.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

37 minutes ago, NickW said:

Has your programmer taught you to tell fibs. She states at the end of the editorial

The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053) can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth.

"More than 2.5 degrees by 2600", it's right there in black and white. 

Read the abstract, it is right there, you cannot miss it,

https://nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

In the Responses section below the article the author discusses the retraction issues and shows how they were not relevant to the article. It was weird that she was not given the opportunity to refute the criticisms before the article was retracted by the journal, not by the author. Note, this article passed peer review before publication, so there is no justification for retracting on the basis of some work published AFTER this article was published. That is retrospective review, which is entirely out of order for any journal.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

58 minutes ago, NickW said:

If solar irradiance is the only factor influencing the temperature of a planet why is Venus 450 degrees C hotter than Earth. 

Venus gets less solar radiation at the surface than Earth.

Pop quiz. How long is a "day" on Venus? 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

49 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yet those railroad locomotive motormen seem to do it all the time.  Saves on the brakes, and on a long grade, it is the only option, or so it would seem.....

And virtually every vendor of electric vehicles. And those massive Caterpillar dump trucks used at mining sites have no brakes. They have several hundred HP motors for each wheel and reverse polarity for braking. In fact back in school I had a prof who went through the math of why it could not be done with standard friction braking, period. I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.  

[maxonhudson + 4]

The Texas fossil fuel grid failed because of neglect, out of date and not designed to deal with freezing temps. Had nothing to do with green energy.

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yet those railroad locomotive motormen seem to do it all the time.  Saves on the brakes, and on a long grade, it is the only option, or so it would seem.....

For DC systems (traction motors generating into resistive loads), it works fine.  That's the primary reason the Union Pacific provides a diesel loco on steam excursions.  Dynamic braking, to save wear and tear on the steam loco's brakes (which are apparently expensive to replace).  Heck, ANYTHING on a steam loco is expensive...

I think this tread needs to be split up.

Edited February 23, 2021 by turbguy

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

28 minutes ago, turbguy said:

For DC systems (traction motors generating into resistive loads), it works fine.

Just so you are aware of it, railroads have switched over to AC traction motors.  I suspect, but do not know for certain, that the motivation was to get out from underneath having to clean commutators and replace brushes, admittedly an awkward job on some hefty motor underslung on a wheel truck.....

Analogously, the GM Volt auto apparently uses an AC traction motor and complex power electronics to set it up for regenerative braking.  Looks like the traditional DC motor is headed the way of the Dodo bird.  Oh, well. 

[turbguy + 1,543]

15 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Just so you are aware of it, railroads have switched over to AC traction motors.  I suspect, but do not know for certain, that the motivation was to get out from underneath having to clean commutators and replace brushes, admittedly an awkward job on some hefty motor underslung on a wheel truck.....

Analogously, the GM Volt auto apparently uses an AC traction motor and complex power electronics to set it up for regenerative braking.  Looks like the traditional DC motor is headed the way of the Dodo bird.  Oh, well. 

Oh, you are correct, forgot about that...yeah, they are AC, as are Tesla's.

[turbguy + 1,543]

More politics over bills.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/san-antonio-mayor-texas-bill-electricity-disaster-15970083.php

Actually, the "demon's" are the PUC-created "casino" market, and the Generators, not ERCOT.  

ERCOT needs to do the investigation, find the facts, and make conclusions.  NOT the political PUC.

I feel ERCOT did an admiral job containing the situation.

It could have been worse. MUCH worse!

Wait until the citizens see what happens with their Homeowner's Insurance premiums.

Edited February 23, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

It ain't just Texas folks! Look around. Minnesota had the same thing

 

[surrept33 + 609]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Where does she claim that solar factors are the "only" factors?  You are in the grip of hyperbolia, that sad affliction which the global warming supporters seem to have the market cornered on.

Who is a "global warming supporter"? Personally, I think about risk and uncertainty (and even propagation of uncertainty across multiple scales) more naturally. 

I think this is a better question to pose, personally, is - despite our (very) information rich era (humans have yottabytes of information), how do you prevent hyperbolic discounting? This is a common cognitive bias in human decision making as noted by behavioral economists. 

