ERCOT, PUC, and deregulation got us here

[Fudge Nuggets 18825]

8 hours ago, elfenix said:

there's two statements in my post to which this could conceivably apply.  i'd elaborate if i knew to which you are referring. 

 

between compressed air batteries, iron-air batteries, flow batteries, and various forms of gravity battery, it really seems like we're on the precipice of a grid-scale battery revolution. 

We ain't on the precipice of shit.

[Biff Tannen 44917]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

We ain't on the precipice of shit.

I beg to differ. Isn’t another word for precipice also ledge?

[Post Oak 20068]

From Doug Lewin's Substack today. I'm an idiot when it comes to much of this but what I've read from him makes sense to me. 

Aurora estimated that the PCM would cost Texans an additional $3 billion to $5.3 billion per year — money paid entirely through electric bills for homes and businesses. That’s a net increase in costs, after subtracting out cost reductions in the energy market (the small gray bar in the slide below).

That amounts to roughly a 25% increase in energy costs.

If that 25% would guarantee a highly reliable grid, that would be one thing, but it won’t

 

Spoiler

The Public Utility Commission of Texas clearly wants your electricity prices to be higher. They have endorsed a certainly expensive but otherwise uncertain and completely untested market design. The PUCT believes the amount will “only” be $460 million per year.

A new study from Aurora Energy Research presented at last week’s ERCOT Market Summit, called that number into doubt; they modeled the shiftily named Performance Credit Mechanism (or PCM, as in, “Pretty (much a) Capacity Market”). 

 

Aurora estimated that the PCM would cost Texans an additional $3 billion to $5.3 billion per year — money paid entirely through electric bills for homes and businesses. That’s a net increase in costs, after subtracting out cost reductions in the energy market (the small gray bar in the slide below).

That amounts to roughly a 25% increase in energy costs.

If that 25% would guarantee a highly reliable grid, that would be one thing, but it won’t . The PCM would pay much, much more to existing coal and gas generators — including many of the same ones that failed and caused 2021’s devastating Winter Storm Uri blackouts — but it likely wouldn’t increase the supply of energy at all, much less weatherize energy systems or homes and buildings to withstand the stresses of extreme weather. Weatherization is still the biggest need and is barely discussed in the market design debates at the Legislature, the PUCT, or ERCOT. That’s because this isn’t really about grid reliability, it’s about profits.

In addition to its outrageously high costs and low benefits, the PCM will also take several years to implement — ERCOT projects at least three years, according to a recent presentation, but former PUCT Chair Becky Klein told the Senate Business & Commerce that such estimates are often short by 50%.

That means it would likely take until 2027-28 simply for this risky and wholly unproven experiment in electric market design to begin.

There are better, quicker, and more cost effective solutions to achieve reliability. 

A Bridge in Need of Better Materials

This leads us to the “bridge.” PUCT asked ERCOT for bridge solutions that could ramp up quickly — within a year  — to help cover Texans’ energy needs until the PCM can be implemented. Those solutions were discussed at an ERCOT Board Committee meeting yesterday (they also will be the focus of ERCOT workshops on March 3 and March 15).

Before looking at what the bridge includes, though, let’s note what it doesn’t: energy efficiency or demand-side resources of any kind. In other words, ERCOT and the PUCT aren’t picking the lowest-hanging fruit in addressing Texas’ energy challenges — relatively easy and quick-to-implement strategies that are proven to reduce demand, fortify the grid, AND cut power bills. 

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimated 11,400 megawatts of cost effective winter peak reductions are available. Grid reliability means bringing supply and demand into balance; policymakers could do that better addressing both supply and demand instead of just one.

Record high demand, driven by inefficient heat in poorly insulated homes, was one of the biggest causes of the 2021 blackouts. Yet the state has done nothing whatsoever since then to encourage the weatherization of homes and businesses, or to reduce energy waste when Texans need it the most. The PUC has wasted valuable time on this critical front.

