.

[turbguy + 1,540]

16 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I thought that all was obvious.

Sometimes, I even gotta remind myself.

(burp).

Edited February 24, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

16 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

You keep quoting these deceptive "percentages". Wind went from approximately 100% to approximately 0%. That's right, its a variable source and everybody knows it. That is expected behaviour. On the other hand, NG went from about 20% of its full capacity when the rest was not needed, up to nearly 100% of its full capacity when it was needed: That's your "450%". NG is supposed to be able to do that. That's what you, me, ERCOT, and everybody else expects it to do.  No, gas is not the bad guy for doing its job.

You then complain that NG did not get credit for doing its job during the unprecedented event, but instead was blamed when it could not continue to do its job. It's true that is was blamed. It was supposed to continue to do its job, but it failed. That's the way life is for any provider of any basic service. You never get credit for doing your job: you are not even noticed. But the instant you fail, everybody dumps all over you. If the plants had not frozen and ERCOT had maintained a 15% reserve, the NG would have met all of the unprecedented demand, and NG STILL would not have been praised as it deserved. If the plants had not frozen but without any extra reserve, the unprecedented demand might have resulted in an hour of rolling blackout in a few places, and everybody in the universe would have STILL dumped on you as they dumped on California last summer.

Read @Coffeeguyzz post above. Then reread (or as seems likely, read for the very first time) the article I linked to from world oil several pages back. Because of wind and invalid market signals, over $7 billion was spent getting power from nowheresville where the wind farms were, to interconnect to the rest of the grid. Had that $7 billion not have been misallocated like that, just how much money do you suppose would have been available to, gee, I don't know, upgrade and weatherproof the CCGT plants? There's only so much budget money to go around and ERCOT assigned the priority. You'll note I was the one pointing out that 1/5th of the ERCOT board didn't even Live in Texas when no one from the WSJ, NYT, CNN, Washington comPost could even be bothered to find out. 

We'll eventually find out that the natural gas supply failure was primarily because of the electric supply failure cascade event. Joule Thomson effect was certainly a possibility, as were clathrates formation. Pulling too hard on the straw will do that to a system. I'm also not convinced about your math, the info I have is that the individual CCGT plants were operating well above their rated capabilities. Note also that the Xiden DOE refused to grant blanket emergency waivers to exceed emissions standards. Eejit didn't grok that, but he don't grok much. Remember, expected demand was 60GW, but real demand hit 80GW with 20GW offline for scheduled (and necessary) maintenance. 

Finally, treating CCGT plants like whimsical notions to sit idle possibly for months, then jump to full power in minutes is lunacy. The only reason they're getting used like this is intermittent power sources. 

[turbguy + 1,540]

Even the TITLE of this thread is wrong.

A "downed power line" does not cause a(n intentional)  rolling blackout.

It causes a real, forced blackout, of indefinite duration.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by turbguy

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

13 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

You keep quoting these deceptive "percentages". Wind went from approximately 100% to approximately 0%. That's right, its a variable source and everybody knows it. That is expected behaviour. On the other hand, NG went from about 20% of its full capacity when the rest was not needed, up to nearly 100% of its full capacity when it was needed: That's your "450%". NG is supposed to be able to do that. That's what you, me, ERCOT, and everybody else expects it to do.  No, gas is not the bad guy for doing its job.

You then complain that NG did not get credit for doing its job during the unprecedented event, but instead was blamed when it could not continue to do its job. It's true that is was blamed. It was supposed to continue to do its job, but it failed. That's the way life is for any provider of any basic service. You never get credit for doing your job: you are not even noticed. But the instant you fail, everybody dumps all over you. If the plants had not frozen and ERCOT had maintained a 15% reserve, the NG would have met all of the unprecedented demand, and NG STILL would not have been praised as it deserved. If the plants had not frozen but without any extra reserve, the unprecedented demand might have resulted in an hour of rolling blackout in a few places, and everybody in the universe would have STILL dumped on you as they dumped on California last summer.

Excuse me for not being able to read in nuances, but didn't you just paraphrase what Ward had said? 

And you keep missing the point. You can't run electricity for 30M customers by having a variable production component--wind--providing energy and have several multi-billion-dollar NG utility plants idling along, waiting to serve as "peaker" plants when the wind dies down. That is not a viable energy grid! 

