.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

@Dan Clemmensen I much prefer violent agreement to the other kinds. 😎

I believe I posted This link weeks ago here. Or someone else here did, I'm not trying very hard to remember. It's still an excellent read, well researched and the comments below the article are interesting as well. There's a lot of misinformation out there about power. I explained before about Genco's, Transco's, Disco's, Marko's and Mono's. All (but Mono's) products of deregulation and opportunities to make big bucks out of old, staid businesses that reliably produced power at a cheap, fair price and reliably gave a boring but extremely safe return to shareholders often referred to as "widows and orphans". 

The money mavens at McKinsey just knew they could shake that old business up, and they sure did. We've inherited their mess while they've moved into 20,000 sqft mansions, with whole house backup generators. Such is life. 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Smith,

That is an excellent re-linking of the "Electricity Markets 101" article from Zerohedge.

While it may seem a bit cumbersome, it nevertheless (somewhat) succinctly describes this exceedingly multi-faceted power situation in a clear fashion.

 

The final paragraph highlights many of the current tensions as Renewable (sic) power sources have continuously  been treated with 'out of market' protocols that are dramatically increasing year by year.

To say this tends to destabilize the reliability of power systems SHOULD be blatantly obvious, but - as can be seen throughout this thread, in much of the MSM 'reporting', and in the general perception of the public -  Ra and Zephyr are the unquestioned future of electricity generation.

 

However, one need only look at situations such as the Drax gas plant buildout halt in the UK, (with looming coal plant shutdowns likely), the Calon gas plants bankruptcy, linked to the record high recent capacity market auction to see how all this is connected.

Once dependency upon intermittent power sources cross the 20% threshold, wild gyrations in pricing/operations/consumption (voluntary curtailment) ALWAYS emerge ... and continue to escalate as that percentage of intermittency increases.

 

While I hope that the fundamental shortfalls in Texas are identified and corrected, I have come to believe  that other areas -  New England, the UK, California, possibly Australia - will need to experience  the crucible of hardship via electricity deprivation (along with high cost) before those people will vigorously engage in this learning process and wisely choose optimum pathways going forward.

 

Perhaps, Mr. Ward, the Great State of Texas will lead the way.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

4 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

To say this tends to destabilize the reliability of power systems SHOULD be blatantly obvious, but - as can be seen throughout this thread, in much of the MSM 'reporting', and in the general perception of the public -  Ra and Zephyr are the unquestioned future of electricity generation.

Okay, I give up. Who are Ra and Zephyr?

I figure Beavis and Butthead at the control panels of wind and solar, but maybe I'm "projecting"--my pandemic therapist says I have a habit of that. 

[turbguy + 1,540]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Okay, I give up. Who are Ra and Zephyr?

I figure Beavis and Butthead at the control panels of wind and solar, but maybe I'm "projecting"--my pandemic therapist says I have a habit of that. 

I think he is referring to the Egyptian Sun God, and the Wind. 

Renewables are an Idea who's Time Has Come.   Nothing is more powerful (or more challenging).

The flavor of this thread makes me feel that some here forgot we have entered the Age of Aquarius (depending on which astrologer you follow). 

Think of all the hate there is in Red China!

Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama!

Ah, you may leave here, for four days in space,

But when you return, it's the same old place,

The poundin' of the drums, the pride and disgrace,

You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace,

Hate your next door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace,

And you tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend,

You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

No, no, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

COAL WILL RISE AGAIN!

Edited March 14, 2021 by turbguy

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Maddoux 

Ra being the Egyptian Sun god, and Zephyr the Greek west wind, I frequently use those terms  -  in partially tongue in cheek fashion - to refer to Solar and Wind sourced electricity generation.

The near animistic embrace of these methods by so many their advocates makes the semi reverential  context of the terms especially 'tweaking' as so many Ra/Zephyr boosters seem to recoil from anything remotely connected with what might be considered a spiritual tone.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 3/13/2021 at 1:35 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry, but Texas demonstrably does NOT have usable gas that can be delivered to the gas-fired generators. If Texas had the capacity to use that gas, the gas would have been processed and transported to Louisiana to be converted to LNG to sell to Europe at a tidy profit. If Texas could process and transport that gas to its own generators at a low enough price, the generators would out-compete wind and solar in Texas' electricity market.

