.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Yep, they had to change the name to Climate Change when Global Warming was disproven. They forgot to find a period in time where climate didn't change though. They have done more damage than good with all their "expertise". Clean air is good. CO2 is clean! Plants breathe it. We live off of plants and the animals that eat plants. They took the emphasis off of real pollution. 

They switched to Climate change to cater for the hard of thinking

Its July and its raining and  cold. This global warming stuff is a load of bollox. 

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

87% of the outage was caused by fossil fuel and nuclear failures. 

Nick, you're out of your depth again. It seems to be regular habit for you.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

Like you did for Pearl Harbour? 

BTW - the UK reintroduced conscription in 1938 and massively accelerated aircraft production. 

We weren't being invaded but if we hadn't saved Britain and Western Europe the continent would be speaking German. We also supplied Russia. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Yep, they had to change the name to Climate Change when Global Warming was disproven. They forgot to find a period in time where climate didn't change though. They have done more damage than good with all their "expertise". Clean air is good. CO2 is clean! Plants breathe it. We live off of plants and the animals that eat plants. They took the emphasis off of real pollution. 

I do to point agree with this.

However the same people here would have been arguing against:

• smokestack emission controls on coal plant
• Catalytic converters
• Unleaded petrol
• Phase out and ban on CFC's
• sending kids up chimneys
• etc etc

 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

We weren't being invaded but if we hadn't saved Britain and Western Europe the continent would be speaking German. We also supplied Russia. 

Neither were we. 

The UK could more than adequately hold the air and sea. We didn't have the land resources to defeat Hitler. 

Ultimately we could have had a peace deal with Hitler. He would have then had a free hand to murder tens of millions of more than he actually did. 

[NickW + 2,714]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Nick, you're out of your depth again. It seems to be regular habit for you.

87% of outages attributed to coal, gas and nuclear plant. 

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

I can see this happening again because many of you people are so craven you can't see what a blind man could see

At least Ted Cruz was man enough to say - 'I have no defence to his earlier critiques of California'

The causes (I would wager a bet):

• Lack of frost protection on key critical plant
• ERCOT effectively being an Island and poorly interconnected
• Insufficient load shedding
• Non existent early utilisation of emergency generators (Someone else said this is non existent in US utilities) 
• No effort previously to drive energy efficiency measures to reduce peak demands (summer and winter) 
•  

None of the above is down to environmentalists / AGW or the evil English. Its down to the incompetence of the Texan adminstration. 

 

Cause #5. Failure to consult the new climate model developed by a team of scientists from Britain, Finland and Russia showing the onset of global cooling beginning in 2020, which report calls specifically for public authorities to prepare for cooler temperatures. This report was prepared in 2019 and widely publicized and widely ignored by public authorities. 

The new model should be labelled "Public authorities ignore this at your peril".

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

I do to point agree with this.

However the same people here would have been arguing against:

• smokestack emission controls on coal plant
• Catalytic converters
• Unleaded petrol
• Phase out and ban on CFC's
• sending kids up chimneys
• etc etc

 

Completely wrong. The CFC problem is still not off the radar, there are clandestine manufacturers still operating in Asia, which the former T... administration was tracking by satellite and forwarding the information to Asian nations to start enforcing the anti-CFC laws. Give T... credit for identifying the real problems when they emerged.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

I do to point agree with this.

However the same people here would have been arguing against:

• smokestack emission controls on coal plant
• Catalytic converters
• Unleaded petrol
• Phase out and ban on CFC's
• sending kids up chimneys
• etc etc

 

That is a big assumption Nick. I have been fighting coal since I realized what natural gas could do and how abundant it was. I didn't fight any of the above, but  would have liked to sent some of my students up chimneys. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Completely wrong. The CFC problem is still not off the radar, there are clandestine manufacturers still operating in Asia, which the former T... administration was tracking by satellite and forwarding the information to Asian nations to start enforcing the anti-CFC laws. Give T... credit for identifying the real problems when they emerged.

I am well aware of that. I recall China eventually tackled the rogue producer that had hit the radar. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

87% of outages attributed to coal, gas and nuclear plant. 

Look, you already said it. Britain only produced 5% of its power from wind. As a system operator it is easy to compensate for a 5% power delta. Texas, as I've proven is over 40% wind power! You don't have "spinning capacity" to compensate for even 25% of your power. ERCOT isn't 100% of Texas so they're not the only source of information. Of their 75% they lost 13% when half their windmills went offline, which I've posted here. That doesn't account for the rest of Texas, which lost even more of their wind generation. But not to worry, your Big Tech overlords are busy "framing the narrative". Do a Google Search for "wind turbines aren't the main culprit" and you'll see how the usual suspects are busy writing revisionist history in real time. By the time the boring PUC reports come out this will all be in the rear view mirror, like Voldemort, never to be mentioned again. Those reports will explain in detail how the cascade of events occurred, and it all started with wind, but didn't end there by any means. Bottom line, the way the Genco's are set up in Texas, without wind there is no way to supply the needed power. 

