Ward Smith + 6,615 February 24, 2021 46 minutes ago, turbguy said: I do not know why nuc (South Texas Unit #1) tripped. I THOUGHT I heard that it was a loss of a Rx feedwater pump due to "transmission issues". We will find out. As the main culprit, IT WAS THE WEATHER! PERIOD! Demand Rose in reaction to the weather. Generation Rose to match demand. At some time between 1:00 am and 3:00 am on February 15th, 2021, wind generation decreased about 200MW, and nat gas decreased 9300 MW. ROLLING BACKOUTS WERE IMPLEMENTED TO PREVENT A GRID COLLAPSE. And somebody says the "main culprit was wind output falling"? REALLY??? If you guys actually wanna fix this, as ERCOT's grid now stands, then you have several options: Find out why NAT GAS decreased! Fixing that is the "low hanging fruit"! Implement Demand Management, including smart meters that can individually switched remotely and smart thermostats that can be lowered remotely. Some Texans will probably see this as "Big Brother", but so be it! Using your "opinions" to suggest otherwise will not prevent recurrance! Dude, you're just plain wrong and all the bold lettering in the world won't help you. Yes, on the 15th at 21-2300 hours, wind production plummeted, again. It was already below half, but dropped even further. Gas did not drop. Gas: Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210216T00-06 HL 29882 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T23-06 HL 30279 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T22-06 HL 31213 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T21-06 HL 30832 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T20-06 HL 30917 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T19-06 HL 31359 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T18-06 HL 30641 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T17-06 HL 29056 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T16-06 HL 28229 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T15-06 HL 27542 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T14-06 HL 27885 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T13-06 HL 28632 Wind: Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210216T01-06 HL 1897 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210216T00-06 HL 1492 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T23-06 HL 1228 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T22-06 HL 1023 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T21-06 HL 807 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T20-06 HL 649 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T19-06 HL 788 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T18-06 HL 1185 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T17-06 HL 1690 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T16-06 HL 1944 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T15-06 HL 2323 megawatthours I gave you the link previously to this spreadsheet, you erroneously quoted it before. I'm going with You made a mistake rather than the less charitable you are lying like a NYT "reporter". 😎 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickW + 2,714 NW February 24, 2021 3 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said: Nick A comment of yours upthread, regarding the UK's hydrocarbon resources may require a little bit of expansion. This is relevant in light of the fact that the US possess a century's worth of abundant, cheap hydrocarbons. (Pssst ... you guys do also). The recoverable natty in the Bowland alone can provide the UK with ~50 to 300 years of natgas. The tragic fact that plucky operator Cuadrilla was stymied by a .5 reading threshold on the Richter scale stopped operations. Meanwhile, rambunctious fans at stadiums regularly register 2.0 on the Richter when they stomp their feet. And people wonder why so many things are screwed up today? Anything to actually back that claim up? BGS estimates were in the region of 130bn m3 which is useful but represents about 21 months consumption in the UK. For the whole of the Uk about 7 years of technically recoverable gas from shale. This is aside from the other issue in that many of those areas lie directly beneath heavily populated areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ward Smith + 6,615 February 24, 2021 Reread your post, instead of looking at the spreadsheet for the obvious drop. Here's your timeframe Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T04-06 HL 5214 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T03-06 HL 5154 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T02-06 HL 5205 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T01-06 HL 5350 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T00-06 HL 5450 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T23-06 HL 6341 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T22-06 HL 7083 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T21-06 HL 7642 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T20-06 HL 8087 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T19-06 HL 8261 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T18-06 HL 9015 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T17-06 HL 8957 Gas Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T08-06 HL 33203 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T07-06 HL 33440 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T06-06 HL 32609 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T05-06 HL 33444 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T04-06 HL 33095 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T03-06 HL 33096 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T02-06 HL 40405 