19 out of 20 years or so. In the 20 year there will be total failure with deaths and some companies going under. Then next year everything will start over the same way, but companies and politicians will say that it cant happen again because it cant happen again.
WSJ (editorial pages) has a theory of that the expanded use wind power in Texas is part of the cause. When 30 to 40% of power for the state can be produced by wind, you have fewer backup natural gas and coal plants, as maintaining backup capacity is expensive. And then there tends to be much less wind when there is a heat wave, such as last week when wind was only producing 6% of the state's power.
To me it seems the state needs to enforce x amount of backup not a renewable capacity.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/californiapowerproblems-hit-tex...
Edit: they have another editorial today postulating the moved to green energy without sufficient backup is leading to problems across the US and Europe. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wests-climate-policy-debacl...
To me it seems the state needs to enforce x amount of backup not a renewable capacity.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/californiapowerproblems-hit-tex...
Edit: they have another editorial today postulating the moved to green energy without sufficient backup is leading to problems across the US and Europe. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wests-climate-policy-debacl...
The WSJ's Editorial Board is not a great place to get level-headed policy assessments.
Even if that’s true (debatable), it’s important to not use it as ammo to slam renewables as a whole - which republicans are keen to do. We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause.
Up front: I agree that there's generally too much posturing and too little focus on the data and how to actually solve our energy challenges.
With that said, it's worth considering the aspect of what it takes to ensure energy is available when it is needed. With fossil fuels, plant generation capacity has been historically built to ensure satisfaction of peak loads. Fuel was stored nearby to allow meeting rated capacity whenever that capacity was needed. Renewables' generation is slightly more complex, since we have less control for making rated generation happen when we need it to meet demand.
Of course, there are many options with making renewables work. Storage is one approach, overbuilding renewables to ensure a minimum actual generation in adverse conditions is another. As we work to reduce the costs of renewables (and storage), various renewable based options become increasingly economically advantageous. We shouldn't ignore the downsides; we should seek to understand what can be done about them.
As far as data goes, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides power generation/consumption data for the US grid, including breakouts by generation source [1]. The data for the Texas grid (ERCO) is interesting to explore.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr... (you can expand the graphs and view hourly data for up to 30 days and daily data for a much longer period of time).
With that said, it's worth considering the aspect of what it takes to ensure energy is available when it is needed. With fossil fuels, plant generation capacity has been historically built to ensure satisfaction of peak loads. Fuel was stored nearby to allow meeting rated capacity whenever that capacity was needed. Renewables' generation is slightly more complex, since we have less control for making rated generation happen when we need it to meet demand.
Of course, there are many options with making renewables work. Storage is one approach, overbuilding renewables to ensure a minimum actual generation in adverse conditions is another. As we work to reduce the costs of renewables (and storage), various renewable based options become increasingly economically advantageous. We shouldn't ignore the downsides; we should seek to understand what can be done about them.
As far as data goes, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides power generation/consumption data for the US grid, including breakouts by generation source [1]. The data for the Texas grid (ERCO) is interesting to explore.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr... (you can expand the graphs and view hourly data for up to 30 days and daily data for a much longer period of time).
So even if a technology isn't fulfilling our needs and is leading to problems, we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do?
Your unstated assertion here is that we don't actually need to try to mitigate global warming and that it's merely a moral question, or like some culture war tempest-in-a-teapot. We need to mitigate global warming. That's a need we have to fulfill. It's the "right" thing to do for that very reason. Creating a strawman by saying 'haha, you think we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do' suggests that it's the "right thing to do" in the same way that it's the "right" thing to put toilet paper with the free end facing the room rather than facing the wall, rather than a slow-moving catastrophe that will kill billions through crop failures.
I believe the point is that there is more than one type of renewable energy. Using the shortcomings of one under certain circumstances as an excuse to pursue nonrenewable energy at the expense of the long-term consequences of nonrenewable energy is shortsighted.
It should also be noted that nonrenewable energy sources also face supply issues. If anything, the issue is worse for nonrenewable energy in the long term since scarcity can only increase with time. Exploration and more intensive extraction techniques only postpone the exhaustion of resources while increasing costs.
(I also find it somewhat ironic that the burning of carbon would most likely intensify the problem in the long run by increasing energy demands and decreasing the effectiveness of renewables.)
It should also be noted that nonrenewable energy sources also face supply issues. If anything, the issue is worse for nonrenewable energy in the long term since scarcity can only increase with time. Exploration and more intensive extraction techniques only postpone the exhaustion of resources while increasing costs.
(I also find it somewhat ironic that the burning of carbon would most likely intensify the problem in the long run by increasing energy demands and decreasing the effectiveness of renewables.)
Fossil fuels are failing our very immediate need to stabilize climate change and survive for the next century. So yes, we should be considering other options, even if they’re not perfect.
Yes, the religion requires intellectual sacrifice.
You of course mean the religion of "Ignore man made climate change, pollute and ravage the environment as much as possible to maximize shareholder value, who cares it's the end-times Jesus will rapture us all any day now" ?? That religion?
No, the one that is against building nuclear power plants.
> We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause.
Even if it makes absolutely no sense to do so?
A friend of mine purchases power for a municipal utility. Regulation requires that they have to reserve capacity for up to estimated peak usage. If they choose wind generation they can only apply 7% of that capacity to their requirement! So, in order to match the reliability of other forms of power they would have to purchase 14.3x as much as required.
Wind power is VERY unreliable. That isn't opinion, that is a fact recognized by everyone in the industry. If someone is telling you we can build a reliable grid with wind power as a large component, they are lying to you and pry lining their pockets.
