.

[turbguy + 1,405]

39 minutes ago, nsdp said:

First off was Spruce 2 here in San Antonio Sunday afternoon. . CPS "forgot" to deice the coal pile and the boulders from the coal  pile would not go through the pulverizers.  A couple of the WA Parish units had the same problem. 34 GW of NG would not start. Golden spread Electric Coop is the only one keeping all of its units up.  CPS had  972 of coal at Spruce 2 off  and 540 at STNP.  The 22 mw of old reciprocating at Persall still works. That is as old as I am.

Yeah, I recall plant maintenance guys "agitating" fully iced coal cars with post hole diggers before they entered the rotary dumper.  That worked until one car dropped a full "cube" and bent the grate below, then everyone looked down, "saw lots of money", and threw up their hands.   Then they went to the coal pile with more post hole diggers to assist the dozers, cats, whatever, to get that stuff free enough to send up the conveyor, all the while the bunker levels kept getting lower, and lower, and lower...

Even then, it came into the plant so WET, that it mudded up/blocked up coal chutes, feeders, pulverizers, the floors...  All able bodies called to swing away with sledges, even management.  Pneumatic rotary vibrators constantly running.  End-of-shift showers were so packed, we had to take shifts in the showers.  Thank the Lord for steam heated water!

ICE, don' be so MEAN!

Recips, wow. I assume steam?  Fun to watch all the moving parts.

Anyhow, what dropped off (and when) between 1:00 am and 2:00 AM and why?  That's my real interest.

[turbguy + 1,405]

23 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Quebec Hydro's system is different/unique since they use St John's Hydro to generate  into HVDC and gas turbines  to supply limited kwh but KVRS for the HVDC terminal and voltage /frequency control. So it was less than 15 seconds.  New wind farms either have their own synchronous condenser or purchase KVR  from  QH.  It is like the  wind farms connected to Bonneville Power.

Yeah, that a complex system.  It somewhat easier if everything's synchronous to start with.  Aeroderivative CT's or Heavy Duty CT's?

I understand that the most modern wind generators can supply/absorb VARS.

[turbguy + 1,405]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

Fines as 2011 were paid to the US treasury.

Thanx.  Should be split between the hydro owners and the end users, IMO.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

5 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Yeah, that a complex system.  It somewhat easier if everything's synchronous to start with.  Aeroderivative CT's or Heavy Duty CT's?

I understand that the most modern wind generators can supply/absorb VARS.

Technically "everything can" supply/absorb VARS... then there is reality... Individually they are too damned small and here I do not really think that quantity trumps quality but collectively, yes they can.  It will have to be mandated in spec.  I do not know of any that are mandated even though some are attempting to do so.  I am sure I am just behind the times.  Anyone can see this is a problem that must be addressed.  Though how useful it will be with an intermittent source seems rather impossible to balance anything in reality as you can never count on it being there when you need it. 

[turbguy + 1,405]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

Synthetic inertia is  verboten under the newest NERC standard. Little accident in the Balkans and italy put paid to that. ttps://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/zombie-coal-plants-reanimated-to-stabilize-the-grid

Zombie Coal Plants Reanimated to Stabilize the Grid

Old generators prop up voltage, helping grids soak up imported power and renewables

Severe voltage drops, for example, hobble SVCs, whose reactive power output drops at double the rate of line voltage. In contrast, a synchronous condenser’s spinning rotor keeps on pumping out reactive power. It will also generate real power if needed, moderating the drop in AC frequency that would result, say, from shutting down a power plant.

And the condenser’s output can briefly handle several times its rated capacity for tens of seconds as its metal components heat up temporarily—behavior that is not possible for devices relying on comparatively fragile silicon switches. “Because they’re iron and copper, they have a lot of overload capability. You can’t overload silicon significantly,” says Nicholas Miller, a power systems expert with GE Energy Consulting, in Schenectady, N.Y.

The HVDC  link  to Quebec Hyro is great planning.   You just have to have sufficient reactive power to make it work. One of the Lessons learned at the SPS-EPE intertie in Eddy NM in Feb. 2011.

Synchronous condensers ROCK!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

It seems obvious to me but I would think that you could plant smaller trees and harvest them before they became a threat. A peeler tree for plywood or chipboard and pellets. This would have to be mandated by law near power lines.  