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T01-06 HL 42372 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T00-06 HL 43013 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T23-06 HL 43185 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T22-06 HL 43720 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T21-06 HL 43967 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T20-06 HL 43798 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T19-06 HL 43523 Gas production was down about 7GW, but only starting at 0300. But it had been way up before that. Meanwhile, wind still hadn't cratered yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 24, 2021 15 minutes ago, Ward Smith said: Reread your post, instead of looking at the spreadsheet for the obvious drop. Here's your timeframe Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T04-06 HL 5214 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T03-06 HL 5154 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T02-06 HL 5205 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T01-06 HL 5350 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T00-06 HL 5450 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T23-06 HL 6341 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T22-06 HL 7083 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T21-06 HL 7642 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T20-06 HL 8087 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T19-06 HL 8261 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T18-06 HL 9015 megawatthours Net generation from wind for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T17-06 HL 8957 Gas Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T08-06 HL 33203 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T07-06 HL 33440 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T06-06 HL 32609 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T05-06 HL 33444 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T04-06 HL 33095 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T03-06 HL 33096 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T02-06 HL 40405 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T01-06 HL 42372 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210215T00-06 HL 43013 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T23-06 HL 43185 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T22-06 HL 43720 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T21-06 HL 43967 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T20-06 HL 43798 megawatthours Net generation from natural gas for Texas (region), hourly - local time 20210214T19-06 HL 43523 Gas production was down about 7GW, but only starting at 0300. But it had been way up before that. Meanwhile, wind still hadn't cratered yet Those are the total generation energy amounts at the END OF THE HOUR, not the START OF THE THE HOUR. At least you are examining the correct time range, rather than showing charts from the period of January 21 through February 17 to make a point. ERCOT engineers knew the grid was on the way trouble beforehand! Gas had already dropped 2500 MW from midnight to 2:00AM. Declaring an emergency late brings down the grid! Better time granularity will help. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 24, 2021 Some might also ask, "If his was supposed to be a "Rolling Blackout:, why did some consumers experience those, while others were out-of-service for many hours, or days? Why did a few suffer NO blackouts at all? THAT is due to the way the system is wired at the distribution level. ERCOT tells the the transmission/distribution companies to implement. The distribution owner does what he can. They go out to the substations (or work remotely if available) to interrupt circuits. They know which entities are on each circuit, and that info typically is not publicly available (for good reason). They come across a circuit that serves a hospital, another that has a fire station or police station. THOSE circuits (and any other entities on the same circuit) are given priority and avoid the "rolling". That concentrates the circuits available for "rolling", and they ran out of rolling capability. There was no place to "roll to". 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 25, 2021 And FINALLY, ERCOT begins to speak... https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/ERCOT-holds-urgent-meeting-on-power-grid-failure-15975585.php 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 25, 2021 "One generator after another reported they were tripped off." About 33,343 megawatts fell offline as of 1:23 a.m. Monday, or enough to power 6.7 million homes" 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 25, 2021 3 hours ago, Ward Smith said: prove it Eejit http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/225167/ERCOT_202_c__DOE_2021-2-14a.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coffeeguyzz + 454 GM February 25, 2021 Nick UK consumes ~80 Bcm (Billion cubic meter) per year natgas. 2013 British Geological Survey on the Bowland. Page #3. Upper Unit 7.5 Tcm Gas In Place with 50% probability (the figure generally used for average prognostication). Lower Unit. 30.2 Tcm Gas In Place with 50% probability. This gives 37.6 Trillion Cubic Meters (rounded, their figures) which equates to almost 50 years consumption. Note 1). ... the 'lower probability' - 10% - is almost double this figure. Note 2). ... These are Gas In Place numbers, NOT Technically Recoverable, to use the USGS terms. Actual, Real World recovery would be way less, but still very significant resource. Note 3). There are other shale basins in the UK, as I am sure you know. Note 4). The recovery rate from US unconventionals continues to increase at an astonishing pace. Learning of the ongoing data releases from 4th Quarter operations continue to show remarkable upside results. This would be applicable to those 2013 numbers vis a vis what might be recoverable. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Clemmensen + 1,011 February 25, 2021 4 hours ago, Ecocharger said: That is assuming, of course, that atmospheric CO2 is a significant problem to be worried about. Judging from recent work by scientists in Finland and Japan, I doubt that it is. Perhaps we should start a new thread with links to the new climate science research. I stated ONLY that Hydrogen produced from NG is not carbon neutral. That statement made no assumption that CO2 is a significant problem. I do not wish to discuss climate change on this thread. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old-Ruffneck + 1,177 er February 25, 2021 38 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said: I do not wish to discuss climate change on this thread. Thank you @Dan Clemmensen !!!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,377 DL February 25, 2021 7 hours ago, NickW said: Predicting a cold winter at the trough of the 11 year solar cycle is right in bears pooing in the woods territory - similar to 2010-2012 cold winters. Did it predict that 2016 and 2020 would be the hottest years on record? Check her graphs, I gave you the links already. 97% predictive power, puts the climate warmer model into obsolescence land. Sorry to do that, but science marches on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 25, 2021 I finally found a "high granularity" chart of ERCOT system frequency and system events during the time of interest. It is quite revealing. When the bugs get worked out of the site, I will post it. THEN we can really talk! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,540 February 25, 2021 6 minutes ago, turbguy said: I finally found a "high granularity" chart of ERCOT system frequency and system events during the time of interest. It is quite revealing. When the bugs get worked out of the site, I will post it. THEN we can really talk! Let me guess the turbines froze and the gens ran out of gas. Just another day of intellectual integrity. We we ever learn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surrept33 + 609 st February 25, 2021 45 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Check her graphs, I gave you the links already. 97% predictive power, puts the climate warmer model into obsolescence land. Sorry to do that, but science marches on. Here is the NOAA/NASA/ESA consensus prediction in September 2020: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-25-forecast-update?fbclid=IwAR0II6o75ehEkIfRW-QP4F4w1ljXx89KsQrKdhEGeJvnIm6GviIFiEjdH34 Solar Cycle 25 For the past eight months, activity on the sun has steadily increased, indicating we transitioned to Solar Cycle 25. Solar Cycle 25 is forecast to be a fairly weak cycle, the same strength as cycle 24. Solar maximum is expected in July 2025, with a peak of 115 sunspots. “How quickly solar activity rises is an indicator on how strong the solar cycle will be,” said Doug Biesecker, Ph.D., panel co-chair and a solar physicist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. “Although we’ve seen a steady increase in sunspot activity this year, it is slow.” The panel has high confidence that Solar Cycle 25 will break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles. “We predict the decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21 through 24, has come to an end,” said Lisa Upton, Ph.D., panel co-chair and solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. “There is no indication we are approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.” “While we are not predicting a particularly active Solar Cycle 25, violent eruptions from the Sun can occur at any time,” Biesecker added. Almost live: https://swe.ssa.esa.int/sidc-S101c-federated Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 February 25, 2021 12 hours ago, Ecocharger said: your boys have been royally shown up. Again and again, and again, and again, and again........................... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrs + 893 WS February 25, 2021 On the freezing of wells, let's keep in mind that the Permian is all associated gas and that those wells produce water and oil so the water absolutely will freeze at single digits. It's not that complicated, we dispose of 4 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced and along with that barrel of oil are several thousand MCF of gas. So the Permian wells froze up had nothing to do with dry gas freezing. There is no dry gas in the Permian. There are some layers in the Wolfcamp that are more gas than oil but still not the same. 2 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrs + 893 WS February 25, 2021 On 2/22/2021 at 6:23 PM, maxonhudson said: 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. Bulshit. Most of the Texas infrastructure for oil and gas out in the Permian is new. 2 4 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrs + 893 WS February 25, 2021 I am going to add something else here that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread but because it's so long it might be there. The electricity for the wells in the Permian is provided I believe in large part from the wind turbines. So I believe that the lack of wind turbine generation may have affected gas production. Additionally I have not noticed that no one seems to have recognized that the wind mills were iced due to freezing rain that led this whole mess off. On Thursday here in Austin we had