Attitudes like the one you express in your statement are music to the ears of those seeking to take advantage via profiteering and crony capitalism.
Even if it makes absolutely no sense to do so?
A friend of mine purchases power for a municipal utility. Regulation requires that they have to reserve capacity for up to estimated peak usage. If they choose wind generation they can only apply 7% of that capacity to their requirement! So, in order to match the reliability of other forms of power they would have to purchase 14.3x as much as required.
Wind power is VERY unreliable. That isn't opinion, that is a fact recognized by everyone in the industry. If someone is telling you we can build a reliable grid with wind power as a large component, they are lying to you and pry lining their pockets.
Attitudes like the one you express in your statement are music to the ears of those seeking to take advantage via profiteering and crony capitalism.
I am sad that nobody ever discusses overbuilding by huge amounts to be a viable option. Wind power or solar power sometimes underdelivers? Well they are fantastically cheap systems, so just quadruple the investment/build out, and be pretty well off.
This isn't investigated because 1) It is more expensive and 2) That will result in significant extra supply that will literally need to be "wasted". Electricity in many situations literally becomes "too cheap to meter"
I personally don't see that as a downside because that "overproduction" should be thrown at things like carbon capture, which is much more viable when the electricity is literally priced negatively
This is only not possible because people refuse to turn electricity into a fully public utility. They want their profits. The USA should treat it as a huge infrastructure project though, like the highway system, and either force or hugely subsidize the buildout of excessive renewable systems.
This isn't investigated because 1) It is more expensive and 2) That will result in significant extra supply that will literally need to be "wasted". Electricity in many situations literally becomes "too cheap to meter"
I personally don't see that as a downside because that "overproduction" should be thrown at things like carbon capture, which is much more viable when the electricity is literally priced negatively
This is only not possible because people refuse to turn electricity into a fully public utility. They want their profits. The USA should treat it as a huge infrastructure project though, like the highway system, and either force or hugely subsidize the buildout of excessive renewable systems.
don't slam a solution that can't do what's promised? Why? It's obviously failing on all levels...
"hurt the cause" facts tend to do that when promises aren't met and people suffer.
"hurt the cause" facts tend to do that when promises aren't met and people suffer.
Literally nobody is saying "we should only have wind", though.
The point is to have an array of energy sources. If there's no wind, solar can compensate. If there's no sun, nuclear can compensate. If nuclear goes down, then you can tap into natural gas. If there's no natural gas, then go for coal or whatever.
The point is to have an array of energy sources. If there's no wind, solar can compensate. If there's no sun, nuclear can compensate. If nuclear goes down, then you can tap into natural gas. If there's no natural gas, then go for coal or whatever.
> If there's no wind, solar can compensate.
Except... There can be a large part of the day when there is neither wind nor sun.
> If there's no natural gas, then go for coal or whatever.
Uh huh, but those coal plants aren't just sitting there waiting for you to use them. They have a long startup period and have to run pretty much all the time to make sense.
I think you're missing how badly we've screwed up base load and creating a reliability problem as we decommission coal plants and think we can replace them with wind.
Except... There can be a large part of the day when there is neither wind nor sun.
> If there's no natural gas, then go for coal or whatever.
Uh huh, but those coal plants aren't just sitting there waiting for you to use them. They have a long startup period and have to run pretty much all the time to make sense.
I think you're missing how badly we've screwed up base load and creating a reliability problem as we decommission coal plants and think we can replace them with wind.
Solar and wind behave antiproportional most of the time. When there is less sun (due to clouds) there is more wind. With a little bit of overbuilding both energy sources, most of our energy needs could be compensated.
[deleted]
There is no part of the day where there is no sun and no wind. The sun shines 24/7. If you say "the sun doesn't shine 24/7 on my country" you just getting energy from your country is the problem.
Huh?
Are you proposing that we build some worldwide network of transmission lines to move solar power from Africa -> North America when it is night time in the latter?
Are you proposing that we build some worldwide network of transmission lines to move solar power from Africa -> North America when it is night time in the latter?
Yes. Research on the idea is limited. But even just intercontinental connections are profitable to society https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261... . I assume network effects are gonna increase the benefit more. Even seasonal differences can be compensated without long term storage.
> Except... There can be a large part of the day when there is neither wind nor sun.
If people stopped wasting money on EV's and bought residential batteries instead...
If people stopped wasting money on EV's and bought residential batteries instead...
You can also use an EV as a residential battery - we just need better control systems/integration to make it easier for normal people.
Who's going to pay for these mythical natural gas and coal plants that are idle until needed?
Also with coal in particular it can take days to ramp them up - coal is for base load, not demand.
If it were only as simple as you are postulating - which is why these 2nd level effects of blindly pushing renewables without taking the whole system into account are causing issues like we are seeing in Texas, California and many other places too.
Also with coal in particular it can take days to ramp them up - coal is for base load, not demand.
If it were only as simple as you are postulating - which is why these 2nd level effects of blindly pushing renewables without taking the whole system into account are causing issues like we are seeing in Texas, California and many other places too.
the thing is, wind in general has far surpassed its expectations.
How so?
Our transition to wind and other intermittent sources instead of building base load is creating a worsening reliability crisis.
It seems that people forgot that we still don't have many good ways to store energy.
Our transition to wind and other intermittent sources instead of building base load is creating a worsening reliability crisis.
It seems that people forgot that we still don't have many good ways to store energy.