You would have to ban all native trees.  Sorry, but by age 35 they are already ~100ft tall if grown in a close stand.  By age 55 they are on average over 130ft tall.   The good news is that the older they get the LESS likely they are to fall over.  So, if anything the mandate should actually be to NEVER cut the trees.  Of course in/near peoples land/houses it does not matter as the landowner has the rights which is where the vast majority of the trees come from that fall on the large power lines. 

What I would like to be is around 100 years from now when lots of these trees become 5ft in diameter and 200 feet tall...   Ah, one can dream.  Mostly we have highly managed 2nd, 3rd, growth trees where which never get over ~80 years old before harvesting and often 50 is about right.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The Texas energy disaster definitively explained. Clear, concise, accurate and written by a respectable scientist I admire. You'll see that Gerry and I were pretty accurate in our assessment. If, after reading this some of you still wish to argue I'll just refer to his data and you'll be left arm waving I suspect. Blaming gas plants for this is like blaming a doctor who saved 400 patients working nonstop for 4 days in a disaster for letting 50 more die when he passed out from exhaustion. 

Agree: This fellow Andy May put it well. You can't really understand the problem until you realize that drizzling mist with 100% humidity persisted as the temperature fell. This was truly a "freezing rain," and it wreaked havoc. 

I'll leave it with all of you too. If anyone not familiar with the area thinks he can dope this one out from an armchair looking at a computer screen, well then, God bless you. 

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

2 hours ago, surrept33 said:

What? 2020 did not have sudden cooling.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3061/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows/

January 2021 was 7th warmest on record, we had a polar vortex in the middle of a La Nina (where it has been known to intensify):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

I think the data is to sparse too equate that rapid cooling to climate change, maybe more so with La Nina. 

In August: 

https://www.severe-weather.eu/long-range/polar-vortex-formation-winter-2020-2021-fa/

No, the new climate models predicted a cooling phase beginning in 2020 and continuing for three decades...this has been a cold winter, so these new models have proven their accuracy. The data is not sparse.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Richard D + 86]

On 2/21/2021 at 2:46 AM, surrept33 said:

Wait, what? https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/la-niña-has-developed

She seemed to in effect overfit (very easy to do) an incorrect model (see comments here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/01/13/zharkova-et-al-an-update/ - basically, her earth/sun distance didn't normalize to 1.0 AU. if her paper's model was right, a lot of stuff would break, from what we assume is correct about a lot of quantum physics to basic newtonian gravity on earth)

Anyways, the development, conceptually, of modern day atmospheric physics (which includes a mixture of a lot of other basic physics and followed the development of a lot of sensor and computational methods) is something like:

Fourier - 1827 - studied heat extensively, especially as it related to equilibrium systems like atmospheres. Herschel had already discovered IR, but it was like Dark Energy is now, very mysterious. Came up with links between energy, net IR emissions (and thus showed why it was necessary to show how any realistic model of an atmosphere necessitates determining the sources and sinks of a planet's energy balance)

Tyndall - 1861 - Improved technology to calculate basic physics of how gas molecules and IR ("radiant heat") work. Realized that changes in concentrations of trace gasses like water vapor and CO2 could change the climate. In a lab, he realized that things like O2, H2, N2 are IR transparent (but he didn't know why - it's because of their electronic symmetries relative to a EM field. The electric dipole that would produce light). 

Arrhenius - 1896 - created first model (by a lot of tedious hand calculations) taking into account the radiative energy exchanges between the atmosphere and space, between the atmosphere and the ground, and between the ground and space (owing to transmission of IR through the atmosphere, which we can measure many different ways now). Gridded the Earth just like modern models, calculated a CO2 sensitivity relative to doubling it, but also predicted that it would take 1000 years for man to actually do it (but as we all know, we ended up burning a lot of coal). 

Plass - 1956 - first modern day CO2 radiative transfer models with modern day infrared spectroscopy and electronic computers of that era, He could do multilevel/multiband radiative transfer calculations which was important to figure how radiative forcings varied with things like pressure

Manabe - 1967 - calculated first computations of pure radiative equilibrium with modern day water vapor spectroscopy and convection. discovered how changes in CO2 and water vapor interplayed.