And before you say, "Just install heaters in the blades", recognize that those heaters are a constant draw on available power even when the wind isn't blowing. And I'm not even confident those 100-150 meter blades even can be retrofitted. Replacing all that? Ouch. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

According to this article here at Oilprice,  ERCOT planned for the wind turbines to provide 6,000 MW in February because that's all the wind yiu can expect in February. Due to freezing. they only got 4,000 MW, having lost the rest due to cold weather problems.  Total ERCOT capacity is 80,000 MW, but (estimated) demand was about 72,000 MW. Natural Gas, coal, and Nuclear collectively lost about 30,000 MW of capacity due to cold weather problems. The most power systems factor in a 15% reserve, but ERCOT runs with an 8% reserve.

ERCOT uses a market model for electricity, and has basicall yno provision to require generators to be capable of operating in extreme cold conditions: this is true for nuclear, gas, coal, and wind. For all four generator types, there are well-understood engineering solutions to cold-weather operation that are used in northern regions, but these were not implemented in Texas. Electricity is therefore cheaper but is not reliable in extreme cold weather. 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Whos-To-Blame-For-The-Texas-Power-Crisis.html

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Cause #5. Failure to consult the new climate model developed by a team of scientists from Britain, Finland and Russia showing the onset of global cooling beginning in 2020, which report calls specifically for public authorities to prepare for cooler temperatures. This report was prepared in 2019 and widely publicized and widely ignored by public authorities. 

The new model should be labelled "Public authorities ignore this at your peril".

Widely publicized where? What was it called? I will try to find it. 

[NickW + 2,714]

6 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

That is a big assumption Nick. I have been fighting coal since I realized what natural gas could do and how abundant it was. I didn't fight any of the above, but  would have liked to sent some of my students up chimneys. 

Fair play to you but there has been plenty of opposition to controls on all those things I cite. 

The kids up chimneys a bit tongue in cheek

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Ward Smith said:

Look, you already said it. Britain only produced 5% of its power from wind. As a system operator it is easy to compensate for a 5% power delta. Texas, as I've proven is over 40% wind power! You don't have "spinning capacity" to compensate for even 25% of your power. ERCOT isn't 100% of Texas so they're not the only source of information. Of their 75% they lost 13% when half their windmills went offline, which I've posted here. That doesn't account for the rest of Texas, which lost even more of their wind generation. But not to worry, your Big Tech overlords are busy "framing the narrative". Do a Google Search for "wind turbines aren't the main culprit" and you'll see how the usual suspects are busy writing revisionist history in real time. By the time the boring PUC reports come out this will all be in the rear view mirror, like Voldemort, never to be mentioned again. Those reports will explain in detail how the cascade of events occurred, and it all started with wind, but didn't end there by any means. Bottom line, the way the Genco's are set up in Texas, without wind there is no way to supply the needed power. 

And before you say, "Just install heaters in the blades", recognize that those heaters are a constant draw on available power even when the wind isn't blowing. And I'm not even confident those 100-150 meter blades even can be retrofitted. Replacing all that? Ouch. 

19-20% of its electricity from wind on an annual basis

Often wind is generating over 50% of the UKs electricity

As I type 32%

This link shows realtime production of metered plant. You can add about 15% to account for unmetered smaller wind resources, 

electricityMap | Live CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption

 

RE heaters - yes no retrofitting but more modern turbines are fitted with blade heaters so this issue will gradually resolve itself. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

According to this article here at Oilprice,  ERCOT planned for the wind turbines to provide 6,000 MW in February because that's all the wind yiu can expect in February. Due to freezing. they only got 4,000 MW, having lost the rest due to cold weather problems.  Total ERCOT capacity is 80,000 MW, but (estimated) demand was about 72,000 MW. Natural Gas, coal, and Nuclear collectively lost about 30,000 MW of capacity due to cold weather problems. The most power systems factor in a 15% reserve, but ERCOT runs with an 8% reserve.

ERCOT uses a market model for electricity, and has basicall yno provision to require generators to be capable of operating in extreme cold conditions: this is true for nuclear, gas, coal, and wind. For all four generator types, there are well-understood engineering solutions to cold-weather operation that are used in northern regions, but these were not implemented in Texas. Electricity is therefore cheaper but is not reliable in extreme cold weather. 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Whos-To-Blame-For-The-Texas-Power-Crisis.html

Dan - this really isn't on in introducing facts to this debate😉

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

59 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Trying to compare the British "islands" to Texas is a bit much. I suppose you could fit in the panhandle of the state. In every other respect there's no comparison. Bottom line what I said before applies and I'm not interested in using this thread to discuss AGW. You're welcome to start your own thread to discuss that. In point of fact, 99.999999% of funded climate research will not be funded at all if it doesn't adhere to the AGW orthodoxy.  Furthermore, as was proven by the Climategate emails (both sets years apart) the "team" will not even allow peer review of papers unless they follow the "creed" of the AGW religionists. So it's a bit specious to require that for your arguments, since it is nothing resembling a level playing field. 

