Jump to content

ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation


Vic Mackey

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

Yep, the Luddites had the right idea

image.thumb.png.31a579dc30d9de385ea2257492579ce1.png

Big difference is that a bitcoin mine is not producing anything of value or "taking" a job from a person. It's just sucking up electricity to prop up what has developed into an extremely elaborate ponzi scheme

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is 99.999999% chance that this is going nowhere. I'm probably way wrong but I doubt the state's energy companies want to expand the State market to outside competitors. 

 

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/greg-casar-aoc-to-propose-connecting-ercot-to-other-power-grids/

Two Democratic members of Congress are planning to put forward a plan that would require Texas to connect to other larger power grids in the nation, potentially upending the state’s standalone approach to producing and overseeing its own energy market.

U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Austin, announced he’ll author a bill called the “Connect the Grid Act” alongside U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. While his office is not sharing many details yet about the proposed legislation, the lawmakers said they’ll speak more in-depth about the particulars during a news conference planned for Wednesday afternoon.

According to a news release, though, the progressive lawmakers said the legislation “would require the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to connect to the nation’s major electric grids.” However, the proposal may not gain much traction in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives amid a major election year.

“By connecting the ERCOT grid, all Texans and Americans would have more reliable electricity, saving lives in future natural disasters,” the release continued. “The U.S. would also be better-able to reach its climate goals with Texas’s clean energy production.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

This is 99.999999% chance that this is going nowhere. I'm probably way wrong but I doubt the state's energy companies want to expand the State market to outside competitors. 

 

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/greg-casar-aoc-to-propose-connecting-ercot-to-other-power-grids/

Two Democratic members of Congress are planning to put forward a plan that would require Texas to connect to other larger power grids in the nation, potentially upending the state’s standalone approach to producing and overseeing its own energy market.

U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Austin, announced he’ll author a bill called the “Connect the Grid Act” alongside U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. While his office is not sharing many details yet about the proposed legislation, the lawmakers said they’ll speak more in-depth about the particulars during a news conference planned for Wednesday afternoon.

According to a news release, though, the progressive lawmakers said the legislation “would require the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to connect to the nation’s major electric grids.” However, the proposal may not gain much traction in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives amid a major election year.

“By connecting the ERCOT grid, all Texans and Americans would have more reliable electricity, saving lives in future natural disasters,” the release continued. “The U.S. would also be better-able to reach its climate goals with Texas’s clean energy production.”

I'm sure they'll get that knocked out and passed in no time. 

Chelsea Peretti Eye Roll GIF by Brooklyn Nine-Nine

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
30 minutes ago, Smax said:

Thought this was pretty cool

 

 

Now just imagine if we were banking that power in storage rather than giving it to Chinese bitcoin miners and then paying them to turn off when there's a pinch. 

Really exciting to see so much growth in renewable energy though

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is legitimately fucking awesome.  And flies in the face of everything this state does politically.

Abbott knows that another grid failure is just about the only way he gets unelected. I don't care the motivations. I'm just glad ERCOT/PUC/the lege/Abbott are on board. It was inexcusable what happened during the 2021 shitstorm. They all should've been fired and unelected after that bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are onboarding more alternative energy to blame this coming summer and winter.  So as an excuse to roll it back and pay more for LNG.  There’s also a side angle play to permit new SMRs which I’m cool with.  I’ll go a typical long diatribe about it all later.  But it’s a mid-term con game with regard to batteries.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

They are onboarding more alternative energy to blame this coming summer and winter.  So as an excuse to roll it back and pay more for LNG.  There’s also a side angle play to permit new SMRs which I’m cool with.  I’ll go a typical long diatribe about it all later.  But it’s a mid-term con game with regard to batteries.  

I disagree. No politician on either side of the aisle wants another grid failure. It would be beyond gross incompetence if it happened, again. That's a quick way to get the full ire of the voting public. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, YGIFS said:

They are onboarding more alternative energy to blame this coming summer and winter.  So as an excuse to roll it back and pay more for LNG.  There’s also a side angle play to permit new SMRs which I’m cool with.  I’ll go a typical long diatribe about it all later.  But it’s a mid-term con game with regard to batteries.  

What? No. They are onboarding more renewable energy because that is what private entities are offering to build. The projects coming online now have been in the works for years. This is not some secret plan, it is the market doing its work despite the political rhetoric. The economics of renewables are simply better. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

What? No. They are onboarding more renewable energy because that is what private entities are offering to build. The projects coming online now have been in the works for years. This is not some secret plan, it is the market doing its work despite the political rhetoric. The economics of renewables are simply better. 