A Better Bridge

One bridge solution that ERCOT raised is the Backstop Reliability Service (BRS). Note in the Aurora slide above that their modeling shows the BRS costs 95% less than the PCM “for comparable levels of reliability.” Another study, authored by ICF for the Texas Consumer Association, showed a similar cost and reliability benefit from the BRS.

Yet ERCOT has been so unrelentingly negative (note the long list of “cons”) about the BRS that their analysis appears to be an intentional sabotage. PUCT Commissioner Lori Cobos put the idea forward almost 18 months ago, and it still hasn’t been acted upon.

The BRS would allow ERCOT to keep the oldest power plants, which would otherwise retire, online so they’re available in emergencies. Today, Texas has 9,000 megawatts of operating gas plants that are more than 50 years old, completed before or during the Nixon Administration; nearly 1,000 of those megawatts date to the Eisenhower Administration. The BRS would use these plants to help keep the lights on while newer, more efficient energy sources are constructed and, hopefully, energy efficiency solutions are implemented. 

The market is already sending strong signals for new generation: ERCOT staff showed that six new gas units are coming online this month and next. The retirement of old plants into the BRS would strengthen the already strong price signals for new plants while keeping the old ones around in case of emergency.

Buying Energy Texans Need … When We Need It

Another promising bridge solution: further fatten scarcity payments to generators in the form of the Operating Reserve Demand Curve (ORDC) (see slide 6). The ORDC essentially provides bonus payments when conditions are tight. The Independent Market Monitor (IMM) told legislators that the ORDC increased market payments by $1.7 billion through November 2022 and a vast majority of that money went to thermal power plants — which is a major reason why power companies are building gas plants in Texas right now.

Everything the PUC and ERCOT are considering deserves more analysis; this is no exception. But if policymakers want more gas plants (which they say they do) and they want to maintain Texas’ energy-only market (which they also say they do), this is a much better way. Note on the ERCOT bridge solutions slide about ORDC, the only con they can find is that it “relies on mechanisms of the energy-only market for revenue.” That’s a bad thing? This is a tell from ERCOT leadership that they are trying hard to abandon the energy-only market in favor of a capacity market.

Similarly, a third bridge solution — one that would actually increase reliability by procuring energy when we need it — would be for the state to purchase more ancillary services. 

In June, ERCOT will roll out a new fast-acting, short-duration ancillary service (ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service, ECRS) designed to quickly add power to the grid when demand and supply are too close for comfot. But it’s not much power — only about 1.5 gigawatts. ERCOT could easily boost reliability by increasing it.

ERCOT could also create something like the Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service. That’s a strategy that’s not currently getting enough serious consideration by state regulators, but it should be: it’s been recommended by everyone from the Independent Market Monitor (IMM calls it an “uncertainty product”) to the Texas Association of Manufacturers to Shell to the Sierra Club. DRRS is a slow-responding, long-duration ancillary service that would supply needed power as to replenish ECRS and provide another layer of backup reserves.

This combination of strategies — energy efficiency, increased ancillary services, BRS, and increased ORDC — would preserve Texas’ energy-only market, cost far less than the PCM, and increase reliability, all on a much shorter timeline. 

What’s not to love, Commissioners?

And … The Toll Bridge

To their credit, ERCOT did have three out of those four solutions (increased ancillaries, BRS, and ORDC) in their bridge solutions slide deck. But the one solution they clearly favor — it had the most “pros” and the least “cons” in ERCOT’s presentation — is a bridge “solution” that’s not a bridge at all: to just implement PCM early. 

The bridge to the PCM… is the PCM itself?

Despite all of the uncertainty around the scheme, presumably without further analysis or research. ERCOT would iron out these uncertainties and failings by just setting prices in the market. Their presentation says a performance credit’s value would be “determined exclusively by ERCOT.” 

That’s right, an administered market: a room full of bureaucrats determining how much Texans and their employers pay for that electricity by dictating performance credit value. 

Good-bye to market competition. Hello to the lawyers and lobbyists that every market participant will need to convince the ERCOT Board to set their price.

