.

[surrept33 + 609]

I mostly agree with this. If the borders of Texas were in the Nueces (or if the current governor wasn't so hell bent on maximizing his power), surely there would be a lot of transmission lines to new mexico and colorado (or anywhere there are rockies) and a lot of pumped hydro. It's a natural way to do frequency regulation over multiple timescales  and take advantage of gravity (the same thing with for example, quebec and the NE grid).

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/19/how-a-winter-storm-tested-texas-go-it-alone-attitude-470202

“It’s tougher when you aren’t interconnected and not part of the mix,” says Pat Wood III, CEO of Dallas-based Hunt Energy Network and a former Texas and federal energy regulator. Wood, who was appointed to the Public Utility Commission of Texas by Governor George W. Bush, lost power for 36 straight hours in Houston before rolling blackouts kicked in on Tuesday. “At least you could recharge your stuff and cook dinner,” he says.

“I think a go-it-alone attitude within a republic of states is always a very tricky situation,” adds Carlos Kevin Blanton, head of the history department at Texas A&M University.

As politicians call for investigations and committee hearings—with ERCOT as the focal point—energy experts say the council’s leaders are being used as a scapegoat. ERCOT, which runs as a nonprofit with a board of directors, is overseen by the state Legislature and the state’s Public Utility Commission, whose members the governor appoints; all three of the commission’s current members are Abbott appointees. An investigation might turn up more details, and possibly some serious failures on ERCOT’s part, but it is state executives who ultimately make the decisions about the Texas energy grid.

“I always viewed ERCOT as the air traffic controllers and plumbing contractors for the state’s electric grid, but the policymakers are the legislators and the [public utility commission],” says Ray Sullivan, who served as chief of staff to former Governor Rick Perry and also worked for Bush. Sullivan says he doesn’t recall having a single meeting with ERCOT staff when he was working for Perry.

Texas took control of its grid in the 1930s after the Federal Power Act was passed to regulate interstate electricity sales. ERCOT was created in 1970 and took on more responsibility for managing the Texas grid over the following decades. The current structure of Texas’ energy system has its roots in the mid-1990s, when the state government moved to deregulate the energy market here. ERCOT at that point became the country’s first independent service operator. According to both Sullivan and Wood, Republicans and Democrats agreed back then on restructuring the state’s power industry and breaking up utility monopolies in an effort to make the market more competitive.

“It didn’t get that partisan,” Wood recalls. “Everybody agreed wholesale competition made sense.” A 1995 law required the state to study connecting the Texas grid to the rest of the country, but the resulting report recommended against it so the state could maintain access to cheaper power, according to Wood.

A series of reforms over the next few legislative sessions in the late 1990s and early 2000s—the regular session lasts only 140 days every other year—focused on keeping energy costs low, especially for industrial customers, and bringing in new power companies. The reforms helped to usher in new technology, like wind and solar energy, while helping to meet demand for the state’s burgeoning population—and keeping prices low.

 

This is a view of the electric grid on a computer screen of Jim Yeager, Reliability Coordinator for the Transmission and Security Desk at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, in Austin, Texas, Nov. 23, 2010. | Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP

ERCOT’s role was and is essentially as the intermediary, mostly acting as a broker between energy buyers and sellers. It was never tasked with deciding on the state’s overarching approach to energy policy; it just carries it out. While ERCOT does have to make sure the grid is reliable, it can’t force changes such as infrastructure upgrades.

The trade-off that Texas lawmakers and regulators have made over the years, says Michael Webber, an energy resources professor at the University of Texas at Austin, is focusing on cost over reliability. Some states like Georgia require operators to maintain energy reserves almost double what Texas requires. This costs energy companies more money, but it also ensures that a grid is more reliable. Treating turbines, natural gas wells, coal plants and nuclear plants so that they can withstand winter weather also costs money. The state government in Texas, which has no state income tax, has avoided budgeting funds to prepare the grid for winter, knowing that customers would have faced higher bills.

“There is always a balance between just going as far as you can and keeping the market affordable,” says Texas energy lobbyist Michael Jewell.

After a major winter storm knocked out power in Texas almost exactly a decade ago, federal regulators called on the state to fortify its grid against deep freezes. But the federal government had no authority to mandate such measures. Wood says this is typical of Texas’ approach to federal oversight. Even though the federal intervention was “relatively benign,” Texas still didn’t want to deal with it. “I just threw my hands up in the air,” he says.