We never transitioned, wind was just the most economical growth opportunity for generation and it works really well in that regard. Just because we have increased wind doesn’t mean we don’t need to increase base generation. Not sure why you frame it like this.
> most economical growth opportunity for generation
Umm, I think you're missing something big here. The only reason this was "economical" were huge tax benefits/subsidies.
Decentralized energy production that involves a bunch of large moving parts will NEVER be as efficient as centralized energy production.
Umm, I think you're missing something big here. The only reason this was "economical" were huge tax benefits/subsidies.
Decentralized energy production that involves a bunch of large moving parts will NEVER be as efficient as centralized energy production.
Because it is clear who is paying for the additional wind generation, it is not clear who is going to pay for the mostly unused backup base generation.
Which is why the Texas model fails in this scenario. It's unprofitable to have emergency backup load, so it doesn't get built.
The reason Texas has failed is because this state is a state of excess and they’re proud of fact.
If we incentivized efficiency we’d be much better off but instead we champion mocking that as something Californian.
If we incentivized efficiency we’d be much better off but instead we champion mocking that as something Californian.
CA is actually facing rolling blackouts for exactly the same reasons, yet it's always amusing that TX only ever seems to get talked about here :p
CA's system has issues because it is a 100% captured monopoly and have utterly refused to fix problems that were identified by Enron in the 90s.
Meanwhile, 48 more states in the union have a variety of significantly more or less regulated energy sectors than either Texas or California and how many of them have rolling blackouts every year?
I don't know why people keep pretending Texas's and California's problems are anything more than the stupidity, or willfull negligence of their respective governments.
Meanwhile, 48 more states in the union have a variety of significantly more or less regulated energy sectors than either Texas or California and how many of them have rolling blackouts every year?
I don't know why people keep pretending Texas's and California's problems are anything more than the stupidity, or willfull negligence of their respective governments.
CA had a blackout for non-safety (fire) issues recently?
Bingo. "Emergency Base Load" isn't a thing and would never make financial sense.
In Germany, we (via the grid operators) literally pay these power plants just for providing backup capacity. Another idea could be paying companies to stop consuming power in times of high demand. Things like cold storage facilities can easily shift their power consumption by a few hours.
So, just ignore the problems and double down? Sounds like a terrible strategy. If it doesn’t work we need to pivot to something more reliable, like nuclear energy.
In the case of Texas, where idiocy rules to the level that the state is bonding billions to reimburse power companies for the failures and chaos caused by very predictable cold weather, that won’t work.
Unfortunately, whomever runs the Texas public utility commission doesn’t work for the people of Texas.
Unfortunately, whomever runs the Texas public utility commission doesn’t work for the people of Texas.
Texas is one of the fasting growing states in the union, so the idiots running things must be doing something right.
Low taxes and flat planes of land that you can keep building new housing on, cheap, that makes it easy to keep growing out. Good for them I guess. But providing infrastructure for that expansion does cost something eventually, thus the struggles with increasing electricity in a state with less oversight. I find your comment pretty generic that could be applied to almost anything. California must be doing something right, because their tax surpluses are incredible. Same for lots of other states. So what, just because California has huge budget surpluses doesn't clarify if the state is serving its citizen's needs.
I moved out of Texas long ago precisely because the geography sucks and it's too hot.
Ah right, must be the topology. Brilliant insight. Wake me up once people start voting for California with their feet again.
This reads like you only read the first half-sentence of that comment and stopped there.
Your reductive reasoning is palpable. People will move to Texas in the near term for the promise of low COL, but I wonder how many massive power grid failures it will take for the rich to begin fleeing for greener pastures.
Your reductive reasoning is palpable. People will move to Texas in the near term for the promise of low COL, but I wonder how many massive power grid failures it will take for the rich to begin fleeing for greener pastures.
The same things were said of California!
When my dads family grew up in the 1950s, the allure of buying a cheap bungalow in a lemon farm outside LA felt like paradise…
When my dads family grew up in the 1950s, the allure of buying a cheap bungalow in a lemon farm outside LA felt like paradise…
Pablo Escobar's business grew fast, too.
It had (ahem) some externalities, and wound up collapsing. Fast growth isn't inherently a sign of something being done right, or we'd be talking about Zynga a lot more.
It had (ahem) some externalities, and wound up collapsing. Fast growth isn't inherently a sign of something being done right, or we'd be talking about Zynga a lot more.
Unfortunately, plenty of horrid people DID talk about Zynga a lot.
Yes; the point is that "this is popular now" is not necessarily an indicator of quality or long-term sustainability.
A tragedy of the commons is preceded by a gold rush before the predictable tragedy strikes.
Yes, making money for their patrons. Texas is blessed with many things.
If nuclear plants in Texas are maintained as well as the rest of the equipment, sure it will be reliable.
Has something changed since early 2021 and the ice storms, when similar, false claims were made about renewables having anything to do with the problem?
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-texas-wind-turb...
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-texas-wind-turb...
Yes, the collective memory of the citizens. They were told it was okay and nothing to worry about, so they stopped worrying and went about their lives.
You know, I'm no Wall Street Journal editoralatician, but I am someone who lives in Texas. I haven't noticed much change in the wind when it's hot, but it's not something I really pay attention to, so I'll take that as true. You know what I have noticed when I go outside and it feels like an oven? Tons of sunlight.
That's a pretty disingenuous argument.
If you're in the business of providing power (or being a regulator of those providing power), then one of the things you need to be good at is predicting demand. You should be able to model various kinds of weather scenarios and their impact on electricity demand, and find out what the worst-case scenario is, and roughly how likely it is to occur. And then you can plan your capital expansion plans to be able to meet that future demand.