Everyday Texans — the folks who could never afford lobbyists and lawyers, even if their electric bills weren’t going up so much — had best hold onto their wallets.

Eyes Wide Open

ERCOT says it might also collect and share information to answer some of the basic — and massive — questions about the PCM: what hours performance credits would be generated, how ERCOT would set the demand curve and prices, etc. They should do this. We need more information on how PCM would actually work before it is implemented, if it is to be implemented.

ERCOT should also run models showing the impacts of increased ORDC scarcity payments. My guess is in such a model you'd initially see a drop off an increase in flexible, dispatchable sources of various kinds (mostly gas and storage). That would shift when large, flexible loads come onto the grid en masse, which it looks like they will — ERCOT is tracking an astounding 48 gigawatts of large flexible loads (mostly data centers, crypto mines, and hydrogen electrolyzers).

And that doesn’t even include the ultimate large, flexible energy load: electric vehicles. There are already 11 gigawatt-hours worth of EV batteries in Texas vehicles today! That’s enough to power Houston for an hour, even with very few EVs on the road (172,000 out of roughly 25 million vehicles). 

When EVs and hydrogen reach scale, they will soak up low-cost wind and solar. They’ll stop charging or electrolyzing when electricity is scarce and expensive, instead making extra money to reverse flow and feed power back onto the grid.

This is the grid of the future. Texans, better than anyone, can lead the way. 

… As long as our politicians don't lead us across a bridge to nowhere.

The Texas Energy and 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17088]

6 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

From Doug Lewin's Substack today. I'm an idiot when it comes to much of this but what I've read from him makes sense to me. 

Aurora estimated that the PCM would cost Texans an additional $3 billion to $5.3 billion per year — money paid entirely through electric bills for homes and businesses. That’s a net increase in costs, after subtracting out cost reductions in the energy market (the small gray bar in the slide below).

That amounts to roughly a 25% increase in energy costs.

If that 25% would guarantee a highly reliable grid, that would be one thing, but it won’t

 

  Hide contents

The Public Utility Commission of Texas clearly wants your electricity prices to be higher. They have endorsed a certainly expensive but otherwise uncertain and completely untested market design. The PUCT believes the amount will “only” be $460 million per year.

A new study from Aurora Energy Research presented at last week’s ERCOT Market Summit, called that number into doubt; they modeled the shiftily named Performance Credit Mechanism (or PCM, as in, “Pretty (much a) Capacity Market”). 

 

Aurora estimated that the PCM would cost Texans an additional $3 billion to $5.3 billion per year — money paid entirely through electric bills for homes and businesses. That’s a net increase in costs, after subtracting out cost reductions in the energy market (the small gray bar in the slide below).

That amounts to roughly a 25% increase in energy costs.

If that 25% would guarantee a highly reliable grid, that would be one thing, but it won’t . The PCM would pay much, much more to existing coal and gas generators — including many of the same ones that failed and caused 2021’s devastating Winter Storm Uri blackouts — but it likely wouldn’t increase the supply of energy at all, much less weatherize energy systems or homes and buildings to withstand the stresses of extreme weather. Weatherization is still the biggest need and is barely discussed in the market design debates at the Legislature, the PUCT, or ERCOT. That’s because this isn’t really about grid reliability, it’s about profits.

In addition to its outrageously high costs and low benefits, the PCM will also take several years to implement — ERCOT projects at least three years, according to a recent presentation, but former PUCT Chair Becky Klein told the Senate Business & Commerce that such estimates are often short by 50%.

That means it would likely take until 2027-28 simply for this risky and wholly unproven experiment in electric market design to begin.

There are better, quicker, and more cost effective solutions to achieve reliability. 

A Bridge in Need of Better Materials

This leads us to the “bridge.” PUCT asked ERCOT for bridge solutions that could ramp up quickly — within a year  — to help cover Texans’ energy needs until the PCM can be implemented. Those solutions were discussed at an ERCOT Board Committee meeting yesterday (they also will be the focus of ERCOT workshops on March 3 and March 15).

