ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[deft 6747]

No it’s cool guys. We can pay them millions of taxpayer dollars (more than they’d actually make in that time period doing…..crypto mining) to stop and alleviate the strain on the grid. Then they’ll just cut a check back to gop reelection campaigns.

[YGIFS 19443]

I don't have a big issue with them using flared Natural Gas to power their mining operations.  But what Abbott never admits to.  And what y'all's side should be hammering home is beyond the "Drain on the Grid" talking point.  Texas or munis wanna give energy abatements and property tax relief and building credits to some factory or software firm or something that will create/relocate a serious amount of jobs.  I don't like it, but almost every state does some form or fashion of that regardless of party.  They prove an aggregate additional drain on the Grid, but at least there's tens and tens of thousands new solid jobs to show for it. 

Where cryptomining departs from it is it represents, at some points during the day, can use over 5% of ERCOT's capability.  For 1000 jobs.  Just 1000.  The other 1000 guys technically employed in the space are setup labor, maintenance of facilities, logistics, etc.  The folks doing the actual mining---their jobs number only about 1000.  Granted, there's some off-shoot jobs outside the industry created by their existence, but for what they use and that generate in new jobs and property tax revenue, it's the most insane ratio of any industry in our state and that's saying something.  

[Biff Tannen 44917]

3 hours ago, YGIFS said:

I don't have a big issue with them using flared Natural Gas to power their mining operations.  But what Abbott never admits to.  And what y'all's side should be hammering home is beyond the "Drain on the Grid" talking point.  Texas or munis wanna give energy abatements and property tax relief and building credits to some factory or software firm or something that will create/relocate a serious amount of jobs.  I don't like it, but almost every state does some form or fashion of that regardless of party.  They prove an aggregate additional drain on the Grid, but at least there's tens and tens of thousands new solid jobs to show for it. 

Where cryptomining departs from it is it represents, at some points during the day, can use over 5% of ERCOT's capability.  For 1000 jobs.  Just 1000.  The other 1000 guys technically employed in the space are setup labor, maintenance of facilities, logistics, etc.  The folks doing the actual mining---their jobs number only about 1000.  Granted, there's some off-shoot jobs outside the industry created by their existence, but for what they use and that generate in new jobs and property tax revenue, it's the most insane ratio of any industry in our state and that's saying something.  

And also, FUCK THOSE GUYS.  IT'S NOT A JOB.  

[freyguy 4237]

postponing l required maintenance is such a great strategy 

[Captainant 26861]

3 minutes ago, freyguy said:

postponing l required maintenance is such a great strategy 

Keeps quarterly costs down, baby! Any risks are future you's problem

[High Plains Drifter 10915]

On 4/7/2024 at 7:24 AM, Captainant said:

So not only does the state not inspect power lines nor have the power to compell companies to address risks before they strike and burn OVER A MILLION ACRES OF TEXAS, but theres a fundamental lack of clarity over who actually is in charge. 

We are taking another spin on the Fuck Around and Find Out express

 

This is the type of thing that should result in state elected officials (every single one of them from state dog catcher to governor) being chased out of office by torch wielding peasants. What the fuck are we, China?

 

 

 

[Trey3216 15298]

Perhaps some folks should stop stubbornly spurning Nuclear energy in favor of wind and solar as well.  If we really want to make sure the grid is firm, increased nuclear energy is going to be a must.  

[crash_davis 23038]

7 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Perhaps some folks should stop stubbornly spurning Nuclear energy in favor of wind and solar as well.  If we really want to make sure the grid is firm, increased nuclear energy is going to be a must.  

I'm all for nuclear energy. The problem will be finding people who want it in their city/county.

[YChang 3365]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Perhaps some folks should stop stubbornly spurning Nuclear energy in favor of wind and solar as well.  If we really want to make sure the grid is firm, increased nuclear energy is going to be a must.  

Micro nuclear reactors are coming soon and likely will become a part of the mix. Doesn’t address the joke that is our state regulatory agencies. 

[Captainant 26861]

12 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Perhaps some folks should stop stubbornly spurning Nuclear energy in favor of wind and solar as well.  If we really want to make sure the grid is firm, increased nuclear energy is going to be a must.  

 

3 minutes ago, YChang said:

Micro nuclear reactors are coming soon and likely will become a part of the mix. Doesn’t address the joke that is our state regulatory agencies. 