ERCOT, which "only" accounts for 75% of the Texas market was caught with their pants down because they believe in AGW more than anyone. By the AGW models, this was supposed to be the new hottest year on record. By the time they're done cooking the books it probably will be and the useful idiots will pretend the Polar Express never happened. 

The whole issue of "peer review" is an irrelevancy given the usual "pack mentality" which sees the vested scientific orthodoxy circle their wagons to protect their bailiwick against any possible disruptive lines of investigation. Well, no one likes to see their own boat rocked or their own rice bowl tipped over. But this is an old story. Usually new lines of scientific investigation first emerge in private publications and self-published books, then gain credit through being cited and discussed in "peer-reviewed" journals. That puts a foot into the door and before long the challenging theories and models are regular topics for discussion. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

25 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Widely publicized where? What was it called? I will try to find it. 

You can start here, click on the author's name, which will bring up a list of previous publications, the top of which is a joint study with three other scientists published in 2019, and was widely debated in the media last year. No public authority has taken or heeded the warning, which is repeated in the article linked above, to prepare for colder temperatures.

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

[turbguy + 1,402]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I doubt it was for lack of electricity (which was the problem at Fukushima) more likely they ran a surface pipe from a water tank to the plant and it froze. People in the southern states get a bit lackadaisical about weather. Where I live you count on it being cold and plan accordingly. I've got a generator because I lose power due to ice and wind storms periodically. Ran my generator for about 3 days straight because of a windstorm a month or so ago. 

Where I live, most would call it "Always cold"! 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Let's just read What ERCOT themselves have to say about this

Right off the bat I see a major discrepancy between what interlocutors here are saying and what ERCOT is saying about wind. Anyone have a calculator handy? 

Quote

As of 6 p.m., approximately 43,000 MW of generation has been forced off the system during this extreme winter weather event. Of that, 26,500 MW is thermal and nearly 17,000 MW is wind and solar.

BTW, solar is obviously negligible in this discussion

[turbguy + 1,402]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

For Republicans, is a good thing it didn't happen before the election. They better get their act together fast. The cronies at ERCOT have had their way too long. It is also time to stop the flaring which wastes natural gas! 

https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/weather/ercot-to-raise-texas-energy-prices-blaming-high-demand-from-winter-storm/285-76ea495b-b67b-4cb7-8f1a-47f0fb4b4234

I can understand limited flaring.  I always thought why not run a deisel genset, but then I assumed there was other crap in that flaring that the engine would not put up with.  Don't know for certain...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I can understand limited flaring.  I always thought why not run a deisel genset, but then I assumed there was other crap in that flaring that the engine would not put up with.  Don't know for certain...

If companies are not big enough or capitalized enough to recover and use or sell the natural gas they should go to work for those who can IMHO. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I can understand limited flaring.  I always thought why not run a deisel genset, but then I assumed there was other crap in that flaring that the engine would not put up with.  Don't know for certain...

Perfectly doable, but the utility might not accept your power, nor pay you enough for the maintenance of the generator. Diesel is pretty "dirty" on its own so starting the genset on diesel then switching to methane would be fine. If the genset produces 1MW on diesel it will only produce about 700kw on methane. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I can understand limited flaring.  I always thought why not run a deisel genset, but then I assumed there was other crap in that flaring that the engine would not put up with.  Don't know for certain...

The main gas plant I used to visit used raw gas . I assume the engines were rated to accept it. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

46 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

According to this article here at Oilprice,  ERCOT planned for the wind turbines to provide 6,000 MW in February because that's all the wind yiu can expect in February. Due to freezing. they only got 4,000 MW, having lost the rest due to cold weather problems.  Total ERCOT capacity is 80,000 MW, but (estimated) demand was about 72,000 MW. Natural Gas, coal, and Nuclear collectively lost about 30,000 MW of capacity due to cold weather problems. The most power systems factor in a 15% reserve, but ERCOT runs with an 8% reserve.

ERCOT uses a market model for electricity, and has basicall yno provision to require generators to be capable of operating in extreme cold conditions: this is true for nuclear, gas, coal, and wind. For all four generator types, there are well-understood engineering solutions to cold-weather operation that are used in northern regions, but these were not implemented in Texas. Electricity is therefore cheaper but is not reliable in extreme cold weather. 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Whos-To-Blame-For-The-Texas-Power-Crisis.html

Demonstrably false, see my link above. 39% from wind and solar, and in the winter that solar amounts to nothing. I see that the authors did a great job banging their political drum but they're a bit light on facts. Lemme guess, they want Texas under the Federal government thumb? Lol