Texas Power Outage Danger Until June 18th. Texans told to conserve energy!

[turbguy + 1,544]

56 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In many location, the average household (non-EV) usage is more like 10  kWh/day, not 10kW continuous, which is 240 kWh. running an average EV for an average day's driving is another 10 kWh. Clearly, a typical household will run a LOT more than this 20 kWh on some days, for example when charging up the ol' Tesla for a long trip the next day.

A fanatic greenie with more money than sense can build a hyper-efficient home that uses a lot less (non-EV) electricity than this even in a fairly extreme environment, using double walls, geothermal heat pump, etc,

 

The average household consumption in the US is about 30 KWh/day. 

Consuming 10 KWh overnight (sunset to sunrise) is not unreasonable.

YMMV, particularly if you heat with electric baseboard or radiant heat!

Edited June 24, 2021 by turbguy

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

39 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Externalities occur because many activities have effects on third parties that are not part of the transactions.

Examples are: factories emitting smoke and waste,  aircraft waking up people, or loudspeakers generating noise.

These activities are all having a direct effect on the well-being of others that are outside of the market.

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Now, in terms of things strictly financial, are you suggesting that the actual returns on renewables are better? I might ask why this should be considered for individuals or business entities looking at returns for their projects. 

[turbguy + 1,544]

45 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Now, in terms of things strictly financial, are you suggesting that the actual returns on renewables are better? I might ask why this should be considered for individuals or business entities looking at returns for their projects. 

Returns are better, due to a very large part from the various "government support" policies that have arisen. Certainly there is lot's o' cash pouring into renewables.  If those returns were not there, investments would be far and few between.

Fossil sources also receive "government support" through per-established policies, albeit probably to a smaller degree.  And, I believe there is a move afoot to eliminate a big chunk of them.

Externalities need much greater recognition and quantification in order to justify the current investment environment.  That should not be difficult, and currently is.  It's politically "unpopular" with established businesses.

A better solution, IMO, would be a pollution tax (eg, a carbon tax), with a well-defined purpose for the proceeds. Let business leaders and consumers sort it out!

Americans just don't like taxes (even it's absolutely clear what they are used for).

.

Edited June 24, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Returns are better, due to a very large part from the various "government support" policies that have arisen. Certainly there is lot's o' cash pouring into renewables.  If those returns were not there, investments would be far and few between.

Fossil sources also receive "government support" through per-established policies, albeit probably to a smaller degree.  And, I believe there is a move afoot to eliminate a big chunk of them.

Externalities need much greater recognition and quantification in order to justify the current investment environment.  That should not be difficult, and currently is.  It's politically "unpopular" with established businesses.

A better solution, IMO, would be a pollution tax (eg, a carbon tax), with a well-defined purpose for the proceeds. Let business leaders and consumers sort it out!

Americans just don't like taxes (even it's absolutely clear what they are used for).

.

Pollution...minus CO2.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

The costs of regulation is balanced by benefits to society.

At time, those benefits are difficult to quantify, as we have yet to put a agreeable price on public health and safety.

For instance, any nat gas produced and consumed has wastes along the entire system, from extraction, processing, transport, and combustion.  The allocation of costs for those wastes is "tricky".   This is not to ignore the similar "waste" or even "damage" issues that arise with sourcing solar, wind, or hydro generation.  

As for a "free market mechanism", in a totally free market, one mechanism would be to murder your competition.  There are regulations against that action. That does not seem to deter those that market "recreational chemistry".

The anti-trust argument is strictly about interference in free markets, trade restrictions imposed by a company.

The pollution argument is different and is not behind these state "green" policies.

Of course, toxic emissions should be regulated and removed, but that is not the motivation for these supports for battery power. That is motivated by an anti-CO2 mania, which is not related to pollution concerns.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

Returns are better, due to a very large part from the various "government support" policies that have arisen. Certainly there is lot's o' cash pouring into renewables.  If those returns were not there, investments would be far and few between

The government incentives were factored into my project analysis. I think utilities are willing to operate in a 1% margin, since they're hardly private enterprises. 

[edit] as a matter of fact, I was told that I couldn't supply power as a private utility, since the one in my region had a legal monopoly on the consumers in my region 

Edited June 24, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[turbguy + 1,544]

30 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The government incentives were factored into my project analysis. I think utilities are willing to operate in a 1% margin, since they're hardly private enterprises. 