SMRs and the pilot plant in Seadrift are genuinely exciting for this usecase. But I REALLY don't like the idea of our current grid operators that love putting off maintenance in charge of nukes. Absolutely needs to be better stewardship of what we already have in addition to nuclear baseline capacity 

[Beau Vine 53625]

On 4/7/2024 at 7:24 AM, Captainant said:

So not only does the state not inspect power lines nor have the power to compell companies to address risks before they strike and burn OVER A MILLION ACRES OF TEXAS, but theres a fundamental lack of clarity over who actually is in charge.

This is exactly what they mean when they say Texas is "business-friendly."  

You can't honestly expect Texas to regulate businesses and hold them accountable for the costs they impose on the state.  That would be business-unfriendly!

[atomheartbevo 88750]

8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

This is exactly what they mean when they say Texas is "business-friendly."  

You can't honestly expect Texas to regulate businesses and hold them accountable for the costs they impose on the state.  That would be business-unfriendly!

Counter-point: failing infrastructure is a good way to drive businesses away or keep them from moving here in the first place, especially those that rely on a lot of electricity. 

[High Plains Drifter 10915]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

I'm all for nuclear energy. The problem will be finding people who want it in their city/county.

 

I would be all in for nucular also, if it wasn't for: 

 

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

 

 But I REALLY don't like the idea of our current grid operators that love putting off maintenance in charge of nukes. Absolutely needs to be better stewardship of what we already have in addition to nuclear baseline capacity 

 

Instead of a grid failing because of our "business friendly" attitudes, it might be a meltdown. 

I'm not even joking. I don't trust our state regulators to regulate dog catching, much less something that could cause serious  serious problems (even more serious than hundreds freezing to death during a freeze) when shit goes south. 

 

 

[crash_davis 23038]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I would be all in for nucular also, if it wasn't for: 

 

 

Instead of a grid failing because of our "business friendly" attitudes, it might be a meltdown. 

I'm not even joking. I don't trust our state regulators to regulate dog catching, much less something that could cause serious  serious problems (even more serious than hundreds freezing to death during a freeze) when shit goes south. 

 

 

Which is why no one wants the reactor in their backyard or downwind from it. Mother nature don't give a shit about about redundancy plans. The chase for profits by corporate leaders and greedy billionaires will insure that cost is minimize, processes and safety be damned. Hi, Boeing.

[Post Oak 20068]

Texas should just declare that it's mission is to have the lowest cost, cleanest, and most reliable electricity on the planet. Build the crap out of the grid - transmission and distribution. Stop pitting fossil fuels against renewables and nuclear against everyone. Just build everything, winterize everything. Make it the #1 destination for any data center, industrial or manufacturing facility, green hydrogen and chemicals production, DAC, CO2 sequestration, sustainable aviation fuel production, etc. It would not cost that much relative to the massive economic benefits and payback we could get here.

Edited April 17 by Post Oak

[crash_davis 23038]

8 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

Texas should just declare that it's mission is to have the lowest cost, cleanest, and most reliable electricity on the planet. Build the crap out of the grid - transmission and distribution. Stop pitting fossil fuels against renewables and nuclear against everyone. Just build everything, winterize everything. Make it the #1 destination for any data center, industrial or manufacturing facility, green hydrogen and chemicals production, DAC, CO2 sequestration, sustainable aviation fuel production, etc. It would not cost that much relative to the massive economic benefits and payback we could get here.

O&G billionaires: is the ROI on all this shit less than the 100s of millions I'm making doing the bare minimum status quo? Yes? Then fuck that shit.

You want our state leaders to build the best grid for Texans? Not in a million years.

Our state leaders will approve to build what the O&G assholes, who own them, tell them to build. What ever is best for their wallets is best for our leaders and by default, Texans.

Edited April 17 by crash_davis

[Dnaguy 11538]

3 hours ago, Post Oak said:

Texas should just declare that its mission is to have the lowest cost, cleanest, and most reliable electricity on the planet. Build the crap out of the grid - transmission and distribution. Stop pitting fossil fuels against renewables and nuclear against everyone. Just build everything, winterize everything. Make it the #1 destination for any data center, industrial or manufacturing facility, green hydrogen and chemicals production, DAC, CO2 sequestration, sustainable aviation fuel production, etc. It would not cost that much relative to the massive economic benefits and payback we could get here.