No, Texas should not "support this unreliable resource" with idle gas-fired generators. Texas should support its electricity consumers by providing reliable gas-fired generators, and should support those generators by providing a reliable supply of processed NG. It failed to do either of these things.  Using today's technology, Texas needs that gas and those generators approximately once per decade to provide reliable electricity, whether or not some or all of them are sitting idle the rest of the time. You already pay for them to sit idle in the spring and fall when the demand goes down. The problem is that Texas' market structure does not have a way to pay for what Texas needs. The solution is to make appropriate changes to the market structure.

Consider an alternate reality in which no wind turbans (or solar) had ever been installed in Texas, but the ERCOT price market was in place. There is no reason to believe that during this weather event there would not have been the same catastrophic freeze-off, or that the gas-fired generators would have been winterized. The competitive price market would have exerted the same pressure to avoid "unnecessary" expenses like winterization and reserve capacity.

Yes Dan, as I was saying, a market failure. Glad you all starting to catch on!

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

When I look over the various posts that have been thoughtfully written, several key phrases jump out: winterize, market failure, variable energy source, energy-insecurity, free market system. 

There is no shortage of cheap natural gas in Texas. They're flaring millions of dollars worth each day. There are pipelines galore. The producers are mostly smart people with a can-do attitude. There are currently 250,000 active wells in Texas, with over 100,000 in the Permian. Of all that gas, only 0.06% of the annual production is (historically) affected by freeze-offs. It costs over $100,000/well to winterize. Multiply the wells in the Permian alone by that # and you come up with $10B. These wells undergo parabolic depletion: by the end of the 1st year of operation they are 50% done. The last 5 years brought breakeven prices. And then came the pandemic, the glut. Of the wells I have an interest in, fully one-half of the operators went bankrupt last year. Winterize them all, you say?

Immediately after the Great Recession, the United States shale basins provided the only bright light in the economy. Nobody was too worried then about global climate change, they were worried about feeding their families and how to avoid selling apples on the street corner. Rick Perry actually made a victory lap in California, talking up Texas, the oil and gas industry, emphasizing no state income taxes, a growing economy and an affordable life style. It worked: during the last decade the Texas population grew by 4M, almost a million of them Californians. They came from the midwest and the northeast and from California and, despite what Gov. Abbott told Tucker Carlson on Fox News, they brought their politics with them. In current era, Texas is turning blue. Blue means renewables . . . no matter the cost. Wind! 

The federal government incentivized wind like it was the gospel according to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Governor Perry loved it. The wind farm operators certainly loved it. The Permian was going so well that no one worried too much about it. Freeze-off, Sneeze-off. 

The Texas grid is not exactly a free-market system. ERCOT is a state governmental planning agency with a highly regulated nexus to electricity generators. ERCOT answers to another state governmental agency: PUCT (Public Utility Commission of Texas). The commissioners are all appointed by the governor of the state. If you run ERCOT and you like your job it would be best to hew to the party line. During Mr. Perry's long tenure as governor, wind energy went from slightly above nothing to 10%, and under Governor Abbott it has gone to over 20%. While there is the age-old Texas Railroad Commission to oversee oil and gas, as far as I know there is no wind commission, but i guess if a commission initially set up to oversee the railroad could morph into an oil and gas overseer, surely somebody could handle wind. No? Well. there you have it: the grid is free-market on the working end, but bureaucratic on the rule-making end. That means dysfunction. Clearly, these stodgy old-boy meetings at the Petroleum Club have failed. 

To look for a fix, why not go to the very people who overloaded the grid: the newcomers. Because of all the hoopla described above, no small number of them came to Texas with an interest in energy. Lately that has included Elon Musk, Larry Ellison (the second-largest holder of Tesla shares) and a litany of other Silicon Valley feeder companies. Mr. Musk is building a battery. That will help store energy from variable sources, but it won't do the heavy lifting. As Dan Clemmensen has pointed out, California has had to resort to storage of natural gas for quite some time. Since stored nat. gas made it through the Texas storm very well, it would seem that a few scattered natural gas storage facilities would be the proper fix. It would avoid imposing an onerous burden on already-strapped oil/gas producers' parabolic wells for a rarely-needed event and would be a relatively cheap way to get through a storm. 