So if supply is struggling to meet demand, there are three possibilities. First, supply could be lower than forecast due to unforeseeable circumstances. Second, maybe things were worse than you forecast, and demand was unexpectedly high. However, we appear to be in the third possibility: you knew that supply was insufficient to meet demand, and you didn't care.
Texas seems to be regulating its grid to ensure low prices above all else, even at the expense of reliability of the electrical system. If you need 1000 MW of spare electrical generation capability, you need that whether your grid is mostly based on solar and wind or whether it's based on gas and coal. That the complaints are directed against renewables are I think because the renewables are undercutting fossil fuel plants, and the state is too cheap to ensure reliability--and the renewables are a more politically convenient scapegoat than the bad regulatory oversight currently in place.
If you're in the business of providing power (or being a regulator of those providing power), then one of the things you need to be good at is predicting demand. You should be able to model various kinds of weather scenarios and their impact on electricity demand, and find out what the worst-case scenario is, and roughly how likely it is to occur. And then you can plan your capital expansion plans to be able to meet that future demand.
So if supply is struggling to meet demand, there are three possibilities. First, supply could be lower than forecast due to unforeseeable circumstances. Second, maybe things were worse than you forecast, and demand was unexpectedly high. However, we appear to be in the third possibility: you knew that supply was insufficient to meet demand, and you didn't care.
Texas seems to be regulating its grid to ensure low prices above all else, even at the expense of reliability of the electrical system. If you need 1000 MW of spare electrical generation capability, you need that whether your grid is mostly based on solar and wind or whether it's based on gas and coal. That the complaints are directed against renewables are I think because the renewables are undercutting fossil fuel plants, and the state is too cheap to ensure reliability--and the renewables are a more politically convenient scapegoat than the bad regulatory oversight currently in place.
That's why it's wise to build both solar and wind, as they behave antiproportional most of the time. When there's more sun, there is less wind and vice versa.
This seems kind of myopic. This article is about heat waves, which are not a "base load" problem, they are a problem that's near-perfectly solved by solar deployment.
This is their plan to get more people to install stand-alone PV systems.
Grids (electric, gas, etc.) are communal things, and Texans resist communism.
Grids (electric, gas, etc.) are communal things, and Texans resist communism.
it’s unfortunate many local utilities in Texas actually punish for solar. It’s a good thing off grid solar and battery storage is really coming down in price.
Solar panels are pretty hard on the environment and (in places with poor regulation) the people manufacturing them but once you've got them set up they're pretty fantastic (provided you don't accidentally smash them like I did my first system.) You have truly independent energy this way. Also there are consumer products like the jackery that make moving power easy for normal people so It's not hard to share with your neighbors when they need some extra too.
I'm not a fan of giant solar farms cut into forests, but if someone adds panels to their roof or yard seems like an easy enough way to cut energy demand in the sunbelt in particular.
> I'm not a fan of giant solar farms cut into forests
What % of new solar farms are cut into forests? I can't think of a one, I'm sure there is one, but it's hard to imagine it's a high %.
What % of new solar farms are cut into forests? I can't think of a one, I'm sure there is one, but it's hard to imagine it's a high %.
We’ve been having some extreme load shedding in South Africa for the past few weeks. It has been an ongoing problem since 2007 or 2008 but has been particularly bad this year.
We’re just coming out of a stretch of having the power off 3 times a day (either for 2.5 or occasionally 4.5 hours at a time.) I am relieved that the power is only going off once for two and a half hours tonight now that things have calmed down a bit. It has been stressful.
We’re just coming out of a stretch of having the power off 3 times a day (either for 2.5 or occasionally 4.5 hours at a time.) I am relieved that the power is only going off once for two and a half hours tonight now that things have calmed down a bit. It has been stressful.
If Texas could assert itself it should be with nuclear power plants. In all seriousness they could get it rammed through and it would be good for the state
Amen!
Texas even has large open spaces w/ cheap land where they could locate them with minor NIMBY resistance.
Texas even has large open spaces w/ cheap land where they could locate them with minor NIMBY resistance.
With a large supply of water?
Where do they put the waste?
If they are smart they will use newer designs that let them burn everyone else's "waste"
You're probably not aware that reprocessing spent fuel to recover plutonium is not economical until uranium reaches something like $700/kg. The advantage of burning waste is very minor; it's cheaper to just squirrel the stuff away in dry casks.
In the ground like everyone else.
Actually almost everyone is putting waste in dry casks, which is cheaper than burying it and just as safe.
and then where does it go?
It just sits there. Later maybe something gets done with it, but by the magic of non-zero interest rates that's cheaper than doing anything with it now. In the meantime, its heat production steadily declines, which makes that future processing (or burial, or shooting off into space, or whatever) easier and easier.
The only real downside of dry casks is that after about 300 years the waste is so decayed that it's no longer self-protecting from "amateur" diversion of the contained plutonium. So something needs to be done by then.
The only real downside of dry casks is that after about 300 years the waste is so decayed that it's no longer self-protecting from "amateur" diversion of the contained plutonium. So something needs to be done by then.
Federal nuclear regulator won't budge, so TX will need to self-regulate as a sovereign country.
What's stopping them?
[deleted]
As a Texan, two tiny realities are missing from this convo. First, much of the failures last winter were caused by stuff freezing, not from overuse. The power system in Texas is not built for snow or ice for the same reason the one in Hawaii is not.
