4 ms·

Mistakenly lays some blame on renewables, which are overperforming right now in Texas. Renewables are not in play here, we are having major problems with natura

Mistakenly lays some blame on renewables, which are overperforming right now in Texas. Renewables are not in play here, we are having major problems with natural gas and coal plants not being prepared for cold weather. That preparation, previously recommended twice, is an example of the sort of regulation people would like to see: requirements, rather than recommendations. All in all, seems misguided a bit on both left and right when it comes to blame, but the economics of it are good.

Pulcinella 6y ago
Yeah I was going to say: > My friends on the right tend to send blame towards green energy. And they have a point! Renewables are temperamental – with too many clouds solar doesn’t do anything, and frozen blades can’t turn wind energy turbines. The impact of the storm is to shift energy supply curves to the left, and the more the grid relies on renewables, the bigger that shift is. The basic problem renewables have had is that it’s really difficult to STORE their energy for future use. If we could create really large energy reservoirs, we could store Texas’ abundant solar and wind energy for a literally-rainy day. Renewables were literally not the problem and it’s hard to take any kind of advice from this article when it gets the basic facts wrong.
- bighitbiker3 6y ago
  Do you mind pointing me to some reliable links that do highlight the actual problem?
  - Pulcinella 6y ago
    The ArsTechnica article is a decent place to start. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/even-power-disasters-are-bigger-in-texas-heres-why/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/even-power-disasters... This is still an on-going event so the “history” is still being written. Also https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-...
- chrismcb 6y ago
  My understanding is that renewables were one of the problems. Wind makes up just under a quarter of the energy. And, depending on who you ask, they lost half to almost all of the energy from wind. That is a problem when the demand goes up. It wasn't the only problem, but it was definitely part of the problem
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Wind capacity changes over time. While the wind turbines were producing less than their theoretical max, they were producing more than ERCOT’s own models expected. The real issue here is that thermal plants (coal, gas, and nuclear) failed exactly as the 2011 report warned. While wind was producing more than expected, it was never going to produce enough to cover the difference as thermal plants started to shut down.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Wind and solar are both currently over-producing. Not "lost half to almost all." That's an almost-certainly deliberate misrepresentation based on the fact that winter production is always lower than summer production, and comparing the total peak capacity on the best possible summer days and comparing it to now. We had projections for both wind and solar for these last few weeks, and both wind and solar OVER-produced, exceeding those projections. On the other hand, we had projects for coal and natural gas, and both of us failed spectacularly. So yes, I am concerned about any article that spends time talking about wind and solar, when the ACTUAL problem that caused it to be 41ºF in my living room was natural gas and coal.
- mdip 6y ago
  I'm having a difficult time understanding why the entire article should be dismissed due to your disagreement with the quoted statement. First, I don't find the quoted statement to be false: (1) Wind turbines/various solar methods have numerous problems beyond that; as do all methods of providing power. (2) Both would be better at providing energy the way we consume it if we had a cheap, reliable method to store large amounts of energy[0]. I don't work in energy, but I follow enough of it to know that these statements are reliable. There are companies looking into various, exotic, methods for storing large amounts of generated electricity so that the "we don't control the fuel" problem of many renewable options is a non-issue. Not all renewables have this problem, hydro can be consistent/reliable, provide large amounts of energy and is cheap. All of these problems have technology solutions waiting to be discovered/applied. It's hard to find anyone who will complain about hydro-electric plant[2] -- electric bills go down and there's less smoke in the air. The same thing is started here with wind/solar. Complainers stop when they actually read their bill. "Oh, it doesn't cost more? ... oh,... well... ~noises in political~" Was it that the author indicated that the Green Energy Blamers "have a point"? See, that's a nice psychological trick. I suspect you are a big supporter of renewable/environmental politics. I suspect his goal with that statement was to make a point to the blamers. Aside from the first sentence, pointing out an obvious, well-known fact about renewables than any "Green Blamer" has been screaming -- forever -- and baking in a solution[0]. And he's not advocating getting rid of anything/building up the "expensive/easy to turn on/off" technologies. [0] What you produce has to be used or stored. That's the case with every utility -- water/gas -- things just move, and can get out of hand, a lot faster I gather. [1] And yes, energy storage on a multi-day scale is science-fiction, AFAIK, presently. This is a hard problem. [2] Assuming it's designed taking into account whatever new "evil" thing hydro does to the environment that I'm not yet aware of. :)