We could simply adopt a wait and see approach and see if the uncontrolled release of CO2 and also other greenhouse gases like methane into the atmosphere, but I think that is like learned helplessness. What happens if quicker and quicker changes happen with things we do not know how to easily control (like the atmosphere, could you write a "governor" for such a complex system?). We could of course, perform geoengineering, but how would you pilot that?  It's generally known that some forms of particulates take an extremely long time to get rid of. Think for example, the lack of biodegradability of some plastics. Would you allow encourage unrestricted coal usage through the world? How would areas that are already ecological disasters like the Salton Sea and the Aral Sea and a lot of areas that are projected to be much less habitable?  It's actually cloud physics (because clouds absorb and reflect greenhouse gasses) and things like ice physics that are the most uncertain in current climate models.

Keep in mind "global warming" just describes the average surface temperature, so you're averaging over a lot, and a lot of effects cancel each other out, especially if you are looking at things numerically.  The point is really rather, the uncertainty as it relates to intensification of changes in more local geographical patches (and the connectedness of the patches as proved by very easily reproducible physics) gives a more accurate framing of what climate change is about.  For example, if the world's "conveyer belt" is weakened in the north atlantic (these are just oscillations that get less "buzzy" to me) due to arctic/greenland melt, you could see a very icey europe, and increases in humidity elsewhere from an increase in water vapor, the ultimate greenhouse gas, how would you "dehumidify" that?. There are a lot of positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops as they relate to the climate. 

Can we innovate our way out of it to prevent any tragedy of the commons situations? if the last year has taught me anything, I think the answer is that anything is possible, but it probably requires being more broadly inclusive in job creation (but keep in mind you have almost unlimited access to education now). Keep in mind that the heat transfer problem also applies to mRNA and DNA (it's a codon problem).

From a critique of Callendar's paper in 1938 (The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature), done in the mid '90s:

Callendar thought in 1938 that it would take 2000+ years to double CO2 levels (he called it "sky radiation", but he was looking at the water vapor/carbonic acid/CO2/saline water cycle). Of course, nobody expected the world population to rise as it did, or the undeveloped world to start industrializing. We know a lot more about the full lifecycle of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, including how long it takes to get rid of them from the atmosphere) because you can just test out a lot of the microphysics with a full gamut of sensors in various medium (under water, in labs, in the atmosphere, from space). These include a lot of models that don't make any claims on the issue of anthropogenic climate change whatsoever, but do a good job in quantifying uncertainty, which is almost more useful sometimes than trying to get exact predictions. 

Now, lets look at some more puzzle pieces....

Revelle - 1957 - Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO, during the past decades.

Was iffy about the effect of the ocean on climate. But did say:

Quote

 

Thus human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years. This experiment, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate. 

In contemplating the probably large increase in CO, production by fossil fuel combustion in coming decades we conclude that a total increase of 20 to 40% in atmospheric CO, can be anticipated. This should certainly be adequate to allow a determination of the effects, if any, of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide on weather and climate throughout the earth.

 

Keeling - 1969 - did some of the first decadal studies (from 1958 to 1969). Found the ocean was unfortunately not a great sink of carbon (we know also these days that ocean acidification is a thing and can wreck havoc with easily observable biodiversity in things like coral reefs, maybe we can "undo" that?)

Charney - 1979 - https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scientists-accurately-climate.html

After the "global cooling" decade in the '70s - which was really about aerosols and visible smog, but keep in mind NOX, SOX, CFCs, and such really do both have an cooling effect as predicted by climate models, but we were able to, via policy changes, make the air visibly cleaner and fix the ozone hole - which was bipartisan, international treaties, and should be celebrated as wins. you really have to convince people in the other side of the planet not to pollute like we did - how do you do that? My guess is giving everyone more chances to self-actualize and not hyperbolically discount future humans so much. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by surrept33

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

47 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Who is a "global warming supporter"? Personally, I think about risk and uncertainty (and even propagation of uncertainty across multiple scales) more naturally. 