Like I said...

But truthfully, my buddy (is a longhorn and) is in the renewables space. He was at a conventional generator for most of his career in various capacities and the stories he told me about trying to build generation plants was crazy...  From acquiring land to permits to materials and labor, everybody involved wanted their lagniappe. Not shit got built in many many years.

I don't know how wind farms come together so easily, but I just landed at IAH from the west coast, and there are turbines everywhere once you hit the Texas border. The money must be good and easy (relative to LNG power gen).

I'll have to ask him about the major differences. He's all in on renewables... Even bought himself an electric truck.

Edited by Slacks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are onboarding more alternative energy to blame this coming summer and winter.  So as an excuse to roll it back and pay more for LNG.  There’s also a side angle play to permit new SMRs which I’m cool with.  I’ll go a typical long diatribe about it all later.  But it’s a mid-term con game with regard to batteries.  

What the fuck are you talking about? Rolling back renewables to pay more for LNG? Last I checked no one in Ercot is buying LNG. & no one is rolling back renewables any time soon, they are more of the grid everyday.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Horns99 said:


What the fuck are you talking about? Rolling back renewables to pay more for LNG? Last I checked no one in Ercot is buying LNG. & no one is rolling back renewables any time soon, they are more of the grid everyday.

There was a proposed rule change by ERCOT to penalize batteries as energy storage for having less energy available as they discharge. 

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ercot-battery-capacity-rule-NPRR-1186-state-of-charge-SOC/697653/

https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-a-grid-rule-change-could-derail-texas-renewables/

It's effectively just rote applying the generation rules for fossil fuels generation over onto renewables, which have a fundamentally different operating cycle. Such moves by ERCOT are strong evidence of an intent to kneecap renewables. 

Plus ya know, their whole blaming of the entire February 2021 outage on renewables. 

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Captainant said:

There was a proposed rule change by ERCOT to penalize batteries as energy storage for having less energy available as they discharge. 

Wait, what?  A battery is an energy bucket.  It can store a fixed amount of energy.  That energy gets doled out as power (watts = joules/sec) and over time the stored energy depletes.  At that point the battery must be recharged.  It is literally analogous to the gas tank in a car.

It doesn't matter what form of energy the battery stores -- electrochemical (lead-acid, lithium-ion, hot salt, etc.), potential (pumped hydro, etc.), kinetic (flywheels, etc.).  Maximum stored energy is fixed and it can eventually be drained.  This is not a "failure mode" or even a flaw.  It's physics.

(Not that you don't know this @Captainant, but I get pissed off when politicians misconstrue fundamental physics to help line the pocketbooks of their supporters.)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what?  A battery is an energy bucket.  It can store a fixed amount of energy.  That energy gets doled out as power (watts = joules/sec) and over time the stored energy depletes.  At that point the battery must be recharged.  It is literally analogous to the gas tank in a car.
It doesn't matter what form of energy the battery stores -- electrochemical (lead-acid, lithium-ion, hot salt, etc.), potential (pumped hydro, etc.), kinetic (flywheels, etc.).  Maximum stored energy is fixed and it can eventually be drained.  This is not a "failure mode" or even a flaw.  It's physics.
(Not that you don't know this [mention=51]Captainant[/mention], but I get pissed off when politicians misconstrue fundamental physics to help line the pocketbooks of their supporters.)

Do batteries run directly on Dino juice 100% of the time…which is what puts the money in the pockets of rich donors, who then transfer some of that money to the politicians they have bought? No? Well then, now you understand why they are proposing rules that would penalize batteries. They want to incentivize one thing and one thing only: fossil fuel generation. They regret like hell the lurch towards renewables.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where else this goes since it's going to be more and more of an issue. Maybe start a "What the fuck is wrong with you, Bitcoin miners?" thread.

Y'all see the recent Bitcoin lawsuit against the DOE?

tldr; Department of Energy initiates an emergency survey on just how much energy Bitcoin mining is utilizing. Texas easily has the most mining operations in the U.S.

So Big Bitcoin says "no, that could reveal proprietary shit" and/or "you need to follow standard procedures" (can agree with that, if that part is true)

So Department of Energy backs off as of a couple days ago and we're no closer to a real picture and facts as of now.