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    My disagreement is based on the fact that it was 41ºF in my living room due to failures with coal and natural gas, so any time spent talking about weakness of power-production methods that were exceeding expectations is beyond wasted. It's a distraction from the real issues. If solar and wind had failed spectacularly, then I'd want to see that. But they didn't. Coal and natural gas did. So we should be talking about how natural gas and coal failed, not some hypothetical alternate reality where solar and wind under-delivered.
jswizzy 6y ago
that doesn't make any sense
golemiprague 6y ago
I am all for renewables but if you focus on one area you might neglect others, it is a matter of focus. I have seen it also happening with software where some reliable software is neglected for the new shining thing, less resources directed to maintain the old system which is still providing the bulk of the income to the business and then it crashes and all hell breaks loose. Especially with climate there is a push to solve "climate change" which nobody can predict exactly what it will be or how to solve while not enough attention is being directed to solve basic "weather change" issues.
mdip 6y ago
Is he really laying blame on renewables? I mean, he pointed out the reality that the current weather situation has caused wind generation difficulties and that wind and solar, at least, are fueled by something we have little control over -- i.e. we can't add more wind/sun when we need more power. Frankly, I felt he presented it honestly -- it wasn't a "Enviro-Mentalist Bad!", it was "it is great a lot of the time and when we the ability to store it better, it'll basically be a non-issue". Totally agree -- the issue is one that's clouded with BS on both sides. This article did a good job of explaining why it's a really hard problem; regulations are too often a big, blunt, instrument aimed at a delicate problem and are often just as destructive as "letting unregulated capitalism solve it". Too important of a resource for either solution so both sides aim at things that look good or appeal to their base (Big Energy Bad/Environmentalists are Communists!) and the blackouts continue.
edbob 6y ago
> Mistakenly lays some blame on renewables, which are overperforming right now in Texas. Renewables are not in play here, we are having major problems with natural gas and coal plants not being prepared for cold weather. Last night[0]—when it's coldest—wind was producing at under 15% of installed capacity[1]. Photovoltaic generation was at 0%. You can technically claim that wind exceeded expectations, but you should qualify that by explaining that wind was expected to produce almost none of the supply, despite ERCOT having 28% of the wind capacity of the entire country. The fundamental issue is that summer demand funds the construction of electrical capacity in Texas. As this is unavoidable given the climate, we need our summer capacity to be able to handle unusual winter load as well. You are essentially defending wind by saying that it's not expected to be able to produce more than a fraction of its power in winter, when the problem at hand is that we need capacity that can do exactly that. The more capacity we have that works in summer but not in winter, the more vulnerable we will be to unusually cold weather. Our current wind generation systems are by far the worst choice of power by this measure. Solar capacity is actually performing great right now, in the daytime (looks like around 80-90%), and wind has picked up a bit (30%) but still lags every other generation source by a tremendous margin. [0] http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_conditions.html http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_condi... [1] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219848/Capacity_Changes_by_Fuel_Type_Charts_January_2021_monthly.xlsx http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219848/Capacity_Chang... I absolutely agree that requirements for winterization are in order, and that could change things significantly. Perhaps winterized wind power would have great output in this weather, or perhaps not. My analysis applies only to the actual current ERCOT capacity, not any hypothetical capacity.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  ERCOT's projections would have covered grid needs but for the failure of natural gas and coal plants. So let's talk about that. Not solar, not wind. Comparing current production to idealized mid-summer production is nonsense. ERCOT's own projections never involve wind maxing out in wintertime, because that's not how anything works. If we were to become 100% reliant on wind for some strange reason, we would obviously need to build much, much, much more wind power for the winters. Which is why we have so many other sources of power. Solar and wind were never expected to keep my house warm, coal and natural gas were. And coal and natural gas fell over and died when it was needed most.

