.

[surrept33 + 609]

55 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Is there a designated hitter rule hidden in there somewhere?

Baseball is actually really cool (mostly because people recorded box scores, play by play data) for many decades before other games, then other people digitized it. MLBAM (now called BAMTech) was actually one of the pioneers in online streaming of live and recorded events. They were really ahead of time. 

https://www.retrosheet.org/game.htm

 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Turbguy

(Man this thread is flying along tòday. Indication of how this event has touched a nerve).

Upthread you stated a great starting point ... this ERCOT system, as designed and operated, was unable to satisfy demand.

Now, to accurately -  and completely - describe the why and how this came to be is WAY beyond my abilities and - truthfully - beyond the scope of any of us as the data is not yet available.

Case in point, today's RBN Energy blog noted that gas deliveries from the Permian dropped from normal 11 Bcfd down to 2.5 Bcfd on February 16.

Clearly this impacted the overall power situation.

Why the drop off?

Freeze offs at wellheads? Pipelines?

Did compressors - essential for moving gas along pipelines shut down due to absence of electricity?

I sure do not know.

(BTW, using natgas fuelled compressors are being condemned by faux enviromentalists, demanding 'greener' electric compressors. Don't get me started on that pathway of insanity).

 

The crucial, seemingly subtle and arcane factors, Mr. Turbguy, involve this decades long push to shun hydrocarbons in some sincere quest to Save The Planet.

This bifurcated policy approach of NEEDING hydrocarbons while continuously favoring Renewables (sic) - both in operations AND in financial matters - has exploded dramatically into the pubic consciousness with this current Texas event.

 

And THIS is why Renewable (sic) advocates are going absolutely ballistic to try to control the Narrative and place the blame/responsibility away from the wind industry.

 

A long overdue analysis of ERCOT will undoubtedly reveal  just how vulnerable systems can become when over 40% of power generation stems from intermittent, variable sources.

Anti hydrocarbon icon Gail Tverberg has repeatedly touted this truth for years now.

[surrept33 + 609]

3 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

The pandemic just taught us that it is more important than ever, but forget that tired ol canard, eh? 

All of our workers come from Canada or the United States, regardless of where components come from. Here, the oil is in the ground, whereas all your precious renewable parts that were all the rage 500 years ago, aren't in being mined here, are they? 

 

That's the goddamn point. You're a NIMBY who prefers that China makes all the dirty digging, the hell with the environment and human rights for them. 

 

Congratulations, we're all in awe at your "morality". 

 

Meanwhile, the rest of us old school men and women still have to keep the lights on when its -45°C in the winter for a couple weeks at a time. Wind and solar aren't going to help us in Canada, so GFY. 

I think it's important to have a "nutritional facts" on domestic products of where stuff is made from and each of the pieces of the supply chain along with government mandated "facts" (this is basically call full lifecycle accounting).

Surprisingly, this is already done in the domestic Chinese market (they use a lot of QR codes that link to other QR codes that lead to web pages, and they have largely already automated the process).  We should just steal the idea (where do the best ideas come from? I'd say things only "get better" by being able to differentiate between many different options and having very tight feedback loops). Maybe put it on something more immutable like a blockchain to prevent cheating, ensure trust and transparency, and reduce the amount of regulatory overhead is wise. Many businesses are already starting to do stuff like that, but there should be more standardization world wide about what to track. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours 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. 

https://energyacuity.com/blog/2019-top-10-wind-turbine-manufacturers/

We are a laggard for some reason. 

[JackRackham1285 + 11]

19 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Moisture is drawn to cold, like a glass of ice tea sweats in the summertime humid days. That valve is cold but operating or the frost would be melting.  This is still a functioning valve!!

Exactly.  It could be still functioning.  But in applications where I have seen, the liquids dropping out of the gas are also freezing.  Causing the valve internals to lock up.  

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

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?