freezing rain around noon and by 3pm my electricity was off due to power line damage. My electricity didn't return until Friday at 10pm and then stayed on the rest of the freeze. We have gas heat and gas stove and fireplace so I ran the stove and fireplace at full blast during the power outage to keep us warm. I was able to get the house up to about 65 that way. The ice storm hit west Texas first and that is what froze up the wind turbines, once the blades were coated with ice, they were too heavy to spin. So again, this is a weakness of wind, period, no way to argue against that. 1 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richard D + 86 RD February 25, 2021 16 hours ago, turbguy said: I do not know why nuc (South Texas Unit #1) tripped. I THOUGHT I heard that it was a loss of a Rx feedwater pump due to "transmission issues". We will find out. As the main culprit, IT WAS THE WEATHER! PERIOD! Demand Rose in reaction to the weather. Generation Rose to match demand. At some time between 1:00 am and 3:00 am on February 15th, 2021, wind generation decreased about 200MW, and nat gas decreased 9300 MW. ROLLING BACKOUTS WERE IMPLEMENTED TO PREVENT A GRID COLLAPSE. And somebody says the "main culprit was wind output falling"? REALLY??? If you guys actually wanna fix this, as ERCOT's grid now stands, then you have several options: Find out why NAT GAS decreased! Fixing that is the "low hanging fruit"! Implement Demand Management, including smart meters that can individually switched remotely and smart thermostats that can be lowered remotely. Some Texans will probably see this as "Big Brother", but so be it! Using your "opinions" to suggest otherwise will not prevent recurrance! A little while ago I suggested,on this site,that vertical axis wind turbines might be preferable. That was met with abuse. After this debacle,I would point out that it seems possible to box in the bearings of this type of turbine. As the generator is at ground level,it is also easy to reach with anti-freeze. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 25, 2021 This forum's functionality has degraded. I sent community@oilprince.com an email in case they are not aware of it. Since I cannot post images, here's a link to an article that contains a rather poor image of ERCOT's Frequency and event chart I referred to earlier. https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/government/2021/02/24/ercot-texas-power-system-was-less-than-5-minutes-from-collapse-during-winter-storm/ For those insisting it was "wind" READ IT AND WEEP! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickW + 2,714 NW February 25, 2021 1 hour ago, wrs said: Bulshit. Most of the Texas infrastructure for oil and gas out in the Permian is new. May have been brand new but was it adequately frost protected? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 25, 2021 9 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said: Let me guess the turbines froze and the gens ran out of gas. Just another day of intellectual integrity. We we ever learn. Oh, I don't know the details of WHY each generator tripped. I would REALLY like that info! THAT would be the one "input" into determining root causes. I suspect that information may not come out without legal action on the part of the State. If it can be shown in a court of law that the nat gas business sector has significant responsibility for this event, they just might be on the hook for all the downstream damages. Including absorbing the ridiculous costs of the electricity market during the entire event. I suspect politics and money will prevent that info from emerging, but I could be wrong. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,401 February 25, 2021 I get to wondering, who will all the insurance companies start to subrogate their pay-outs against. Insurance companies are not going to let this one get a "pass", as they can argue that it was man-made. I hear Insurance Companies have these guys and gals called "lawyers". This should be fun. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,377 DL February 25, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, surrept33 said: Here is the NOAA/NASA/ESA consensus prediction in September 2020: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-25-forecast-update?fbclid=IwAR0II6o75ehEkIfRW-QP4F4w1ljXx89KsQrKdhEGeJvnIm6GviIFiEjdH34 Solar Cycle 25 For the past eight months, activity on the sun has steadily increased, indicating we transitioned to Solar Cycle 25. Solar Cycle 25 is forecast to be a fairly weak cycle, the same strength as cycle 24. Solar maximum is expected in July 2025, with a peak of 115 sunspots. “How quickly solar activity rises is an indicator on how strong the solar cycle will be,” said Doug Biesecker, Ph.D., panel co-chair and a solar physicist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. “Although we’ve seen a steady increase in sunspot activity this year, it is slow.” The panel has high confidence that Solar Cycle 25 will break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles. “We predict the decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21 through 24, has come to an end,” said Lisa Upton, Ph.D., panel co-chair and solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. “There is no indication we are approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.” “While we are not predicting a particularly active Solar Cycle 25, violent eruptions from the Sun can occur at any time,” Biesecker added. Almost live: https://swe.ssa.esa.int/sidc-S101c-federated Sure, the standard view. They have not even looked at the recent models. Edited February 25, 2021 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members