6 ms·

The link doesn't mention it, but ERCOT (the Texas grid) is the one most at risk here, because state law specifically forbids linking it to other regional power

The link doesn't mention it, but ERCOT (the Texas grid) is the one most at risk here, because state law specifically forbids linking it to other regional power grids so that the state can avoid federal laws regulating utility companies. The other grids are all connected to their neighbors, which can help compensate for issues by transferring power between them.

MichaelBurge 3y ago
Connecting to a larger system seems like it would reduce your risk on average, but increase systemic risk. Perhaps a coordinated terrorist attack would cause a power outage across the entire country except Texas, making it more appealing?
- coliveira 3y ago
  Following this logic they should disconnect each municipality, so if one goes dow the rest can continue operating...
  - andrewnicolalde 3y ago
    If that were feasible and comparably efficient (which I doubt), then yes, I imagine they ought to!
  - rapjr9 3y ago
    This is what microgrids are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgrid If solar on rooftops (with batteries or EV connections) became really widespread in the US it may make some sense to be able to isolate communities from the rest of the grid to localize failures. Utilities would probably hate it but it could be really resistant to disruption.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - cogman10 3y ago
      > Utilities would probably hate it but it could be really resistant to disruption. I mean, I don't really understand why they'd hate it. I'd hope they'd embrace it. Deploying batteries for communities would allow utilities to still support things like net metering while also also allowing them to turn off grid connection for an area so the main lines can be worked on (without disrupting service). It'd also give them a lot more time to address outages, even really severe ones. Not to mention their ability to better control load and generation with rapid response batteries.
- sacnoradhq 3y ago
  The option to connect to spare capacity and to sell power to another market is more useful than not having it. The worst case would be needing it but not having it. The risk of very high altitude "super EMP" nuclear attacks is the most concerning. If Taiwan were attacked, it would stand to reason that China would first create CONUS disasters against infrastructure without a direct, kinetic military attack. This would be most effectively deployed by EMP at very high altitude while simultaneously sabotaging infrastructure with hacking.
  - profile53 3y ago
    The core problem with this argument is that if China were to detonate a nuclear weapon high in the atmosphere the US will immediately retaliate with massive nuclear strikes in which case the world would effectively end
- cogman10 3y ago
  Power doesn't work like that. If someone attacked all the interconnects then the net importers would lose power or brown out while the net exporters would be just fine. (assuming the net importers are currently running power generation at capacity). For the grids under load, if more capacity can't be brought online they'd do rolling blackouts while working to restore the interconnects. There are far better targets for a coordinated terrorist attack if they wanted a larger impact.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    Not necessarily. The sudden loss of load would cause over voltage and frequency ramp ups that cause further trips. I believe the 2003 blackout was basically a cascading set of load loss faults
sacnoradhq 3y ago
I live in ATX, where the ice can knock out power for days to a week. This winter, Austin Energy accomplished a Herculean but Sisyphean task of reconnecting 130k customers in a few days. Municipal grid gear here isn't rated for the ice burden like utilities in the north east.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I'm just struck that no one ever writes "Atlasean" task, of which general grid maintenance would be an example.
  - gpanders 3y ago
    “Atlasean task” sounds like a Jira ticket.
robocat 3y ago
Except that ERCOT does have interconnections [I mean DC links - interconnection has a different meaning in this context]… https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection#Ties https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection#Ties The Texas Interconnection is tied to the Eastern Interconnection with two DC ties, and has a DC tie and a VFT to non-NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) systems in Mexico. There is one AC tie switch in Dayton, Texas that has been used only once in its history (after Hurricane Ike). On October 13, 2009, the Tres Amigas SuperStation was announced to connect the Eastern, Western and Texas Interconnections via eight 5 GW superconductor links.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- woodrow 3y ago
  It’s a matter of capacity. ERCOT only has 1220 MW of interconnection capacity across 4 asynchronous links [1]. Compare this to e.g. California ISO which seems to have about 10,000-15,000 MW of synchronous interconnection capacity [2]. Neither is adequate to fully support historic peak demand in the system [3-4], but California has much more flexibility in emergencies. [1] https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2020/07/30/ERCOT_DC_Tie_Operations_Document.docx https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2020/07/30/ERCOT_DC_Tie_Ope... [2] http://www.caiso.com/Documents/ISOMaximumResourceAdequacyImportCapabilityforYear2021.pdf http://www.caiso.com/Documents/ISOMaximumResourceAdequacyImp... [3] https://www.caiso.com/documents/californiaisopeakloadhistory.pdf https://www.caiso.com/documents/californiaisopeakloadhistory... [4] https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2022/07/20/ERCOT%20Monthly%20Operational%20Overview%20June%202022.pdf https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2022/07/20/ERCOT%20Monthly%...
  - theteapot 3y ago
    Link 1 is dead. This doc from May 2023 lists the 1220MW figure for async links -- https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/05/05/SARA_Summer2023_Revised.pdf https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/05/05/SARA_Summer2023_....
    - 3y ago
anonporridge 3y ago
I'm curious why ERCOT has become so politicized. It seems to stem from the 2021 ice storm outage, but that wasn't even close to the worst power outages seen in other parts of the US that are part of larger interconnects, so I don't see why it's special other than it's hip to hate on Texas by coastal elites like us.
- atkailash 3y ago
  [dead]
- wilg 3y ago
  Well a lot of people were annoyed Texas tried to blame the issue on renewable energy. Also people saw the private management of the grid or whatever being arguably attributable to the failures (outages, people freezing, people being overcharged) as a case study for why Republican strategies are less than ideal. Also, just everything is politicized because it’s easy to do so when you’re constantly on Twitter reacting to other people’s reactions.
  - StillBored 3y ago
    Well I'm not an fan of the Texas republicans but, in the grand scheme of things Abbott wasn't entirely wrong. So, the wind was blowing at a tiny fraction of its installed capacity. Had it been producing at anything near its nameplate capacity then we wouldn't be talking about this now. But of course this isn't entirely unexpected, it was the predicted behavior. OTOH, the reliable sources of power in TX has been getting squeezed for decades now. Many of them are only making money when the wind stops blowing. The rest of the time they are starving, so its no wonder they cut weatherization efforts (and lots of other things) because it costs money for something which may/may not happen. And you have to pay the NG suppliers to maintain a couple extra orders of magnitude in capacity and storage which sits unused most of the time, which again they didn't do. So the wind didn't blow, and the NG plants and producers simply failed to make up the loss because they didn't have the cash to assure their own reliability. So, its basically what many people (including myself on this board) have been saying for a long time. What you have now is a game of weather predictions statistics dictating the reliability of the power grid. Its possible to win for years on end, and then boom perfect alignment of the stars and you fall back to non renewable sources which have been underfunded and not built out sufficiently to carry the full grid load. So you can play games with the statistics but solving the problem is an exponential cost problem unless you willing to just go build and maintain 100% of the grid requirements using carbon sources as backup.