The world is watching, nervously because they're in the same boat named energy-insecurity. Like Coffeeguyzz mused, the situation in Texas is not likely to be a one-off. I try to imagine a world of 100% renewables and I see wind turbines and solar panels as far as the eye can see, dotted by a few nuclear power plants here and there. There is going to be a mad scramble for REE's. Trillions of tons of earth are going to be moved to get at it. Variable energy sources feeding into battery storage isn't going to take care of 10B people. Most countries won't resort to nuclear. Hydrogen is coming, but the cheapest, most reliable hydrogen is from methane. 

In my view, baseline NG will have to carry the load for a very long time.  

 

[turbguy + 1,540]

22 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

In my view, baseline NG will have to carry the load for a very long time.  

 

Yup. One of the factors in this event was increased demand, which is a function of population growth. 

Yup, Increased storage of dry nat gas can be highly beneficial.

Yup.  Fossil generation is going to be required for at least 2 decades.

And, yup, renewables will continue to penetrate in Texas,

[Ecocharger + 1,462]

16 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Yup. One of the factors in this event was increased demand, which is a function of population growth. 

Yup, Increased storage of dry nat gas can be highly beneficial.

Yup.  Fossil generation is going to be required for at least 2 decades.

And, yup, renewables will continue to penetrate in Texas,

And Nope, wind won't work.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

13 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

When I look over the various posts that have been thoughtfully written, several key phrases jump out: winterize, market failure, variable energy source, energy-insecurity, free market system. 

There is no shortage of cheap natural gas in Texas. They're flaring millions of dollars worth each day. There are pipelines galore. The producers are mostly smart people with a can-do attitude. There are currently 250,000 active wells in Texas, with over 100,000 in the Permian. Of all that gas, only 0.06% of the annual production is (historically) affected by freeze-offs. It costs over $100,000/well to winterize. Multiply the wells in the Permian alone by that # and you come up with $10B. These wells undergo parabolic depletion: by the end of the 1st year of operation they are 50% done. The last 5 years brought breakeven prices. And then came the pandemic, the glut. Of the wells I have an interest in, fully one-half of the operators went bankrupt last year. Winterize them all, you say?

 

Gerry, I'm not competent to decide how to winterize the NG system. Before last month, I had not even heard of the term "freeze-off". From what you are saying, it's just plain nonsensical to "winterize" individual wells. But Texas will be depending on the reliable availability of dry NG for its generators for at least two more decades by your own estimate.  At the system level, since you cannot winterize the wells, I think you must instead store about ten days worth of dry gas.  In those two decades, you are statistically likely to have about two major extreme winter weather events, or more if there is increasing instability in the polar vortex.

Since I have no practical knowledge of the subject, I'm a bit puzzled that Texas cannot draw on gas from the big LNG facilities in Louisiana. I'm aware that the big liquifiers cannot operate as re-gassifiers, but I would think they could at least send their not-yet-liquified inventory back to Texas when an extreme weather event is predicted. I also know that the big LNG terminals were originally intended for LNG import, not LNG export, before the shale revolution changed everything. Did they scrap the re-gassifiers, or were they just mothballed?

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

NG storage in close proximity to each utility plant would do the job. 

The other option would be to require exacting winterization of all wells coming online in the last three months of each year. That would ID the wells likely to produce voluminous amounts of methane during the most vulnerable months. 

There's plenty of gas in Texas. Making sure there gas available to the utility plants is the thing. 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

https://wvmetronews.com/2021/03/14/power-grid-needs-to-be-backed-up-by-reliable-energy-sources-wvu-energy-chief-tells-senators/

Power grid needs to be backed up by reliable energy sources, WVU Energy chief tells senators

It would Texas has struck a long overdue nerve. 

[Richard D + 86]

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

https://wvmetronews.com/2021/03/14/power-grid-needs-to-be-backed-up-by-reliable-energy-sources-wvu-energy-chief-tells-senators/

Power grid needs to be backed up by reliable energy sources, WVU Energy chief tells senators

It would Texas has struck a long overdue nerve. 

