Wholesale Price of Electricity Spikes 10,000%
As a background on the clean energy debate, please consider The Wholesale Price of Electricity Spikes 10,000% in Texas Power Outage.
Let’s discuss wind turbines, natural gas, and coal.
A Deep Green Freeze
The Wall Street Journal editorial board says “Power shortages show the folly of eliminating natural gas—and coal.”
I agree with some of what they say and disagree with parts of it as well.
Please consider A Deep Green Freeze by the WSJ.
Gas and power prices have spiked across the central U.S. while Texas regulators ordered rolling blackouts Monday as an Arctic blast has frozen wind turbines. Herein is the paradox of the left’s climate agenda: The less we use fossil fuels, the more we need them.
A mix of ice and snow swept across the country this weekend as temperatures plunged below zero in the upper Midwest and into the teens in Houston. Cold snaps happen—the U.S. also experienced a Polar Vortex in 2019—as do heat waves. Yet the power grid is becoming less reliable due to growing reliance on wind and solar, which can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Texas’s energy emergency could last all week as the weather is forecast to remain frigid. “My understanding is, the wind turbines are all frozen,” Public Utility Commission Chairman DeAnn Walker said Friday. “We are working already to try and ensure we have enough power but it’s taken a lot of coordination.”
Wind’s share has tripled to about 25% since 2010 and accounted for 42% of power last week before the freeze set in. About half of Texans rely on electric pumps for heating, which liberals want to mandate everywhere. But the pumps use a lot of power in frigid weather. So while wind turbines were freezing, demand for power was surging.
California progressives long ago banished coal. But a heat wave last summer strained the state’s power grid as wind flagged and solar ebbed in the evenings. After imposing rolling blackouts, grid regulators resorted to importing coal power from Utah and running diesel emergency generators.
Liberals claim that prices of renewables and fossil fuels are now comparable, which may be true due to subsidies, but they are no free lunch, as this week’s energy emergency shows. The Biden Administration’s plan to banish fossil fuels is a greater existential threat to Americans than climate change.
Greater Existential Threat
The Journal claims “The Biden Administration’s plan to banish fossil fuels is a greater existential threat to Americans than climate change.”
I agree 100%.
But what to do about it?
Clean Energy
I am a big fan of natural gas and believe it is clean energy. The byproduct of burning natural gas is carbon dioxide and water.
Neither is a pollutant in any way shape or form. Plants even need carbon dioxide to survive.
Coal is another matter.
Burning coal releases SO2 and NOx pollutants that cause Acid Rain, huge respiratory problems and will devastate forests.
If the atmosphere is polluted with sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxides (NOx), rain becomes oxidized by ozone (O3) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to form H2SO4 or HNO3 before falling to the ground. They are known respectively as sulfuric and nitric acid.
Acid rain will dissolve panty hose on the spot.
There is a huge difference between burning coal and burning natural gas.
Anti-Coal, Pro-Natural Gas
For environmental reasons, I am anti-coal but very much in favor of Natural Gas.
Problems arise as happened last year in California and this week in Texas when pressure to eliminate all carbon wins over common sense.
Where is the CO2 Coming From?
CO2 Stats
- Please note that the US reduced its carbon footprint from 6.13 billion tons in 2007 to 5.28 billion tons in 2019.
- Meanwhile, China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.
- In the same timeframe, global output rose from 31.29 billion tons to 36.44 billion tons.
- In 2007, the US accounted for 19.6% of the total global carbon footprint.
- In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.
Wind Not Reliable
Wind is not a reliable source, as we have just proven in spades, twice over.
Yet, despite the facts that US carbon output is shrinking and the US only accounted for 14.5% of the total global footprint, the absurd push to eliminate all US carbon presses on.
John Kerry’s Straw Man Climate Arguments
John Kerry is Biden’s climate czar.
He blamed 4 hurricanes on climate change as if throwing any amount of money at the alleged problem would have stopped the hurricanes.
For discussion, please see Kerry’s Straw Man Argument for Wasting Money on Climate Change
GM to Phase Out Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035, Carbon Neutral by 2040
One day after Kerry’s ridiculous rant, I noted GM to Phase Out Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035, Carbon Neutral by 2040.
Assuming one believes CO2 is a problem, this is the way problems are solved.
GM is not doing this to save the world, it is doing this because market forces mandate a change.
Similarly, solar power will come into play as storage technology improves.
The free market, not populist ideas will solve real world problems.
$90 Trillion Solutions
In 2015, Business Insider noted A Plan Is Floating Around Davos To Spend $90 Trillion Redesigning All The Cities So They Don’t Need Cars
The $90 trillion proposal came from former US vice president Al Gore, former president of Mexico Felipe Calderon, and their colleagues on The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.
“We cannot have these cities with low density, designed for the use of cars,” he said. “We recommend those cities should have more density and more mass transportation.” Together with a program for reforming land use, and bringing deforestation to zero, the total cost of this plan would most likely be $90 trillion in future investment, Calderon said.
AOC’s New Green Deal
Also recall AOC’s Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing.