MichaelBurge 3y ago

Connecting to a larger system seems like it would reduce your risk on average, but increase systemic risk. Perhaps a coordinated terrorist attack would cause a power outage across the entire country except Texas, making it more appealing?

coliveira 3y ago
Following this logic they should disconnect each municipality, so if one goes dow the rest can continue operating...
- andrewnicolalde 3y ago
  If that were feasible and comparably efficient (which I doubt), then yes, I imagine they ought to!
- rapjr9 3y ago
  This is what microgrids are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgrid If solar on rooftops (with batteries or EV connections) became really widespread in the US it may make some sense to be able to isolate communities from the rest of the grid to localize failures. Utilities would probably hate it but it could be really resistant to disruption.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - cogman10 3y ago
    > Utilities would probably hate it but it could be really resistant to disruption. I mean, I don't really understand why they'd hate it. I'd hope they'd embrace it. Deploying batteries for communities would allow utilities to still support things like net metering while also also allowing them to turn off grid connection for an area so the main lines can be worked on (without disrupting service). It'd also give them a lot more time to address outages, even really severe ones. Not to mention their ability to better control load and generation with rapid response batteries.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
The option to connect to spare capacity and to sell power to another market is more useful than not having it. The worst case would be needing it but not having it. The risk of very high altitude "super EMP" nuclear attacks is the most concerning. If Taiwan were attacked, it would stand to reason that China would first create CONUS disasters against infrastructure without a direct, kinetic military attack. This would be most effectively deployed by EMP at very high altitude while simultaneously sabotaging infrastructure with hacking.
- profile53 3y ago
  The core problem with this argument is that if China were to detonate a nuclear weapon high in the atmosphere the US will immediately retaliate with massive nuclear strikes in which case the world would effectively end
cogman10 3y ago
Power doesn't work like that. If someone attacked all the interconnects then the net importers would lose power or brown out while the net exporters would be just fine. (assuming the net importers are currently running power generation at capacity). For the grids under load, if more capacity can't be brought online they'd do rolling blackouts while working to restore the interconnects. There are far better targets for a coordinated terrorist attack if they wanted a larger impact.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  Not necessarily. The sudden loss of load would cause over voltage and frequency ramp ups that cause further trips. I believe the 2003 blackout was basically a cascading set of load loss faults