Pulcinella 6y ago

Yeah I was going to say: > My friends on the right tend to send blame towards green energy. And they have a point! Renewables are temperamental – with too many clouds solar doesn’t do anything, and frozen blades can’t turn wind energy turbines. The impact of the storm is to shift energy supply curves to the left, and the more the grid relies on renewables, the bigger that shift is. The basic problem renewables have had is that it’s really difficult to STORE their energy for future use. If we could create really large energy reservoirs, we could store Texas’ abundant solar and wind energy for a literally-rainy day. Renewables were literally not the problem and it’s hard to take any kind of advice from this article when it gets the basic facts wrong.

bighitbiker3 6y ago
Do you mind pointing me to some reliable links that do highlight the actual problem?
- Pulcinella 6y ago
  The ArsTechnica article is a decent place to start. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/even-power-disasters-are-bigger-in-texas-heres-why/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/even-power-disasters... This is still an on-going event so the “history” is still being written. Also https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-...
chrismcb 6y ago
My understanding is that renewables were one of the problems. Wind makes up just under a quarter of the energy. And, depending on who you ask, they lost half to almost all of the energy from wind. That is a problem when the demand goes up. It wasn't the only problem, but it was definitely part of the problem
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Wind capacity changes over time. While the wind turbines were producing less than their theoretical max, they were producing more than ERCOT’s own models expected. The real issue here is that thermal plants (coal, gas, and nuclear) failed exactly as the 2011 report warned. While wind was producing more than expected, it was never going to produce enough to cover the difference as thermal plants started to shut down.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Wind and solar are both currently over-producing. Not "lost half to almost all." That's an almost-certainly deliberate misrepresentation based on the fact that winter production is always lower than summer production, and comparing the total peak capacity on the best possible summer days and comparing it to now. We had projections for both wind and solar for these last few weeks, and both wind and solar OVER-produced, exceeding those projections. On the other hand, we had projects for coal and natural gas, and both of us failed spectacularly. So yes, I am concerned about any article that spends time talking about wind and solar, when the ACTUAL problem that caused it to be 41ºF in my living room was natural gas and coal.
mdip 6y ago
I'm having a difficult time understanding why the entire article should be dismissed due to your disagreement with the quoted statement. First, I don't find the quoted statement to be false: (1) Wind turbines/various solar methods have numerous problems beyond that; as do all methods of providing power. (2) Both would be better at providing energy the way we consume it if we had a cheap, reliable method to store large amounts of energy[0]. I don't work in energy, but I follow enough of it to know that these statements are reliable. There are companies looking into various, exotic, methods for storing large amounts of generated electricity so that the "we don't control the fuel" problem of many renewable options is a non-issue. Not all renewables have this problem, hydro can be consistent/reliable, provide large amounts of energy and is cheap. All of these problems have technology solutions waiting to be discovered/applied. It's hard to find anyone who will complain about hydro-electric plant[2] -- electric bills go down and there's less smoke in the air. The same thing is started here with wind/solar. Complainers stop when they actually read their bill. "Oh, it doesn't cost more? ... oh,... well... ~noises in political~" Was it that the author indicated that the Green Energy Blamers "have a point"? See, that's a nice psychological trick. I suspect you are a big supporter of renewable/environmental politics. I suspect his goal with that statement was to make a point to the blamers. Aside from the first sentence, pointing out an obvious, well-known fact about renewables than any "Green Blamer" has been screaming -- forever -- and baking in a solution[0]. And he's not advocating getting rid of anything/building up the "expensive/easy to turn on/off" technologies. [0] What you produce has to be used or stored. That's the case with every utility -- water/gas -- things just move, and can get out of hand, a lot faster I gather. [1] And yes, energy storage on a multi-day scale is science-fiction, AFAIK, presently. This is a hard problem. [2] Assuming it's designed taking into account whatever new "evil" thing hydro does to the environment that I'm not yet aware of. :)
- pwinnski 6y ago
  My disagreement is based on the fact that it was 41ºF in my living room due to failures with coal and natural gas, so any time spent talking about weakness of power-production methods that were exceeding expectations is beyond wasted. It's a distraction from the real issues. If solar and wind had failed spectacularly, then I'd want to see that. But they didn't. Coal and natural gas did. So we should be talking about how natural gas and coal failed, not some hypothetical alternate reality where solar and wind under-delivered.