Even at the height of the crisis this week, Rick Perry said Texans would rather go without power for days than deal with federal energy regulations. Never mind that Texas readily accepts federal help when disaster strikes: So far this week, Abbott has made at least two official requests to the White House for federal aid.

Instead, for decades, Texas has let power operators decide whether and how to prepare for extreme weather. For the most part, they do this. Texas generators focus on summer, planning for peak demand from air conditioning during 108-degree August days, which are all too common in most of the state. These companies plan for minor winter storms, too. ERCOT said last week that it was ready for this week’s storm. Of course, that turned out not to be true.

After the state was plunged into darkness, Abbott on Thursday asked the Legislature to mandate and find funding for the “winterization” of Texas’ power system. But beyond this step, state leaders are unlikely to fundamentally change the Texas energy grid, by subjecting it to more federal oversight or connecting it to the rest of the country. Some Texas Democrats have said the state should consider joining the national grid, and there is a debate about whether it would have made a difference, considering the whole country was struggling with power problems over the course of a frigid week.

But it’s unthinkable to Republicans governing the state, who still sell the idea of Texas’ independence. This is the state, after all, where a Republican state lawmaker recently filed a bill to pave the way for Texas to leave the United States—a long shot, but a powerful symbol.

ERCOT’s role was and is essentially as the intermediary, mostly acting as a broker between energy buyers and sellers. It was never tasked with deciding on the state’s overarching approach to energy policy; it just carries it out. While ERCOT does have to make sure the grid is reliable, it can’t force changes such as infrastructure upgrades.

The trade-off that Texas lawmakers and regulators have made over the years, says Michael Webber, an energy resources professor at the University of Texas at Austin, is focusing on cost over reliability. Some states like Georgia require operators to maintain energy reserves almost double what Texas requires. This costs energy companies more money, but it also ensures that a grid is more reliable. Treating turbines, natural gas wells, coal plants and nuclear plants so that they can withstand winter weather also costs money. The state government in Texas, which has no state income tax, has avoided budgeting funds to prepare the grid for winter, knowing that customers would have faced higher bills.

“There is always a balance between just going as far as you can and keeping the market affordable,” says Texas energy lobbyist Michael Jewell.

Edited February 19, 2021 by surrept33

[surrept33 + 609]

2 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. Richard D, Nick

Dr. Valentina Zharkova released an 8 page report "Heartbeat of the Sun" in 2015 describing a model of multiple, asynchronous dynamos within the sun. (Online, downloadable, and able to be read by all).

Her background in statistical mathematics combined with her doctorate in astrophysics led her to identify predictable patterns relating to ever shifting solar radiation (and visible solar spots).

Applying her model backwards to 400 years of recorded sunspots has shown a correlative accuracy of over 97%.

In addition, Dr. Zharkova's prediction of the nature of the just-completed Solar Cycle 24 was one of only 2 papers (out of 150 contributors) shown to be accurate.

There are several online interviews of this talented woman who continuously stresses that dramatic Narnia/Frozen scenarios are misguided, but threatened crop production is a real concern.

 

The trough years - weather-wise - will span 2028 through 2032, with this current weather expected to endure through the mid 2040s.

 

Nick, the reduced solar radiation enables the ever-present cosmic radiation to more prominently  impact the earth.

Some intrepid scientists are starting to state that movement in the earth's molten core -  susceptible to solar-scale changes of magnetic input - may actually be a contributory factor in the observed/recorded increases in volcanic activity durning low solar sunspot periods.

 

All this might prompt a more modest (humbling?) approach as to what we actually think we know.

To settle this issue, NASA is going to launch this satellite soon (and it will calibrate by communicating with other satellites over RF to do hyperspectral imaging). Because of the complexity of the climate of course one needs to look at multiple perspectives to get a clearer picture. 

https://clarreo-pathfinder.larc.nasa.gov/

Both the Trump and Biden administrations have been space friendly. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

These state interconnects aren't all they're cracked up to be. My state is mostly hydro so it produces power in the spring and summer, and would sell the excess to California, who needed it then for AC and industry and liked that it was green. In the fall and winter California was supposed to return the favor selling their excess up here. You can imagine how well that's gone.