sacnoradhq 3y ago

I live in ATX, where the ice can knock out power for days to a week. This winter, Austin Energy accomplished a Herculean but Sisyphean task of reconnecting 130k customers in a few days. Municipal grid gear here isn't rated for the ice burden like utilities in the north east.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I'm just struck that no one ever writes "Atlasean" task, of which general grid maintenance would be an example.
- gpanders 3y ago
  “Atlasean task” sounds like a Jira ticket.

robocat 3y ago

Except that ERCOT does have interconnections [I mean DC links - interconnection has a different meaning in this context]… https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection#Ties https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection#Ties The Texas Interconnection is tied to the Eastern Interconnection with two DC ties, and has a DC tie and a VFT to non-NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) systems in Mexico. There is one AC tie switch in Dayton, Texas that has been used only once in its history (after Hurricane Ike). On October 13, 2009, the Tres Amigas SuperStation was announced to connect the Eastern, Western and Texas Interconnections via eight 5 GW superconductor links.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
woodrow 3y ago
It’s a matter of capacity. ERCOT only has 1220 MW of interconnection capacity across 4 asynchronous links [1]. Compare this to e.g. California ISO which seems to have about 10,000-15,000 MW of synchronous interconnection capacity [2]. Neither is adequate to fully support historic peak demand in the system [3-4], but California has much more flexibility in emergencies. [1] https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2020/07/30/ERCOT_DC_Tie_Operations_Document.docx https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2020/07/30/ERCOT_DC_Tie_Ope... [2] http://www.caiso.com/Documents/ISOMaximumResourceAdequacyImportCapabilityforYear2021.pdf http://www.caiso.com/Documents/ISOMaximumResourceAdequacyImp... [3] https://www.caiso.com/documents/californiaisopeakloadhistory.pdf https://www.caiso.com/documents/californiaisopeakloadhistory... [4] https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2022/07/20/ERCOT%20Monthly%20Operational%20Overview%20June%202022.pdf https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2022/07/20/ERCOT%20Monthly%...
- theteapot 3y ago
  Link 1 is dead. This doc from May 2023 lists the 1220MW figure for async links -- https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/05/05/SARA_Summer2023_Revised.pdf https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/05/05/SARA_Summer2023_....
  - 3y ago

anonporridge 3y ago

I'm curious why ERCOT has become so politicized. It seems to stem from the 2021 ice storm outage, but that wasn't even close to the worst power outages seen in other parts of the US that are part of larger interconnects, so I don't see why it's special other than it's hip to hate on Texas by coastal elites like us.

atkailash 3y ago
[dead]
wilg 3y ago
Well a lot of people were annoyed Texas tried to blame the issue on renewable energy. Also people saw the private management of the grid or whatever being arguably attributable to the failures (outages, people freezing, people being overcharged) as a case study for why Republican strategies are less than ideal. Also, just everything is politicized because it’s easy to do so when you’re constantly on Twitter reacting to other people’s reactions.
- StillBored 3y ago
  Well I'm not an fan of the Texas republicans but, in the grand scheme of things Abbott wasn't entirely wrong. So, the wind was blowing at a tiny fraction of its installed capacity. Had it been producing at anything near its nameplate capacity then we wouldn't be talking about this now. But of course this isn't entirely unexpected, it was the predicted behavior. OTOH, the reliable sources of power in TX has been getting squeezed for decades now. Many of them are only making money when the wind stops blowing. The rest of the time they are starving, so its no wonder they cut weatherization efforts (and lots of other things) because it costs money for something which may/may not happen. And you have to pay the NG suppliers to maintain a couple extra orders of magnitude in capacity and storage which sits unused most of the time, which again they didn't do. So the wind didn't blow, and the NG plants and producers simply failed to make up the loss because they didn't have the cash to assure their own reliability. So, its basically what many people (including myself on this board) have been saying for a long time. What you have now is a game of weather predictions statistics dictating the reliability of the power grid. Its possible to win for years on end, and then boom perfect alignment of the stars and you fall back to non renewable sources which have been underfunded and not built out sufficiently to carry the full grid load. So you can play games with the statistics but solving the problem is an exponential cost problem unless you willing to just go build and maintain 100% of the grid requirements using carbon sources as backup.