3 ms·

> So it’s disingenuous to say that fossil fuels are responsible for blackouts when it’s the dispatchability of renewables that required fossil fuel burning in t

> So it’s disingenuous to say that fossil fuels are responsible for blackouts when it’s the dispatchability of renewables that required fossil fuel burning in the first place. No... as I recall, in the Texas blackouts, the renewables actually generated more power than originally forecasted. If the natural gas and coal plants go offline completely, that has nothing to do with the dispatchability of renewables. The fossil fuel plants would be part of the grid regardless, because it takes decades for those plants to reach the end of their lifecycle and be decommissioned. The grid relies on every type of power doing what it says it will do. It is possible to predict when solar and wind will deliver power, and how much they will deliver. The stability of the grid relies on that. The fossil fuel plants were the ones that had problems. If they had produced power as they normally do, there would have been no blackout. > These are different arguments. Do you still think I changed my argument? I'm fairly sure I didn't, but I can see how you reached that conclusion without the clarifications above.

doctor_eval 4y ago
You may not have intended to change your argument, but I think you were assuming evancox100 was arguing against renewables where I thought they were just making a point about your language. I can’t speak for them or you, but I think their comment was fair in the absence of the clarity you’ve now provided.
jcampbell1 4y ago
> the renewables actually generated more power than originally forecasted. They were forecasted to produce 6% and actually made 8%, vs 41% from the prior week. You can’t blame renewables in this case, but you aren’t presenting facts in an unbiased way.
- coder543 4y ago
  My primary point is that renewables are working the way that they say they will work. Certain people refuse to admit that fossil fuel plants struggle in adverse conditions, but then rant about renewables being somehow unreliable. Renewable integration into the grid is heavily dependent on forecasting. You may think it is biased, but I see that statistic as things going better than forecasted. With proper forecasting, you can overbuild and make up for lower production. With proper forecasting, you can employ demand response. When the fossil fuel plants turn off completely and unexpectedly, there’s nothing you can do, because no one planned for that. The grid was relying on the power plants, and they weren’t there. If the grid had planned for the unreliability of those plants, the grid might’ve had more renewables to make up for it, who knows. People building renewables plan for the variability. As I’ve mentioned, energy storage is essential for the long term.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > there’s nothing you can do, because no one planned for that You're comparing a future of renewables to a present of non-renewables. You could also add in additional generation to cover the gap you mentioned in the future as well.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
mbesto 4y ago
Energy is fungible, so if both fossil and renewables are both online and producing energy how can you blame one over the other? My understanding is that neither source of energy was winterized to transmit the energy to the grid, not that they were unable to produce. So blaming one or the other is a red herring. > But unlike utilities under traditional models, they don’t ensure that the resources can deliver power under adverse conditions, they don’t require that generators have secured firm fuel supplies, and they don’t make sure the resources will be ready and available to operate.[0] The question should squarely be "can renewables create the same base load and peak load required to run the entire demand of the grid"? From there than we can talk about the other topics such as what is required to deliver the energy, which is cheaper to operate, etc. [0] https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/assigning-blame-for-the-blackouts-in-texas/ https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/assigning-blame-for-the-b...
- coder543 4y ago
  > My understanding is that neither source of energy was winterized to transmit the energy to the grid, not that they were unable to produce. Transmission was not the problem in any of these blackouts that I’m referring to. Powerlines failing affects extremely localized parts of the distribution network, but the coal and gas plants literally stopped producing. It was a production failure. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-... On the other question, that goes back to how we desperately need energy storage and demand response.
  - mbesto 4y ago
    FTA: > "It is possible to “winterize” natural gas power plants, natural gas production and wind turbines, experts said, which prevents such major interruptions in other states with more regular extreme winter weather." This is really my point. The production sources (and how the elemental source of that energy is acquired) and transmission of energy to residents can be winterized regardless of what they are (wind, gas, etc.). So the point isn't whether wind or gas is better. > that goes back to how we desperately need energy storage and demand response. Don't disagree (because this would create a much larger buffer), however if you have fully winterized energy production and transmission, then this point is moot.

doctor_eval 4y ago

You may not have intended to change your argument, but I think you were assuming evancox100 was arguing against renewables where I thought they were just making a point about your language. I can’t speak for them or you, but I think their comment was fair in the absence of the clarity you’ve now provided.

jcampbell1 4y ago

> the renewables actually generated more power than originally forecasted. They were forecasted to produce 6% and actually made 8%, vs 41% from the prior week. You can’t blame renewables in this case, but you aren’t presenting facts in an unbiased way.

coder543 4y ago
My primary point is that renewables are working the way that they say they will work. Certain people refuse to admit that fossil fuel plants struggle in adverse conditions, but then rant about renewables being somehow unreliable. Renewable integration into the grid is heavily dependent on forecasting. You may think it is biased, but I see that statistic as things going better than forecasted. With proper forecasting, you can overbuild and make up for lower production. With proper forecasting, you can employ demand response. When the fossil fuel plants turn off completely and unexpectedly, there’s nothing you can do, because no one planned for that. The grid was relying on the power plants, and they weren’t there. If the grid had planned for the unreliability of those plants, the grid might’ve had more renewables to make up for it, who knows. People building renewables plan for the variability. As I’ve mentioned, energy storage is essential for the long term.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > there’s nothing you can do, because no one planned for that You're comparing a future of renewables to a present of non-renewables. You could also add in additional generation to cover the gap you mentioned in the future as well.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

mbesto 4y ago

Energy is fungible, so if both fossil and renewables are both online and producing energy how can you blame one over the other? My understanding is that neither source of energy was winterized to transmit the energy to the grid, not that they were unable to produce. So blaming one or the other is a red herring. > But unlike utilities under traditional models, they don’t ensure that the resources can deliver power under adverse conditions, they don’t require that generators have secured firm fuel supplies, and they don’t make sure the resources will be ready and available to operate.[0] The question should squarely be "can renewables create the same base load and peak load required to run the entire demand of the grid"? From there than we can talk about the other topics such as what is required to deliver the energy, which is cheaper to operate, etc. [0] https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/assigning-blame-for-the-blackouts-in-texas/ https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/assigning-blame-for-the-b...

coder543 4y ago
> My understanding is that neither source of energy was winterized to transmit the energy to the grid, not that they were unable to produce. Transmission was not the problem in any of these blackouts that I’m referring to. Powerlines failing affects extremely localized parts of the distribution network, but the coal and gas plants literally stopped producing. It was a production failure. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-... On the other question, that goes back to how we desperately need energy storage and demand response.
- mbesto 4y ago
  FTA: > "It is possible to “winterize” natural gas power plants, natural gas production and wind turbines, experts said, which prevents such major interruptions in other states with more regular extreme winter weather." This is really my point. The production sources (and how the elemental source of that energy is acquired) and transmission of energy to residents can be winterized regardless of what they are (wind, gas, etc.). So the point isn't whether wind or gas is better. > that goes back to how we desperately need energy storage and demand response. Don't disagree (because this would create a much larger buffer), however if you have fully winterized energy production and transmission, then this point is moot.