Secondly, Texas has the only open power market in the US. Companies compete to lower their prices and have lots of free and discount days for consumers. Is that a perfect system? No, but it does contribute to a lower cost of living which people and businesses seem to like. These are not new setups. This arrangement has existed for decades.
Finally, it's distressing to read all the as hominem attacks in this thread. Texas is not full of dumb, overweight crypto miners or insensitive eco terrorists. We have lots of smart people, some of whom like it that things are run differently than other states and that's ok. It's what freedom is all about.
BTW, Houston, Texas's largest city, gets its power entirely from wind and solar. That's a good goal for any city.
Secondly, Texas has the only open power market in the US. Companies compete to lower their prices and have lots of free and discount days for consumers. Is that a perfect system? No, but it does contribute to a lower cost of living which people and businesses seem to like. These are not new setups. This arrangement has existed for decades.
Finally, it's distressing to read all the as hominem attacks in this thread. Texas is not full of dumb, overweight crypto miners or insensitive eco terrorists. We have lots of smart people, some of whom like it that things are run differently than other states and that's ok. It's what freedom is all about.
BTW, Houston, Texas's largest city, gets its power entirely from wind and solar. That's a good goal for any city.
> BTW, Houston, Texas's largest city, gets its power entirely from wind and solar. That's a good goal for any city.
This is a bit misleading. It appears the big-C City's own operations do, not the whole city worth of people and private industry.
https://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/2020/100-percent-renew...
> As part of the contract renewal, the City will power all municipal operations with renewable energy and realize $65 million in savings over the seven-year contract. Through the NRG Renewable Select plan, the City will receive 1,034,399 MWh of renewable electricity annually from a new, third-party utility-scale solar facility in Texas that is dedicated to City operations.
This is a bit misleading. It appears the big-C City's own operations do, not the whole city worth of people and private industry.
https://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/2020/100-percent-renew...
> As part of the contract renewal, the City will power all municipal operations with renewable energy and realize $65 million in savings over the seven-year contract. Through the NRG Renewable Select plan, the City will receive 1,034,399 MWh of renewable electricity annually from a new, third-party utility-scale solar facility in Texas that is dedicated to City operations.
Wasn't meaning to mislead. You found the exact story I was looking for. Thank you.
> Houston, Texas's largest city, gets its power entirely from wind and solar.
What do they do at night when it's simultaneously dark and not windy?
What do they do at night when it's simultaneously dark and not windy?
I don't work in the industry but there are several known power storage technologies. This article[0] says we run the most renewable energy of any city in the US. I think that's terrific.
[0] https://www.papercitymag.com/culture/houston-no-1-renewable-...
[0] https://www.papercitymag.com/culture/houston-no-1-renewable-...
If you look at the current Texas demand/supply curves at the ERCOT dashboard, the current squeeze would be very well addressed by adding more solar capacity (and perhaps a few hours of batteries for the period around and just after sundown.)
Looking forward to Texas again blaming renewables for their bad planning.
Oh, wait, I'm late saying this.
Oh, wait, I'm late saying this.
Well that’s bleak but entirely expected. I don’t remember the Texas government doing anything in response to the last time their grid almost fell over last year other than crow about their independence
Not sure why you got downvoted. As a Texan, that's exactly what happened.
Our state government will learn its lesson only when a series of major incidents start making companies reconsider their plans to expand or relocate to the state. Republicans may love their "independence" but money is also a language they understand very well.
Our state government will learn its lesson only when a series of major incidents start making companies reconsider their plans to expand or relocate to the state. Republicans may love their "independence" but money is also a language they understand very well.
Exactly, If or once the situation gets to a point that requires scheduled load shedding (eg South Africa) I would suspect a lot of things would change pretty quickly. I can not imagine any 'side' in TX putting up with having no power for 2-3 hours, 2-3 times day - forcing a greater divide between the have's (businesses/homes willing to pay for generators) & the have-nots.
> I can not imagine any 'side' in TX putting up with having no power for 2-3 hours, 2-3 times day
If it's the side that you've disenfranchised then you don't really need to worry about it.
If it's the side that you've disenfranchised then you don't really need to worry about it.
bradleybuda(2)
The State Senate actually came up with a good plan (on paper) for improving the grid. The implementation was then handed off to the Railroad Commissioner who then totally watered things down. There’s a good article about how it went down in Texas Monthly magazine. Lesson is that the Railroad Commissioner is a very powerful (elected) position in terms of energy, so worth paying close attention to that election.
Isn't it also the Railroad Commissioner who deals with things like oil wells? I think that came up in an article about old oil wells that were flooding ranchland with salt water in East Texas thanks to the practice of pumping water into oil reserves to boost pressure for active wells.
I'd love to understand how the Railroad Commissioner ended up responsible for energy.
I'd love to understand how the Railroad Commissioner ended up responsible for energy.
They are the head of oil and gas in the state so very likely. The history is complicated to say the least. They don’t even run the railroad anymore. It’s all energy related. The name of the office should be changed but the oil and gas companies probably want the office to keep flying under the public’s radar.
It started by taking over regulation of pipelines in the 1910s. That seems like a logical step to me, but over time their purview has expanded to O&G plants and energy production. They aren’t responsible for public utilities, but a lot of the winterization plans were around upgrading pipelines that froze in the storm.
According to Wikipedia they haven’t dealt with rail since 2005, but it’s been a lot longer since the RRs were politically relevant to the office.
According to Wikipedia they haven’t dealt with rail since 2005, but it’s been a lot longer since the RRs were politically relevant to the office.
Did that not happen after the last incident?