[Symmetry + 109]

13 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

All over Texas are these natural gas utility plants that provide unblemished power.

Maybe stop using that argument so much.  Natural gas generation, in Texas, is clearly not 100% reliable and available on-demand as evident by recent events.

This was mismanagement and shortsightedness.  Natural gas operations can operate in the cold, just apparently not these poorly operated / designed systems. 

Even Ward admits that the freezing of the wind turbines did not cause this outage, as the misleading title suggests, it was weakness in the CCGT plants.  According to him your precious gas plants need 7 billion of upgrades to work reliably...

"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?" - Ward

 

So funny when the climate-change deniers try to poke fun at renewables and just end up exposing weaknesses in the fossil fuel systems. Extra funny that the weakness this FF system can't handle is the increasingly severe extreme weather events we told you were going to happen.

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/23/2021 at 12:56 PM, turbguy said:

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??

 

Several reasons

1. ERCOT received a reply from Dep of Energy and EPA that they will not lift emissions caps on NG facilities, so that those that had exceeded their emissions cap already would not be allowed to continue producing.

2. Some had their supply lines clogged up by precipitates from near raw gas and could not produce later in the storm period. Some pointed to frozen steam water. 

Note that nuke output fell as well. They should not have been affected by the storm that much, as only their cooling water may have been an issue. 

The main culprit was wind output falling. 

The regulatory side from DC was utterly sabotaging any efforts to mitigate the problems caused by the "Dark Winter" policy of the Biden admin. In agriculture DC regulators used the opportunity of the storm to prevent air lifting of chicks from hatcheries going into bird lots for egg and meat farming.. They also used transportation regulation to prevent trucks supplying gasoline, food, industrial supplies and food for packaging. No effort was small enough that the DC regulatory machine would not go out of its way to sabotage any mitigation of the situation for TX and neighboring  states. I would side with TX that DC must be removed from the union and we start with a new government having no agency that was not there when Lincoln was elected. At the very least, If I were TX I would negate all Federal regulatory bodies and declare TX a refuge state against the reach of DC regulators. The precedent for that had been  set by refuge states and cities acting against immigration law and its enforcement. 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

14 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.

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.

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. 

[Symmetry + 109]

16 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Several reasons

1. ERCOT received a reply from Dep of Energy and EPA that they will not lift emissions caps on NG facilities, so that those that had exceeded their emissions cap already would not be allowed to continue producing.

2. Some had their supply lines clogged up by precipitates from near raw gas and could not produce later in the storm period. Some pointed to frozen steam water. 

Note that nuke output fell as well. They should not have been affected by the storm that much, as only their cooling water may have been an issue. 

The main culprit was wind output falling. 

 

 

Exemptions were granted.

Line freeze up is mismanagement and/or a poor system.  The notion gas can't run in the cold is silly - the fossil fuel boys are to blame here. Adding some methanol is not difficult or expensive.

[0R0 + 6,251]

21 hours ago, NickW said:

The concerns most people have are over what happens this century. The above might concern Buck Rogers

We are looking at a temperature rise of up to 4 Deg C this century. 

Whatever moderating effect this GSM predicted event has it will be swamped by AGW effects 

If the calculations prove out as on the mark as they have been so far outside of the cutoff for modeling data then there is a likely 1 C DROP for the next 3 decades starting 2019. Then rise up long after all of us are gone. The projection of AGW models has a confidence interval of 7 deg C IIRC. Considering that the error of projections by this set of models keeps increasing from decade to decade as we get chances to compare projection to real outcomes, the confidence interval increases in scope to the point that the baseline projection is just worthless. As a leader in AGW science had told his conference attendees just a few years back, he considers it a problem that he can't convince people  to take action based on a model that has a 70% chance of being in the wrong direction (i.e. global cooling or 0 change is more likely in the probability map), . 

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

37 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Maybe stop using that argument so much.  Natural gas generation, in Texas, is clearly not 100% reliable and available on-demand as evident by recent events.