Texas doesn’t do policy outside of punishing people who don’t share the world view of two evangelical o&g billionaires.

 

[Samson's Wig 3154]

7 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

This is the type of thing that should result in state elected officials (every single one of them from state dog catcher to governor) being chased out of office by torch wielding peasants. What the fuck are we, China?

 

 

 

[Beau Vine 53625]

BTW, what the fuck, Craig?

 

Edited April 17 by Beau Vine

[Samson's Wig 3154]

Shit.  The secret's out.

[bolverk 28885]

7 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Perhaps some folks should stop stubbornly spurning Nuclear energy in favor of wind and solar as well.  If we really want to make sure the grid is firm, increased nuclear energy is going to be a must.  

Who are the folks "stubbornly spurning nuclear energy"? It's not like individuals can mount a nuclear reactor on the roof of their house like they do solar panels or that some rancher can cut a deal with a nuclear power plant builder like they would some wind or solar farm developer.

I believe you live in the Waco area, meaning your electricity provider is Oncor. What's stopping Oncor from building more nukes like they have in Glen Rose? The cost. It's expensive as shit because of all the safety regulations due to the inherent risks of an accident, and building new ones likely wouldn't be profitable. So, are you saying we should get rid of the regulations? Which regulations are especially onerous or unneeded? Are you volunteering to live within a couple of miles of one?

If these plants can't be built profitably while also being safe, who should build them? A government that doesn't have to worry about direct ROI? Which government, federal or state? Guess what? There aren't good answers to those questions, and there haven't been any for quite a while.

So, in the meantime, we have these two revolutionary new technologies that are super cheap now that can generate a whole fuck load of power under the right conditions and that don't cause a bunch of air pollution. The problem is just managing the distribution and storage of that power so that it can get to where it needs to be (transmission) when it needs to be (storage).

Has anyone priced out the cost of a new nuclear power plant versus the transmission lines and batteries we need to continue supplying our energy with renewables? I'd bet Oncor has, and there's a reason why they're not building any today.

Maybe SMRs will revolutionize the business and solve all our energy problems. I'd be 100% in favor of that. How cool would it be for each town to have one set up next to their water tower? 

But, then, what the hell do we do with the waste?

[Brisketexan 103143]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

But, then, what the hell do we do with the waste?

It's like you haven't even heard of College Station.

[Biff Tannen 44917]

6 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I would be all in for nucular also

Going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a dig at W.

5 hours ago, Post Oak said:

Texas should just declare that it's mission is to have the lowest cost, cleanest, and most reliable electricity on the planet. Build the crap out of the grid - transmission and distribution. Stop pitting fossil fuels against renewables and nuclear against everyone. Just build everything, winterize everything. Make it the #1 destination for any data center, industrial or manufacturing facility, green hydrogen and chemicals production, DAC, CO2 sequestration, sustainable aviation fuel production, etc. It would not cost that much relative to the massive economic benefits and payback we could get here.

Gonna need to figure out the water issue though.

[Captainant 26861]

42 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Who are the folks "stubbornly spurning nuclear energy"? It's not like individuals can mount a nuclear reactor on the roof of their house like they do solar panels or that some rancher can cut a deal with a nuclear power plant builder like they would some wind or solar farm developer.

I believe you live in the Waco area, meaning your electricity provider is Oncor. What's stopping Oncor from building more nukes like they have in Glen Rose? The cost. It's expensive as shit because of all the safety regulations due to the inherent risks of an accident, and building new ones likely wouldn't be profitable. So, are you saying we should get rid of the regulations? Which regulations are especially onerous or unneeded? Are you volunteering to live within a couple of miles of one?

If these plants can't be built profitably while also being safe, who should build them? A government that doesn't have to worry about direct ROI? Which government, federal or state? Guess what? There aren't good answers to those questions, and there haven't been any for quite a while.

So, in the meantime, we have these two revolutionary new technologies that are super cheap now that can generate a whole fuck load of power under the right conditions and that don't cause a bunch of air pollution. The problem is just managing the distribution and storage of that power so that it can get to where it needs to be (transmission) when it needs to be (storage).

Has anyone priced out the cost of a new nuclear power plant versus the transmission lines and batteries we need to continue supplying our energy with renewables? I'd bet Oncor has, and there's a reason why they're not building any today.

Maybe SMRs will revolutionize the business and solve all our energy problems. I'd be 100% in favor of that. How cool would it be for each town to have one set up next to their water tower? 