Now they really have to back that up with action. If things do break, it'll look doubly bad. If things don't break, but other parts of the country do, they'll look good.
We may soon see which way it goes.
We may soon see which way it goes.
> Plants are being regularly ordered to go into service, or remain in operation, and skip any scheduled maintenance.
If you don't schedule maintenance then your equipment will schedule it for you, usually at the least convenient time.
If you don't schedule maintenance then your equipment will schedule it for you, usually at the least convenient time.
So true. Watch it happen right before election.
They don't need to look good though, they only need to maintain control. Doing a good job at things and winning elections based on earned confidence is one way to maintain control but not apparently the one they're going for.
No, not in Texas. They just redraw the maps so that they are guaranteed to stay in power, er, not electric power.
salt-thrower(3)
it takes a long ass time to build more power plants. winterizing the grid better doesn't help with more demand from heat waves.
Sure, but the message after the ice storm was “look, it isn’t cold here very often, who could have foreseen it?”, and some ham-handed attempts at blaming green energy (https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/17/abbott-republicans-g...) for bonus political points.
That’s a little harder to do with heat in Texas.
That’s a little harder to do with heat in Texas.
For reference for other readers, the situation that happened in Texas to cause the power grid to fall over was widely forcasted as a "once in every ten years" event. It was not an unimaginable extreme. Most other states plan or require planning for such events, either out of caution, or from direct harm caused by similar events
I am willing to accept they are trying to improve if I see it, but everything I saw out of the Texas government seemed to be a denial of any problems at all. The power grid is stressed in the summer under A/C load anywhere that is normally hot, which Texas is, so why weren’t they prepared for it?
I’m just comparing this to my region where the government doesn’t have an excuse for the power grid failing everytime it’s hot or cold and has actually removed utilities who had catastrophic failures[1].
I’m not judging Texas for having unforeseen problems, I am judging them for failing to respond to their issues
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrimack_Valley_gas_explosi...
I’m just comparing this to my region where the government doesn’t have an excuse for the power grid failing everytime it’s hot or cold and has actually removed utilities who had catastrophic failures[1].
I’m not judging Texas for having unforeseen problems, I am judging them for failing to respond to their issues
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrimack_Valley_gas_explosi...
It doesn't take a long ass time to build new renewables. But it does take competent management to incentivize moving maintenance to the times of year that don't have heat waves.
How long to build out on the scale needed?
Nuclear is the best possible solution to climate change in the short term, but we definitely will not do it. Instead, we will do all of the worse solutions, take 50 years to transition (if ever), and do a bunch of harm on the way. TX is going to be forced to build more natural gas power plants.
How can that be? Nuclear plants take way too long to build; there's nothing "short term" about it.
They don’t have to take that long to build.
Yes, we can imagine the Nuclear Fairy waving her magic wand to give us NPPs.
Here in the real world, we operate under constraints that we can't just wish away because that would be convenient for the point we're trying to defend. Among those constraints is the lack of organizational and industrial experience and infrastructure for effectively making new NPPs.
Here in the real world, we operate under constraints that we can't just wish away because that would be convenient for the point we're trying to defend. Among those constraints is the lack of organizational and industrial experience and infrastructure for effectively making new NPPs.
If it was seen as a high priority, we could do it. They put people on the moon in the 60’s in less time than people claim it’d take to build a power plant today.
Ingredients for a quick transition to nuclear:
1. Gov’t must be willing to ignore NIMBY/BANANA people 2. Accept slightly more risk than zero 3. Aggressively poach people from countries with healthy nuclear programs and put them in charge of ours.
Ingredients for a quick transition to nuclear:
1. Gov’t must be willing to ignore NIMBY/BANANA people 2. Accept slightly more risk than zero 3. Aggressively poach people from countries with healthy nuclear programs and put them in charge of ours.
The Apollo program was achieving a technical result, not an economically competitive result. The systems produced by Apollo were unsustainably expensive.
What you are proposing is, instead, to count on a centrally planned economic model to produce a competitive outcome. This is something the US is not very good at. It's also entirely unrealistic due to the scale of the activity that would be required.
What you are proposing is, instead, to count on a centrally planned economic model to produce a competitive outcome. This is something the US is not very good at. It's also entirely unrealistic due to the scale of the activity that would be required.
You are aware climate change requires global solutions?
Do you propose building nuclear power stations in every country regardless if it is a inept dictatorship, an religious fundamentalist theocracy or been at civil war for the last 15 out of 20 years?
I've been hearing these predictions all summer but here in TX I have yet to see one blackout or brownout. Days starting to get shorter. So how much of this is puff?
we haven’t even hit our hottest month and yet and this week alone the grid hit an effective 100% utilization rate and was only saved by asking manufacturers and crypto miners to shutdown. Toyota has to close their plants by 2pm. That’s pretty messed up
I don't know why Toyota is singled out unless the power supply in their particular region of Texas is particularly strained. They can't be that significant of a percentage of Texas power demand. Reading this article, it doesn't seem clear that the heat wave was at fault:
"The plant had scheduled five days of summer shutdown next week, and added two additional days due to a global semiconductor shortage, Toyota said. The seven days of closures are unrelated to the heat wave, the spokesperson added."
"General Motors Co has avoided production cuts at its Arlington, Texas, assembly plant, but has scaled back on air conditioning, the company said on Thursday."
"Sources familiar with LyondellBasell plant operations said early Thursday the petrochemical firm reduced power usage at its Houston refinery by switching from electric pumps to steam turbines where possible."
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/toyota-scales-back-...