I've watched my power rates double and reliability halved. Everyone claiming Texas being an "island" hurt them in this event are ignoring the fact that the states around them were also having problems, so there was negligible power to spare. Not to mention that Texas' power appetite dwarfs that of other states. Multiple refineries shut down, and that's a non trivial problem, especially when you have delayed cokers. A power outage in Cherry Point killed several workers when they thought the coker had cooled off enough. 

ERCOT has multiple people on the board who aren't even residents of Texas. That's another thing I bet you'll see change after this. Meanwhile, good news

Quote

ERCOT will end emergency conditions today

 

AUSTIN, TX, Feb. 19, 2021 – The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) expects to come out of emergency conditions later this morning.

"There is enough generation on the electric system to allow us to begin to return to more normal operating conditions," said Senior Director of System Operations Dan Woodfin.

No additional outages were needed overnight to keep power supply and electric demand in balance, and only a few generating units tripped.

Electric utilities continue to address remaining customer outages. Customers should contact their electric provider if they are without power.

Customers that are without power likely fall into one of these three categories:

• Areas out due to ice storm damage on the distribution system
• Areas that were taken out of service due to the energy emergency load shed that need to be restored manually (i.e., sending a crew to the location to reenergize the line)
• Large industrial facilities that voluntarily went offline to help during this energy emergency

As of 7:30 this morning, approximately 34,000 MW of generation remains on forced outage due to this winter weather event. Of that, nearly 20,000 MW is thermal generation and the rest is wind and solar.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Stranded because there is inadequate takeaway from newly-exploited shale basins. 

Currently, most of this is in the Delaware Basin, which straddles New Mexico (an exceptionally blue state) and Texas.

The gas burden from that basin is gargantuan. 

So massive, in fact, that there's plenty of gas in Texas to run the entire grid from gas-fired utility plants and export voluminous quantities too. The LNG trains are mostly full. But that's not really the chokepoint. 

Again, the mandate by ERCOT was more wind energy--which fluted upward to about 40% over the last decade. Because of that, less natural gas was needed at the gas utility plants--down to 46% of the whole pie. And because of that rather seismic shift in energy allocation, fewer pipelines were planted than would have been the case otherwise. 

Additionally, to handle some of the Delaware gas, operators had to deal with New Mexico, not such an easy task even before Ms. Deb Haaland was nominated to be Secretary of the Interior, the overseer-at-large over oil and gas leases, which determines the density of pipelines. The political climate in the last year has slowed pipeline construction even more . . . as operators modeled for a worst-case scenario. 

Like I said before, maybe you should tour Texas, and the Permian Basin in particular, before you become too much of an expert. I've read as you fired off one self-important pseudo-scientific treatise after another. So far, all you convinced me of is the tenet straight from Confucius and Cicero that it's pretty hard to perform due diligence from a Lazy-Boy recliner with your laptop in one hand and a bag of Cheetos in the other.  

blah blah blah.......

The last time we had rolling power cuts was 1974 due to a miners strike.

So despite this gargantuan blessing  Texas still managed to fook it up 😂

The moon landings were a hoax weren't they? 

Edited February 19, 2021 by NickW

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Ward

Your statement " ... these interconnects aren't all they're cracked up to be" may be the under appreciated post of the day. (22  pages in 4 days must be a new thread record on this site).

The recent blackouts in California were directly related to the fact that ~25% of Cali's daily power supply is from out of state.

The region wide heat spell caused neighboring states to curtail export, which prompted enforced blackouts within California.

 

For those enjoying the political 'piling on' of Texas for being an energy island, know this ...

Currently both Massachusetts and New Jersey (!) are making noises about breaking away from their respective ISOs (as is their perogative) and emulating Texas as their Renewable initiatives are being stymied by the market-driven fundamentals promulgated by the federally regulated ISOs.

There are many layers involved in these matters.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

There's Plenty of blame to go around. Texas can thank Xiden's dept of energy for not allowing them to increase production. Waivers needed, waivers not granted. Because Demoncrats 

[surrept33 + 609]

The NIST Smart Grid Interoperability draft:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2020/07/24/Smart Grid Draft Framework.pdf

Page 17 is more or less what current day ERCOT or most grids looks like. 

Page 19 is more or less what a internet of things-ish distributed energy grid looks like with a lot more solid state components and a lot more bidirectional energy storage.

