FINALLY! A report, from qualified authors, that tells the REAL story about Texas, February 15, 2021

[turbguy + 1,401]

A reasonable read. that finally recognizes the TRUTHS!  ALL OF THEM!!

https://cgmf.org/blog-entry/435/REPORT-|-Never-Again-How-to-prevent-another-major-Texas-electricity-failure.html

A short excerpt, that honestly contradicts those that blame renewables...

"...ERCOT’s assessment anticipated only 963 MW of planned winter-rated wind and solar capacity available, when IN FACT generation from those resources actually exceeded those projections".

Edited July 17, 2022 by turbguy

[PeterNaCl + 4]

ERCOT's expectations of renewable availability during the forecast cold front were very low,

in accord with previous experience. Actual availability was a bit better than awful; whoopy-do.

The REASON renewables are blamed for the ERCOT shortcomings is that conventional FF and

nuclear capacity investment (both Capex and Maintenance/Upgrade) had been throttled by the

enthusiasm for investment in renewables. The large majority of Capex invested in capacity went

into renewables while the rest of the capacity just got older and more worn. True to form, the solar

and wind capacity was moderate to poor during the event, unable to supplement when other problems

were experienced.

Edited September 7, 2022 by PeterNaCl

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, PeterNaCl said:

ERCOT's expectations of renewable availability during the forecast cold front were very low,

in accord with previous experience. Actual availability was a bit better than awful; whoopy-do.

The REASON renewables are blamed for the ERCOT shortcomings is that conventional FF and

nuclear capacity investment (both Capex and Maintenance/Upgrade) had been throttled by the

enthusiasm for investment in renewables. The large majority of Capex invested in capacity went

into renewables while the rest of the capacity just got older and more worn. True to form, the solar

and wind capacity was moderate to poor during the event, unable to supplement when other problems

were experienced.

Ridiculous, more fossil fuel capacity would have made no difference as there was already sufficient capacity. The only difference would have been that more fossil fuel plants would have failed. Many of the plants that did fail were less than a decade old, age and wear had nothing to do with it.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ridiculous, more fossil fuel capacity would have made no difference as there was already sufficient capacity. The only difference would have been that more fossil fuel plants would have failed. Many of the plants that did fail were less than a decade old, age and wear had nothing to do with it.

FF --> AKA gas, was already working at over 150% of normal capacity.  Try again bud.  "Renewables" with the billions upon billions dumped into it, were pathetic... As predicted as solar/wind sucks ASS in winter and NONE of the solar/wind had backup paid for for when THEY fail as they did with their pathetic capacity factor. 

The only problem was the EPA demand to turn old style valving from NG heated/powered to electric powered.   Someone placed the paperwork for a major valve in the NG system in the wrong category.  Said MAJOR valve for NG heating got turned off.  Which then created a cascading effect upstream.  And it lasted for a mere ~2 days, but since this is TX, no one has any insulation in their homes etc and their pipes burst creating the problem...   The actual problem was not the loss of power, it was cheap ass housing construction standards who pretend it does not freeze in Texas once a decade.  IF this happened anywhere up north, nothing bad would have happened as no ones house would have frozen in same time period. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

25 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

FF --> AKA gas, was already working at over 150% of normal capacity.  Try again bud.  "Renewables" with the billions upon billions dumped into it, were pathetic... As predicted as solar/wind sucks ASS in winter and NONE of the solar/wind had backup paid for for when THEY fail as they did with their pathetic capacity factor. 

The only problem was the EPA demand to turn old style valving from NG heated/powered to electric powered.   Someone placed the paperwork for a major valve in the NG system in the wrong category.  Said MAJOR valve for NG heating got turned off.  Which then created a cascading effect upstream.  And it lasted for a mere ~2 days, but since this is TX, no one has any insulation in their homes etc and their pipes burst creating the problem...   The actual problem was not the loss of power, it was cheap ass housing construction standards who pretend it does not freeze in Texas once a decade.  IF this happened anywhere up north, nothing bad would have happened as no ones house would have frozen in same time period. 

Like I said, the only difference would be that more NG plants would have been in the system that was taken down. The renewable backup right now in Texas is NG and it failed. Soon NG will be replaced by batteries and hydrogen.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 7/18/2022 at 3:40 AM, turbguy said:

A reasonable read. that finally recognizes the TRUTHS!  ALL OF THEM!!

https://cgmf.org/blog-entry/435/REPORT-|-Never-Again-How-to-prevent-another-major-Texas-electricity-failure.html

A short excerpt, that honestly contradicts those that blame renewables...

"...ERCOT’s assessment anticipated only 963 MW of planned winter-rated wind and solar capacity available, when IN FACT generation from those resources actually exceeded those projections".

Only just saw this. Turbguy, you're clutching at straws in your defence of renewables. In fact the amount you cite is so tiny as to be irrelevant. Renewables barely feature in the report for the good reason that no one expected them to be of much help during a storm. (Wind generators cut out during a storm, just as they do when there is no wind.) The real problem, as was said at the time, was that the reliable, thermal generators failed because the owners had not been required to ensure that they were proofed against extreme weather. The wind generators remain totally irrelevant.    

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

Only just saw this. Turbguy, you're clutching at straws in your defence of renewables. In fact the amount you cite is so tiny as to be irrelevant. Renewables barely feature in the report for the good reason that no one expected them to be of much help during a storm. (Wind generators cut out during a storm, just as they do when there is no wind.) The real problem, as was said at the time, was that the reliable, thermal generators failed because the owners had not been required to ensure that they were proofed against extreme weather. The wind generators remain totally irrelevant.    

Above and beyond that ERCOTS mgmt failed to set priority gas supply to gas generators on standby..yes the gas power plants had no gas. One week after this chaos occured TX literally walked half of it administrative staff..just goodbye. No severance pay no counter lawsuits. Just a bunch of international griffter's.

[turbguy + 1,401]

On 9/8/2022 at 7:15 PM, markslawson said:

Only just saw this. Turbguy, you're clutching at straws in your defence of renewables. In fact the amount you cite is so tiny as to be irrelevant. Renewables barely feature in the report for the good reason that no one expected them to be of much help during a storm. (Wind generators cut out during a storm, just as they do when there is no wind.) The real problem, as was said at the time, was that the reliable, thermal generators failed because the owners had not been required to ensure that they were proofed against extreme weather. The wind generators remain totally irrelevant.    

I am not "in defense" of renewables, just in defense of the truth. Many here BLAME renewables for the Texas event.  That "blame" is FALSE!

Edited September 11, 2022 by turbguy

[Boat + 1,315]

On 9/7/2022 at 2:56 PM, PeterNaCl said:

ERCOT's expectations of renewable availability during the forecast cold front were very low,

in accord with previous experience. Actual availability was a bit better than awful; whoopy-do.

The REASON renewables are blamed for the ERCOT shortcomings is that conventional FF and

nuclear capacity investment (both Capex and Maintenance/Upgrade) had been throttled by the

enthusiasm for investment in renewables. The large majority of Capex invested in capacity went

into renewables while the rest of the capacity just got older and more worn. True to form, the solar

and wind capacity was moderate to poor during the event, unable to supplement when other problems

were experienced.

If you allow the anticipation of demand to be throttled by renewables, your fired. Energy providers electricity is bought, not dictated where it comes from. You work for the Russian oligarch that owns around 13% of the EROC grid? Maybe weatherization of nat gas assets was less a priority than profits.