 

So ... do they follow through with a formal "official" request? Will Bitcoin energy vampires companies reveal true data or not?

If Bitcoin did fuck-all for anyone other than make adopters rich doing nothing but running glorified WOPR computers, while generating more digital bullshit I couldn't care less about, then maybe I'd listen to their side.

With energy demand increasing and Texas' inability to meet it, I'm more interested in all the info, because my hunch is these are "get rich at all costs (to others)" types of individuals and businesses.

From Texas Monthly (SIAP)

Quote

The Department of Energy estimates that between 0.6 percent and 2.3 percent of all electricity in the U.S. goes toward mining Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrency. (On the low end, that’s roughly equivalent to all the electricity used in Colorado homes; on the high end, California.) The percentage is likely higher in Texas.  

And as mentioned upthread, Bitcoin companies are gettin' paid for NOT drinking everyone else's milkshake:

Quote

When it is very hot or very cold, ERCOT pays large users to power down. Riot Platforms, a large miner in the Central Texas town of Rockdale, said it earned $189 million mining Bitcoin last year and $71.2 million from ERCOT. This isn’t pocket change. Riot told investors this was “integral to our overall strategy.”

 

  • Rage+1 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gofuckyourself said:

Not sure where else this goes since it's going to be more and more of an issue. Maybe start a "What the fuck is wrong with you, Bitcoin miners?" thread.

Y'all see the recent Bitcoin lawsuit against the DOE?

tldr; Department of Energy initiates an emergency survey on just how much energy Bitcoin mining is utilizing. Texas easily has the most mining operations in the U.S.

So Big Bitcoin says "no, that could reveal proprietary shit" and/or "you need to follow standard procedures" (can agree with that, if that part is true)

So Department of Energy backs off as of a couple days ago and we're no closer to a real picture and facts as of now.

 

So ... do they follow through with a formal "official" request? Will Bitcoin energy vampires companies reveal true data or not?

If Bitcoin did fuck-all for anyone other than make adopters rich doing nothing but running glorified WOPR computers, while generating more digital bullshit I couldn't care less about, then maybe I'd listen to their side.

With energy demand increasing and Texas' inability to meet it, I'm more interested in all the info, because my hunch is these are "get rich at all costs (to others)" types of individuals and businesses.

From Texas Monthly (SIAP)

And as mentioned upthread, Bitcoin companies are gettin' paid for NOT drinking everyone else's milkshake:

 

You'll have to ask the latest reincanation of comrade GRUhorn, @Cum Rocket if you'd like to know "wtf is wrong with you, bitcoiners?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really curious at how fast the next energy revolution is going to come.  I've been involved in some sort of energy my entire adult life.  I recently jumped into data centers and those things are energy hungry.  They now are planning to go all in on AI stuff and the limitation is going to be energy.  They are pouring a lot of money to do energy.  Wouldn't be surprised if Google and Facebook ended up with an energy subsidiary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gofuckyourself said:

So ... do they follow through with a formal "official" request? Will Bitcoin energy vampires companies reveal true data or not?

China won’t reveal the true data - too much of a risk of people/companies seeing how profitable things can be if they see the energy used and wanting to jump on the bandwagon, or locals getting pissed and driving them out of town.  ERCOT will probably fight the data being revealed as well.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Captainant said:

You'll have to ask the latest reincanation of comrade GRUhorn, @Cum Rocket if you'd like to know "wtf is wrong with you, bitcoiners?"

Don’t know why this has got your goat right now, but the known benefits of large flexible loads to electric grids have been discussed here before.  
 

47 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

I am really curious at how fast the next energy revolution is going to come.  I've been involved in some sort of energy my entire adult life.  I recently jumped into data centers and those things are energy hungry.  They now are planning to go all in on AI stuff and the limitation is going to be energy.  They are pouring a lot of money to do energy.  Wouldn't be surprised if Google and Facebook ended up with an energy subsidiary.

Correct. Bye bye energy transition. 
 

 

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cum Rocket said:

Don’t know why this has got your goat right now, but the known benefits of large flexible loads to electric grids have been discussed here before.  

Lol yeah it's super beneficial to throw $71,000,000 at a bunch of chinese nationals so they can crash our grid

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, gofuckyourself said:

Not sure where else this goes since it's going to be more and more of an issue. Maybe start a "What the fuck is wrong with you, Bitcoin miners?" thread.