 

From the doc:

Quote

 

The smooth physics of analog circuitry does not apply to modern semiconductor-based electronics. That the electrical conductivity of a semiconductor changes with environmental conditions is the very essence of that material class, and it is through control of these  parameters via transistors that semiconductors become computationally powerful. The ability to precisely control conductivity in transistors is also what makes semiconductor based power electronics valuable to the electric grid. Yet the binary nature and fast switching capabilities of transistors and diodes in semiconductor based (solid-state) power electronics introduce functional step-changes to normal operations which change the physical dynamics of the grid. While the benefits from high electrical efficiency and discrete controllability are immense, the very nature of this switching creates minute but very sharp step-changes in the aggregate waveform which can manifest as nonlinear and transient interactions with the rest of the system.

 As different as the strategies are for managing analog circuit elements (e.g., resistors,  inductors, and capacitors), even more diverse are the integration requirements and operational strategies for managing semiconductor-based systems. Solid-state power electronics are scalable and modular, which provides meaningful opportunity to improve efficiency and control throughout the distribution system. This is especially true at the system edge where customer technologies are diversifying and gaining new energy management capabilities. Changes to grid physics associated with the transition from analog to digital (or solid-state) components warrants examination as stakeholders seek to understand evolving interoperability requirements for observing and controlling the grid.

The introduction of distributed generation is often cited as a prominent source of power quality issues in distribution grids [64-67]. It seems logical that a grid originally designed for unidirectional powerflows from centralized generating facilities outward could buckle under the stress of incorporating generation and active power management technologies at the customer site. As generation capabilities have changed, uncertainty over the impacts of these technologies has also emerged.

The introduction of distributed generation is often cited as a prominent source of power quality issues in distribution grids [64-67]. It seems logical that a grid originally designed for unidirectional powerflows from centralized generating facilities outward could buckle under the stress of incorporating generation and active power management technologies at the customer site. As generation capabilities have changed, uncertainty over the impacts of these technologies has also emerged.

Solar inverters provide an interesting case-study on the changing capabilities of generating 11 technologies. In 2003 IEEE published standard 1547, the first grid interconnection standard 12 for distributed resources. Most commonly applied to inverter-based generation, the evolution 13 of this standard and inverter capabilities provides an interesting case-study in the accelerating 14 evolution of technology on the grid. The original IEEE standard mandated just one actively 15 controlled capability—the ability for distributed resources to de-energize (turn off) when grid 16 voltages or frequencies deviated from a narrow operational range [68]. Just fifteen years 17 later more than 35 new DER functions had been identified (see Appendix C – Inverter and 18 DER Functions), some of which have become mandatory through California Rule 21 and the 19 2018 revision of IEEE 1547.

Importantly, the transistors and diodes changing the physics of the power grid (see Section 29 3.2.1) exist in all forms of solid-state power electronics, and not just inverters and other generation assets. Research has shown that the power electronics in CFL and LED lightbulbs can severely affect local electrical waveforms, a phenomenon which does not occur for incandescent bulbs. When combined with other circuit elements, including switches and/or dimmer controls, the distortions can appear extreme (see Figure 10, [72]).

Considering the ubiquity of semiconductor-based power electronics in both existing technologies and emerging devices, the major driver affecting the declining power quality of our electric grids [73] may in fact be changes in how electricity is consumed rather than the oft-cited emergence of distributed generation. That grid performance can be materially affected by energy consumption comes as no surprise — after all, supply and demand has been balanced in real-time since the grid’s inception. It is, however, the emerging and uncontrolled interaction of modern devices with the grid through nontraditional physical mechanisms that demands a sharper focus on the physical aspects of system interoperability.

The revolution in solid-state power electronics described above has led to a proliferation of direct current (DC) devices and systems. More than just battery-driven electronics, DC equipment and appliances already permeate our homes and businesses and are becoming  available for all manner of end-use applications [74].  The benefits of using DC systems in buildings include lower capital and installation costs, improved energy efficiency, and a reduced physical footprint which enables more flexible design. Combining DC building systems to utilize a common transformer or other DC power source would compound gains to yield dramatic efficiency improvements and simplify building design constraints [75], especially when DC energy sources such as solar PV or battery electric storage are available onsite. Expansion of DC technologies into applications and services traditionally served by alternating current (AC) technology can be extremely beneficial, as DC-ready appliances typically operate at or above the highest energy efficiency levels of their conventional AC counterparts [74] and provide greater functional controllability. Extensive DC technology deployment could also impact utility operations at the grid-edge and even limit the efficacy of traditional AC system management techniques, but may also alter customer service requirements and potentially allow utilities to relax their operational constraints.  Utility-scale distribution grids will continue AC operations even as the foothold for DC technology grows. Expanding use of DC technology in devices, systems, and even microgrids highlights the need to better understand the effects physical interoperability between DC and AC systems will have on control theory and operational practice.