This was mismanagement and shortsightedness.  Natural gas operations can operate in the cold, just apparently not these poorly operated / designed systems. 

Even Ward admits that the freezing of the wind turbines did not cause this outage, as the misleading title suggests, it was weakness in the CCGT plants.  According to him your precious gas plants need 7 billion of upgrades to work reliably...

"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?" - Ward

 

So funny when the climate-change deniers try to poke fun at renewables and just end up exposing weaknesses in the fossil fuel systems. Extra funny that the weakness this FF system can't handle is the increasingly severe extreme weather events we told you were going to happen.

 

 

"We told you"? The climate alarmists? The same bunch that has been hysterically crying "It's getting too warm"?

You need to get your message straightened out. If your model is worth anything, you should be able to identify when major cold spells are arriving. Otherwise your model is completely useless for any practical purpose.

The new solar models predicted exactly the onset of the cooling phase, your boys have been royally shown up.

[Symmetry + 109]

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

"We told you"? The climate alarmists? The same bunch that has been hysterically crying "It's getting too warm"?

You need to get your message straightened out. If your model is worth anything, you should be able to identify when major cold spells are arriving. Otherwise your model is completely useless for any practical purpose.

The new solar models predicted exactly the onset of the cooling phase, your boys have been royally shown up.

Weather is not climate.

The climate models are not meant for day-to-day practical purposes; this is not a shortcoming of the models.

Microscopes and telescopes are very similar but do not serve the same purpose.  Don't blame the telescope that you can't see bacteria with it; it's user error.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

32 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Exemptions were granted.

prove it Eejit 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

 

Mr Smith a question if i may, these gas pipeline's were they designed to deliver gas at the volume required to run all the generators at such high volumes and a prolonged state. I ask simply because a farm boys experience with sub zero temps actually freezing up a close to empty propane tank...no or low propane and bang ice up.

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

If the calculations prove out as on the mark as they have been so far outside of the cutoff for modeling data then there is a likely 1 C DROP for the next 3 decades starting 2019. Then rise up long after all of us are gone. The projection of AGW models has a confidence interval of 7 deg C IIRC. Considering that the error of projections by this set of models keeps increasing from decade to decade as we get chances to compare projection to real outcomes, the confidence interval increases in scope to the point that the baseline projection is just worthless. As a leader in AGW science had told his conference attendees just a few years back, he considers it a problem that he can't convince people  to take action based on a model that has a 70% chance of being in the wrong direction (i.e. global cooling or 0 change is more likely in the probability map), . 

Any actual evidence to support that. 

Global temperatures are tracking fairly close to Hansens Scenario B projections. The main area he didn't forsee was the significant reductions in Methane (thank you Russia) and CFC's following the Montreal protocol in the 1990's. 

The denier brigade usually assume when he quotes emission of global warming gases it means solely CO2. Footinmouth fell into that trap yesterday. 

[Symmetry + 109]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Mr Smith a question if i may, these gas pipeline's were they designed to deliver gas at the volume required to run all the generators at such high volumes and a prolonged state. I ask simply because a farm boys experience with sub zero temps actually freezing up a close to empty propane tank...no or low propane and bang ice up.

Propane is not natural gas.  Much, much easier to "freeze up."  

Propane is a liquid in the tank, it needs enough heat to boil in order to burn. When very cold it just can't boil off the propane fast enough.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Weather is not climate.

The climate models are not meant for day-to-day practical purposes; this is not a shortcoming of the models.

Microscopes and telescopes are very similar but do not serve the same purpose.  Don't blame the telescope that you can't see bacteria with it; it's user error.

Ecochargers programmer seems to think that climate models can predict a cold snap over Manchester in late February. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

https://energyacuity.com/blog/2019-top-10-wind-turbine-manufacturers/

We are a laggard for some reason. 

3rd is a respectable position to hold. 

