6 ms·

WSJ (editorial pages) has a theory of that the expanded use wind power in Texas is part of the cause. When 30 to 40% of power for the state can be produced by w

by kyrra 4y ago

WSJ (editorial pages) has a theory of that the expanded use wind power in Texas is part of the cause. When 30 to 40% of power for the state can be produced by wind, you have fewer backup natural gas and coal plants, as maintaining backup capacity is expensive. And then there tends to be much less wind when there is a heat wave, such as last week when wind was only producing 6% of the state's power. To me it seems the state needs to enforce x amount of backup not a renewable capacity. https://www.wsj.com/articles/californiapowerproblems-hit-texas-blackouts-electricity-heat-wave-11657919178 https://www.wsj.com/articles/californiapowerproblems-hit-tex... Edit: they have another editorial today postulating the moved to green energy without sufficient backup is leading to problems across the US and Europe. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wests-climate-policy-debacle-global-warming-energy-putin-russia-fossil-fuel-power-summer-heat-11658084481 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wests-climate-policy-debacl...

Gasp0de 4y ago
That's why it's wise to build both solar and wind, as they behave antiproportional most of the time. When there's more sun, there is less wind and vice versa.
salt-thrower 4y ago
Even if that’s true (debatable), it’s important to not use it as ammo to slam renewables as a whole - which republicans are keen to do. We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause.
- JADev62096 4y ago
  So even if a technology isn't fulfilling our needs and is leading to problems, we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do?
  - Edman274 4y ago
    Your unstated assertion here is that we don't actually need to try to mitigate global warming and that it's merely a moral question, or like some culture war tempest-in-a-teapot. We need to mitigate global warming. That's a need we have to fulfill. It's the "right" thing to do for that very reason. Creating a strawman by saying 'haha, you think we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do' suggests that it's the "right thing to do" in the same way that it's the "right" thing to put toilet paper with the free end facing the room rather than facing the wall, rather than a slow-moving catastrophe that will kill billions through crop failures.
  - II2II 4y ago
    I believe the point is that there is more than one type of renewable energy. Using the shortcomings of one under certain circumstances as an excuse to pursue nonrenewable energy at the expense of the long-term consequences of nonrenewable energy is shortsighted. It should also be noted that nonrenewable energy sources also face supply issues. If anything, the issue is worse for nonrenewable energy in the long term since scarcity can only increase with time. Exploration and more intensive extraction techniques only postpone the exhaustion of resources while increasing costs. (I also find it somewhat ironic that the burning of carbon would most likely intensify the problem in the long run by increasing energy demands and decreasing the effectiveness of renewables.)
  - salt-thrower 4y ago
    Fossil fuels are failing our very immediate need to stabilize climate change and survive for the next century. So yes, we should be considering other options, even if they’re not perfect.
  - scifibestfi 4y ago
    Yes, the religion requires intellectual sacrifice.
    - biaachmonkie 4y ago
      You of course mean the religion of "Ignore man made climate change, pollute and ravage the environment as much as possible to maximize shareholder value, who cares it's the end-times Jesus will rapture us all any day now" ?? That religion?
      - scifibestfi 4y ago
        No, the one that is against building nuclear power plants.
- wernercd 4y ago
  don't slam a solution that can't do what's promised? Why? It's obviously failing on all levels... "hurt the cause" facts tend to do that when promises aren't met and people suffer.
  - supernovae 4y ago
    the thing is, wind in general has far surpassed its expectations.
    - bequanna 4y ago
      How so? Our transition to wind and other intermittent sources instead of building base load is creating a worsening reliability crisis. It seems that people forgot that we still don't have many good ways to store energy.
      - supernovae 4y ago
        We never transitioned, wind was just the most economical growth opportunity for generation and it works really well in that regard. Just because we have increased wind doesn’t mean we don’t need to increase base generation. Not sure why you frame it like this.
        bequanna 4y ago
        > most economical growth opportunity for generation Umm, I think you're missing something big here. The only reason this was "economical" were huge tax benefits/subsidies. Decentralized energy production that involves a bunch of large moving parts will NEVER be as efficient as centralized energy production.
        Paradigma11 4y ago
        Because it is clear who is paying for the additional wind generation, it is not clear who is going to pay for the mostly unused backup base generation.
- programmarchy 4y ago
  So, just ignore the problems and double down? Sounds like a terrible strategy. If it doesn’t work we need to pivot to something more reliable, like nuclear energy.
  - ta988 4y ago
    If nuclear plants in Texas are maintained as well as the rest of the equipment, sure it will be reliable.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    In the case of Texas, where idiocy rules to the level that the state is bonding billions to reimburse power companies for the failures and chaos caused by very predictable cold weather, that won’t work. Unfortunately, whomever runs the Texas public utility commission doesn’t work for the people of Texas.
    - programmarchy 4y ago
      Texas is one of the fasting growing states in the union, so the idiots running things must be doing something right.
      - Spooky23 4y ago
        Yes, making money for their patrons. Texas is blessed with many things.
      - rnk 4y ago
        Low taxes and flat planes of land that you can keep building new housing on, cheap, that makes it easy to keep growing out. Good for them I guess. But providing infrastructure for that expansion does cost something eventually, thus the struggles with increasing electricity in a state with less oversight. I find your comment pretty generic that could be applied to almost anything. California must be doing something right, because their tax surpluses are incredible. Same for lots of other states. So what, just because California has huge budget surpluses doesn't clarify if the state is serving its citizen's needs.