A Word About Cherry Picking Data
Cherry Picking?
What the hell do you think is going to happen when everyone in China and India using mostly coal want higher standards of living?
You reaffirm the big problem ahead is totally outside US control.
Yet, Biden, AOC, etc. think the US can solve this with dollars
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) February 15, 2021
On February 3, I noted Climate Change Moves to the Forefront of Biden’s Legislation
“It’s long past time for the Senate to take a leading role in combating the existential threat of our time: climate,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
The “existential threat” is politicians seeking $90 trillion solutions to hyped-up problems, not natural gas.
Mish
What about the subsidies carbon fuels enjoy?
Liberals claim that prices of renewables and fossil fuels are now comparable, which may be true due to subsidies
First, only 13% of the entire electrical shortfall in Texas is due to “frozen wind turbines” and the like. The bulk of it is due to frozen fossil fuel sources (frozen at the well head), as well as fossil fuel plants that were not sufficiently winterized. Add to that a lack of regulatory control that could have prevented such shortcomings and Texas desire to isolate itself from the grid in other states in order to avoid being forced into external regulation and you’ve got the recipe for disaster.
Regarding the comment, “The byproduct of burning natural gas is carbon dioxide and water. Neither is a pollutant in any way shape or form,” it passes muster only if one fails to understand the chemical and physical properties of CO2. Carbon dioxide is transparent to UV light, which is the form in which the sun’s energy reaches the earth, but is impervious to infrared energy, which is how heat from the earth’s surface radiates back into space (it’s why IR is used for night vision goggles). It’s not unlike what happens when we roll up the car windows – energy can get in, but it can’t radiate out, and we die. Now, one would not call a car window a pollutant, but we’d certainly consider it a threat. And just because a threat doesn’t fall into a specific category does not mean it can be ignored. Clearly, Mish doesn’t think so.
Regarding the rest of the piece, per ERCOT, the Electrical Reliability Council of Texas, which is responsible for managing the Texas electrical grid, of the entire electrical shortfall in Texas, only 13% is attributed to reduced output from wind turbines . The majority of the shortfall – more than 85 percent – is attributable to failure of fossil fuel sources, including freezing at natural gas wellheads and insufficient winterizing of fossil fuel plants (thank God for whatever wind turbines and alternative sources they DO have, because without them the situation could be even more dire).
Bottom line, seems to be so determined to make a political point that he must work to ignore facts and reality. Such thinking does none us any service.
And nuclear plant failure
Wow –
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
Actually, no, it was not windmills
You’re the one cherry picking data. I live in a state that is powered by windmills. We have winters with temperatures down to -22 degrees F. We have never had a single windmill freeze. If you don’t bother constructing them properly, don’t expect them to work properly, you dumbass redneck morons!
Besides, only a miniscule teeny tiny fraction of the power outages in Texas are due to frozen wind turbines. An official with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas said Tuesday afternoon that 16 gigawatts of renewable energy generation, mostly wind generation, were offline. Nearly double that, 30 gigawatts, had been lost from thermal sources, which includes gas, coal and nuclear energy.
Go suck on it.
To add, wind turbines can be retrofitted for even lower extreme temps.
At 0:37 (embedding ignores ?t=37 parameter)
‘‘One of the lead reasons in the Houston area in particular … South Texas Nuclear project.’’
I don’t know Mish ……
An analysis by Politifact concluded that, while wind farms have been crippled by the extreme weather, over 80 percent of Texas’ power shortfall was caused by malfunctioning coal-and-gas-fired plants.
I think this post demans an update from@Mish in light of this new informaiton
Why didn’t Texas order carbon blades and heated ones for their windmills? That’ how the rest of the world does it? If windfarms weren’t working its not because windfarms don’t work its because the planners were derelect
Texas lost more power from thermal sources than from renewable sources. The idea that AOC is somehow to blame for the power failures in Texas is crap. This was both a power grid failure and a lack of preparedness. This is typical. A lie gets spread half way around the world and now the truth is getting its shoes on
Seems like the Texas freeze was an opportunity to simply repost the same old arguments against wind and solar. The problem wasn’t wind and solar but the Texas power grid. For one The Texas grid runs independently from the rest of the country, second Texas operators do not hold reserves , a common practice across the rest o the country and as far as wind turbines no one considered winterizing them which could be done
Part of the state’s power outages come down to the fact that its infrastructure was designed to withstand extreme heat, not cold. Rhodes explained that while the grid is prepared for power surges during the summer, when people crank up their AC units, winters in Texas are so usually so mild that power plants take time off for routine maintenance. Power plants in Texas, he said, are also not winterized for this kind of weather like plants up north.
“It’s not like we were relying on wind, but we were relying on natural gas, and it failed terribly in that respect,” Rhodes said. “Yes, we have wind turbines that are iced up, yes, we have wind turbines that are not performing. We don’t typically rely on wind during [the winter], so we built the grid to rely on those other resources, and they didn’t show up, either. We didn’t plan for this.”