Before looking at what the bridge includes, though, let’s note what it doesn’t: energy efficiency or demand-side resources of any kind. In other words, ERCOT and the PUCT aren’t picking the lowest-hanging fruit in addressing Texas’ energy challenges — relatively easy and quick-to-implement strategies that are proven to reduce demand, fortify the grid, AND cut power bills. 

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimated 11,400 megawatts of cost effective winter peak reductions are available. Grid reliability means bringing supply and demand into balance; policymakers could do that better addressing both supply and demand instead of just one.

Record high demand, driven by inefficient heat in poorly insulated homes, was one of the biggest causes of the 2021 blackouts. Yet the state has done nothing whatsoever since then to encourage the weatherization of homes and businesses, or to reduce energy waste when Texans need it the most. The PUC has wasted valuable time on this critical front.

A Better Bridge

One bridge solution that ERCOT raised is the Backstop Reliability Service (BRS). Note in the Aurora slide above that their modeling shows the BRS costs 95% less than the PCM “for comparable levels of reliability.” Another study, authored by ICF for the Texas Consumer Association, showed a similar cost and reliability benefit from the BRS.

Yet ERCOT has been so unrelentingly negative (note the long list of “cons”) about the BRS that their analysis appears to be an intentional sabotage. PUCT Commissioner Lori Cobos put the idea forward almost 18 months ago, and it still hasn’t been acted upon.

The BRS would allow ERCOT to keep the oldest power plants, which would otherwise retire, online so they’re available in emergencies. Today, Texas has 9,000 megawatts of operating gas plants that are more than 50 years old, completed before or during the Nixon Administration; nearly 1,000 of those megawatts date to the Eisenhower Administration. The BRS would use these plants to help keep the lights on while newer, more efficient energy sources are constructed and, hopefully, energy efficiency solutions are implemented. 

The market is already sending strong signals for new generation: ERCOT staff showed that six new gas units are coming online this month and next. The retirement of old plants into the BRS would strengthen the already strong price signals for new plants while keeping the old ones around in case of emergency.

Buying Energy Texans Need … When We Need It

Another promising bridge solution: further fatten scarcity payments to generators in the form of the Operating Reserve Demand Curve (ORDC) (see slide 6). The ORDC essentially provides bonus payments when conditions are tight. The Independent Market Monitor (IMM) told legislators that the ORDC increased market payments by $1.7 billion through November 2022 and a vast majority of that money went to thermal power plants — which is a major reason why power companies are building gas plants in Texas right now.

Everything the PUC and ERCOT are considering deserves more analysis; this is no exception. But if policymakers want more gas plants (which they say they do) and they want to maintain Texas’ energy-only market (which they also say they do), this is a much better way. Note on the ERCOT bridge solutions slide about ORDC, the only con they can find is that it “relies on mechanisms of the energy-only market for revenue.” That’s a bad thing? This is a tell from ERCOT leadership that they are trying hard to abandon the energy-only market in favor of a capacity market.

Similarly, a third bridge solution — one that would actually increase reliability by procuring energy when we need it — would be for the state to purchase more ancillary services. 

In June, ERCOT will roll out a new fast-acting, short-duration ancillary service (ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service, ECRS) designed to quickly add power to the grid when demand and supply are too close for comfot. But it’s not much power — only about 1.5 gigawatts. ERCOT could easily boost reliability by increasing it.

ERCOT could also create something like the Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service. That’s a strategy that’s not currently getting enough serious consideration by state regulators, but it should be: it’s been recommended by everyone from the Independent Market Monitor (IMM calls it an “uncertainty product”) to the Texas Association of Manufacturers to Shell to the Sierra Club. DRRS is a slow-responding, long-duration ancillary service that would supply needed power as to replenish ECRS and provide another layer of backup reserves.

This combination of strategies — energy efficiency, increased ancillary services, BRS, and increased ORDC — would preserve Texas’ energy-only market, cost far less than the PCM, and increase reliability, all on a much shorter timeline. 

What’s not to love, Commissioners?