But, then, what the hell do we do with the waste?

It's not that nuclear reactors are unprofitable - once they're running they just keep churning out power pretty much indefinitely with planned outages. But building and certifying them is immensely costly and full of risk due to the long construction times. This professor has a load of great talks on nuclear energy, but this is a great primer on why we aren't building more big nuke plants

 

But as you note, SMRs sidestep much of these problems. Waste is easier with them too since each fuel pebble element is it's own dry cask storage (in theory)

[deft 6747]

Counter-point: failing infrastructure is a good way to drive businesses away or keep them from moving here in the first place, especially those that rely on a lot of electricity. 

Counter-counter-point: the precedent is already set that if the grid becomes strained, we’ll pay them to turn off for a while. It’s literally a win-win for them.

[bolverk 28885]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's not that nuclear reactors are unprofitable - once they're running they just keep churning out power pretty much indefinitely with planned outages. But building and certifying them is immensely costly and full of risk due to the long construction times. This professor has a load of great talks on nuclear energy, but this is a great primer on why we aren't building more big nuke plants

But as you note, SMRs sidestep much of these problems. Waste is easier with them too since each fuel pebble element is it's own dry cask storage (in theory)

This was excellent. Thank you.

[Dnaguy 11538]

41 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a dig at W.

Gonna need to figure out the water issue though.

If we only had an entire ocean / gulf on the east coast to harness …..

Seriously though, you’re right.

You can’t decouple water and electricity. Any solution to one’s future needs the other and therefore the cost of each needs to be incorporated into the other and built out. 
West Texas renewable energy to the triangle and beyond AND getting desalinated water from the coast to the triangle and farther west by using renewable energy is the circle we need to square.

Edited April 17 by Dnaguy

[Biff Tannen 44917]

5 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

If we only had an entire ocean / gulf on the east coast to harness …..

Seriously though, you’re right.

You can’t decouple water and electricity. Any solution to one’s future needs the other and therefore the cost of each needs to be incorporated into the other and built out. 
West Texas renewable energy to the triangle and beyond AND getting desalinated water from the coast to the triangle and farther west by using renewable energy is the circle we need to square.

I cannot for the life of me fathom how affordable desalinization hasn't been cracked yet.  

[Brisketexan 103143]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I cannot for the life of me fathom how affordable desalinization hasn't been cracked yet.  

The rub is all in the "affordable."  Chemical processes require energy.  Energy costs money (even renewable energy like solar -- initial investment, dispatching, maintenance, there's real cost there).  So, desal costs money.    The key to cheap desal is cheap energy.  Which, indeed, hasn't been cracked yet.

Oh, there's also the teeny tiny cost problem of transportation.  Want to build a 450 mile pipeline to pump that desalinated water to Midland from Corpus?  A decent-sized pipeline costs anywhere from $5 million to over $10 million per mile (and that $5 million number is way low from what I understand these days).  Even if we split the difference and say it's $7.5 million per mile, that's around $3.4 billion....just to build it.  Now you have to operate it (takes energy to pump water uphill) and maintain it -- a shitload in opex every year.

There are solutions to every problem we have (energy, water, etc.).  All it takes is ungodly amounts of money.  What we're searching for are cost-effective solutions, and those are really hard to come by.  Not criticizing your post, BTW -- you acknowledge the problem.  Just building on it.

[Biff Tannen 44917]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The rub is all in the "affordable."  Chemical processes require energy.  Energy costs money (even renewable energy like solar -- initial investment, dispatching, maintenance, there's real cost there).  So, desal costs money.    The key to cheap desal is cheap energy.  Which, indeed, hasn't been cracked yet.

Oh, there's also the teeny tiny cost problem of transportation.  Want to build a 450 mile pipeline to pump that desalinated water to Midland from Corpus?  A decent-sized pipeline costs anywhere from $5 million to over $10 million per mile (and that $5 million number is way low from what I understand these days).  Even if we split the difference and say it's $7.5 million per mile, that's around $3.4 billion....just to build it.  Now you have to operate it (takes energy to pump water uphill) and maintain it -- a shitload in opex every year.

There are solutions to every problem we have (energy, water, etc.).  All it takes is ungodly amounts of money.  What we're searching for are cost-effective solutions, and those are really hard to come by.  Not criticizing your post, BTW -- you acknowledge the problem.  Just building on it.