Y'all see the recent Bitcoin lawsuit against the DOE?

tldr; Department of Energy initiates an emergency survey on just how much energy Bitcoin mining is utilizing. Texas easily has the most mining operations in the U.S.

So Big Bitcoin says "no, that could reveal proprietary shit" and/or "you need to follow standard procedures" (can agree with that, if that part is true)

So Department of Energy backs off as of a couple days ago and we're no closer to a real picture and facts as of now.

 

So ... do they follow through with a formal "official" request? Will Bitcoin energy vampires companies reveal true data or not?

If Bitcoin did fuck-all for anyone other than make adopters rich doing nothing but running glorified WOPR computers, while generating more digital bullshit I couldn't care less about, then maybe I'd listen to their side.

With energy demand increasing and Texas' inability to meet it, I'm more interested in all the info, because my hunch is these are "get rich at all costs (to others)" types of individuals and businesses.

From Texas Monthly (SIAP)

And as mentioned upthread, Bitcoin companies are gettin' paid for NOT drinking everyone else's milkshake:

 

The lawsuit and resulting order stopping the survey were honestly pretty meritorious. DOE tried to justify requiring the survey as an emergency measures to bypass normally required formal rule making. But, as important as tracking Bitcoin mining energy usage use is, it isn't an emergency that justifies throwing away normal procedures. Frankly, if the DOE had gotten away with it, it would have set a precedent ripe for future abuse. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

image.thumb.png.b9ed1cf8c1a11dd1463aa26f39bedd82.png

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

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Well, we already have it on good authority that wind turbines  cause cancer.  Maybe power lines cause cancer too?  

Not building more power lines aids profitability and thanks to our regulatory capture, creates a natural disincentive for a profit driven entity just through market forces. It makes power less available so utilities have more ability to induce local shortages to enable them to charge exorbitant rates! And plus who's gonna pay for those new  capital investments for infrastructure to reduce systemic risk?? It certainly can't be the shareholder!!! 

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article on the rapid change of ERCOT

https://ieefa.org/resources/momentous-changes-way-ercot-texas-renewable-transition-rolls

Quote

 

Analysis ERCOT Solar Utility Trends Texas United States

Momentous changes on the way in ERCOT as Texas renewable transition rolls on

February 14, 2024

Dennis Wamsted

Key Findings

Solar generation in ERCOT, the independent system operator that serves about 90% of electricity demand in Texas, jumped 46% in January.

The rapid construction of battery storage projects in the past two years is another sign of the shift to renewable energy under way in ERCOT

Currently, ERCOT has 5,242 MW of operational battery storage capacity; by the end of the year, the figure is expected to more than double to 10,923 MW.

This recent renewable energy data from Texas demonstrates that rapid transitions are indeed possible.

Solar generation in ERCOT, the independent system operator that serves about 90% of electricity demand in Texas, jumped 46% in January, rising to 2.2 million megawatt-hours (MWh) from 1.5 million MWh in 2023.

The sharp increase was highlighted by three solar records during the month. The first occurred Jan. 16 at the height of a strong winter cold snap. Output climbed to 14,837 megawatts (MW), accounting for 23% of total system demand. The second two records were set on Jan. 28, when solar hit new highs both for generation at 15,222 MW and for market share at 36.1%.

Those records were short-lived, as solar generation smashed through 16,000 MW on Feb. 13, topping 16,500 MW for an hour in the morning. At that point, and for some 7.5 hours during the day, solar provided more than 30% of the system’s power needs. More records will be forthcoming, as massive amounts of new PV capacity are expected online in ERCOT over the next two years. As of January, 22,258 MW of PV capacity were operational in ERCOT; by the end of 2024, the figure could climb to more than 30,000 MW, according to the system operator’s latest data.

This new capacity sets the stage for a momentous shift at ERCOT this year, when solar generation is likely to top coal-fired generation. In its latest short-term energy outlook released Feb. 6, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected that solar generation in ERCOT will increase by 24 million MWh in 2024, while coal’s output will drop by 14 million MWh. Combining those forecasts with ERCOT’s year-end totals for 2023 puts solar generation at 56 million MWh by year’s end and coal-fired generation at a projected 48 million MWh.

ERCOT data shows that an additional 13,153 MW of solar capacity could be operational in 2025, so the gap between the two resources will only continue to widen. The totals also are conservative, reflecting only the capacity most likely to be built—projects that have both signed transmission interconnection agreements and posted the financial security needed to complete the tie-ins.