Talk on here,previously,of adding more stand-by generating capacity. Who staffs and maintains it while it stands idle most of the year? Also,all generating equipment contains large amounts of copper. The CEO of Trafigura predicted a ten million ton deficit in copper supply over the next decade. Does anyone have figures on the copper inventory in wind turbines per each MW capacity?  Being small,I suggest that the figure will be much higher than than the amount of copper per MW capacity in fossil-fired power stations. There is little scope for aluminium substitution in residential situations. Attempts at use of aluminium in USA housing resulted in many fires.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

9 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

NG storage in close proximity to each utility plant would do the job. 

The other option would be to require exacting winterization of all wells coming online in the last three months of each year. That would ID the wells likely to produce voluminous amounts of methane during the most vulnerable months. 

There's plenty of gas in Texas. Making sure there gas available to the utility plants is the thing. 

 

I assumed from your earlier post that winterizing each well would be a lot more expensive than adding storage. Each individual well would be treated as an unreliable source, but the system as a whole would be reliable without winterizing the NG to meet a once-a-decade freeze-off  threat.

Similarly, it may be cheaper to add additional reserve gas-fired generation instead of worrying about de-icing the wind turbines to meet the even more rare icing threat.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, Richard D said:

Talk on here,previously,of adding more stand-by generating capacity. Who staffs and maintains it while it stands idle most of the year? Also,all generating equipment contains large amounts of copper. The CEO of Trafigura predicted a ten million ton deficit in copper supply over the next decade. Does anyone have figures on the copper inventory in wind turbines per each MW capacity?  Being small,I suggest that the figure will be much higher than than the amount of copper per MW capacity in fossil-fired power stations. There is little scope for aluminium substitution in residential situations. Attempts at use of aluminium in USA housing resulted in many fires.

Most of the gas-fired generation capacity is unused for much of the year already, because the capacity is almost never used at 100%. Blackouts ensue when demand reaches 100% of capacity. Most systems aim for 15% reserve capacity above the maximum credible demand. ERCOT aims for 5%.

Therefore "add more stand-by" is not a qualitative change from the existing situation. If you want a reliable system, you must be willing to pay for it. Some of that will be in the cost of copper and some will be in the salaries of the crews for the idle generators.

If the cost of copper goes up, the cost of generators (wind and gas-fired) will go up, and this may change the relative cost as you speculate. This will affect the decisions to build wind and gas-fired generators. If the market changes to acknowledge the value of dispatchable capacity (i.e., gas-fired generators), this is also affect those decisions. I think this second effect will be larger.

[turbguy + 1,540]

On 3/14/2021 at 10:35 AM, Ecocharger said:

And Nope, wind won't work.

Wind does work.

Depends on your definition of "work".

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I assumed from your earlier post that winterizing each well would be a lot more expensive than adding storage. Each individual well would be treated as an unreliable source, but the system as a whole would be reliable without winterizing the NG to meet a once-a-decade freeze-off  threat.

Right, but since these wells are incredibly parabolic, just identifying monster wells that were brought on line as winter approached would be enough to do the job. In other words, once you get past the first year, the pressure head drops as the gas under pressure is either flared or captured and pipelined away. Those wells don't need to be winterized. But the new wells coming online say in November produce great amounts of gas. You wouldn't need to identify more than a few dozen monster wells for winterization--to tap for no-doubts-about-it natural gas in zero temperatures. 

But your idea of stored natural gas might be better. I don't know the numbers. I have only enjoyed a couple of monster wells. They were so large that, in the total design, a hundred-thousand to winterize one would be a pittance. 

Governor Abbott wants very much to become President Abbott, a post at which he has a good shot as he is very charismatic and well-intentioned and smart. His group will work something out (even without my help). 🙃

[Roch + 537]

On 3/14/2021 at 11:53 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

 

 

In my view, baseline NG will have to carry the load for a very long time.  

 

This is the way I see it .  

There is a great deal of progress being made in Fusion Nuclear.   Much of it is closely held development out of the sight of the public and competitors. 