One of my questions is regarding how much energy it requires.  In my very rudimentary understanding of the process, it's basically electrolysis right?  Have there been advances in the efficiency of that process or is it pretty much a constant, just due to physics?

And yes, the infrastructure part will always be a huge issue, but it HAS to happen.  

[bolverk 28885]

55 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The rub is all in the "affordable."  Chemical processes require energy.  Energy costs money (even renewable energy like solar -- initial investment, dispatching, maintenance, there's real cost there).  So, desal costs money.    The key to cheap desal is cheap energy.  Which, indeed, hasn't been cracked yet.

Oh, there's also the teeny tiny cost problem of transportation.  Want to build a 450 mile pipeline to pump that desalinated water to Midland from Corpus?  A decent-sized pipeline costs anywhere from $5 million to over $10 million per mile (and that $5 million number is way low from what I understand these days).  Even if we split the difference and say it's $7.5 million per mile, that's around $3.4 billion....just to build it.  Now you have to operate it (takes energy to pump water uphill) and maintain it -- a shitload in opex every year.

There are solutions to every problem we have (energy, water, etc.).  All it takes is ungodly amounts of money.  What we're searching for are cost-effective solutions, and those are really hard to come by.  Not criticizing your post, BTW -- you acknowledge the problem.  Just building on it.

 

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

One of my questions is regarding how much energy it requires.  In my very rudimentary understanding of the process, it's basically electrolysis right?  Have there been advances in the efficiency of that process or is it pretty much a constant, just due to physics?

And yes, the infrastructure part will always be a huge issue, but it HAS to happen.  

 

Another consideration with desalination is what to do with all the brine, but smart folks are looking into that.

https://news.mit.edu/2019/brine-desalianation-waste-sodium-hydroxide-0213

[InkaUtexas 24820]

Dubai was mostly desalinated. The amount of green smog coming off that fucker. This was early 2000's and I know the tech is better. But yeah, there are byproducts and other considerations. That said, we need to figure it out.

[atomheartbevo 88750]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

There are solutions to every problem we have (energy, water, etc.).  All it takes is ungodly amounts of money.  What we're searching for are cost-effective solutions, and those are really hard to come by.  Not criticizing your post, BTW -- you acknowledge the problem.  Just building on it.

I feel like in the short term, we are going to have to do something to reduce consumption.  Whether that’s stopping water-thirsty non-native lawn grasses, or doing something about companies and people running automated big-ass sprinklers when it’s raining, or scaling back on water-hungry companies moving to Texas, or a combination, I don’t know.

We are not even really trying to educate people on the coming water crisis either, so a shitload of them are going to melt down when it truly hits.

[Dnaguy 11538]

I’m not tied into this but there has to be a synergy in which you drop the price of electricity low enough to unlock economics for desal which then unlocks some further efficiencies in electricity production to lower cost and which then allows for pipeline operation further and further / replenishment of aquifers by pumping water back into them.

However, this feels like something of a 60’s space race style commitment by true statesmen, planners, and critical thinkers…. a true moonshot.

[Beau Vine 53625]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

However, this feels like something of a 60’s space race style commitment by true statesmen, planners, and critical thinkers.

Well, we have none of those in state leadership, so...

[Post Oak 20068]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I feel like in the short term, we are going to have to do something to reduce consumption.  Whether that’s stopping water-thirsty non-native lawn grasses, or doing something about companies and people running automated big-ass sprinklers when it’s raining, or scaling back on water-hungry companies moving to Texas, or a combination, I don’t know.

We are not even really trying to educate people on the coming water crisis either, so a shitload of them are going to melt down when it truly hits.

This is correct.

Start at the tap and work backwards. Incentivize people to remove grass lawns or much of them. I still want places in my yard where my kids can run and play too.

Plant drought tolerant hybrids or natives.  You shouldn't have to water more than 2x a week, even in summer to keep something alive that wants to die.

Running your sprinklers during the day - straight to jail. Watering your driveway or the street- jail.

There needs to be rebates and incentives on a statewide scale to help people with these things. Replacing lawns, smart sprinklers, gutter, water collection and grey water systems. That's the carrot.  If that doesnt work use the stick and issue fines.

The plan should be to try to use every drop of water twice. 