Budyko/Sellers - 1968 - showed the destabilizing effect of ice/albedo, determined the multiple equilibria (bifurcations in dynamical systems jargon) possible which seem to match paleogeology

Manabe - 1975 - first general circulation models, still used today, except they are much more data enriched and the grids are much smaller with modern supercomputers - instead of a single column (vertical heat exchange by radiation/convection) computed the first 3d solns (with thousands of columns) with fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. In general a lot of heat transfers, moisture, momentum around the globe need to be computed because rainfall changes (flooding, drought, changes in ice levels) matter as much as temperature, so the hydrological cycle (which has a primary effect on water vapor levels) need to be computed. Reverified polar amplification (generally the arctic warms up way faster than lower latitudes, which Arrhenius had postulated)

 

Arrhenius boasted that he had never done a practical experiment in his life. I was trained in chemistry where it is easy enough to back up theories with practical research. It is more difficult with climate,but not impossible. If it is possible to shine a laser beam at the moon and get a reflection,then why why not shine a carbon dioxide laser at the moon and see how much of the light is really absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide? Atmospheric carbon dioxide varies with season,allowing calibration.

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

On 2/16/2021 at 5:50 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

I am quite happy to use a different  word. The current weather event is considerably worse than the one in 2011 that caused rolling blackouts. It is also worse than the one in 1989 that caused rolling blackouts. It is probably not the very worst Texas cold weather event in recorded history, since on average the temperature has been increasing. This differs from last summer's Southwest heat wave, which was the worst in recorded history.

The problem is different today than a decade ago.... A decade ago, the Texas power grid was still healthy, with ample generating capacity and  reserve, as TXU did not do a bad job until their leveraged buy-out by the Bass Brothers and KKR, where with strong lobbying by the most evil and unfortunately very powerful EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) everything changed: https://www.edf.org/news/pressure-buyout-halts-txu-coal-buildout-texas-0 And a certain Rick Perry also played a less than glorious role. The question now is: here are the lawyers that sue these entities for the multiple wrongful deaths that they have caused by their actions over a decade ago, which in 2021? This also was not a rolling blackout. My house in Houston, that did not have a single power failure throughout Harvey, had no electricity whatsoever from Sunday night to Friday, almost a full week with NOTHING. Luckily, the natural gas supply never stopped. Which again reinforces my position that gas is king, and I am happy to live without a public electric utility, but not without natural gas piped to my house. Especially in winter it is sure cheaper to co-generate your heat and power at your house yourself. And gas is a lot less sensitive to system problems, because a larger pipeline system can supply users for hours even with all input stopped. With electricity it is different: it takes less than a second, and everything is down, often with damage to equipment.

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

26 minutes ago, Richard D said:

Arrhenius boasted that he had never done a practical experiment in his life. I was trained in chemistry where it is easy enough to back up theories with practical research. It is more difficult with climate,but not impossible. If it is possible to shine a laser beam at the moon and get a reflection,then why why not shine a carbon dioxide laser at the moon and see how much of the light is really absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide? Atmospheric carbon dioxide varies with season,allowing calibration.

Also, Arrhenius' objective was to find a way to create "global warming" as he and his peers understood that we are heading to a new ice age, which I am convinced of too. At that time the recommendation was to increase coal combustion to the max to keep this from happening. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Looks like they ran into a brick wall in 2020....sudden cooling. Dead end.

The observations are only charted upto 2015 which I suspect reflects when it was made. 

As for 2020 its looking like joint hottest year ever with 2016 so no evidence of any global cooling at the trough of a solar cycle. That would appear to tally with Hansens B scenario predictions out to 2020. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 2/19/2021 at 5:47 PM, Ward Smith said:

1. The operating Reserve capacity was adequate if the demand had met expectation. 15% becomes meaningless without the target number. Since winter demand is historically low 20 GW were offline for scheduled maintenance. Some of that maintenance might have involved 7, "frost proofing". This was however, no frost this was a deep freeze

2. We don't know that didn't happen. If things are breaking and freezing, that could easily include supply lines to liquid fuels

3. Interesting, but regulations here don't allow for "back feeding" into the system. Also I'm not convinced your data center operator would be happy about risking the data center to help out the utility. But I like the concept, it merits further study

4. They did load shedding, but I seriously doubt there was 20GW of "voluntary" intermittent customers. I know that in California fit for instance they'll pay you to accept interruptable power, but there are no where enough takers

5. Sigh. Two issues. First homeowners are more than willing to insulate, especially when there are incentives. However under the Brave New World Order, you don't own but rent, and landlords don't give a rip what you're spending for power. Over 50% are renters so there you are. 

6. That "big battery" might have lasted a few hours but this outage was over a week

7. You're talking about a place that has an average temp of 70F. People in the great white north go to Texas to get away from the cold in the winter. How many billions should they spend of ratepayers money for an event that according to AGW mythology is never going to happen? Shouldn't they be building dikes on the beaches to keep that ocean from flooding them?  