[edit] as a matter of fact, I was told that I couldn't supply power as a private utility, since the one in my region had a legal monopoly on the consumers in my region 

True. A lot of utilities are shareholder-owned.

They tend to pay stable dividends.  Perhaps their margin is small.

If you want to go into the business of supplying "others" with power, then you must add transmission/distribution to the picture.  The elimination of "duplicate lines" (and all the supporting switching, metering, hardware and maintenance) was the primary reason for the creation of those monopolies.  Distribution companies still hold those monopolies, even in this deregulated environment.

The  local distribution utility "might" buy your solar power.  You can supply it to your OWN local loads, however.

Did you need 500 KW for local loads??

Edited June 24, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Why don't we talk about California fretting about EV charging right now? 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 6/19/2021 at 11:36 PM, Eric Gagen said:

My answer is three fold:

• Don't live somewhere that gets outrageously cold
• It's often quite sunny during the coldest days (not during the snowstorm of course, but afterwards)
• natural gas furnaces are one of THE most efficient heating mechanisms in the world - modern ones are ~95% efficient at converting the heating value of the natural gas into heat in your home.  That's pretty impressive, and I for one do not encourage anyone to toss that benefit out lightly.  

 

You will only get that sort of efficiency if the unit is run permanently in condensing mode. That means circulating water at about 55 Deg C. Most people run radiatorss hotter because they are not big enough to deliver enough heat at 55 Deg C. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

You will only get that sort of efficiency if the unit is run permanently in condensing mode. That means circulating water at about 55 Deg C. Most people run radiatorss hotter because they are not big enough to deliver enough heat at 55 Deg C. 

@NickW I'm not sure what condensing mode, or condensing heating has to do with heating a house?  There isn't any water in any of the heating systems I am discussing.  If you are talking about radiator style heat, then I'll freely admit I know absolutely nothing about how those work - I am talking about combined HVAC systems where the heat is provided by a furnace heating air and then pumping it through the air conditioning ductwork during time periods when heating is required.  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

@NickW I'm not sure what condensing mode, or condensing heating has to do with heating a house?  There isn't any water in any of the heating systems I am discussing.  If you are talking about radiator style heat, then I'll freely admit I know absolutely nothing about how those work - I am talking about combined HVAC systems where the heat is provided by a furnace heating air and then pumping it through the air conditioning ductwork during time periods when heating is required.  

modern high-efficiency NG furnaces extract so much of the heat from the flue gas that the water in the flue gas condenses. older NG furnaces left enough heat in the flue gas to avoid this and therefore ran at 85% efficiency or less.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

9 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Why don't we talk about California fretting about EV charging right now? 

That article correctly notes that CASIO is worried about peak demand during our extreme heat and lack of hydro due to the extreme drought. They are recommending that any load that can be shifted to off-peak should be, and that specifically includes EV charging. The only "interesting" bit is that they now recommend (sort of) that some loads shift to early afternoon. As recently as three years ago, 8:00AM was the end lowest, or "off-peak" rate. Now, mostly because of solar, supply comfortably exceeds demand during the day.  "Off-peak" extends until 3:00PM, but the real peak (demand-supply) occurs at about 5:00PM.

The EV problem occurs when people must do some of their charging from 3:00PM until about midnight. This would include most folks who are still using L1 (1.5 kW) chargers, and a few folks with L2 chargers and very long commutes, and even most of these guys could defer charging until after 9:00 PM. The rest of us can tell the charger or the car to defer charging until after midnight.  My car knows that when I am at home it must defer charging until 12:15 AM  (the extra 15 minutes is to wait until all the other guys quit abruptly adding load).

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

That article correctly notes that CASIO is worried about peak demand during our extreme heat and lack of hydro due to the extreme drought. They are recommending that any load that can be shifted to off-peak should be, and that specifically includes EV charging. The only "interesting" bit is that they now recommend (sort of) that some loads shift to early afternoon. As recently as three years ago, 8:00AM was the end lowest, or "off-peak" rate. Now, mostly because of solar, supply comfortably exceeds demand during the day.  "Off-peak" extends until 3:00PM, but the real peak (demand-supply) occurs at about 5:00PM.

The EV problem occurs when people must do some of their charging from 3:00PM until about midnight. This would include most folks who are still using L1 (1.5 kW) chargers, and a few folks with L2 chargers and very long commutes, and even most of these guys could defer charging until after 9:00 PM. The rest of us can tell the charger or the car to defer charging until after midnight.  My car knows that when I am at home it must defer charging until 12:15 AM  (the extra 15 minutes is to wait until all the other guys quit abruptly adding load).