Maybe in a less divided world we could just give the guy a few pages back some kudos for reminding us all of the Joule-Thomson Effect. Natural gas--in Texas almost pure methane--contains a certain amount of water. Not much happens to that--even if there's quite a bit of water--in a straight pipeline. But when it is choked down through a valve, there is usually a significant temperature drop: the J-T Effect. Two things can happen and both of them are bad. The water can drop out of the methane and freeze or the water can form a weird cage from electrostatic hydrogen attraction between water molecules, holding within it dancing molecules of methane with no chemical attachment at all. In the first instance the solid is known as ice and in the second it is known as a clathrate. In both instances there is a stoppage of natural gas. The remediation in both cases is chemical addition to antifreeze the natural gas and plain old insulation. 

So on a normal day in Austin, like today, the temperature is 73 degrees in the middle of winter and all is good with the incestuous bunch known as ERCOT. After all, they have morphed along the way to the point where they are really only "pawn brokers." ERCOT answers to the Public Utility Commission--they're the real "power brokers." The power brokers have gotten a bit loose with the cash drawer, influenced mightily by the "power center," which is of course Washington D.C. doling out its incentives and subsidies . . . not for selling electricity but for the sheer joy of developing electricity. The pawn brokers weren't too happy with that but they take the crap that's brought in the front door and then balance the books each month, paying off the crooks who manufacture the wind because the super-crooks in D.C. paid them exorbitant sums to do so, even though lots of cash is being paid for an unused commodity. It's a slipshod mechanism when the weather is 73 degrees in Austin because the workhorse of the outfit--a guy named Slim Narco but whose real name is Methane--is sitting around getting fat, losing his skill set, dragging his knuckles more each day. 

And then the stuff hits the fan. The power broker mixes up the receipts, the pawn broker panics, the owner calls the power center, who says they can't turn up the gas all the way because of emissions that might get nasty over Bumfluck China, and as the temperature falls and the velocity is increased in the natural gas valves, the temperature falls some more due to the J-T Effect, and ice forms, and then, just about when it's about to break lose, those nasty clathrates start forming those crazy cages. And all at once the power brokers call the pawn brokers some bad names and they panic worse and well, Texas just about freezes to death. 

And that's what happened in Texas. 

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Read @Coffeeguyzz post above. Then reread (or as seems likely, read for the very first time) the article I linked to from world oil several pages back. Because of wind and invalid market signals, over $7 billion was spent getting power from nowheresville where the wind farms were, to interconnect to the rest of the grid. Had that $7 billion not have been misallocated like that, just how much money do you suppose would have been available to, gee, I don't know, upgrade and weatherproof the CCGT plants? There's only so much budget money to go around and ERCOT assigned the priority. You'll note I was the one pointing out that 1/5th of the ERCOT board didn't even Live in Texas when no one from the WSJ, NYT, CNN, Washington comPost could even be bothered to find out. 

We'll eventually find out that the natural gas supply failure was primarily because of the electric supply failure cascade event. Joule Thomson effect was certainly a possibility, as were clathrates formation. Pulling too hard on the straw will do that to a system. I'm also not convinced about your math, the info I have is that the individual CCGT plants were operating well above their rated capabilities. Note also that the Xiden DOE refused to grant blanket emergency waivers to exceed emissions standards. Eejit didn't grok that, but he don't grok much. Remember, expected demand was 60GW, but real demand hit 80GW with 20GW offline for scheduled (and necessary) maintenance. 

Finally, treating CCGT plants like whimsical notions to sit idle possibly for months, then jump to full power in minutes is lunacy. The only reason they're getting used like this is intermittent power sources. 

Ward, the argument that money was misallocated to wind may or may not be valid, It does not suddenly make your posts about the timeline of the recent event valid. Let's try to keep these arguments separate, just as we should try to keep climate change out of this for now. The fact that ERCOT directors did not live in Texas is not relevant to the timeline either. What is relevant here is that the ERCOT market pricing did not provide the proper incentives to winterize for any of the electricity sources. If the incentives had been there the generators would have been winterized, and the winterization costs would have been reflected in a (tiny) increase in electricity costs.

Idling a CCGT plan is not "lunacy" if it makes economic sense. If Texas wants reliable power then they need those generators. If Texas does not want to pay for NG to run them at high capacity and instead prefers to use wind when its available, then the market will cause that to happen. Note that when you run a grid with no renewables, you are still not running your plants at high capacity most of the time, but only at peak times. It's all a matter of percentages. Same with extra "reserve" capacity. It never gets used, but you build it anyway.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

22 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

And you keep missing the point. You can't run electricity for 30M customers by having a variable production component--wind--providing energy and have several multi-billion-dollar NG utility plants idling along, waiting to serve as "peaker" plants when the wind dies down. That is not a viable energy grid!