Usually in countries with both heating demand and summer peaks due to air con, routine maintenance of larger critical plant is scheduled for autumn and spring time. Ex try and schedule the nuke refuelling for  April / October. France tries to do this as summer output can be limited by low river levels (cooling water) so they try and avoid having too much plant off line as they have to run at lower out. 

Winter they want everything on line to meet their winter peaks and sell the rest across Europe. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

BEFORE and AFTER ROLLING BLACKOUTS ANNOUNCED: Wind change, 250MW, Nat Gas change, 9270 MW.

You tell me what fell first...

Yet notice how the nuclear plants were steady as a rock.  

Ice storm?  Nah, not even fazed a bit.  Just kept on chugging.  Something to think about. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yet notice how the nuclear plants were steady as a rock.  

Ice storm?  Nah, not even fazed a bit.  Just kept on chugging.  Something to think about. 

Eh?

About 25% of Texas's nuclear output dropped out on the morning of the 15th. 

To be fair that may have been due to external factors - grid frequency decay caused by other generators failing or excess demand. 

Certainly shows up as a classic cascade event and how vulnerable grids are to disruption 

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Why did you publish this absurdity?

Hansen Scenario A had a 1.5% CO2 increase/annum... we had CO2 increase of ~2% per annum!

SO, if Hansen et al, were even CLOSE to correct, then our temperatures should be ABOVE scenario A, by ~25%. 

Scnario B: Same CO2

Scenario C reduction to 2000 levels of atmospheric CO2... 

So, even assuming the data and everything is accurate... then Hansens's own predictions/model that everyone kow-tows and worships are 100% garbage.

Or another way of saying, CO2 has zilch to do with the climate, but hey, that is called.. <<GASP!>> Science

You missed conveniently missed the CO2 *equivalent* bit

Hansens scenarios also included other Greenhouse gases. Falls in Methane emissions and CFCs were far steeper than any scenario predicted. 

Methane actually fell in the 1990's as the Ruskies undertook massive improvements in their gas pipelines. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by NickW

[turbguy + 1,405]

“I'm a Republican. We run the state. We own this. We need to man up, take charge,” he said. “The legislature is going to hold hearings and try to figure out what's going wrong out here in the country. We've got a saying for that. Hey, buddy, you're a day late and a dollar short. It's not doing us any good now.”

https://wfaa.com/embeds/video/287-ea0eabe1-2ef9-48d7-a0b6-e45ede194e7f/iframe?jwsource=cl

You gotta ask, "Where's the money gonna come from"?   Socialism for large companies?

Edited February 22, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,405]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Technically "everything can" supply/absorb VARS... then there is reality... Individually they are too damned small and here I do not really think that quantity trumps quality but collectively, yes they can.  It will have to be mandated in spec.  I do not know of any that are mandated even though some are attempting to do so.  I am sure I am just behind the times.  Anyone can see this is a problem that must be addressed.  Though how useful it will be with an intermittent source seems rather impossible to balance anything in reality as you can never count on it being there when you need it. 

You would think that as long as the wind machine is turning at some minimal speed, it may not have much (or any) watts produced, but should have most of it's VAR capability available (cooling issues aside).  Similar to a synchronous condenser.  Power electronics do bring a host of other issues to deal with though (harmonics, etc.).  I admit, those details are beyond my experience.

With all the retired coal plants, there should be PLENTY of retired stock available to "seed" more synchronous condensers.  They are probably in the wrong places, however, and moving/installing/moding them ain't cheap.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

13 hours ago, turbguy said:

Same graph as mine previously posted.  Nat gas plunged. Before coal, before ST#1, and before average wind. 

WHY? 

I doubt this, but operators INTENTIONALLY removed them from service to get better prices (Enron, anyone?), keeping fingers crossed they could restart and then failed to start for a variety of causes.  I would have to see price charted as well (which could vary by node).

OR

A better "bet", adequate fuel became unavailable.

 

You don't understand how power works. If one source goes up another source must go down. Think of it this way, you've got an irrigation ditch. Some sources are windmills, some are electric pumps. But the ditch can only hold so much water. When the wind cranks up, something else has to go down. That's why you see mirror images in the graph, the "ditch" can only hold so much "water". That's as dumbed down as I can make it. 