jswizzy 6y ago

that doesn't make any sense

golemiprague 6y ago

I am all for renewables but if you focus on one area you might neglect others, it is a matter of focus. I have seen it also happening with software where some reliable software is neglected for the new shining thing, less resources directed to maintain the old system which is still providing the bulk of the income to the business and then it crashes and all hell breaks loose. Especially with climate there is a push to solve "climate change" which nobody can predict exactly what it will be or how to solve while not enough attention is being directed to solve basic "weather change" issues.

mdip 6y ago

Is he really laying blame on renewables? I mean, he pointed out the reality that the current weather situation has caused wind generation difficulties and that wind and solar, at least, are fueled by something we have little control over -- i.e. we can't add more wind/sun when we need more power. Frankly, I felt he presented it honestly -- it wasn't a "Enviro-Mentalist Bad!", it was "it is great a lot of the time and when we the ability to store it better, it'll basically be a non-issue". Totally agree -- the issue is one that's clouded with BS on both sides. This article did a good job of explaining why it's a really hard problem; regulations are too often a big, blunt, instrument aimed at a delicate problem and are often just as destructive as "letting unregulated capitalism solve it". Too important of a resource for either solution so both sides aim at things that look good or appeal to their base (Big Energy Bad/Environmentalists are Communists!) and the blackouts continue.

edbob 6y ago

> Mistakenly lays some blame on renewables, which are overperforming right now in Texas. Renewables are not in play here, we are having major problems with natural gas and coal plants not being prepared for cold weather. Last night[0]—when it's coldest—wind was producing at under 15% of installed capacity[1]. Photovoltaic generation was at 0%. You can technically claim that wind exceeded expectations, but you should qualify that by explaining that wind was expected to produce almost none of the supply, despite ERCOT having 28% of the wind capacity of the entire country. The fundamental issue is that summer demand funds the construction of electrical capacity in Texas. As this is unavoidable given the climate, we need our summer capacity to be able to handle unusual winter load as well. You are essentially defending wind by saying that it's not expected to be able to produce more than a fraction of its power in winter, when the problem at hand is that we need capacity that can do exactly that. The more capacity we have that works in summer but not in winter, the more vulnerable we will be to unusually cold weather. Our current wind generation systems are by far the worst choice of power by this measure. Solar capacity is actually performing great right now, in the daytime (looks like around 80-90%), and wind has picked up a bit (30%) but still lags every other generation source by a tremendous margin. [0] http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_conditions.html http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_condi... [1] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219848/Capacity_Changes_by_Fuel_Type_Charts_January_2021_monthly.xlsx http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219848/Capacity_Chang... I absolutely agree that requirements for winterization are in order, and that could change things significantly. Perhaps winterized wind power would have great output in this weather, or perhaps not. My analysis applies only to the actual current ERCOT capacity, not any hypothetical capacity.

pwinnski 6y ago
ERCOT's projections would have covered grid needs but for the failure of natural gas and coal plants. So let's talk about that. Not solar, not wind. Comparing current production to idealized mid-summer production is nonsense. ERCOT's own projections never involve wind maxing out in wintertime, because that's not how anything works. If we were to become 100% reliant on wind for some strange reason, we would obviously need to build much, much, much more wind power for the winters. Which is why we have so many other sources of power. Solar and wind were never expected to keep my house warm, coal and natural gas were. And coal and natural gas fell over and died when it was needed most.