 

 

[Symmetry + 109]

6 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

There's Plenty of blame to go around. Texas can thank Xiden's dept of energy for not allowing them to increase production. Waivers needed, waivers not granted. Because Demoncrats 

Did you read your link?  They were given the green-light to exceed pollution regulations as needed. In all circumstance risk to life overrides environmental regulations.  If necessary, do not ask for permission, just request forgiveness later - it will be granted.

At least you are acknowledging that the wind turbines were clearly not the only problem.

 

"Given the emergency nature of the expected load stress, the responsibility of ERCOT to ensure maximum reliability on its system, and the ability of ERCOT to identify and dispatch generation necessary to meet the additional load, I have determined that additional dispatch of the Specified Resources is necessary to best meet the emergency and serve the public interest for purposes of FPA section 202(c). Because the additional generation may result in a conflict with environmental standards and requirements, I am authorizing only the necessary additional generation, with reporting requirements as described below."

 

"In the event ERCOT identifies the need to exceed other relevant environmental permitting levels, ERCOT shall specifically identify such permitting levels and DOE will consider ERCOT’s request in good faith."

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

18 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Did you read your link?  They were given the green-light to exceed pollution regulations as needed. In all circumstance risk to life overrides environmental regulations.  If necessary, do not ask for permission, just request forgiveness later - it will be granted.

At least you are acknowledging that the wind turbines were clearly not the only problem.

 

"Given the emergency nature of the expected load stress, the responsibility of ERCOT to ensure maximum reliability on its system, and the ability of ERCOT to identify and dispatch generation necessary to meet the additional load, I have determined that additional dispatch of the Specified Resources is necessary to best meet the emergency and serve the public interest for purposes of FPA section 202(c). Because the additional generation may result in a conflict with environmental standards and requirements, I am authorizing only the necessary additional generation, with reporting requirements as described below."

 

"In the event ERCOT identifies the need to exceed other relevant environmental permitting levels, ERCOT shall specifically identify such permitting levels and DOE will consider ERCOT’s request in good faith."

Selected editing, here's the part you skipped

Quote

In furtherance of the foregoing and, in each case, subject to the exhaustion of all available imports, demand response, and identified behind-the-meter generation resources selected to minimize an increase in emissions available to support grid reliability:
(i) with respect to any Specified Resource that is an ERCOT Generation Resource or Settlement Only Generator whose operator notifies ERCOT that the unit is unable, or expected to be unable, to produce at its maximum output due to an emission or effluent limit in any federal environmental permit, ERCOT shall ensure that such Specified Resource is only allowed to exceed any such limit during a period for which ERCOT has declared an Energy Emergency Alert (EEA) Level 2 or Level 3. This incremental amount of restricted capacity would be offered at a price no lower than $1,500/MWh. Once ERCOT declares that such an EEA Level 2 or Level 3 event has ended, the unit is required to immediately return to operation within its permitted limits; and
(ii) with respect to any Specified Resource that is an ERCOT Generation Resource whose operator notifies ERCOT that the unit is offline or would need to go offline due to an emission or effluent limit in any federal environmental permit, and to which ERCOT has issued a Reliability Unit Commitment (RUC) instruction, the operator may make all of the unit’s capacity available to ERCOT for dispatch during a period for which ERCOT has declared an EEA Level 2 or Level 3. This incremental amount of restricted capacity would be offered at a price no lower than $1,500/MWh. Once ERCOT declares that such an EEA Level 2 or Level 3 event has ended, the unit is required to immediately return to operating at a level below the higher of its minimum operating level or the maximum output allowable under the permitted limit.