I saw a video about a company that makes a system that takes your shower water, filters it just enough and then makes it available for your toilet flushing. From there it's sent to the sewer or septic.  But they claimed just by doing that you would save close to 40% of your water usage.

I hate being worried about the grid but I'm much more worried long-term about our water situation.

We need to invest heavily in wastewater recycling and aquifer recharge.

I know some Texans like to bang on CA. In 2023 when they got all of the rain that filled up their reservoirs and they had to release it down stream and eventually to the Pacific people were incredulous that they were wasting it.  The truth is they have set up passive recharge zones where they're able to flood fields and allow that water to soak in.  Probably not enough but some. They also have active recharge.  Where it's pumped underground. Some, not enough.

I'm not sure if we have those same types of practices.  I couldn't find much info.  If we don't, we should.  Hundreds of them. All over the state.  We have to plant the water before it evaporates or meets the Gulf.

The sooner everyone realizes we need to start behaving like El Paso or Phoenix the better off we'll be. 

But we're Texas so you know...

 

 

 

[InkaUtexas 24820]

^^^^

 

[elfenix 34000]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 Whether that’s stopping water-thirsty non-native lawn grasses

 

Quote

Each year, we drench our lawns with enough water to fill the Chesapeake Bay! That makes grass – not corn – America’s largest irrigated crop. Our nation’s lawns now cover an area larger than New York State, and, each year, we use about 2.4 million metric tons of fertilizer just to maintain them. When there is too much fertilizer on our lawns, essential nutrients are easily washed away by sprinklers and rainstorms. When these nutrients enter storm drains and water bodies, they often become one of the most harmful sources of water pollution in the United States

 

https://legacy.geog.ucsb.edu/the-lawn-is-the-largest-irrigated-crop-in-the-usa/

Edited April 18 by elfenix

[UTexasFight 9288]

1 hour ago, Post Oak said:

This is correct.

Start at the tap and work backwards. Incentivize people to remove grass lawns or much of them. I still want places in my yard where my kids can run and play too.

Plant drought tolerant hybrids or natives.  You shouldn't have to water more than 2x a week, even in summer to keep something alive that wants to die.

Running your sprinklers during the day - straight to jail. Watering your driveway or the street- jail.

There needs to be rebates and incentives on a statewide scale to help people with these things. Replacing lawns, smart sprinklers, gutter, water collection and grey water systems. That's the carrot.  If that doesnt work use the stick and issue fines.

The plan should be to try to use every drop of water twice. 

I saw a video about a company that makes a system that takes your shower water, filters it just enough and then makes it available for your toilet flushing. From there it's sent to the sewer or septic.  But they claimed just by doing that you would save close to 40% of your water usage.

I hate being worried about the grid but I'm much more worried long-term about our water situation.

We need to invest heavily in wastewater recycling and aquifer recharge.

I know some Texans like to bang on CA. In 2023 when they got all of the rain that filled up their reservoirs and they had to release it down stream and eventually to the Pacific people were incredulous that they were wasting it.  The truth is they have set up passive recharge zones where they're able to flood fields and allow that water to soak in.  Probably not enough but some. They also have active recharge.  Where it's pumped underground. Some, not enough.

I'm not sure if we have those same types of practices.  I couldn't find much info.  If we don't, we should.  Hundreds of them. All over the state.  We have to plant the water before it evaporates or meets the Gulf.

The sooner everyone realizes we need to start behaving like El Paso or Phoenix the better off we'll be. 

But we're Texas so you know...

 

 

 

Fill these surveys out.

you have 13 days.

 

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/texas-water-development-board-seeks-public-input-on-texas-water-fund-priorities-implementation/amp/

[UTexasFight 9288]

6 hours ago, bolverk said:

Who are the folks "stubbornly spurning nuclear energy"? It's not like individuals can mount a nuclear reactor on the roof of their house like they do solar panels or that some rancher can cut a deal with a nuclear power plant builder like they would some wind or solar farm developer.

I believe you live in the Waco area, meaning your electricity provider is Oncor. What's stopping Oncor from building more nukes like they have in Glen Rose? The cost. It's expensive as shit because of all the safety regulations due to the inherent risks of an accident, and building new ones likely wouldn't be profitable. So, are you saying we should get rid of the regulations? Which regulations are especially onerous or unneeded? Are you volunteering to live within a couple of miles of one?