This is with penetration rate of? 5% or less? What happens when Pelosi's nephew gets his wish and you're approaching 90% EV? 

[turbguy + 1,544]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

This is with penetration rate of? 5% or less? What happens when Pelosi's nephew gets his wish and you're approaching 90% EV? 

There's a whole lotta MW's waiting to be used off-peak.  30% might not be a problem.

Look at it this way, those "spare" MW's are gonna be fossil-driven (for the most part).

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

This is with penetration rate of? 5% or less? What happens when Pelosi's nephew gets his wish and you're approaching 90% EV? 

We have a long way to go before then.  Lets solve the immediate grid issues, and we will sort the others out later.  Ultimately, having a lot of batteries waiting to be charged, coupled with a lot of intermittent wind and solar may be a self resolving problem to some degree.  Charge when the power is available, not when it isn't, and it gets a lot simpler.  This is a network and deliverability problem that is ideally solved by an internet of things type solution.  Generally that's not something I am in favor of,  but this is a situation it's perfect for. You get in from work at 6 pm and tell your car it has to be charged up by say 5 am, but you don't care how it gets there between the time you plugged it in, and then, and it 'searches' for lower grid use times to charge up at.  Tell it that you need to run back out at 8 pm  for a safety meeting, or to do a crew change at 9 pm, and you get priority for as much juice as you can get in 2 hours, at whatever price electricity happens to be.  The spread of charging infrastructure points will make this easier too - more charging points plugged into more often at more frequent intervals leads to more efficient grid usage overall. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

We have a long way to go before then.  Lets solve the immediate grid issues, and we will sort the others out later.  Ultimately, having a lot of batteries waiting to be charged, coupled with a lot of intermittent wind and solar may be a self resolving problem to some degree.  Charge when the power is available, not when it isn't, and it gets a lot simpler.  This is a network and deliverability problem that is ideally solved by an internet of things type solution.  Generally that's not something I am in favor of,  but this is a situation it's perfect for. You get in from work at 6 pm and tell your car it has to be charged up by say 5 am, but you don't care how it gets there between the time you plugged it in, and then, and it 'searches' for lower grid use times to charge up at.  Tell it that you need to run back out at 8 pm  for a safety meeting, or to do a crew change at 9 pm, and you get priority for as much juice as you can get in 2 hours, at whatever price electricity happens to be.  The spread of charging infrastructure points will make this easier too - more charging points plugged into more often at more frequent intervals leads to more efficient grid usage overall. 

Not an engineer are you?  You NEVER design for a tiny fraction or partial fraction.  You design for the WHOLE LOAD projection in the future. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not an engineer are you?  You NEVER design for a tiny fraction or partial fraction.  You design for the WHOLE LOAD projection in the future. 

Actually, I am an engineer. The problem with the electrical grid is that there are wildly divergent ideas about there about what the 'whole load' will be, how it will be generated, and how it will be distributed, and how it will be stored.  The following are 3 major points of uncertainty

•  that we don't have a good handle on what the projected load is in the future, although this is the least worst problem (easiest to deal with - more load - just add more generation - it takes a few years, but this is actually the simplest problem to resolve - you can fix it with brute force within 5 years of recognizing the scope of the problem. This is a short enough time frame that minor adjustments can keep everything functional while everything gets aligned - of course supply and demand are both constantly moving targets, but this is normal.  
• The techniques I am discussing with respect to selective charging times and distributed charging are going to happen regardless of what load case projection is used.  However exactly HOW they will operate is entirely unclear - load sensing over wifi? adaptive charging based on variations in local grid frequency? Grid controllable charging, where the owner of the charged device only sets a start and end time? No engineer ever in their right mind will design an electrical system of any reasonable size with the expectation that the power supply and distribution system should accommodate all of the possible theoretical demand of every possibly load simultaneously.  It's never been done, ever.  One who did, would immediately be fired for incompetence or gross negligence. 
• The 3rd problem is much thornier, and it is the fact that the very nature of the electrical grid as it's currently imagined and utilized will probably be altered beyond recognition within 15-20 years. The enormous number of low reliably distributed sources of supply, and new sources of flexible demand will demand an electrical grid that works in a completely different way than the current one. There will be problems - a lot of them - unfortunately a fair number of them aren't ones that are presently being anticipated.  At present the grid can be described as a very small number of point sources (major power plants) sending power out to a very large number of relatively local point loads (users).  Laid on top of that is a very thin low capacity ability to send power longer distances, and/or compensate for errors in forecasting local demand.  If/when electric vehicles, and electric battery storage for other needs start becoming a significant part of the load on the grid,  the whole thing will get flipped on it's head, and the whole architecture of the grid becomes inadequate - the distribution system requires a massive change.  