I think this is a better question to pose, personally, is - despite our (very) information rich era (humans have yottabytes of information), how do you prevent hyperbolic discounting? This is a common cognitive bias in human decision making as noted by behavioral economists. 

We could simply adopt a wait and see approach and see if the uncontrolled release of CO2 and also other greenhouse gases like methane into the atmosphere, but I think that is like learned helplessness. What happens if quicker and quicker changes happen with things we do not know how to easily control (like the atmosphere, could you write a "governor" for such a complex system?). We could of course, perform geoengineering, but how would you pilot that?  It's generally known that some forms of particulates take an extremely long time to get rid of. Think for example, the lack of biodegradability of some plastics. Would you allow encourage unrestricted coal usage through the world? How would areas that are already ecological disasters like the Salton Sea and the Aral Sea and a lot of areas that are projected to be much less habitable?  It's actually cloud physics (because clouds absorb and reflect greenhouse gasses) and things like ice physics that are the most uncertain in current climate models.

Keep in mind "global warming" just describes the average surface temperature, so you're averaging over a lot, and a lot of effects cancel each other out, especially if you are looking at things numerically.  The point is really rather, the uncertainty as it relates to intensification of changes in more local geographical patches (and the connectedness of the patches as proved by very easily reproducible physics) gives a more accurate framing of what climate change is about.  For example, if the world's "conveyer belt" is weakened in the north atlantic (these are just oscillations that get less "buzzy" to me) due to arctic/greenland melt, you could see a very icey europe, and increases in humidity elsewhere from an increase in water vapor, the ultimate greenhouse gas, how would you "dehumidify" that?. There are a lot of positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops as they relate to the climate. 

Can we innovate our way out of it to prevent any tragedy of the commons situations? if the last year has taught me anything, I think the answer is that anything is possible, but it probably requires being more broadly inclusive in job creation (but keep in mind you have almost unlimited access to education now). Keep in mind that the heat transfer problem also applies to mRNA and DNA (it's a codon problem).

From a critique of Callendar's paper in 1938 (The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature), done in the mid '90s:

Callendar thought in 1938 that it would take 2000+ years to double CO2 levels (he called it "sky radiation", but he was looking at the water vapor/carbonic acid/CO2/saline water cycle). Of course, nobody expected the world population to rise as it did, or the undeveloped world to start industrializing. We know a lot more about the full lifecycle of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, including how long it takes to get rid of them from the atmosphere) because you can just test out a lot of the microphysics with a full gamut of sensors in various medium (under water, in labs, in the atmosphere, from space). These include a lot of models that don't make any claims on the issue of anthropogenic climate change whatsoever, but do a good job in quantifying uncertainty, which is almost more useful sometimes than trying to get exact predictions. 

Now, lets look at some more puzzle pieces....

Revelle - 1957 - Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO, during the past decades.

Was iffy about the effect of the ocean on climate. But did say:

Keeling - 1969 - did some of the first decadal studies (from 1958 to 1969). Found the ocean was unfortunately not a great sink of carbon (we know also these days that ocean acidification is a thing and can wreck havoc with easily observable biodiversity in things like coral reefs, maybe we can "undo" that?)

Charney - 1979 - https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scientists-accurately-climate.html

After the "global cooling" decade in the '70s - which was really about aerosols and visible smog, but keep in mind NOX, SOX, CFCs, and such really do both have an cooling effect as predicted by climate models, but we were able to, via policy changes, make the air visibly cleaner and fix the ozone hole - which was bipartisan, international treaties, and should be celebrated as wins. you really have to convince people in the other side of the planet not to pollute like we did - how do you do that? My guess is giving everyone more chances to self-actualize and not hyperbolically discount future humans so much. 

Why don't you guys get a room? 

No, really, start a climate thread and move everything there instead of muddying up this thread? I promise I might come and visit 😊

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

57 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Who is a "global warming supporter"? Personally, I think about risk and uncertainty (and even propagation of uncertainty across multiple scales) more naturally. 

I think this is a better question to pose, personally, is - despite our (very) information rich era (humans have yottabytes of information), how do you prevent hyperbolic discounting? This is a common cognitive bias in human decision making as noted by behavioral economists. 