Also, July is the hottest month: https://www.rssweather.com/climate/Texas/Dallas-Fort%20Worth... and days have been getting shorter since the solstice. We'll see slightly reduced energy demand in August and more so if we get more rain (we've had very little this summer so far, so any change in rain patterns will lower temps).
"The plant had scheduled five days of summer shutdown next week, and added two additional days due to a global semiconductor shortage, Toyota said. The seven days of closures are unrelated to the heat wave, the spokesperson added."
"General Motors Co has avoided production cuts at its Arlington, Texas, assembly plant, but has scaled back on air conditioning, the company said on Thursday."
"Sources familiar with LyondellBasell plant operations said early Thursday the petrochemical firm reduced power usage at its Houston refinery by switching from electric pumps to steam turbines where possible."
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/toyota-scales-back-...
Also, July is the hottest month: https://www.rssweather.com/climate/Texas/Dallas-Fort%20Worth... and days have been getting shorter since the solstice. We'll see slightly reduced energy demand in August and more so if we get more rain (we've had very little this summer so far, so any change in rain patterns will lower temps).
august is by far the hottest month in texas. and yes, i just chose Toyota because it was easy to identify them since they are huge.
you should go by their factory sometime. you can get a tour, it’s pretty awesome.
you should go by their factory sometime. you can get a tour, it’s pretty awesome.
Does the California power grid still need to perform load shedding during peak usage, or have they added additional capacity?
Not sure why you got downvoted. Yes, rolling brownouts are still very much a thing in California and probably will be for the foreseeable future: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-faces-...
They are being downvoted because 1) California being shitty should have no effect on whether Texas is shitty or not and because 2) even IF California is shittier than Texas (an opinion rather than fact), that doesn't make it any better than the other 48 states that aren't regularly in the news for shitty electrical infrastructure that fails regularly.
Hasn't happened yet this year, but they're expecting more capacity related rolling blackouts.
This certainly isn't just a texas problem
This certainly isn't just a texas problem
Since the Aug. 2020 blackout the state has added 2 GW of battery storage for solar and wind, as well as delayed closure of a natural gas plant. There's another 2 GW of battery storage planned for this year. If California had the extra 2 GW of storage in 2020, the blackout would have been averted.
The California grid can pull from outside if needed. Most of Texas can't. That's the issue.
>Most of Texas can't. That's the issue.
Wikipedia seems to contradict your claim. Am I missing something here?
>The Texas Interconnection is maintained as a separate grid for political, rather than technical reasons,[1] but can also draw some power from other grids using DC ties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection
Wikipedia seems to contradict your claim. Am I missing something here?
>The Texas Interconnection is maintained as a separate grid for political, rather than technical reasons,[1] but can also draw some power from other grids using DC ties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection
That's DC power not AC needed to power homes, and even then only 2 minor junction points.
The power plants and substations are still needed to act as a giant DC-to-AC inverter. So if the plants are offline then the grid is effectively down, as it was in the Feb 2021 blizzard.
The power plants and substations are still needed to act as a giant DC-to-AC inverter. So if the plants are offline then the grid is effectively down, as it was in the Feb 2021 blizzard.
The DC is converted to AC after it crosses the bridge. The use of DC interconnects means the AC on the two grids doesn't have to be synchronized.
Does maintaining a system for political reasons remove the technical drawbacks?
We’re mostly engineers on this board, have you never had to build a substandard system to meet the political needs of a higher up and then watched it blow up in their face as reality doesn’t care about political needs?
We’re mostly engineers on this board, have you never had to build a substandard system to meet the political needs of a higher up and then watched it blow up in their face as reality doesn’t care about political needs?
Those interconnections are basically small scale arbitrage connections setup to take advantage of the difference in spot prices. They aren't close to the scale needed to make a dent in a power shortage.
This is true in theory, but in practice it makes little difference.
When California has increased demand, so do all the states it's connected to. Hence the rolling blackouts a couple years ago and more are expected for this summer.
When California has increased demand, so do all the states it's connected to. Hence the rolling blackouts a couple years ago and more are expected for this summer.
Most blackouts in California are not driven by electricity shortages but rather by hot and strong wind events that lead electric utilities to shut off certain transmission lines in rural areas to avoid sparking wildfires. This distinction probably doesn't matter much to those who have their power cut but it is important to actually fixing the root cause.
There was a particularly nasty heat wave in the western US in 2020 that did lead to load shedding due to a shortage of electricity. That was the first time California had load shedding since 2011 IIRC, and it did not repeat in 2021.
There was a particularly nasty heat wave in the western US in 2020 that did lead to load shedding due to a shortage of electricity. That was the first time California had load shedding since 2011 IIRC, and it did not repeat in 2021.
> Hence the rolling blackouts the last few years and more are expected for this summer.
California has had two days with rolling blackouts since 2001, August 14-15 of 2020.
It has had public safety power shutoffs in some areas since 2019 to prevent fire risk during dry, high-wind conditions, but those are a different issue than rolling blackouts and unrelated to energy generating capacity.
California has had two days with rolling blackouts since 2001, August 14-15 of 2020.
It has had public safety power shutoffs in some areas since 2019 to prevent fire risk during dry, high-wind conditions, but those are a different issue than rolling blackouts and unrelated to energy generating capacity.
> California has had two days with rolling blackouts since 2001, August 14-15 of 2020.
Right. And more are predicted for this year. So it was and still is an issue. Or at least, officials expect it to still be an issue.
