3 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 nat

by 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.
- edbob 6y ago
  > never involve wind maxing out in wintertime, because that's not how anything works. This is provably false by ERCOT's record-setting wind output of 17,541 MW (83% capacity) on February 19, 2018 [0]. ERCOT only had 21,190 MW of wind capacity at that time. Now they have over 25,000 MW, yet wind was producing 3,500 MW (14%) last night, and now that it's warmer is all the way up to 6,629 MW (26% capacity). It's absolutely true that fossil sources failed when we needed them. It's equally true that wind failed us utterly. If we had no wind generation capacity but instead had 25000 MW more fossil fuel generation capacity, then we'd be in much better shape. Note carefully: I'm not suggesting this as a solution, as there are much better ideas like winterizing our existing capacity. I'm instead emphasizing that our summer capacity needs to be able to meet our needs in extreme cold, and we should either fix or get rid of capacity that can't do this. The biggest culprit by far being our current, un-winterized wind generation systems. [0] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Facts_8818.pdf http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Fa... (I cut off part of the quoted sentence because it made it seem like I was responding to the claim about how ERCOT does projections. As discussed above, I don't care about the projections because wind capacity failing us by design is an even bigger problem than it failing due to unforeseen circumstances.)
  - jounker 6y ago
    Wind turbines in Texas have failed for the same reasons that fossil fuels and nuclear have: failure to winterize.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Okay, you've got a fixation on wind power, so keep blowing that hot air. Shame you can't blow it into my living room. In the meantime, I hope this state can winterize their natural gas plants, which your link shows should be more than half our power source. Not so much when the machinery is frozen, it turns out.
    - edbob 6y ago
      I actually support wind, and I think that it's great that ERCOT leads in wind generation. Hopefully they just need to do a better job at weather-proofing in the future. What I have a fixation on is false claims that wind generation did not contribute to shortfalls. Failing to produce power by design is not a very good defense of wind power, while the out-of-context quotes that wind "exceeded expectations" are conspicuously missing any details of just how woefully low those expectations were.

by edbob 6y ago

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.

edbob 6y ago
> never involve wind maxing out in wintertime, because that's not how anything works. This is provably false by ERCOT's record-setting wind output of 17,541 MW (83% capacity) on February 19, 2018 [0]. ERCOT only had 21,190 MW of wind capacity at that time. Now they have over 25,000 MW, yet wind was producing 3,500 MW (14%) last night, and now that it's warmer is all the way up to 6,629 MW (26% capacity). It's absolutely true that fossil sources failed when we needed them. It's equally true that wind failed us utterly. If we had no wind generation capacity but instead had 25000 MW more fossil fuel generation capacity, then we'd be in much better shape. Note carefully: I'm not suggesting this as a solution, as there are much better ideas like winterizing our existing capacity. I'm instead emphasizing that our summer capacity needs to be able to meet our needs in extreme cold, and we should either fix or get rid of capacity that can't do this. The biggest culprit by far being our current, un-winterized wind generation systems. [0] http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Facts_8818.pdf http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144926/ERCOT_Quick_Fa... (I cut off part of the quoted sentence because it made it seem like I was responding to the claim about how ERCOT does projections. As discussed above, I don't care about the projections because wind capacity failing us by design is an even bigger problem than it failing due to unforeseen circumstances.)
- jounker 6y ago
  Wind turbines in Texas have failed for the same reasons that fossil fuels and nuclear have: failure to winterize.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Okay, you've got a fixation on wind power, so keep blowing that hot air. Shame you can't blow it into my living room. In the meantime, I hope this state can winterize their natural gas plants, which your link shows should be more than half our power source. Not so much when the machinery is frozen, it turns out.
  - edbob 6y ago
    I actually support wind, and I think that it's great that ERCOT leads in wind generation. Hopefully they just need to do a better job at weather-proofing in the future. What I have a fixation on is false claims that wind generation did not contribute to shortfalls. Failing to produce power by design is not a very good defense of wind power, while the out-of-context quotes that wind "exceeded expectations" are conspicuously missing any details of just how woefully low those expectations were.