We could simply adopt a wait and see approach and see if the uncontrolled release of CO2 and also other greenhouse gases like methane into the atmosphere, but I think that is like learned helplessness. What happens if quicker and quicker changes happen with things we do not know how to easily control (like the atmosphere, could you write a "governor" for such a complex system?). We could of course, perform geoengineering, but how would you pilot that?  It's generally known that some forms of particulates take an extremely long time to get rid of. Think for example, the lack of biodegradability of some plastics. Would you allow encourage unrestricted coal usage through the world? How would areas that are already ecological disasters like the Salton Sea and the Aral Sea and a lot of areas that are projected to be much less habitable?  It's actually cloud physics (because clouds absorb and reflect greenhouse gasses) and things like ice physics that are the most uncertain in current climate models.

Keep in mind "global warming" just describes the average surface temperature, so you're averaging over a lot, and a lot of effects cancel each other out, especially if you are looking at things numerically.  The point is really rather, the uncertainty as it relates to intensification of changes in more local geographical patches (and the connectedness of the patches as proved by very easily reproducible physics) gives a more accurate framing of what climate change is about.  For example, if the world's "conveyer belt" is weakened in the north atlantic (these are just oscillations that get less "buzzy" to me) due to arctic/greenland melt, you could see a very icey europe, and increases in humidity elsewhere from an increase in water vapor, the ultimate greenhouse gas, how would you "dehumidify" that?. There are a lot of positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops as they relate to the climate. 

Can we innovate our way out of it to prevent any tragedy of the commons situations? if the last year has taught me anything, I think the answer is that anything is possible, but it probably requires being more broadly inclusive in job creation (but keep in mind you have almost unlimited access to education now). Keep in mind that the heat transfer problem also applies to mRNA and DNA (it's a codon problem).

From a critique of Callendar's paper in 1938 (The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature), done in the mid '90s:

Callendar thought in 1938 that it would take 2000+ years to double CO2 levels (he called it "sky radiation", but he was looking at the water vapor/carbonic acid/CO2/saline water cycle). Of course, nobody expected the world population to rise as it did, or the undeveloped world to start industrializing. We know a lot more about the full lifecycle of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, including how long it takes to get rid of them from the atmosphere) because you can just test out a lot of the microphysics with a full gamut of sensors in various medium (under water, in labs, in the atmosphere, from space). These include a lot of models that don't make any claims on the issue of anthropogenic climate change whatsoever, but do a good job in quantifying uncertainty, which is almost more useful sometimes than trying to get exact predictions. 

Now, lets look at some more puzzle pieces....

Revelle - 1957 - Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO, during the past decades.

Was iffy about the effect of the ocean on climate. But did say:

Keeling - 1969 - did some of the first decadal studies (from 1958 to 1969). Found the ocean was unfortunately not a great sink of carbon (we know also these days that ocean acidification is a thing and can wreck havoc with easily observable biodiversity in things like coral reefs, maybe we can "undo" that?)

Charney - 1979 - https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scientists-accurately-climate.html

After the "global cooling" decade in the '70s - which was really about aerosols and visible smog, but keep in mind NOX, SOX, CFCs, and such really do both have an cooling effect as predicted by climate models, but we were able to, via policy changes, make the air visibly cleaner and fix the ozone hole - which was bipartisan, international treaties, and should be celebrated as wins. you really have to convince people in the other side of the planet not to pollute like we did - how do you do that? My guess is giving everyone more chances to self-actualize and not hyperbolically discount future humans so much. 

You are ignoring the basic issue, what has CO2 atmospheric intensity have to do with climate? If the answer is little or nothing, then there is no need to turn the economy upside down and drastically reduce the living standards of our poorest people on the basis of an unsupported idea.

In the past two years multiple scientific tests and models have come forth from international scientists questioning the value of atmospheric CO2 in explaining global temperature changes. That may threaten the rice bowls of those scientists committed to the CO2 hypothesis, but ignoring the science and calling down drastic political measures which would damage everyone is the the final step to take, not the first. Especially if it is unsupported by science.

