4 ms·

> So what would I do to "winterize"? They were not speaking to home owners as much as utility and energy infrastructure owners. There is a great deal that coul

> So what would I do to "winterize"? They were not speaking to home owners as much as utility and energy infrastructure owners. There is a great deal that could be done to make the system overall more able to withstand winter. Here are a couple concrete suggestions: * Wind turbines are available with an optional 'cold weather package' that lets them run more reliably in the sort of weather that Texas experienced last February. Texas wind generators often don't pay for this package on the basis of perceived risk, but maybe that decision needs to be revisited. * The gas pipeline companies that own electrical pumping stations could file the paperwork that notes these stations as critical infrastructure that should not be cut off from power. (A lot of this paperwork was missing in February.) * Nat gas well heads could be retrofitted with equipment that keeps them freezing due to water production from the well. * Long term planning could be put in place to connect ERCOT into neighboring power grids to allow for better risk sharing. (Southwest Power Pool in Arkansas is part of the Eastern Interconnect that covers the entire eastern half of the country. Even though SPP had had the same weather as TX, they were able to import power generation from as far away as the PA area to help support their load.) * The South Texas Nuclear Project lost a generator due to a frozen pressure sensor line. Large coal plants went offline due to frozen coal piles. I'm sure there are remediations that could be put in place for that sort of thing too. * The state could make an ernest effort to bring in political leadership that does not try to boil down all of the above to "Green New Deal Bad".

sidewndr46 5y ago
Once you've lived in Texas for a while, you start to understand the government mostly has a "let them eat cake" attitude towards the population. This applies at all levels, but particularly at the state level. There really is no reason for the energy industry to bother winterizing. They don't really loose much by just idling capacity for a few days, especially if they don't have to worry about the cold weather preparations. The government is not going to require any industry to do something it does not want to unless it is filled up with their buddies that can get rich in the process through government subsidized programs. I'm sure this is going to be followed up with "but you could vote in politicians that cared!". There have been some definite attempts at voter disenfrachisement in recent history, although the most prominent one has failed. Texas is a representative democracy. It's representative of the districts, not the populace. The districts do not want politicians who are going to prioritize such things. The general population may in fact want it, but that isn't how our government is structured. So when you say "vote in other politicans", what you really mean is "replace the state government entirely". I doubt that is going to happen.
beerandt 5y ago
>gas pipeline companies that own electrical pumping stations Only a problem because EPA no longer permits self sufficient gas turbine compressor stations. >Nat gas well heads could be retrofitted with equipment that keeps them freezing due to water production from the well. Pressure drop is a bigger factor than ambient temp and insulation. Increasing capacity by increasing # of wells and pipe size does more than defrosting equipment. Being overly reliant on NG to pick up the slack when renewables go offline causes avoidable pressure drops. >Long term planning could be put in place to connect ERCOT into neighboring power grids. The neighboring grids were also under emergency reductions and had no surplus power. OK and LA were extremely close to also implementing blackouts. LA was able to use its peaker plants and reduce industry demand to avoid this, in part due to a lower reliance on renewables (and not needing to waste peaker plant or transmission capacity to make up for wind turbines shut-in and solar panels covered in snow). A connected grid just would have further spread a cascading grid failure. >Wind turbines are available with an optional 'cold weather package' that lets them run more reliably in the sort of weather that Texas experienced last February. Wind turbines shutting off caused Texas to use peaker power prematurely to replace renewable power instead of in its proper role as a buffer for surges in demand. Once the front passed through, there was little to no wind for the remaining ~week of cold weather (high pressure system). >Large coal plants went offline due to frozen coal piles. The state just lost over 20% of its coal capacity due to increased EPA regulations. But I have not heard of any plant in Texas shutting down due to "frozen coal piles". >The state could make an ernest effort to bring in political leadership that does not try to boil down all of the above to "Green New Deal Bad". $1500/MWh DOE floor "market" prices to generate under conditions permissible 10 years ago is bad policy. Over reliance on intermittent renewables without sufficient backup is bad policy. Regulations reducing the number of NG wells is bad policy. Regulations reducing coal capacity by 20% without on-demand replacement capacity is bad policy. None of those are state leadership. They're federal "green" friendly regulations and mandates.
- cloverich 5y ago
  > Regulations reducing coal capacity by 20% without on-demand replacement capacity is bad policy. Why didn't they have this excess capacity before the 20% reduction rule went into effect? When will they have it now that is has gone in to effect? I get the gist, although if the goal is to encourage green alternatives and planning, a policy that requires a reduction is simpler than one that requires reduction and a plan. I would rather have the latter, but if the alternative to the former is no green policy, then that's not a real option. So what could that policy have been to improve the situation?