Here's the translation. To operate at "450% of capacity" it is necessary to blow past the emissions limit, oddly enough when you stomp on the accelerator you make more pollution. So this was a political yes and a practical no. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Maybe more states should think about adopting California's coastal policies so that the public have access to coastal areas (keep in mind that humans have largely always lived near coasts and rivers before the rise in exergy brought about by switching from burning biomass to coal):

https://scc.ca.gov/

It's more or less what T.R's policies were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

 

Californians have tremendous problems getting to the beach. Far more problems than Floridians and  other beaches I have seen. Southern California has the only beaches warm enough for those without wet suits, which are mainly surfers. The beaches in Southern California have tremendous parking problems except for Huntington Beach which has terrible changing and toileting facilities. My favorite beach was Redondo Beach but the parking is very scarce last time I checked. There was almost a fight over the space I left after my visit. On a weekday Venice beach was out of parking spaces. The beach cities near Los Angeles now have a lot of vagrants living on the streets, in tents or old RVs. The laws are poorly enforced because California is left wing. 

I am in favor of all the beaches being open to the public. Powerful people have always gotten away with deterring most people from parking and pathways to the beach though. Those people have a lot of influence on California politics. Malibu is the worst, in my experience. But all those with expensive real estate do. 

I am a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt. He was a true leader for practical environmentalism. Today, I am sure he would want a lot more parking lots in national parks and forests so that people could access them without having to check into an expensive Ahwanee type hotel as they have in Yosemite which is like a zoo of people in the summertime. I tell everyone to only go in the Spring or Fall. Go to Sequoia and Kings Canyon in the summertime. Stay in Reno and drive to Tahoe also. The drive around the lake is one of the best in the world. There  is also a hiking trail that circles Lake Tahoe. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

A good story on the Texas outages. https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/amid-historic-texas-power-failures-data-indicate-wind-turbines-played-significant

[turbguy + 1,402]

Just as I though.  Consumers who rolled the dice and contracted with certain "suppliers" are going to be VERY upset.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/deep-freeze-subsides-texans-now-face-electricity-bills-10-000-n1258362?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

7 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I presume you mean "gas pipes," in which case the network of pipes at wellheads and gathering plants are indeed above-ground, but of course distribution lines are buried. The problem was likely formation of methane hydrates because the pressure head was increased. Coupled with very low temperatures, that's the recipe for those wicked clathrates. 

If perchance you meant "water pipes," they of course are laid underground. But they also come out through walls, for access. The walls in Texas--particularly south Texas--aren't nearly as well insulated as in cold climes. 

The main point being that these problems are only in Texas where the cold weather was unexpected.  No problems up north. 

I was thinking of the extraction facilities but also distribution, which are buried up north. They are supported above ground in Texas , no?

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/15/2021 at 7:39 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Listening to the commentary and the results of this speed bump of a storm caused me to roll back the tape a bit. Below is true Vortex i was there the pictures are not a exageration by any means. As young boys we actually dug people out of there homes just for the pure fun of it. I actually walked over a hedge that was 14' feet high, cars were buried in the streets under 5 feet of snow. 

Best of all no power outages none, just a good time for a few days..lol no school a note here the storm engulfed the US from the Dakota's to NY down as far as NB. It was a true votex.

1966...https://www.weather.gov/fgf/blizzardof66

 

Rochester and Buffalo at any given winter are just the same. 

The all renewables people are about a half century ahead of themselves. The only reason they would push their agenda is because they are genocidal psychopaths. They intend for us to freeze and starve to death and succumb to artificial diseases and deadly pharmaceuticals and  "vaccines". They do not get excused as overzealous ideologues. They had been warned since the ideas first popped up, and they continue pushing through this clear evidence of massive failure. It must be that their intent is indeed genocidal. At least Gates Soros and co. said so explicitly, that they want under 1 Billion on the planet. Yet they find no end of people to cooperate with them, celebrate them and are not socially ostracized. Since when do people professing to be working towards the murder of billions of people not get locked up?

Robustness and thus redundancy and keeping open standby capacity on the scale of your entire renewable electric output is a necessity, not the luxury that Lazard and co's report oft quoted here says. They need to rework the entire scheme. Standby coal and NG have to be paid for, either upfront by the customers, or by making that a viable business through commercial producers contracting with utilities for spike power demands from fossil fuels. In time, battery stations will get cheap enough to store weeks worth of electricity rather than hours, till then, far far into the future, renewables need to be backed up with fossil fuel plants and nuclear. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Just as I though.  Consumers who rolled the dice and contracted with certain "suppliers" are going to be VERY upset.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/deep-freeze-subsides-texans-now-face-electricity-bills-10-000-n1258362?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

They should sue ERCOT and the state of TX to pay those bills, because it was not the storm that caused them, but the failure of their equipment and grid design such that half of the capacity (90% of solar and wind) was inoperative. That failure was a direct result of policy and bad planning based on climate models known to be completely fictitious that we pretend are correct in order to get along with deranged environmentalists. .   