- ms512 4y ago
  Up front: I agree that there's generally too much posturing and too little focus on the data and how to actually solve our energy challenges. With that said, it's worth considering the aspect of what it takes to ensure energy is available when it is needed. With fossil fuels, plant generation capacity has been historically built to ensure satisfaction of peak loads. Fuel was stored nearby to allow meeting rated capacity whenever that capacity was needed. Renewables' generation is slightly more complex, since we have less control for making rated generation happen when we need it to meet demand. Of course, there are many options with making renewables work. Storage is one approach, overbuilding renewables to ensure a minimum actual generation in adverse conditions is another. As we work to reduce the costs of renewables (and storage), various renewable based options become increasingly economically advantageous. We shouldn't ignore the downsides; we should seek to understand what can be done about them. As far as data goes, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides power generation/consumption data for the US grid, including breakouts by generation source [1]. The data for the Texas grid (ERCO) is interesting to explore. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/balancing_authority/ERCO https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr... (you can expand the graphs and view hourly data for up to 30 days and daily data for a much longer period of time).
- bequanna 4y ago
  > We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause. Even if it makes absolutely no sense to do so? A friend of mine purchases power for a municipal utility. Regulation requires that they have to reserve capacity for up to estimated peak usage. If they choose wind generation they can only apply 7% of that capacity to their requirement! So, in order to match the reliability of other forms of power they would have to purchase 14.3x as much as required. Wind power is VERY unreliable. That isn't opinion, that is a fact recognized by everyone in the industry. If someone is telling you we can build a reliable grid with wind power as a large component, they are lying to you and pry lining their pockets. Attitudes like the one you express in your statement are music to the ears of those seeking to take advantage via profiteering and crony capitalism.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    I am sad that nobody ever discusses overbuilding by huge amounts to be a viable option. Wind power or solar power sometimes underdelivers? Well they are fantastically cheap systems, so just quadruple the investment/build out, and be pretty well off. This isn't investigated because 1) It is more expensive and 2) That will result in significant extra supply that will literally need to be "wasted". Electricity in many situations literally becomes "too cheap to meter" I personally don't see that as a downside because that "overproduction" should be thrown at things like carbon capture, which is much more viable when the electricity is literally priced negatively This is only not possible because people refuse to turn electricity into a fully public utility. They want their profits. The USA should treat it as a huge infrastructure project though, like the highway system, and either force or hugely subsidize the buildout of excessive renewable systems.
ceejayoz 4y ago
The WSJ's Editorial Board is not a great place to get level-headed policy assessments.
fragmede 4y ago
Has something changed since early 2021 and the ice storms, when similar, false claims were made about renewables having anything to do with the problem? https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-texas-wind-turbines-explain/fact-check-the-causes-for-texas-blackout-go-well-beyond-wind-turbines-idUSKBN2AJ2EI https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-texas-wind-turb...
- dylan604 4y ago
  Yes, the collective memory of the citizens. They were told it was okay and nothing to worry about, so they stopped worrying and went about their lives.
dylan604 4y ago
I was in Midland next to an oil well (what else is there in Midland) where it was 24mph winds and 104 on the thermometer. When is it not windy and hot in Midland?
- CyanLite2 4y ago
  Most wind turbines have a safety shut down after 20+ mph winds.
lukeschlather 4y ago
This seems kind of myopic. This article is about heat waves, which are not a "base load" problem, they are a problem that's near-perfectly solved by solar deployment.
hotpotamus 4y ago
You know, I'm no Wall Street Journal editoralatician, but I am someone who lives in Texas. I haven't noticed much change in the wind when it's hot, but it's not something I really pay attention to, so I'll take that as true. You know what I have noticed when I go outside and it feels like an oven? Tons of sunlight.
jcranmer 4y ago
That's a pretty disingenuous argument. If you're in the business of providing power (or being a regulator of those providing power), then one of the things you need to be good at is predicting demand. You should be able to model various kinds of weather scenarios and their impact on electricity demand, and find out what the worst-case scenario is, and roughly how likely it is to occur. And then you can plan your capital expansion plans to be able to meet that future demand. So if supply is struggling to meet demand, there are three possibilities. First, supply could be lower than forecast due to unforeseeable circumstances. Second, maybe things were worse than you forecast, and demand was unexpectedly high. However, we appear to be in the third possibility: you knew that supply was insufficient to meet demand, and you didn't care. Texas seems to be regulating its grid to ensure low prices above all else, even at the expense of reliability of the electrical system. If you need 1000 MW of spare electrical generation capability, you need that whether your grid is mostly based on solar and wind or whether it's based on gas and coal. That the complaints are directed against renewables are I think because the renewables are undercutting fossil fuel plants, and the state is too cheap to ensure reliability--and the renewables are a more politically convenient scapegoat than the bad regulatory oversight currently in place.