And … The Toll Bridge

To their credit, ERCOT did have three out of those four solutions (increased ancillaries, BRS, and ORDC) in their bridge solutions slide deck. But the one solution they clearly favor — it had the most “pros” and the least “cons” in ERCOT’s presentation — is a bridge “solution” that’s not a bridge at all: to just implement PCM early. 

The bridge to the PCM… is the PCM itself?

Despite all of the uncertainty around the scheme, presumably without further analysis or research. ERCOT would iron out these uncertainties and failings by just setting prices in the market. Their presentation says a performance credit’s value would be “determined exclusively by ERCOT.” 

That’s right, an administered market: a room full of bureaucrats determining how much Texans and their employers pay for that electricity by dictating performance credit value. 

Good-bye to market competition. Hello to the lawyers and lobbyists that every market participant will need to convince the ERCOT Board to set their price.

Everyday Texans — the folks who could never afford lobbyists and lawyers, even if their electric bills weren’t going up so much — had best hold onto their wallets.

Eyes Wide Open

ERCOT says it might also collect and share information to answer some of the basic — and massive — questions about the PCM: what hours performance credits would be generated, how ERCOT would set the demand curve and prices, etc. They should do this. We need more information on how PCM would actually work before it is implemented, if it is to be implemented.

ERCOT should also run models showing the impacts of increased ORDC scarcity payments. My guess is in such a model you'd initially see a drop off an increase in flexible, dispatchable sources of various kinds (mostly gas and storage). That would shift when large, flexible loads come onto the grid en masse, which it looks like they will — ERCOT is tracking an astounding 48 gigawatts of large flexible loads (mostly data centers, crypto mines, and hydrogen electrolyzers).

And that doesn’t even include the ultimate large, flexible energy load: electric vehicles. There are already 11 gigawatt-hours worth of EV batteries in Texas vehicles today! That’s enough to power Houston for an hour, even with very few EVs on the road (172,000 out of roughly 25 million vehicles). 

When EVs and hydrogen reach scale, they will soak up low-cost wind and solar. They’ll stop charging or electrolyzing when electricity is scarce and expensive, instead making extra money to reverse flow and feed power back onto the grid.

This is the grid of the future. Texans, better than anyone, can lead the way. 

… As long as our politicians don't lead us across a bridge to nowhere.

The Texas Energy and 

 

 

 

Why does he believe capacity markets are unproven and experimental? 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33693]

I wanna scream. Anyone wanna scream with me?

 

[Biff Tannen 44917]

9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I wanna scream. Anyone wanna scream with me?

 

Or we could just leave this god forsaken state.

[MonkeyDoughnut 9944]

Senate Bill 2015 would also direct state regulators to encourage the marketing of gas-generated electricity as "green" energy.

[Updawg 2239]

I like the tweet of just using whale oil instead

We are such a dumb state

[jimmyjazz 45055]

If my natural gas had a color, it would be green.

[Beau Vine 53625]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

If my natural gas had a color, it would be green.

I would check on your diet if I were you.

[4th&Five 41055]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13267]

15 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

If we just stop trans surgery to pre-teens during the hot summer months and record cold spells, we reduce operating room power usage, and then the power grid is fine. Not too mention that do you know how much power we use to cool libraries full of books that need to be banned. Throwing those books outside will cut power usage of libraries by 80%.*

 

*rough estimate

[Longhorn_Fan68 33693]

lol

 

[Satchel 6889]

It’s quite the admission for ERCOT to acknowledge that the Texas power grid is dependent on demon renewables.

[YGIFS 19443]

They're just setting up excuses and queueing up shit to blame.  

 

[Post Oak 20068]

 

[tx 3 putt 74760]

[Longhorn_Fan68 33693]

lol this state and this country are fucking jokes. just unbelievable.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

They're just setting up excuses and queueing up shit to blame.  

 

Exactly.  Now if the grid fails, it was because the renewable energy sources couldn't keep up, regardless of the actual truty (insufficient total capacity).

[Post Oak 20068]

Being a republican pol in this state is the easiest fucking job in the world.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13267]

GOP voters should be the ones who turn off their AC when temps hit 100 since they're responsible for this mess. 