[turbguy + 1,405]

31 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You don't understand how power works. If one source goes up another source must go down. Think of it this way, you've got an irrigation ditch. Some sources are windmills, some are electric pumps. But the ditch can only hold so much water. When the wind cranks up, something else has to go down. That's why you see mirror images in the graph, the "ditch" can only hold so much "water". That's as dumbed down as I can make it. 

You are not considering DEMAND.  The total of all SOURCES MUST, almost instantaneously, equal DEMAND.   So one source , or many sources, can go up, without any sources going down, to match increasing demand. 

If you LOSE total source, you MUST cut total demand.   That's called load shedding.  That's called "rotating blackouts".

THAT is how "power works".

The "ditch" you refer to is the transmission and distribution system.   Some parts of that system do have limits to flow, which complicates ERCOT's function.

It's easy to overflow a ditch if you put more water in, but don't take any water out.  It's easy to empty a ditch if you take out more water than you put in.

I stand by my statement.  Did wind source go down during that 2 hour period?  Yup, by about 230 MW (about one CCGT plant).  Did nat gas go down?  Yup, BY about 9300 MW!    WHY??

Edited February 22, 2021 by turbguy

[NickW + 2,714]

31 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You are not considering DEMAND.  The total of all SOURCES MUST, almost instantaneously, equal DEMAND.   So one source , or many sources, can go up, without any sources going down, to match increasing demand. 

If you LOSE total source, you MUST cut total demand.   That's called load shedding.  That's called "rotating blackouts".

THAT is how "power works".

The "ditch" you refer to is the transmission and distribution system.   Some parts of that system do have limits to flow, which complicates ERCOT's function.

It's easy to overflow a ditch if you put more water in, but don't take any water out.  It's easy to empty a ditch if you take out more water than you put in.

I stand by my statement.  Did wind source go down during that 2 hour period?  Yup, by about 230 MW (about one CCGT plant).  Did nat gas go down?  Yup, BY about 9300 MW!    WHY??

A distant cousin of mine was running a a large part of the UK National Grid until recently retiring. He said the grid itself is like a capacitor holding about 6-7000 kwh of energy. To put that in perspective thats about 0.7 seconds of average consumption but it does actually provide a few seconds extra buffer time and helps balance big sudden swings in supply / demand. 

[NickW + 2,714]

45 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You don't understand how power works. If one source goes up another source must go down. Think of it this way, you've got an irrigation ditch. Some sources are windmills, some are electric pumps. But the ditch can only hold so much water. When the wind cranks up, something else has to go down. That's why you see mirror images in the graph, the "ditch" can only hold so much "water". That's as dumbed down as I can make it. 

The transmission operator in functioning systems can order the wind farms to reduce power temporarily to stabilise the grid. Infact its much easier with wind turbines than many other sources - turn what ever is needed out of or to an angle with the wind to reduce output. 

[turbguy + 1,405]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

A distant cousin of mine was running a a large part of the UK National Grid until recently retiring. He said the grid itself is like a capacitor holding about 6-7000 kwh of energy. To put that in perspective thats about 0.7 seconds of average consumption but it does actually provide a few seconds extra buffer time and helps balance big sudden swings in supply / demand. 

Yup, that and stored inertia.  Like I said "almost instantaneously"...

AND, you have to "recharge that capacitor".

[turbguy + 1,405]

3 minutes ago, NickW said:

The transmission operator in functioning systems can order the wind farms to reduce power temporarily to stabilise the grid. Infact its much easier with wind turbines than many other sources - turn what ever is needed out of or to an angle with the wind to reduce output. 

Hydro and GT plants can do that quite well, too.

Coal? Not so fast. 

Nuc? Forget it.  They stay put.

[NickW + 2,714]

44 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You are not considering DEMAND.  The total of all SOURCES MUST, almost instantaneously, equal DEMAND.   So one source , or many sources, can go up, without any sources going down, to match increasing demand. 

If you LOSE total source, you MUST cut total demand.   That's called load shedding.  That's called "rotating blackouts".

THAT is how "power works".

The "ditch" you refer to is the transmission and distribution system.   Some parts of that system do have limits to flow, which complicates ERCOT's function.

It's easy to overflow a ditch if you put more water in, but don't take any water out.  It's easy to empty a ditch if you take out more water than you put in.

I stand by my statement.  Did wind source go down during that 2 hour period?  Yup, by about 230 MW (about one CCGT plant).  Did nat gas go down?  Yup, BY about 9300 MW!    WHY??

Doing the EN-RON RON dance?