by kyrra 4y ago

Gasp0de 4y ago

That's why it's wise to build both solar and wind, as they behave antiproportional most of the time. When there's more sun, there is less wind and vice versa.

salt-thrower 4y ago

Even if that’s true (debatable), it’s important to not use it as ammo to slam renewables as a whole - which republicans are keen to do. We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause.

JADev62096 4y ago
So even if a technology isn't fulfilling our needs and is leading to problems, we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do?
- Edman274 4y ago
  Your unstated assertion here is that we don't actually need to try to mitigate global warming and that it's merely a moral question, or like some culture war tempest-in-a-teapot. We need to mitigate global warming. That's a need we have to fulfill. It's the "right" thing to do for that very reason. Creating a strawman by saying 'haha, you think we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do' suggests that it's the "right thing to do" in the same way that it's the "right" thing to put toilet paper with the free end facing the room rather than facing the wall, rather than a slow-moving catastrophe that will kill billions through crop failures.
- II2II 4y ago
  I believe the point is that there is more than one type of renewable energy. Using the shortcomings of one under certain circumstances as an excuse to pursue nonrenewable energy at the expense of the long-term consequences of nonrenewable energy is shortsighted. It should also be noted that nonrenewable energy sources also face supply issues. If anything, the issue is worse for nonrenewable energy in the long term since scarcity can only increase with time. Exploration and more intensive extraction techniques only postpone the exhaustion of resources while increasing costs. (I also find it somewhat ironic that the burning of carbon would most likely intensify the problem in the long run by increasing energy demands and decreasing the effectiveness of renewables.)
- salt-thrower 4y ago
  Fossil fuels are failing our very immediate need to stabilize climate change and survive for the next century. So yes, we should be considering other options, even if they’re not perfect.
- scifibestfi 4y ago
  Yes, the religion requires intellectual sacrifice.
  - biaachmonkie 4y ago
    You of course mean the religion of "Ignore man made climate change, pollute and ravage the environment as much as possible to maximize shareholder value, who cares it's the end-times Jesus will rapture us all any day now" ?? That religion?
    - scifibestfi 4y ago
      No, the one that is against building nuclear power plants.
wernercd 4y ago
don't slam a solution that can't do what's promised? Why? It's obviously failing on all levels... "hurt the cause" facts tend to do that when promises aren't met and people suffer.
- supernovae 4y ago
  the thing is, wind in general has far surpassed its expectations.
  - bequanna 4y ago
    How so? Our transition to wind and other intermittent sources instead of building base load is creating a worsening reliability crisis. It seems that people forgot that we still don't have many good ways to store energy.
    - supernovae 4y ago
      We never transitioned, wind was just the most economical growth opportunity for generation and it works really well in that regard. Just because we have increased wind doesn’t mean we don’t need to increase base generation. Not sure why you frame it like this.
      - bequanna 4y ago
        > most economical growth opportunity for generation Umm, I think you're missing something big here. The only reason this was "economical" were huge tax benefits/subsidies. Decentralized energy production that involves a bunch of large moving parts will NEVER be as efficient as centralized energy production.
      - Paradigma11 4y ago
        Because it is clear who is paying for the additional wind generation, it is not clear who is going to pay for the mostly unused backup base generation.
programmarchy 4y ago
So, just ignore the problems and double down? Sounds like a terrible strategy. If it doesn’t work we need to pivot to something more reliable, like nuclear energy.
- ta988 4y ago
  If nuclear plants in Texas are maintained as well as the rest of the equipment, sure it will be reliable.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  In the case of Texas, where idiocy rules to the level that the state is bonding billions to reimburse power companies for the failures and chaos caused by very predictable cold weather, that won’t work. Unfortunately, whomever runs the Texas public utility commission doesn’t work for the people of Texas.