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

You are ignoring the basic issue, what has CO2 atmospheric intensity have to do with climate? If the answer is little or nothing, then there is no need to turn the economy upside down and drastically reduce the living standards of our poorest people on the basis of an unsupported idea.

In the past two years multiple scientific tests and models have come forth from international scientists questioning the value of atmospheric CO2 in explaining global temperature changes. That may threaten the rice bowls of those scientists committed to the CO2 hypothesis, but ignoring the science and calling down drastic political measures which would damage everyone is the the final step to take, not the first. Especially if it is unsupported by science.

 

You've got the makings of an excellent thread title right there. It merits its own discussion rather than commingled with this disaster. Remember, this temp was an extreme outlier. It was 73 in Austin yesterday, which is pretty normal for there right now. 

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Why don't you guys get a room? 

No, really, start a climate thread and move everything there instead of muddying up this thread? I promise I might come and visit 😊

Can I upvote this another 2 or 3 dozen times?

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

You've got the makings of an excellent thread title right there. It merits its own discussion rather than commingled with this disaster. Remember, this temp was an extreme outlier. It was 73 in Austin yesterday, which is pretty normal for there right now. 

When the extremes become frequent, the norm changes. Time will tell. The early winter this year in Nov/Dec was also cold up north, I don't know about Texas.

Okay, we've talked the weather to death. Enough already.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Ecocharger

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/20/2021 at 3:11 PM, surrept33 said:

Keep in mind that editorial (in a physiology journal of all things) has been cited one time, by another article in the same journal saying why they published it: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1818914

She more or less cited her own previous work in a much more major journal, which was pointed out by peers to be flawed (and one of her coauthors, her own son, subsequently agreed, which led to a retraction):

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper-that-blames-the-sun-for-climate-change-has-been-retracted 

and

 https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24

I think it's fine to publish it, but her [history of such] claims are pretty provocative and don't match all the direct and indirect evidence (the IPCC literally cities thousands of papers!) we have about the greenhouse gas effect itself as it relates to anthropogenic climate change.

Her work has a small error while the CO2 models have an error so large that the prediction's confidence interval is larger than the phenomenon itself. Climate science in the political sphere is purely a fictional fancy to justify policy goals of extremely narrow moneyed interests and of China, which has an interest in everyone else consuming less fossil fuels so that it can buy them more cheaply. Obviously all in the anthropogenic climate change (warming) money grubbing industry would do their best to hide this work and get it discredited. 

"climate change" is a political product, not a scientific one. Had it explained any prior historical episodes of temperature fluctuations over decades in the past then one could take it seriously. As it is now, its models are no better than a coin toss as to whether the next year or decade will be warmer. The only reason the models fit the data is that the data is generated by the same model to fill in holes in the historical measurements. Take out the calculated temps and there is no fit. Take out the locations where measurements were taken under a particulate cloud for a century but clean air efforts brought particulate levels back down then you have accounted for most of the measurements justifying the theory. In a word, in as much as global warming is real in the data, it is a creation of clean air regulations. 

We don't have long to wait for her work to prove out. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Texas Blocks Utility Companies From Billing Customers or Disconnecting for Nonpayment After Sticker Shock Outrage

(Excerpts)

Texas Blocks Utility Companies From Billing Customers or Disconnecting for Nonpayment After Sticker Shock Outrage

-

Abbott called an emergency meeting with legislators on Feb. 20 after reports of many customers receiving bills for thousands of dollars for just a few days’ electricity service.

In Texas’s highly competitive deregulated electricity market, some retail providers offer customers prices pegged to daily wholesale rates or other forms of indexing. Under normal circumstances, this can mean lower prices, but after the cold snap squeezed grid capacity and led to a dramatic run up in wholesale electricity prices, some households have been hit with huge bills.

Ty Williams, a Dallas-area resident, saw his monthly bill soar from $600 last month to nearly $17,000 so far this month, according to local news outlet WFAA.

“How in the world can anyone pay that? I mean you go from a couple hundred dollars a month … there’s absolutely no way‚ it makes no sense,” said Williams, who added that the bill came from Griddy, an electricity retailer that pegs its prices to wholesale rates.