Why not? Those same plants would idle along at non-peak times of year even if there were no renewables. It's all about money. The system needs all of those multi-billion-dollar NG utility plants, so the customers will have to pay for them not matter what, whether they are used for 5% of the time or 90% of the time.  But the plants will use (and pay for) a lot less NG if they only run 5% of the time, so it may be cheaper to idle the plants and use wind whenever possible. Or not. It depends on the actual capital costs for both types of plant, and the cost of NG.

BTW, I really do know about many of the various oversimplifications I'm making. For instance, I know that when a CCGT is operating as a peaker it is a lot less efficient, and that its gas turbine ramps up quickly but its steam turbine ramps up slowly.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

22 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Why not? Those same plants would idle along at non-peak times of year even if there were no renewables. It's all about money. The system needs all of those multi-billion-dollar NG utility plants, so the customers will have to pay for them not matter what, whether they are used for 5% of the time or 90% of the time.  But the plants will use (and pay for) a lot less NG if they only run 5% of the time, so it may be cheaper to idle the plants and use wind whenever possible. Or not. It depends on the actual capital costs for both types of plant, and the cost of NG.

BTW, I really do know about many of the various oversimplifications I'm making. For instance, I know that when a CCGT is operating as a peaker it is a lot less efficient, and that its gas turbine ramps up quickly but its steam turbine ramps up slowly.

Dan, I know you're not dumb. You're just unwilling to face the hard, cold reality of how the power of Washington, D.D. corrupts the energy grid. All over Texas are these natural gas utility plants that provide unblemished power. The storm of 2011 was--anybody can see it now--a wakeup call. 

But just about that same time they were doling out money for wind energy like M&M's on Halloween. People who should have known better took their eye off the ball. They got carried along by the system of greed, handouts, more and more green energy, Texas as the Energy State, and so on and so forth. 

When you have a multi-billion-dollar natural gas utility plant relegated to playing second fiddle, no one really thinks about it much. Every year it is used just a little less. Pretty soon people start planning a whole grid without natural gas. Not to pick on California but that is exactly what is happening as we speak: the old NG power plant at Moss Landing is going to be decommissioned as the new lithium battery complex comes on line. In Texas, at least, they seem cognizant of the fact that NG can be turned to hydrogen, which is basically carbon neutral. But as a primary fuel source to produce electricity, well, people got really enamored with wind. 

That's not just happening in Texas, which truly does have a gigantic wind corridor where the wind almost always blows a gale, with daily gusts up to 60 knots. It's happening in Germany and France, where the wind is unreliable as all get-out. There is such a total group-think on the cause of global climate change--despite the fact that there is a ton of evidence that the polar ice caps have been without ice much more than iced over--that there is a mindless frenzy out there to develop "renewable" energy. Mr. Biden is willing to throw trillions at it. 

Well, in Texas, they got so caught up in this that they failed to mind their p's and q's at the NG plant. Something like 4M people have moved into Texas from California and many other places . . . to make a living and not pay state income taxes. The people who should have been paying attention to the antifreeze stopped paying attention. 

Some of those people couldn't care less about Texas--they didn't live there. Others were guilty of God only knows what. This sort of thing is likely to repeat itself in California--only during the peak demand of summer. And all over the country, from sea to shining sea. And it's going to be repeated in Europe and other places as well. 

There is an awful lot of NG around. Which means that there is an awful lot of LNG to take to faraway places. As LNG developed, it became fashionable to demonize it. Natural gas has finally been turned into the Tasmanian Devil that is destroying the earth. Until January 2020, it was okay to run a giant ship using high-sulfur bunker fuel. You never once heard mention of the polluting effects of that, even though the ten largest ships polluted as much as all the motorized vehicles on earth. We're likely entering a time of global cooling. Certainly when I visit my favorite beach, there is no sign of rising water levels . . . and we were warned a decade ago that this was going to threaten 25% of the world's population by now. 

In short, it is very likely that anthropomorphic climate change is about 50% bogus. But in running this little wind experiment, lots of very good people are being damaged financially, emotionally and physically. More and more of this is apt to occur. It's apt to occur in California and many other places. Everyone is just so damn sure they're right about this that there is no wiggle room for the slightest modicum of doubt.