  - programmarchy 4y ago
    Texas is one of the fasting growing states in the union, so the idiots running things must be doing something right.
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      Yes, making money for their patrons. Texas is blessed with many things.
    - rnk 4y ago
      Low taxes and flat planes of land that you can keep building new housing on, cheap, that makes it easy to keep growing out. Good for them I guess. But providing infrastructure for that expansion does cost something eventually, thus the struggles with increasing electricity in a state with less oversight. I find your comment pretty generic that could be applied to almost anything. California must be doing something right, because their tax surpluses are incredible. Same for lots of other states. So what, just because California has huge budget surpluses doesn't clarify if the state is serving its citizen's needs.
ms512 4y ago
Up front: I agree that there's generally too much posturing and too little focus on the data and how to actually solve our energy challenges. With that said, it's worth considering the aspect of what it takes to ensure energy is available when it is needed. With fossil fuels, plant generation capacity has been historically built to ensure satisfaction of peak loads. Fuel was stored nearby to allow meeting rated capacity whenever that capacity was needed. Renewables' generation is slightly more complex, since we have less control for making rated generation happen when we need it to meet demand. Of course, there are many options with making renewables work. Storage is one approach, overbuilding renewables to ensure a minimum actual generation in adverse conditions is another. As we work to reduce the costs of renewables (and storage), various renewable based options become increasingly economically advantageous. We shouldn't ignore the downsides; we should seek to understand what can be done about them. As far as data goes, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides power generation/consumption data for the US grid, including breakouts by generation source [1]. The data for the Texas grid (ERCO) is interesting to explore. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/balancing_authority/ERCO https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr... (you can expand the graphs and view hourly data for up to 30 days and daily data for a much longer period of time).
bequanna 4y ago
> We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause. Even if it makes absolutely no sense to do so? A friend of mine purchases power for a municipal utility. Regulation requires that they have to reserve capacity for up to estimated peak usage. If they choose wind generation they can only apply 7% of that capacity to their requirement! So, in order to match the reliability of other forms of power they would have to purchase 14.3x as much as required. Wind power is VERY unreliable. That isn't opinion, that is a fact recognized by everyone in the industry. If someone is telling you we can build a reliable grid with wind power as a large component, they are lying to you and pry lining their pockets. Attitudes like the one you express in your statement are music to the ears of those seeking to take advantage via profiteering and crony capitalism.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  I am sad that nobody ever discusses overbuilding by huge amounts to be a viable option. Wind power or solar power sometimes underdelivers? Well they are fantastically cheap systems, so just quadruple the investment/build out, and be pretty well off. This isn't investigated because 1) It is more expensive and 2) That will result in significant extra supply that will literally need to be "wasted". Electricity in many situations literally becomes "too cheap to meter" I personally don't see that as a downside because that "overproduction" should be thrown at things like carbon capture, which is much more viable when the electricity is literally priced negatively This is only not possible because people refuse to turn electricity into a fully public utility. They want their profits. The USA should treat it as a huge infrastructure project though, like the highway system, and either force or hugely subsidize the buildout of excessive renewable systems.