If these plants can't be built profitably while also being safe, who should build them? A government that doesn't have to worry about direct ROI? Which government, federal or state? Guess what? There aren't good answers to those questions, and there haven't been any for quite a while.

So, in the meantime, we have these two revolutionary new technologies that are super cheap now that can generate a whole fuck load of power under the right conditions and that don't cause a bunch of air pollution. The problem is just managing the distribution and storage of that power so that it can get to where it needs to be (transmission) when it needs to be (storage).

Has anyone priced out the cost of a new nuclear power plant versus the transmission lines and batteries we need to continue supplying our energy with renewables? I'd bet Oncor has, and there's a reason why they're not building any today.

Maybe SMRs will revolutionize the business and solve all our energy problems. I'd be 100% in favor of that. How cool would it be for each town to have one set up next to their water tower? 

But, then, what the hell do we do with the waste?

Figure out fusion.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-japan-announce-joint-partnership-accelerate-nuclear-fusion-sources-2024-04-10/

[Biff Tannen 44917]

9 hours ago, UTexasFight said:

Fill these surveys out.

you have 13 days.

 

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/texas-water-development-board-seeks-public-input-on-texas-water-fund-priorities-implementation/amp/

Good god, whoever wrote those surveys should be beaten with a bag of oranges.  It reads like one of the Texas constitution amendments that politicians are trying to trick voters into approving.

[Post Oak 20068]

ERCOT expects they need to add 62 GW of energy by 2030

 

 

 

[Newdoc 3421]

17 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

ERCOT expects they need to add 62 GW of energy by 2030

Or we need to reduce and meet in the middle. Sounds like I need to bite the bullet and look into home solar.

[utee94 15671]

3 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Or we need to reduce and meet in the middle. Sounds like I need to bite the bullet and look into home solar.

No way man, do you even read this board?   Surlys MUST run their air conditioners at 68 throughout the summer.  

 

[Captainant 26861]

5 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Or we need to reduce and meet in the middle. Sounds like I need to bite the bullet and look into home solar.

I really do think home solar + energy storage is going to be the answer. You can charge your battery up overnight for pennies on the dollar when grid demand is low, and then use your panels during the day with the battery available as additional capacity during the hot part of the day. It would remove a hell of a lot of strain from our grid, but would require government incentives to make economical.

Unfortunately, the government incentives have been going to Chinese cryptominers that moved to Texas after they got kicked out of their home country. 

Ah well, nevertheless. 

[texasdago 7376]

I also worry about water and get so frustrated when I see people wasting water for their precious green grass... especially when you're under water restrictions and they say F that.  We're mostly xeriscaped... not a lick of grass in the back yard (trees, beds, decomposed granite, brick patio areas) and 10% St. Augustine in the front... with beds, paths, trees etc etc.  I've really focused on adding natives and incorporating yuccas, agaves, cacti and other plants that are mostly bulletproof.  Really makes my life easier and it saves a ton of water.    

[Post Oak 20068]

Same. We have about a 1/3 acre lot and are focusing on adding beds around the borders full of natives while keeping the some of the center back yard grass for the kids.  

Started last year DIY and if we can get to 50/50 on our lot in a few years I'll be ecstatic. Building beds, ripping up grass is a fucking workout.

Plus one thing I've learned is that being out in your yard and seeing birds, bees and hummingbirds is good for my soul.

[Nivek 16643]

No way man, do you even read this board?   Surlys MUST run their air conditioners at 68 throughout the summer.  
 

Is this the real problem or is this like complaining about people watering their yards during a drought, while our agriculture grows inefficient crops to ship overseas?

[YChang 3365]

53 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I really do think home solar + energy storage is going to be the answer. You can charge your battery up overnight for pennies on the dollar when grid demand is low, and then use your panels during the day with the battery available as additional capacity during the hot part of the day. It would remove a hell of a lot of strain from our grid, but would require government incentives to make economical.

Unfortunately, the government incentives have been going to Chinese cryptominers that moved to Texas after they got kicked out of their home country. 

Ah well, nevertheless. 

 

Pretty much what I do now and maybe in a few more years (especially if I remain in TX), I'll investigate if it's worth replacing my traditional AC with a heatpump. 

[elfenix 34000]

32 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Is this the real problem or is this like complaining about people watering their yards during a drought, while our agriculture grows inefficient crops to ship overseas?

must have missed the thing about lawn grass being the largest irrigated crop in the US which i posted above.