I know they say Fusion is always 10 to 15 years out.  I believe this has changed. We are getting close to commercialization.  

One firm Commonwealth Fusion, the MIT spin-off is very public about their accomplishments and will begin building their working prototype this year.  They are already building their superconducting magnets.  They will start building their development facilities and manufacturing  buildings on a former airforce base this Spring.  We will know in 5 years if what they developed can be commercialized. While it looks good on paper , nothing is guaranteed. If successful they could be manufacturing commercial reactors in the early 2030's.  

With their technology they would be able to commercially produce 12 to 15 Fusion reactors for the same cost of one Fission Reactor. The operation and maintenance cost savings are equally impressive. 

That's just one developer.  There is no way of telling what other skunkworks may produce with Takamac or other technologies.   

Some other company or technology may leapfrog Commonwealth energy .  That's how technology works .  

As for other renewables as in solar and wind. ?  They need real estate and accommodating weather.    That's fine out in West Texas but is a problem in and around high population centers like the east coast of U.S.  . Seems as though the solar incremental gains in efficiency are diminishing without some type of new technology break through.  I hear wind turbine and blade design technology will increase efficiency substantially in the coming years.  But then there is always that real estate and eyesore problem.  

The major demand for oil will continue to be transportation. Electric cars uptake will be the #1 determinant of oil demand.  

So if you are a Utility today what is your plan ? Five year plan ? Ten year plan ?   Twenty year plan ?  

Build out Solar and Wind ?

More Natural Gas power plants ?  

A mixture of both ?  

Hydrogen ?

At what cost ?  

What if Fusion commercialization is feasible.  Even if we know in five years, how does one plan and service the electric needs between now and commercialization and build out that starts in the 2030's ?

The Pelosi Administration is preparing the introduction of the Infrastructure Bill.  We can expect the Infrastructure Bill to look more like the Green New Deal than a plan to rebuild our highways, bridges, rail and airports.  She will push this thru while all are still in "Crisis Shock" . Same as a gun control bill that will follow.  Can't keep her prop (barbed wire and National Guard surround the Capital) forever.  

If it were up to me I would think it prudent to let natural gas and oil play out for a few years until we can get a bearing on the plausibility and direction of Fusion Nuclear.  

Better to do that then spend $ ten's of trillions to litter the landscape with solar and wind farms where a cost effective alternative may be in the offering.  

Edited March 15, 2021 by Roch

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Wind does work.

Depends on your definition of "work".

Bill Clinton and his administration (read Al Gore) seemed adept at definitions.  Can someone give them a call?   

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

35 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Bill Clinton and his administration (read Al Gore) seemed adept at definitions.  Can someone give them a call?   

Now you did it! We'll have to spend the next thirty posts explaining what "is" means. 🙄

[Ecocharger + 1,462]

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

Wind does work.

Depends on your definition of "work".

It didn't work too well. In fact, it was a disaster. That is not a working system.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,540]

Southeast Wyoming's blizzard is over.  I never lost power, nat gas, internet, DirecTv, or land line.  But if you want to go anywhere, Wyoming's closed.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

16 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Southeast Wyoming's blizzard is over.  I never lost power, nat gas, internet, DirecTv, or land line.  But if you want to go anywhere, Wyoming's closed.

Umm never mind 6000 feet is above the storm so to speak....lol. But then again there are no wind turbines in WY now is there..Turbines might make for great target practice however..hmm im not to sure where that came from..but it did.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Umm never mind 6000 feet is above the storm so to speak....lol. But then again there are no wind turbines in WY now is there..Turbines might make for great target practice however..hmm im not to sure where that came from..but it did.

It would appear that WY does have wind turbines:

Wyoming Confronts Its Wind-Powered Destiny

Not as many as other parts of the States, perhaps, but they do have them.  That's a good article on many of the details necessary for a good discussion.

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

21 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

It would appear that WY does have wind turbines:

Wyoming Confronts Its Wind-Powered Destiny

Not as many as other parts of the States, perhaps, but they do have them.  That's a good article on many of the details necessary for a good discussion.

 

Yes I see that, good for them. Maybe they will pop up like mountain flowers who knows. 

I'm off to Florida,checking out the new boat all is good. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open