Don't try to solve a problem that won't crop up for another 10 years with currently commercial technology in a rapidly changing technological environment, because that's a self defeating objective.  A good analogy would be the folks in the 1920's who spent a fortune outfitting and training cavalry horses to be effective during poison gas attacks.  Within 10 years  it had become obvious that both the horses and the poison gas were obsolete, and protection the one from the other was entirely wasted effort. They at least had the excuse that they didn't know when a war might break out and had to be prepared, but we are not in a situation where suddenly one day we will wake up and 30% of the worlds automobiles are BEV's  A lot of smart people are trying to figure out what a power distribution system should look like in a system with lots of smaller distributed but low reliability supply points looks like, when it's coupled to a large volume of intermittent interruptable power demand.  Let them figure out how that ought to work, and than when we get close enough to need to do something about it we can start taking appropriate actions. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

This is with penetration rate of? 5% or less? What happens when Pelosi's nephew gets his wish and you're approaching 90% EV? 

At 5% penetration, EVs comprise a small part of the total load. We can shift more load by using the clothes dryers in the morning instead of the evening, and a whole lot more by pre-cooling: use AC in the morning to drive the temp down to 72, then turn them way up at 5:00PM. But shifting EV charging is less of a lifestyle change, and every little bit helps.

Eventually we get to 100% EV penetration, and by my calculation in California we will need almost exactly a much electricity for that as as already need for everything else. We have the time to do this as we add EVs. The EV load is much easier to demand-manage, so we won't need to double the distribution network. We will need to double the total generation.

Californians use a good deal less electricity per capita than most states, but we drive more than average. This means other stats will not need to double their generation.

By my calculation, in California we will need to add that much again to completely replace the non-electric use of natural gas so we will need a total of three times the generation we have today, and more than twice the distribution. This is on top of replacing all the existing NG electrical generation.

We have about 30 years to do all this, so it may be feasible. We'll see.

[nsdp + 449]

42 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not an engineer are you?  You NEVER design for a tiny fraction or partial fraction.  You design for the WHOLE LOAD projection in the future. 

 

Where do I send you a copy of Grey's Anatomy a good geology Text and map so you can find where and know how to go to the bathroom.  Market has changed greatly since 1971 but I worked in dispatching and we used linear programming to optimize generation and dispatch using Dow and Diamond Alkali to do load following to maximize the system efficiency.  .We reduced heat rate from 9870 btu /kwh to 9640btu /kwh. Saved 30 BCF . That didn't work 10 years later because both Dow and Diamond had left the grid because the new coal plants constructed after 1977(long term planning) raised the rates where it was cheaper for them to self generate and sell HL&P surplus power.  Long range planning will make a total fool of you.  We were not unique  in optimizing our load through management. CP&L Gulf States and LP&L did so also.   If you aren't familiar with the problems Eric just posted, then you have an over inflated value of what you know.

[turbguy + 1,544]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

 

Where do I send you a copy of Grey's Anatomy a good geology Text and map so you can find where and know how to go to the bathroom.  Market has changed greatly since 1971 but I worked in dispatching and we used linear programming to optimize generation and dispatch using Dow and Diamond Alkali to do load following to maximize the system efficiency.  .We reduced heat rate from 9870 btu /kwh to 9640btu /kwh. Saved 30 BCF . That didn't work 10 years later because both Dow and Diamond had left the grid because the new coal plants constructed after 1977(long term planning) raised the rates where it was cheaper for them to self generate and sell HL&P surplus power.  Long range planning will make a total fool of you.  We were not unique  in optimizing our load through management. CP&L Gulf States and LP&L did so also.   If you aren't familiar with the problems Eric just posted, then you have an over inflated value of what you know.

Yes.

Some folks have no idea how complex the "Big Machine" can get, and how it can change in a decade.

But, boy, can that change be EXPENSIVE!! For instance, think of all the coal-fired plants shuttered, and the nat gas plants built  over the last 10 years.

Note that load growth really has not materialized much, either...