The "resignation" of the utility guys today all doubtless reflected the feeling that they needed to spend more time with their families. The young guys who replace them will almost certainly have a greater affinity for natural gas. Peaker plants no more: from now on the plants will be winterized and running pretty much full speed. The electricity from wind will be shipped to Florida. And I'm pretty sure that every person on the board or commission of anything having to do with energy in the state of Texas is going to be a citizen of the Lone Star State.  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

34 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

 In Texas, at least, they seem cognizant of the fact that NG can be turned to hydrogen, which is basically carbon neutral. But as a primary fuel source to produce electricity, well, people got really enamored with wind. 

Hydrogen from NG is not carbon neutral. Every molecule of NG methane you pump from the  ground ends up adding one molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere.

By contrast, Hydrogen produced by hydrolysis from wind or solar electricity is very close to carbon neutral: No fossil carbon is used. Same is true for ammonia. It's even true for methane produced using that electricity plus CO2 from the atmosphere.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

Just think of all that gas wind freed up for LNG export. About 20% of US exports just from Texan wind. 

They should stick a couple of wind turbines on the Texan flag. 

 

That doesn't make sense because we are importing our wind and solar equipment and mainly from China. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Hydrogen from NG is not carbon neutral. Every molecule of NG methane you pump from the  ground ends up adding one molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere.

By contrast, Hydrogen produced by hydrolysis from wind or solar electricity is very close to carbon neutral: No fossil carbon is used. Same is true for ammonia. It's even true for methane produced using that electricity plus CO2 from the atmosphere.

If it is economical they will do it then. It has to be proven in actual use over time showing profit. If it is done with slight of hand subsidies the public will pay through taxes and higher bills, like they do with wind turbines. 

[Richard D + 86]

Apologies for returning to the topic of weather and climate,but I wonder how much notice the forecasters gave about the Texas cold snap? Here in the UK,they are mostly correct about the weather 3/4 days in advance. I suspect that the method is to look at satellite images of what is happening in the Atlantic and work out how long the weather systems will take to get here on the prevailing south-west wind. Today,the wind is from the south and the forecast has been wrong. If the UK forecasters are only able to track weather systems and do not have a clue about how they form,then I suggest that it is presumptuous to claim to be able to say how climate will change. In the UK,we are very much at the mercy of the jetstream. This was not even known about until the middle of the 20th century.

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Wind and solar are not imported products?  Many countries do not produce the components. What is your point?

For each unit its a one off import requirement. In the case of wind many of the component parts such as blades and towers are manufactured in the country where they are installed. 

The point is if Vestas / Siemens / GE  (apply same scenario to solar) stop exporting wind turbines for the next 3 months its unlikely to significantly affect output of wind (or solar) electricity.

However if you are reliant on LNG and there is a supply squeeze as per original email how long are your stocks going to last? 

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

We have two different models, we will see which one works....that is how science progresses.

Yes BOT. That seems to be your relay response. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

That doesn't make sense because we are importing our wind and solar equipment and mainly from China. 

When did GE become a Chinese manufacturer?

The other two major manufacturers are Vestas (Danish) and Siemens (German) where the turbines are made.

The foundations, towers, and blades are generally manufactured in the USA. 

In the case of solar I agree. 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

3 minutes ago, NickW said:

When did GE become a Chinese manufacturer?

The other two major manufacturers are Vestas (Danish) and Siemens (German) where the turbines are made.

The foundations, towers, and blades are generally manufactured in the USA. 

In the case of solar I agree. 

Equipment, components, engineering, spies, etc. 

 

General Electric is only one example. There are a few dozen others, and they mostly get their components from Chinese manufacturing. 

You're playing dumb, maybe intentionally, or maybe..... unintentionally. 

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Equipment, components, engineering, spies, etc. 

 

General Electric is only one example. There are a few dozen others, and they mostly get their components from Chinese manufacturing. 

You're playing dumb, maybe intentionally, or maybe..... unintentionally. 

And the US oil and gas industry just uses home produced components in all its equipment eh? 

[turbguy + 1,540]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Because of wind and invalid market signals, over $7 billion was spent getting power from nowheresville where the wind farms were, to interconnect to the rest of the grid. Had that $7 billion not have been misallocated like that, just how much money do you suppose would have been available to, gee, I don't know, upgrade and weatherproof the CCGT plants?