Right. And more are predicted for this year. So it was and still is an issue. Or at least, officials expect it to still be an issue.
california is also an ISO and still does load shedding. oh and Tres Amigas stil isn't done, like over 10 years later, mostly bc federal regulation held it up.
Is Tres Amigas still moving forward? Last I read it got canned.
Texan resident here. Experienced more blackouts/brownouts when I lived in CA than I have in TX.
> Crypto mining has also taken off in the past year, bringing with it the industry’s power-intensive operations.
Risking the real economy and even human lives for this.
Risking the real economy and even human lives for this.
can't they just cut them off?
call it "load shedding"
call it "load shedding"
> “The bitcoin miners were able to push over 1,000 [megawatts] back into the grid for ten-hour plus periods multiple times during the week.”
that's an entire nuclear power plant worth of energy; how noble of them.
no words :'(
that's an entire nuclear power plant worth of energy; how noble of them.
no words :'(
Good. Texas doesn't get to complain until Texas stops wasting electricity on virtual beanie babies.
They only shut down because the price is so low that margins are slim. Not like it was a benevolent act.
Why not just charge progressively until people go away? You know, something like average cost to keep house at 80F at cost, 75F more, 70F more, but nothing too extreme yet. Then start charging something like 10x cost over that. Miners should just disappear themselves after that.
Yea, this is load shedding and allows the utility to control certain appliances.
The best example in my area is water heaters. The appliance and sometimes even the electricity is provided at a some discount but the power is disabled during peak usage.
But I don't really see how you could incorporate the kind of complex pricing you describe. It would be too easy to cheat.
The best example in my area is water heaters. The appliance and sometimes even the electricity is provided at a some discount but the power is disabled during peak usage.
But I don't really see how you could incorporate the kind of complex pricing you describe. It would be too easy to cheat.
Well they have similar things in place for basic charging more during peak hours and such, I guess I'm advocating for charging prohibitively more if found to be using way higher than normal amounts.
Curious though, how would it be cheated?
All of that said, a lot depends on the infrastructure. Most places I've lived still have dumb meters...which makes the idea rather moot.
Curious though, how would it be cheated?
All of that said, a lot depends on the infrastructure. Most places I've lived still have dumb meters...which makes the idea rather moot.
You get pure, naked capitalism at that point where the little old lady who can only pony up 50 dollars a month to keep the ac running at below deadly temperatures loses out to the aluminum smelter or cryptominer willing to pay 200/ month because they make a profit.
This causes political problems because people like capitalism until they see grandmas dieing so someone can make extra widgets, but it’s the US so we can’t say capitalistic behaviors have to be regulated to prevent that situation, and we get crazily inefficient solutions in response
This causes political problems because people like capitalism until they see grandmas dieing so someone can make extra widgets, but it’s the US so we can’t say capitalistic behaviors have to be regulated to prevent that situation, and we get crazily inefficient solutions in response
The little old lady, in my case, would get power at cost to keep her home below 80F.
Unless of course she's mining bitcoins or running a grow operation.
I don't think power, or anything, should be highest bidder wins. But perhaps highest bidder wins above normal usage.
Unless of course she's mining bitcoins or running a grow operation.
I don't think power, or anything, should be highest bidder wins. But perhaps highest bidder wins above normal usage.
If she’s getting power at cost then she isn’t living under the capitalist system Texas claims to run under if there’s a single person or company willing to pay a penny more. That’s how that shit works.
Texas is breaking down because they, for political reasons, want to claim they are capitalist but also for political reasons can’t admit to the consequences of living under such a system
Texas is breaking down because they, for political reasons, want to claim they are capitalist but also for political reasons can’t admit to the consequences of living under such a system
I'm not convinced they can't admit those consequences. Didn't their governor literally say grandma should sacrifice herself for the economy during the early pandemic?
Grandmas literally died during the Texas grid failure but Fox News blamed it on "wind turbines" so I don't see the electorate caring enough to oust their otherwise popular political personalities.
Grandmas literally died during the Texas grid failure but Fox News blamed it on "wind turbines" so I don't see the electorate caring enough to oust their otherwise popular political personalities.
In theory, though they're presumably cutting slack out of the system (and presumably making the kind of maintenance mentioned here harder to perform unless they're willing to cut them off to do it?)
Most of those non-critical data center loads are turned off now.
Maybe electric cars can be programmed to not allow charging when the grid is stressed. And Smart TVs must power off. Compare that with compelling people to get vaxed to help the herd. Like: social contract, for the common good, gonna kill gramps if you don't vax don't stop charging your car.
Maybe electric cars can be programmed to not allow charging when the grid is stressed. And Smart TVs must power off. Compare that with compelling people to get vaxed to help the herd. Like: social contract, for the common good, gonna kill gramps if you don't vax don't stop charging your car.
Bud(2)
With a population of one obese person every three, good luck telling them not to use air conditioning.
Also dangerous heat levels
>I will pay up to $0.10/kWh with no limits, $0.10-$0.25/kWh but only for 6 hours per day, or >$0.25 kWh but only for up to $5 worth per day and it should send alerts to my phone/email/app immediately
Then there'd be no surprise hundred/thousand dollar bills, and the grid operator could get demand to smoothly drop off based on how much people valued it just by raising the price. Could even make that revenue neutral by having all excess money gathered from emergency demand adjustment pricing be evenly distributed back to all customers at the end of each billing cycle, which would help offset the loss for those less well off. It'd be more transparent to see the value of things like home energy storage or conservation measures.
Or maybe those plans just fell out of favor vs more traditional uniform billing where both the best and the worst case are price capped?