Edited June 25, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,544]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not an engineer are you?  You NEVER design for a tiny fraction or partial fraction.  You design for the WHOLE LOAD projection in the future. 

Long range planning consists of educated guesses of load growth (by percentages), and allowance for planned generation outages (for maintenance) and estimated forced generation outages.

That said, there are industrial facilities that are contractually obligated to shed load during times of stress.

There are a few facilities that even must call the local utility for permission/scheduling before they even start a process (think, NASA wind tunnels and the like).

Have a look at last week's power generation mix, and just look at what generation is available for use off-peak.

Those coal plants would just LOVE to run flat out!

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

12 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Actually, I am an engineer. The problem with the electrical grid is that there are wildly divergent ideas about there about what the 'whole load' will be, how it will be generated, and how it will be distributed, and how it will be stored.  The following are 3 major points of uncertainty

•  that we don't have a good handle on what the projected load is in the future, although this is the least worst problem (easiest to deal with - more load - just add more generation - it takes a few years, but this is actually the simplest problem to resolve - you can fix it with brute force within 5 years of recognizing the scope of the problem. This is a short enough time frame that minor adjustments can keep everything functional while everything gets aligned - of course supply and demand are both constantly moving targets, but this is normal.  
• The techniques I am discussing with respect to selective charging times and distributed charging are going to happen regardless of what load case projection is used.  However exactly HOW they will operate is entirely unclear - load sensing over wifi? adaptive charging based on variations in local grid frequency? Grid controllable charging, where the owner of the charged device only sets a start and end time? No engineer ever in their right mind will design an electrical system of any reasonable size with the expectation that the power supply and distribution system should accommodate all of the possible theoretical demand of every possibly load simultaneously.  It's never been done, ever.  One who did, would immediately be fired for incompetence or gross negligence. 
• The 3rd problem is much thornier, and it is the fact that the very nature of the electrical grid as it's currently imagined and utilized will probably be altered beyond recognition within 15-20 years. The enormous number of low reliably distributed sources of supply, and new sources of flexible demand will demand an electrical grid that works in a completely different way than the current one. There will be problems - a lot of them - unfortunately a fair number of them aren't ones that are presently being anticipated.  At present the grid can be described as a very small number of point sources (major power plants) sending power out to a very large number of relatively local point loads (users).  Laid on top of that is a very thin low capacity ability to send power longer distances, and/or compensate for errors in forecasting local demand.  If/when electric vehicles, and electric battery storage for other needs start becoming a significant part of the load on the grid,  the whole thing will get flipped on it's head, and the whole architecture of the grid becomes inadequate - the distribution system requires a massive change.  

Don't try to solve a problem that won't crop up for another 10 years with currently commercial technology in a rapidly changing technological environment, because that's a self defeating objective.  A good analogy would be the folks in the 1920's who spent a fortune outfitting and training cavalry horses to be effective during poison gas attacks.  Within 10 years  it had become obvious that both the horses and the poison gas were obsolete, and protection the one from the other was entirely wasted effort. They at least had the excuse that they didn't know when a war might break out and had to be prepared, but we are not in a situation where suddenly one day we will wake up and 30% of the worlds automobiles are BEV's  A lot of smart people are trying to figure out what a power distribution system should look like in a system with lots of smaller distributed but low reliability supply points looks like, when it's coupled to a large volume of intermittent interruptable power demand.  Let them figure out how that ought to work, and than when we get close enough to need to do something about it we can start taking appropriate actions. 

.... What you typed only works in a sane world where NG/Coal/nuclear are allowed.  You get to turn them on off when you want for the most part.  That is NOT what the topic being covered is.  They want solar/wind which does NOT turn on off when you want.  At least not from my perspective what they are screaming about.  Personally, I think they are insane.  If they were sane, they would be screaming for nuclear breeder reactors. 

You can talk about your middle of the road, an "internet" of things JIT regarding power, but that is not what everyone else is discussing at all. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

.... What you typed only works in a sane world where NG/Coal/nuclear are allowed.  You get to turn them on off when you want for the most part.  That is NOT what the topic being covered is.  They want solar/wind which does NOT turn on off when you want.  At least not from my perspective what they are screaming about.  Personally, I think they are insane.  If they were sane, they would be screaming for nuclear breeder reactors. 

You can talk about your middle of the road, an "internet" of things JIT regarding power, but that is not what everyone else is discussing at all. 