I will allow THAT point does "carry some water".  I'm used to the eastern interconnect, where the generators pick up the lion's share of those capital costs.  In ERCOT, that's immediately spread around to the "demand" (that's you and I) as a little additional little "sliver" in Texas' electric bills. Recognize that in the eastern interconnect, the "demand" eventually pays for it anyway, but IMO, it puts any new generation in a more realistic financing position.

I doubt that ERCOT would directly fund plant mods.  Gas Plants should pick up the cost weatherproofing, but Texas could find a way to help fund it (Grants and such).

Texas could impose a tax specifically on wind, to counterbalance the PTC or ITC (something like $1-$2 per MWH?) to reduce, or even remove, any Federal incentive.  Wyoming does this (beginning in the third year of operation). Those tax proceeds could then be use to fund the PUC specifically for the purpose of whatever system capital expenditures they direct.  I suspect this has already been proposed.  Unfortunately, that can also be viewed as a "carbon emission payment" to non-wind generators.  In any event, the demand still ends up paying eventually.

That reminds me of an old Donald Duck comic, where he discovered an old Norse golden helmet, that upon wearing it gave him the "deed to the atmosphere".  Donald proposed charging 1 cent per breath, 5 cents per sigh...

 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

40 minutes ago, NickW said:

And the US oil and gas industry just uses home produced components in all its equipment eh? 

Keep on ducking the question though. I'm in Canada anyway, you f'n numpty. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

R

Finally, treating CCGT plants like whimsical notions to sit idle possibly for months, then jump to full power in minutes is lunacy. The only reason they're getting used like this is intermittent power sources. 

I assume the demand schedule in the USA is similar to other industrialised countries. If so then something has to flex down over night every night. (gas, Hydro, coal) 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

7 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Hydrogen from NG is not carbon neutral. Every molecule of NG methane you pump from the  ground ends up adding one molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Oh, for Pete's sake, Dan, CO2 is everywhere! And it's not much of a greenhouse gas. 

But if you wish to be pedantic, carbon capture is being performed as we speak. Right now French and Norwegian companies are probably leading the world in this, but the epicenter for hydrogen production is Houston. I think we can safely assume that in a world suddenly gone mad about the mention of carbon, soon we'll be capturing the little sucker everywhere it can possibly fly.  

The point I was trying to make--badly I guess--is that even if you think natural gas burned in a utility plant is crazy, it is very likely that it will become the most available and important feedstock for hydrogen fuel cells. With or without the capture of CO2. 

That may well not happen in California. But it's certainly going to happen in Houston.

Like everyone, I'm watching what's happening. Mr. Biden seems hell-bent on installing the California Plan in the whole country, weaning it off hydrocarbons suddenly and without much preparation. To me and people who think in such a distorted manner, that is nuts, and Texas proves it. To the ones who think like you--and I'm not jeering at that--it makes perfect sense. 

The world can't be yanked around. Certainly, in Texas there is a growing anger about the elite ERCOT team and the Texas Utility Commission getting swept along by the wind energy craze. I imagine that when the economy turns south, Germans will get peeved that their power-brokers spent $500B for wind/solar that they really can't use. Trillions will be spent, quite possibly at a time when the world can least afford it.   

 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Keep on ducking the question though. I'm in Canada anyway, you f'n numpty. 

Sorry - I didn't know you were a Moose f**ker

Not ducking anything. Name me one civil industry that doesn't rely on a world wide component supply chain? 

I will put that question again to suit your locality preferences. 

And the Canadian oil and gas industry just uses home produced components in all its equipment eh? 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Sorry - I didn't know you were a Moose f**ker

Selva, I really hate being a Karen, but where are you?

I'm an equal-opportunity sort of guy when dialoging about energy, but shouldn't we really leave the moose out of it?

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

@NickWWe did for 80 some odd years.

 

Can renewables boast the same? 

 

Nope.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Gerry Maddoux said:

Selva, I really hate being a Karen, but where are you?

I'm an equal-opportunity sort of guy when dialoging about energy, but shouldn't we really leave the moose out of it?

I normally wouldn't respond in such a way but when he decided to personalise it by calling me a F**cking numpty I couldn't help but respond. 

Dual National - British - Australian. Take your pick. 

Don't be too harsh you might make me cry......

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

@NickWWe did for 80 some odd years.

 

Can renewables boast the same? 

 

Nope.

 

Thats a feature of globalisation and applies to all industries. 

I suspect windmills and water wheels  built 500 years ago were 100% local components but I don't think that's really relevant to today.