ceejayoz 4y ago

The WSJ's Editorial Board is not a great place to get level-headed policy assessments.

fragmede 4y ago

Has something changed since early 2021 and the ice storms, when similar, false claims were made about renewables having anything to do with the problem? https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-texas-wind-turbines-explain/fact-check-the-causes-for-texas-blackout-go-well-beyond-wind-turbines-idUSKBN2AJ2EI https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-texas-wind-turb...

dylan604 4y ago
Yes, the collective memory of the citizens. They were told it was okay and nothing to worry about, so they stopped worrying and went about their lives.

dylan604 4y ago

I was in Midland next to an oil well (what else is there in Midland) where it was 24mph winds and 104 on the thermometer. When is it not windy and hot in Midland?

CyanLite2 4y ago
Most wind turbines have a safety shut down after 20+ mph winds.

lukeschlather 4y ago

This seems kind of myopic. This article is about heat waves, which are not a "base load" problem, they are a problem that's near-perfectly solved by solar deployment.

hotpotamus 4y ago

You know, I'm no Wall Street Journal editoralatician, but I am someone who lives in Texas. I haven't noticed much change in the wind when it's hot, but it's not something I really pay attention to, so I'll take that as true. You know what I have noticed when I go outside and it feels like an oven? Tons of sunlight.

jcranmer 4y ago

That's a pretty disingenuous argument. If you're in the business of providing power (or being a regulator of those providing power), then one of the things you need to be good at is predicting demand. You should be able to model various kinds of weather scenarios and their impact on electricity demand, and find out what the worst-case scenario is, and roughly how likely it is to occur. And then you can plan your capital expansion plans to be able to meet that future demand. So if supply is struggling to meet demand, there are three possibilities. First, supply could be lower than forecast due to unforeseeable circumstances. Second, maybe things were worse than you forecast, and demand was unexpectedly high. However, we appear to be in the third possibility: you knew that supply was insufficient to meet demand, and you didn't care. Texas seems to be regulating its grid to ensure low prices above all else, even at the expense of reliability of the electrical system. If you need 1000 MW of spare electrical generation capability, you need that whether your grid is mostly based on solar and wind or whether it's based on gas and coal. That the complaints are directed against renewables are I think because the renewables are undercutting fossil fuel plants, and the state is too cheap to ensure reliability--and the renewables are a more politically convenient scapegoat than the bad regulatory oversight currently in place.