You are stuck on the least important of my 3 points - increasing capacity of electrical production. Even if you leave out coal, nuclear or natural gas power generation (not sure why you would leave out natural gas, since it's one of the fastest growing methods of electric power generation, but there you go) , this is still the fastest and easiest of the 3 problems to solve.  A supercritical natural gas plant or a wind farm, or a solar farm can go from planning to on production in 2 or 3 years of time.  Any problem that can be fixed by increasing supply of electricity is the simplest one, and can be fixed quickly. 

The real problems are figuring out how to utilize the emergent capability for flexible demand, and figuring out how to distribute power in a scenario with large numbers of widely distributed intermittent centers of supply and demand.  Getting the solutions to these problems wrong will be cripplingly expensive to rectify, and until they are, will cripple the growth of the entire economy while wasting considerable amounts of electric power generating capacity.  No sane method of adding volume of electric power capacity additions will solve these issues in a reasonable way - they have to be tackled directly and worked with.  

Even in a world where you can build unlimited coal, natural gas or nuclear 'baseload' power, it doesn't make sense to do so any longer in most places.  A mixture of better grid organization, and flexible demand when coupled with intermittent sources of supply provides reliable electricity at a lower cost in most places.  Outside of a few geographical niches, and a minimum backup level of supply you have to subsidize the sources of energy which you prefer to make them competitive.  A perfect example is my home state of Texas, where the construction of natural gas electric plants has nearly stopped (or maybe has stopped completely) because they aren't as profitable as wind farms, and now maybe solar too.  Natural gas isn't limited by law or NIMBYism or any other constraint in Texas - in fact it's promoted in general because it's a domestic resource with an abundant low cost of supply.  It just isn't good enough to make the cut on a level playing field any longer. 

When you have a stupendously cheap source of electric power like wind (and solar coming) that comes with a few challenges, you don't throw up your hands and abandon it to do something more expensive - you figure out how to make it work better in the most economical way.  This is basically the history of electrical power generation - how to match demand to supply without excessive waste.  It was a challenge for hydroelectric power, it was a challenge for coal plants, it was a challenge for nuclear plants, and it is a challenge for wind power.  Each one is resolved in different ways, at different times to create the best economic results.  

Edited June 25, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

23 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

This is with penetration rate of? 5% or less? What happens when Pelosi's nephew gets his wish and you're approaching 90% EV? 

This green crowd is well aware of the future ramifications of Greening up. It is my belief it has become a obsession,a way of life...perhaps a higher cause

 To make it worse government bodies are enabling this movement with obscene amounts of cash, the environmental community is crying havoc, planet earth is being destroyed. Meanwhile the technical side gets paid quite handsomely to pursue their passions, tinkering on steroids...and no one is going to is going to spoil their fun until there is some financial accountability.

Actually it is much like a hot rodder building a high performance engine, bolting on 1000 cfm carbs, over boring engines, large exhaust headers, huge overlapping cams and 18 million volt ignition systems. Once this tinkering is done and this Hodge Podge of parts runs in a engine they find out they have created a non functional mess, it seems this parts don't play well together.

First CA now TX, both state's a conglomeration of high priced expensive parts that do not work when called to race down the track.

But hey who cares, there is plenty of money here, and were having the time of our lives doing it. Being critical of this exercise is very similar to stating " Yes Honey You Do Look Fat In That Dress"

Just a opinion.

 

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

This green crowd is well aware of the future ramifications of Greening up. It is my belief it has become a obsession,a way of life...perhaps a higher cause

 To make it worse government bodies are enabling this movement with obscene amounts of cash, the environmental community is crying havoc, planet earth is being destroyed. Meanwhile the technical side gets paid quite handsomely to pursue their passions, tinkering on steroids...and no one is going to is going to spoil their fun until there is some financial accountability.

Actually it is much like a hot rodder building a high performance engine, bolting on 1000 cfm carbs, over boring engines, large exhaust headers, huge overlapping cams and 18 million volt ignition systems. Once this tinkering is done and this Hodge Podge of parts runs in a engine they find out they have created a non functional mess, it seems this parts don't play well together.

First CA now TX, both state's a conglomeration of high priced expensive parts that do not work when called to race down the track.

But hey who cares, there is plenty of money here, and were having the time of our lives doing it. Being critical of this exercise is very similar to stating " Yes Honey You Do Look Fat In That Dress"

Just a opinion.

  

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Eric Gagen
formatting problem with this post