When ERCOT puts out the message to conserve, I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt that I ignore them. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Post Oak 20068]

 

 

 

[pacman 7212]

 

[jimmyjazz 45055]

Let's blame wind and solar, because.

[atomheartbevo 88750]

So, Tuesday is the day?

[Woland 695]

Let's blame wind and solar, because.

And Biden. Because he shut down a pipeline.

[YGIFS 19443]

Oh, wait until we hear why Lake left PUC during the Patrick/Abbott hissy fight.  I mean, we are taking a turn for the Third World like I couldn't imagine.  

[Updawg 2239]

Oh, wait until we hear why Lake left PUC during the Patrick/Abbott hissy fight.  I mean, we are taking a turn for the Third World like I couldn't imagine.  

Definitely seemed odd

[SydneyCarton 47092]

Since this thread popped up, I’ll take the opportunity to point out that ERCOT and the PUC had nothing to do with the fact that Texas had a 30 billion surplus and did nothing to stabilize the grid, instead pledging 10 billion for more natural gas plants that Texans will pay for in our bills, and might not even help stabilize the grid. 

Meanwhile in regulated markets, prices are skyrocketing because and there is no alternative to cheaper rates like in Texas, Ohio, and PA. 
 

Deregulation isn’t the problem. Republicans are the problem. 

[gmr548 16251]

4 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Since this thread popped up, I’ll take the opportunity to point out that ERCOT and the PUC had nothing to do with the fact that Texas had a 30 billion surplus and did nothing to stabilize the grid, instead pledging 10 billion for more natural gas plants that Texans will pay for in our bills, and might not even help stabilize the grid. 

Meanwhile in regulated markets, prices are skyrocketing because and there is no alternative to cheaper rates like in Texas, Ohio, and PA. 
 

Deregulation isn’t the problem. Republicans are the problem. 

What's terrifying is this session was close to being so much worse. A corporate handout of a third of the budget surplus for what will be basically no net effect outside of higher prices for consumers was the best we could hope for with the legislation that was drafted.

[SydneyCarton 47092]

6 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

What's terrifying is this session was close to being so much worse. A corporate handout of a third of the budget surplus for what will be basically no net effect outside of higher prices for consumers was the best we could hope for with the legislation that was drafted.

The worst to me is they built new generation, that we pay for, but they still haven’t made weather proofing mandatory. The system works if we have just basic requirements for weather proofing. Nope. 

[gmr548 16251]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

The worst to me is they built new generation, that we pay for, but they still haven’t made weather proofing mandatory. The system works if we have just basic requirements for weather proofing. Nope. 

I go back and forth on what the worst part is. Is it the concerted effort to kneecap the renewable energy sources that are becoming the most cost effective options?

Or is it that we're leaving even the absolute lowest hanging energy efficiency fruit on the tree, which is probably more impactful than anything on the supply side at this point (seriously - we have an enormous amount of supply, way more than even CA which has 33% more residents)?

I do not like this game.

[SydneyCarton 47092]

2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I go back and forth on what the worst part is. Is it the concerted effort to kneecap the renewable energy sources that are becoming the most cost effective options?

Or is it that we're leaving even the absolute lowest hanging energy efficiency fruit on the tree, which is probably more impactful than anything on the supply side at this point (seriously - we have an enormous amount of supply, way more than even CA which has 33% more residents)?

I do not like this game.

We need natural gas plants. It’s a reality. People hate to hear it. The wind doesn’t blow when we need the power, period, and until battery tech gets a couple more orders of magnitude better, we need natural gas. Fine. But weather proof you’re fucking shit. Fucking windmills kill birds… this fucking state. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20299]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

I go back and forth on what the worst part is. Is it the concerted effort to kneecap the renewable energy sources that are becoming the most cost effective options?

Or is it that we're leaving even the absolute lowest hanging energy efficiency fruit on the tree, which is probably more impactful than anything on the supply side at this point (seriously - we have an enormous amount of supply, way more than even CA which has 33% more residents)?