Griddy even urged its customers to switch providers in the short-term to avoid sticker shock.

“If the forecast and prices are too extreme for you right now, we understand if you want to switch providers,” Griddy stated in a blog post. “While we value you as a member, we want what is best for your wallet and family even more.”

[maxonhudson + 4]

 Capitalism at its finest? Welcome to the fully unregulated energy market.  Texas is indeed the wild west.

[turbguy + 1,543]

I watch Alex Jones for entertainment, only.  He makes for a GREAT clown!

I am continually amazed at how a human can twist the meaning of another human's words.  Kinda like a lawyer (out of court)...

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/fact-check-biden-energy-texas-power-storm-infowars-15971854.php

It he supports the prior president, you gotta stop and think about ANY person that he supports. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by turbguy

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

23 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I watch Alex Jones for entertainment, only.  He makes for a GREAT clown!

I am continually amazed at how a human can twist the meaning of another human's words.  Kinda like a lawyer (out of court)...

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/fact-check-biden-energy-texas-power-storm-infowars-15971854.php

It he supports the prior president, you gotta stop and think about ANY person that he supports. 

Well then, you've got more stomach than me.  I can't watch the man.  It's a show, is what I think.  If a man or woman has certain convictions and finds that they are good enough at pontificating about them that people, and more importantly sponsors, will pay him or her to do so, then why not?  I will say that he seems to use the tools at his disposal to find out and investigate more than your average current day news company, so there is a certain value, even if that value is to keep us aware there are bad people in our midst and to challenge anyone to prove him and his sources wrong.  Necessary in his own way, if not bothersome.  Like I say, I can't watch or listen to him.  I didn't even click your link, but I'm pretty sure I could tell you what he was on about.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

30 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Kinda like a lawyer (out of court)

Actually, that's kind of what he does, isn't it?:  Holding court, daily, on the air.

[turbguy + 1,543]

5 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Actually, that's kind of what he does, isn't it?:  Holding court, daily, on the air.

Judge Judy does a MUCH better job of that.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

13 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Judge Judy does a MUCH better job of that.

Back to the thread topic, did you look at this Hour by hour spreadsheet? It was a link in the article I previously posted from World Oil. You and others kept talking about the projection by ERCOT of 6GB as if that was some kind of Gospel. I stated clearly that projections don't mean squat. I projected that the score in the Superbowl would be 27-24 and even put down a bet on that. Obviously it wasn't just wrong but way wrong. Projections, like weather and climate "forecasts" can be like that. 

I don't want to futz with the spreadsheet on this iPad and I refuse to blog on my work computer so I leave it to others if they want to graph everything. Clearly the week before the outage wind was cooking along, producing 20GW routinely. Kinda like Tampa Bay Buccaneers were cooking along, routinely scoring touchdowns while Kansas only scored field goals. So much for projections…

[turbguy + 1,543]

While I may have posted about ERCOT's projection for the winter peak and the expected wind contribution to that peak, the spreadsheet appears to be the raw data behind the graphs.

That data still confirms my observation.

Over the critical 2 hour period, wind dropped about 200 MW.

Over the same critical period, nat gas dropped 9200 MW.

WHY??

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by turbguy

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Clearly the week before the outage wind was cooking along, producing 20GW routinely. Kinda like Tampa Bay Buccaneers were cooking along, routinely scoring touchdowns while Kansas only scored field goals. So much for projections…

How is this relevant to anything? ERCOT, you, and everybody else in the universe agree that wind power is variable. You appear to be attempting to project that since 20 GW of wind power was available in the prior week, it should therefore have been available when it was needed. It was not available, and nobody was counting on it's being available during the critical period when demand peaked while the NG generators were failing due to lack of winterization of the generators and their NG supplies.  Wind power was within about 200 MW of its projected minimum.

By contrast, you, ERCOT, and (almost) everybody else in the universe treat NG plants as a reliable source of electricity that can respond rapidly to demand. The NG plants did just that from the time the ice storm hit up until they froze up. ERCOT, you, and (almost) everybody else were unpleasantly surprised when they froze up, and the only choice was to impose rolling blackouts.