An equally important transition could occur in 2025. In its February forecast, EIA projects that wind and solar generation in ERCOT will climb to 189 million MWh, topping natural gas (at 177 million MWh) as the system’s single largest generation resource. Adding nuclear’s projected output of 42 million MWh would push ERCOT’s carbon-free generation above 50% for the first time, a stunning shift from 2015, when solar data was not even independently released by the system operator, wind was 11.7% and nuclear 11.3%—totaling just 23% of the system’s total generation.

The rapid construction of battery storage projects in the past two years is another sign of the shift under way in ERCOT. In its review of the system’s performance during the mid-January winter storm, which resulted in five new all-time winter demand records, ERCOT noted that battery storage facilities provided an average of 1.5% of total energy needs during the three highest peak periods. The percentage is certain to climb. Currently, ERCOT has 5,242 MW of operational battery storage capacity; by the end of the year, the figure is expected to more than double to 10,923 MW (again, this represents only those projects with signed interconnection agreements and posted financial security). And more storage is on the way in 2025, with ERCOT data showing another 6,210 MW in the advanced development stage.

As we showed here, storage is ideally suited for shifting solar generated during lower demand periods in the midday to hours of higher need, particularly during early morning hours in the winter and late afternoon/early evening peak periods in the summer. Installed battery storage capacity is expected to reach almost 7,800 MW by this summer, which would help significantly in meeting the state’s fast-rising peak demand needs.

Data IEEFA collected in 2023 showed that solar supplied roughly 62% of its installed capacity (10,898 MW of the 17,631 MW total) to the grid during the peak hour of the state’s record-setting summer between June 15 and Sept. 15, 2023. This amounted to a little less than 14% of demand on average for the 93-day period. Given the significant increase in installed capacity projected by June 2024 (ERCOT estimates 24,000 MW could be online), solar could be pumping almost 15,000 MW into the ERCOT grid during the peak hour this summer, which would have been 19% of demand last summer. Couple that with the fast-rising amount of battery storage and you have a one-two punch that can keep the grid running reliably.

Rapid transitions are indeed possible. One need look no further than Texas for proof.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Captainant said:

Not building more power lines aids profitability and thanks to our regulatory capture, creates a natural disincentive for a profit driven entity just through market forces. It makes power less available so utilities have more ability to induce local shortages to enable them to charge exorbitant rates! And plus who's gonna pay for those new  capital investments for infrastructure to reduce systemic risk?? It certainly can't be the shareholder!!! 

Theres been North Houston pole trucks putting up new poles everywhere you look in a 75 mile radius outside Houston for the last 18 months. Replacing wooden poles with the brown painted metal shit. Probably so they can decrease profitability, right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Theres been North Houston pole trucks putting up new poles everywhere you look in a 75 mile radius outside Houston for the last 18 months. Replacing wooden poles with the brown painted metal shit. Probably so they can decrease profitability, right. 

That's... not the transmission lines between the vast renewables in West Texas and the rest of the state nor the high power transmission lines that caused more than a million acres to burn? And yeah, I've been looking at a downed wood pole on my street for a week and a half now, I'm eager for a metal replacement whenever they get around to it. 

But I'm glad you have a local anecdote that gives you the thin justification to act like there's not a systemic issue

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Tell me again why we cant bury power lines?

In Austin/Central Texas, well:

37 minutes ago, miguelito said:

It's expensive, especially in rock.

Google Fiber spent a lot doing small trenches.  I can’t imagine the cost for power lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s expensive after the fact. Every utility is. Planned in advance it’s cheaper and safer. Unless someone can prove me wrong I’ll continue to believe this is a direct result of kicking the can down the road, and being unwilling to invest for the future.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

That's... not the transmission lines between the vast renewables in West Texas and the rest of the state nor the high power transmission lines that caused more than a million acres to burn? And yeah, I've been looking at a downed wood pole on my street for a week and a half now, I'm eager for a metal replacement whenever they get around to it. 

But I'm glad you have a local anecdote that gives you the thin justification to act like there's not a systemic issue

Yes, I understand very well the difference between transmission and distribution.  Your post references neither, only that infrastructure isn’t valued because losses to shareholders.   Which patently (and anecdotally in this case) is false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Burying transmission lines has been about 70% of our work over last 5 years or so.  It’s very, very expensive.   

spacer.png

Make these in large size and problem solved. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...