sidewndr46 5y ago

Once you've lived in Texas for a while, you start to understand the government mostly has a "let them eat cake" attitude towards the population. This applies at all levels, but particularly at the state level. There really is no reason for the energy industry to bother winterizing. They don't really loose much by just idling capacity for a few days, especially if they don't have to worry about the cold weather preparations. The government is not going to require any industry to do something it does not want to unless it is filled up with their buddies that can get rich in the process through government subsidized programs. I'm sure this is going to be followed up with "but you could vote in politicians that cared!". There have been some definite attempts at voter disenfrachisement in recent history, although the most prominent one has failed. Texas is a representative democracy. It's representative of the districts, not the populace. The districts do not want politicians who are going to prioritize such things. The general population may in fact want it, but that isn't how our government is structured. So when you say "vote in other politicans", what you really mean is "replace the state government entirely". I doubt that is going to happen.

beerandt 5y ago

>gas pipeline companies that own electrical pumping stations Only a problem because EPA no longer permits self sufficient gas turbine compressor stations. >Nat gas well heads could be retrofitted with equipment that keeps them freezing due to water production from the well. Pressure drop is a bigger factor than ambient temp and insulation. Increasing capacity by increasing # of wells and pipe size does more than defrosting equipment. Being overly reliant on NG to pick up the slack when renewables go offline causes avoidable pressure drops. >Long term planning could be put in place to connect ERCOT into neighboring power grids. The neighboring grids were also under emergency reductions and had no surplus power. OK and LA were extremely close to also implementing blackouts. LA was able to use its peaker plants and reduce industry demand to avoid this, in part due to a lower reliance on renewables (and not needing to waste peaker plant or transmission capacity to make up for wind turbines shut-in and solar panels covered in snow). A connected grid just would have further spread a cascading grid failure. >Wind turbines are available with an optional 'cold weather package' that lets them run more reliably in the sort of weather that Texas experienced last February. Wind turbines shutting off caused Texas to use peaker power prematurely to replace renewable power instead of in its proper role as a buffer for surges in demand. Once the front passed through, there was little to no wind for the remaining ~week of cold weather (high pressure system). >Large coal plants went offline due to frozen coal piles. The state just lost over 20% of its coal capacity due to increased EPA regulations. But I have not heard of any plant in Texas shutting down due to "frozen coal piles". >The state could make an ernest effort to bring in political leadership that does not try to boil down all of the above to "Green New Deal Bad". $1500/MWh DOE floor "market" prices to generate under conditions permissible 10 years ago is bad policy. Over reliance on intermittent renewables without sufficient backup is bad policy. Regulations reducing the number of NG wells is bad policy. Regulations reducing coal capacity by 20% without on-demand replacement capacity is bad policy. None of those are state leadership. They're federal "green" friendly regulations and mandates.

cloverich 5y ago
> Regulations reducing coal capacity by 20% without on-demand replacement capacity is bad policy. Why didn't they have this excess capacity before the 20% reduction rule went into effect? When will they have it now that is has gone in to effect? I get the gist, although if the goal is to encourage green alternatives and planning, a policy that requires a reduction is simpler than one that requires reduction and a plan. I would rather have the latter, but if the alternative to the former is no green policy, then that's not a real option. So what could that policy have been to improve the situation?