I do not like this game.

The worst part is the hypocrisy.  On the one hand, Dan Patrick was on the steps of the capitol earlier this year boasting about Texas' renewable energy resources and saying that Texas ranks fifth among all polities worldwide in terms of renewable-energy capacity, trailing on the U.S. as a whole, China, India and Germany.  And Patrick said renewable energy   "helps clean the air and helps keep our prices lower. That’s why a lot of companies move here—because our cost per kilowatt is so much cheaper than other states.”  And yet he and the GOP do things like proposing bills that create a new process that makes it extremely difficult to set up offshore wind farms in state waters in the Gulf of Mexico, or another bill aimed at raising the costs involved for renewable-energy generators to sell their electricity in the state’s marketplace.   All of this regarding technology that saved Texans 11 billion dollars in energy costs last year. 
 

[Willfully Horn 7820]

Do I remember this wrong, or did energy producers not make even more money during the power outages Feb 2021?

[C-Man 26535]

40 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Do I remember this wrong, or did energy producers not make even more money during the power outages Feb 2021?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-06/energy-transfer-made-2-4-billion-gain-from-texas-winter-storm#xj4y7vzkg

[jimmyjazz 45055]

4 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

The wind doesn’t blow when we need the power, period

That's a bit of an overstatement.  Our wind supply, in the aggregate, is fairly steady and quite predictable.  Any one turbine?  Not so much.

[SydneyCarton 47092]

40 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's a bit of an overstatement.  Our wind supply, in the aggregate, is fairly steady and quite predictable.  Any one turbine?  Not so much.

The biggest wind farms In Texas are in west Texas and the panhandle. And it simply does not blow was much in the summertime when we need it most. It has saved us in a couple cold snaps we’ve had in the last decade during the winter, however. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[jimmyjazz 45055]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

The biggest wind farms In Texas are in west Texas and the panhandle. And it simply does not blow was much in the summertime when we need it lost. I bud has saved us in a couple cold snaps we’ve had in the last decade during the winter, however. 

Well, I don't think that's exactly what you said.  I took your statement as saying wind generated no useful power.  Agreed that it is variable, but at least it's PREDICTABLY variable, which allows for planning and accounting.

Whether the economics are truly acceptable is not for me to say.  There are so many hidden subsidies, etc. buried in the details for all kinds of generation tech, I'd have to be a full time engineer in that world to have any hope of sussing it all out.

[hornmpa96 2516]

Additionally our State Leadership is against considering any types of energy efficiency measures as well. The cheapest upgrades to grid security would come by adopting/encouraging energy efficient upgrades to existing buildings. Why consider that when you can give billions to natural gas power plants?

[SydneyCarton 47092]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, I don't think that's exactly what you said.  I took your statement as saying wind generated no useful power.  Agreed that it is variable, but at least it's PREDICTABLY variable, which allows for planning and accounting.

Whether the economics are truly acceptable is not for me to say.  There are so many hidden subsidies, etc. buried in the details for all kinds of generation tech, I'd have to be a full time engineer in that world to have any hope of sussing it all out.

I said, as you quoted, “the wind doesn’t blow when we need the power.” When = Summer. That is exactly what I said. Now you’ve come along telling me “I don’t think that’s exactly what you said” followed by “I took your statement as saying.”
 

it sounds like the problem is you misinterpreting something, and somehow blaming me for it. I never even remotely said or implied wind generated no useful power. Although I admit my last post was fat fingered like a motherfucker, I literally attempted to say “it has saved our butts during cold snaps.” How the fuck is that even an implication of “no useful power?”

Edited June 19, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[atomheartbevo 88750]

17 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

Additionally our State Leadership is against considering any types of energy efficiency measures as well.

Why do you hate Texas?

 

[SydneyCarton 47092]

22 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Why do you hate Texas?

 

Yeah that’s not helping the fucking grid either. 