China holds positions 7 an 8. 

I was always disappointed Rolls Royce (aero engine and turbine manufacturer) didn't get into wind to diversify out of plane engines which is currently hitting them big time. 

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

42 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Weather is not climate.

The climate models are not meant for day-to-day practical purposes; this is not a shortcoming of the models.

Microscopes and telescopes are very similar but do not serve the same purpose.  Don't blame the telescope that you can't see bacteria with it; it's user error.

Your model is so unfocussed that it cannot predict anything of value. When you get to projecting decades in advance, the global warming models have huge margins of error which render the results so iffy that no policy can be formed from them.

The new solar models provide precise and accurate predictions, with an explanatory power of 97%.

"WE told you" is a joke, you told us nothing.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

41 minutes ago, NickW said:

Ecochargers programmer seems to think that climate models can predict a cold snap over Manchester in late February. 

It has successfully predicted the current cold spell, whereas your bumbling global warming models tell us nothing of value.

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

Note that nuke output fell as well. They should not have been affected by the storm that much, as only their cooling water may have been an issue. 

The main culprit was wind output falling. 

 

 

 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!

[NickW + 2,714]

42 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It has successfully predicted the current cold spell, whereas your bumbling global warming models tell us nothing of value.

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?

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

 

The main culprit was wind output falling. 

 

 

Hahaha - next you'll be blaming pop Joe's 4KW rooftop solar in Dallas that had reduced output on the day. 

In the real world

30GW / Coal / CCGT / Nuclear falling out

2 GW of wind (ERCOT anticipated 6 and got 4) 

[surrept33 + 609]

1 hour 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?

Perhaps "cheap" may or may not be "cheap" depending on how you discount the future. What is the time value of money to you? What "currency" are you working in?  

Instead of the richter scale, try thinking about a different log space (because different "hearing" instrumentation respond to resonances in different ways). Often times, you want to stop a cascade of failures from causing problems in an engineering design problem, hence their cutoff db, but not all sensory equipment is perfect and sometimes people cut corners to save on costs. In the natural world (which is more difficult than stuff we engineered some way), sometimes damage accumulates (think what actuaries do relative to assessing risk). think about lead or nicotine. It's not dissimilar to acoustic flows. this is why in general, uncertainty quantification is important and often you want to compare and contrast many different paths of testing some phenomenon (esp nonlinear things like shockwaves). log e is often a good answer, where the log scale is rapidly being varied (differentiated) between different stationary points. This is very easy with a transistor and a bunch of cheap oscillators, or say, workgroups of digital computers that have access to reliable randomness.

Seismology and the "richter scale" of your cochlea are quite different. For example, you may hear that "sound" as a vibration that your neurons "pickup" (even in other skin organelles or imagine your cranium as a rectifier, or more properly a waveguide from your vocal chords to your skull, put two fingers in your ears and say something out loud. do you "hear" that?), but you'd probably want to examine the subharmonics to understand the nature of the waveform (ambient "diffuse" sound is actually quite different than, for example, you putting your ears directly on the floor and hearing vibration from far away).  Different "brains" are sensitive to different perceptual noise over different scale "lengths".  

There is a reason why we stopped testing certain types of modulations at certain types of frequencies that seem to cause changes in whale behavior (marine mammal mitigation, but generally a problem with active sonar systems, often historically used to detect nuclear submarines). Or for example, testing stuff on chimps (it turns out they might be more capable of language than we thought, but their vocal chords don't seem to be capable of  "speaking" stuff we can "hear".  

Of course, transitioning away from certain volatile hydrocarbons for energy makes sense. For example, you can burn some coal, create a condenser system, scrape out the volatile substances (imagine riding a coal train, you can smell these "sweet aromas"), and test them against human lung cells and literally watch how some of the mutations can happen (but the immune response is "interesting"). Yeah, probably not worth the tradeoffs if you are considering quality of life.