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,541]

15 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

They should sue ERCOT and the state of TX to pay those bills, because it was not the storm that caused them, but the failure of their equipment and grid design such that half of the capacity (90% of solar and wind) was inoperative. That failure was a direct result of policy and bad planning based on climate models known to be completely fictitious that we pretend are correct in order to get along with deranged environmentalists. .   

Before the end of the of this debacle ERCOT will no longer exist in Texas, frankly wind power was given a sharp blow from which they may not recover. While cold weather may well have triggered this event, a very deep look will be made into just how a hodged podged system of green generation has taken place across the US. 

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

8 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. Richard D, Nick

Dr. Valentina Zharkova released an 8 page report "Heartbeat of the Sun" in 2015 describing a model of multiple, asynchronous dynamos within the sun. (Online, downloadable, and able to be read by all).

Her background in statistical mathematics combined with her doctorate in astrophysics led her to identify predictable patterns relating to ever shifting solar radiation (and visible solar spots).

Applying her model backwards to 400 years of recorded sunspots has shown a correlative accuracy of over 97%.

In addition, Dr. Zharkova's prediction of the nature of the just-completed Solar Cycle 24 was one of only 2 papers (out of 150 contributors) shown to be accurate.

There are several online interviews of this talented woman who continuously stresses that dramatic Narnia/Frozen scenarios are misguided, but threatened crop production is a real concern.

 

The trough years - weather-wise - will span 2028 through 2032, with this current weather expected to endure through the mid 2040s.

 

Nick, the reduced solar radiation enables the ever-present cosmic radiation to more prominently  impact the earth.

Some intrepid scientists are starting to state that movement in the earth's molten core -  susceptible to solar-scale changes of magnetic input - may actually be a contributory factor in the observed/recorded increases in volcanic activity durning low solar sunspot periods.

All this might prompt a more modest (humbling?) approach as to what we actually think we know.

Bravo, great post.

I recalled 94%, but 97% sounds like a better number.

The global warming climate models do not have an accuracy anywhere near that figure, so we now have a changing of the guard as far as a dominant climate model, with this new solar model taking charge.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

5 hours ago, surrept33 said:

To settle this issue, NASA is going to launch this satellite soon (and it will calibrate by communicating with other satellites over RF to do hyperspectral imaging). Because of the complexity of the climate of course one needs to look at multiple perspectives to get a clearer picture. 

https://clarreo-pathfinder.larc.nasa.gov/

Both the Trump and Biden administrations have been space friendly. 

The issue is pretty well already settled. The way you settle it is to look at the explanatory power of the model, does it accurately predict what happens.

The recent solar model has a 97%  explanatory power, the alternative global warming models have about half of that or less. And because the global warming models exclude solar variables, you get the classical misspecification error of attributing unwarranted strength to the CO2 variable. No wonder they do not work well.

The party is over for the GW approach.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

47 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

They should sue ERCOT and the state of TX to pay those bills, because it was not the storm that caused them, but the failure of their equipment and grid design such that half of the capacity (90% of solar and wind) was inoperative.

I think most of those bills are going to be paid for by oil and pipeline companies, refiners, and the like--it's a charitable bunch. I would be surprised to see the wind guys chip in but they might. 

ERCOT is basically a not-for-profit outfit that makes independent decisions but answers to the Texas Utility Commission. The Commission, in turn, answers to the Texas State Legislature, ostensibly, but since its members are mostly Gregg Abbot appointees, basically to Gov. Abbot. 

Because of this rather tightly controlled cloister, I would be enormously surprised if ERCOT was not tasked with the responsibility of quickly weaning off wind whilst feeding in more and more natural gas, simplifying the grid allocation/interconnectivity. Gov. Abbot stated today that he takes full responsibility for this disaster. He wouldn't say that if he wasn't quite sure he could twist arms in this direction and if one balks, I don't think Mr. Abbot would think twice about replacing his appointee for cause. Not after this. 