[jimmyjazz 45055]

52 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I said, as you quoted, “the wind doesn’t blow when we need the power.” When = Summer. That is exactly what I said. Now you’ve come along telling me “I don’t think that’s exactly what you said” followed by “I took your statement as saying.”
 

it sounds like the problem is you misinterpreting something, and somehow blaming me for it. I never even remotely said or implied wind generated no useful power. Although I admit my last post was fat fingered like a motherfucker, I literally attempted to say “it has saved our butts during cold snaps.” How the fuck is that even an implication of “no useful power?”

OK, pipe down.  If you say "the wind doesn't blow when we need the power" followed by a scenario in which we needed the power, then that seems contradictory.

We're on the same side here.  Wind is not infallible.  Solar is not infallible.  Nat gas (as we've seen) is not infallible.  Coal and nuclear have other problems.  I'm merely saying that there is a difference between predictable variability and unpredictable variability that is induced by poor planning or bad maintenance.

[SydneyCarton 47092]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, pipe down.  If you say "the wind doesn't blow when we need the power" followed by a scenario in which we needed the power, then that seems contradictory.

We're on the same side here.  Wind is not infallible.  Solar is not infallible.  Nat gas (as we've seen) is not infallible.  Coal and nuclear have other problems.  I'm merely saying that there is a difference between predictable variability and unpredictable variability that is induced by poor planning or bad maintenance.

I understand all that. I’m simply saying Texas will never have a 100% wind and solar grid. Maybe late in my lifetime IF politics didn’t get in the way, and we know the odds of that. We need natural gas plants, or nuclear. It won’t be just renewable is all Im saying, until battery tech improves quite a bit more. 

[Brisketexan 103139]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I said, as you quoted, “the wind doesn’t blow when we need the power.” When = Summer. That is exactly what I said. Now you’ve come along telling me “I don’t think that’s exactly what you said” followed by “I took your statement as saying.”
 

it sounds like the problem is you misinterpreting something, and somehow blaming me for it. I never even remotely said or implied wind generated no useful power. Although I admit my last post was fat fingered like a motherfucker, I literally attempted to say “it has saved our butts during cold snaps.” How the fuck is that even an implication of “no useful power?”

That's one of the reasons that having two primary types of renewable resources makes sense.  Need power in the hot summer?  Solar is your friend.  It's not as helpful in the dead of winter with a low angle of sunlight.  Need power in the shoulder seasons and the breezy winter?  Wind is your friend.

Kind of like how I equip my house with both AC and a heater.  There are power mixes (yes, including natural gas, nuclear, etc. -- thermal resources) that make all kinds of sense....when placed in a properly designed market.....with sufficient transmission resources.  Devil's in the details, and in Texas we don't do details - "details" is a commie word meant to siphon off profits, and we can't have that.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Brisketexan

[jimmyjazz 45055]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I understand all that. I’m simply saying Texas will never have a 100% wind and solar grid. Maybe late in my lifetime IF politics didn’t get in the way, and we know the odds of that. We need natural gas plants, or nuclear. It won’t be just renewable is all Im saying, until battery tech improves quite a bit more. 

Completely agreed.  Unfortunately, nuclear seems to be dead in the water as far as new plants go.  It's a shame.

[Captainant 26861]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Completely agreed.  Unfortunately, nuclear seems to be dead in the water as far as new plants go.  It's a shame.

Not true on the nuclear front actually - the NRC recently certified a new small modular reactor design that can be mass manufactured and is passively safe with built in containment as a sealed unit. 

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design

This is a genuinely exciting zero carbon option that is already getting built for some pilot sites

https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/projects

Edited June 19, 2023 by Captainant

[MonkeyDoughnut 9944]

X-Energy building a SMR nuclear reactor for DOW Seadrift site (150mi south of Houston) starting in 2026.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Not true on the nuclear front actually - the NRC recently certified a new small modular reactor design that can be mass manufactured and is passively safe with built in containment as a sealed unit. 

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design

This is a genuinely exciting zero carbon option that is already getting built for some pilot sites

https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/projects

Very cool.  I'll be interested to see how that plays out in Texas.