You're quite right: renewable energy projects are popping up all over with almost no forethought how that energy will be introduced into the grid--and with multiple sources, reliability during extreme weather has become more fragile, not less. The massive Wind-Catcher Farm in the Oklahoma Panhandle was ready to go, but then was cancelled because it involved 200 miles of transmission into the Tulsa grid. They are breathing a sigh of relief tonight, having dodged that bullet. 

[surrept33 + 609]

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The issue is pretty well already settled. The way you settle it is to look at the explanatory power of the model, does it accurately predict what happens.

The recent solar model has a 97%  explanatory power, the alternative global warming models have about half of that or less. And because the global warming models exclude solar variables, you get the classical misspecification error of attributing unwarranted strength to the CO2 variable. No wonder they do not work well.

The party is over for the GW approach.

Settled with who?

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=447

[surrept33 + 609]

10 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I think most of those bills are going to be paid for by oil and pipeline companies, refiners, and the like--it's a charitable bunch. I would be surprised to see the wind guys chip in but they might. 

ERCOT is basically a not-for-profit outfit that makes independent decisions but answers to the Texas Utility Commission. The Commission, in turn, answers to the Texas State Legislature, ostensibly, but since its members are mostly Gregg Abbot appointees, basically to Gov. Abbot. 

Because of this rather tightly controlled cloister, I would be enormously surprised if ERCOT was not tasked with the responsibility of quickly weaning off wind whilst feeding in more and more natural gas, simplifying the grid allocation/interconnectivity. Gov. Abbot stated today that he takes full responsibility for this disaster. He wouldn't say that if he wasn't quite sure he could twist arms in this direction and if one balks, I don't think Mr. Abbot would think twice about replacing his appointee for cause. Not after this. 

You're quite right: renewable energy projects are popping up all over with almost no forethought how that energy will be introduced into the grid--and with multiple sources, reliability during extreme weather has become more fragile, not less. The massive Wind-Catcher Farm in the Oklahoma Panhandle was ready to go, but then was cancelled because it involved 200 miles of transmission into the Tulsa grid. They are breathing a sigh of relief tonight, having dodged that bullet. 

No forethought is a strong statement, I think. For example, NREL has done a lot of research on incorporating more distributed grid optimization (which is very much doable with modern optimization techniques and software defined networking): https://www.nrel.gov/grid/

Keep in mind that other countries are not staying still, for example, India (which is more or less tied with China for the next few decades in new power generation) is projected to jump directly from Coal to Solar. Of course it will have to build a lot of grid storage as well. If your supply chain is global (which these days, everything is), then the economies of scale really pile up. 

https://www.iea.org/reports/india-energy-outlook-2021

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

22 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Settled with who?

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=447

That's not research, that's blogs. NASA equals appeal to authority, but notice there's no author named. 

BTW proper grammar is "settled with whom"

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

13 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

No forethought is a strong statement, I think. For example, NREL has done a lot of research on incorporating more distributed grid optimization (which is very much doable with modern optimization techniques and software defined networking): https://www.nrel.gov/grid/

Keep in mind that other countries are not staying still, for example, India (which is more or less tied with China for the next few decades in new power generation) is projected to jump directly from Coal to Solar. Of course it will have to build a lot of grid storage as well. If your supply chain is global (which these days, everything is), then the economies of scale really pile up. 

https://www.iea.org/reports/india-energy-outlook-2021

Here's the deal with wind. It's like you've got an NBA team of a bunch of short but popular actors, think Tom Cruise. You've got a ridiculous number of cheerleaders for that "team" and when they occasionally make a basket the cheers are deafening. But at the end of the day they don't belong in the big leagues, regardless of how attractive they are and how much the announcers fawn over them. If making baskets is the goal, you need the big boys out there doing it. Unfortunately billions have been squandered on this fragile ecosystem instead of being spent on reliable power and grid infrastructure. Classic asset misappropriation due to invalid market signals coming from political corners rather than the market itself. 

[surrept33 + 609]

6 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

That's not research, that's blogs. NASA equals appeal to authority, but notice there's no author named. 

BTW proper grammar is "settled with whom"

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=with who,with whom

English is very much subject to semantic shifts. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=with who,with whom

English is very much subject to semantic shifts. 

If your point is that the majority of people are unable to use English properly, I'm certain a graph is unnecessary. Statistically, only a minority of the population are intelligent. Where do you fall? If you weren't a native English speaker I wouldn't comment, but you are so I did. You're trying to convince people here that you're intelligent. Proper grammar would help, along with less word salad. Cheers