While it may take some time to do a full postmortem on what exactly happened to make conditions so dire this week, this isn’t the first time the Texas grid has frozen up both literally and metaphorically. In 2014, regulators found that wind energy was actually more reliable than both coal and natural gas during an early January cold snap. And in 2011—when Texas’s wind power capacity was one-third what it is now—state regulators ordered ERCOT to make winterizing updates. Since winterization is not mandatory, though, it’s not clear what the utility actually did to upgrade the grid.
Mish you fell for the Republican propaganda online again. Really wait for sources like Texas Tribune before the garbage at WSJ. Please also remember price spikes happen because of speculators who dont take delivery in the derivatives markets.
Don’t mess with Texas ! I am sure mother nature will listen.
If we dug a tunnel 1000 miles deep into the Earth, I’d bet there would be plenty of geothermal energy to tap for a long time.
Absolutely ridiculous statement. Windmills performing < 1.5 gW below expectations, solar > 1, nuclear at expectations, natural gas and coal – failed.
As a scientist I just want to add that Realist has is it down pretty good. You can pay me now or pay me later. Scientists may be completely wrong. But do you want to bet your children’s futures on it? 1 billion people in Asia rely on glacial melt for fresh water. That is going away as we post here. Plants do love CO2 but if rivers run dry and wetlands turn to desert that won’t matter. No one knows exactly what climate zones will emerge where and who will be the winners and who will be the losers. But it definitely won’t be all roses. I do know that nothing pushes people to war faster than dwindling basic resources. Maintaining the status quo, ecologically, is probably the safest bet. In the end, even if scientists are wrong, can we lose? The air will be cleaner, national security improved (as most countries can be energy independent), more high tech jobs, and maybe even America leading the way. Ronald Reagan made a big mistake taking down the solar panels from the WH and defunding the DOE. We could be exporting them to the world, not importing them from China. We should take the same tact as we do in investing. Diversify! Gates has the right track. Renewables, atomic, a little gas, and carbon capture, until we get it under control. One thing that does concern me, however, is relying too much on electricity. Not mentioned earlier, should we have a Coronal Mass Ejection (CMT) directly strike the earth, which scientists agree will happen (but who knows when), it could destroy solar panels, batteries, and a whole lot more. So having back up systems like natural gas for heat and transportation (like buses) might be prudent. Again, Diversify!
It’s all over the news tonight, wind turbines freezing only account for 13% of the electrical shut downs, the vast majority of loss is frozen nat gas equipment & machinery.
In reality, the functioning wind turbines are keeping them from a worse situation.
Given LNG temp is around -260°F, it is hard to imagine how the instruments and sensors and valves surrounding the LNG flows wouldn’t be able to stand temps much warmer. at perhaps 0 to -10°F. More detail is needed.
…and yet.
Numbers speak quite clearly on TES by source globally. Texas is a victim of political agendas like Cali.
link to iea.org
What happens if China places an export ban on Lithium and Lithium batteries to the US?
Below is a better link to my comment below
ttps://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-dreadful-c-word-conserve.html
The “new Green Deal” is not all that green! Greenwashing is a term you may not be familiar with but may become used more frequently in the future. The idea of greenwashing is not new but has evolved with the news-waves constantly echoing concern over global warming and climate change.This is part of how the “green New Deal” is being promoted. The article below warns, we be very concerned.
https://Greenwashing Turns “Ugly” Into Environmentally Friendly.html
What has not been told is the fact the power utilities failed to winterize their equipment causing many of these failures. They are required to do so but it costs money they don’t want to spend. So they let people freeze. Typically Texas. The state motto is screw the people!
Lot’s of differing opinions, minimal facts. Why? Because there are many unknowns that presumptions were made to answer with and were agreed upon through consensus and pushed along for implementation. Why haven’t humans learned that putting more forethought and attention to the potential consequences of actions is the responsible method to decision making? Profit, or the lack of it. Can a decision be made where the economics are left out of it? No. So no matter what the only thing that truly matters is money. Al Gore and his ilk have led people to believe they are saving the earth and humanity by removing fossil fuel derived energy. Yet the environment is being destroyed at a higher rate today than ever, for economic purposes. Biomass was brought in, under the wire. At first burning old wood garbage like railroad ties etc seemed like a viable option. Flash a decade or two later and what are they burning now? Forests. This is interim however as Natural Gas is the power of the future. It must be. Since no renewable energy like wind or solar can be cleaned up for use in the grids without a fast acting natural gas plant to make up for the intermittency of wind and solar. But they don’t want outrage from the people who believed they are removing all fossil fuels so they bury their plans and hide the goings on while they get the infrastructure in place. Give it a couple year and Viola! They will be changing the narrative toward natural gas as being clean and trying to soften the blow of telling people that natural gas is necessary until some other better energy source is brought to market. Bloomberg ran on evil coal, heavenly LNG. He didn’t last long, but everything he said was occurring continued and today, LNG is the best solution. Why else is Russian building two massive LNG pipelines to feed Germany and EU? They know without natural gas production, wind and solar will not function. They added Biomass in a big way because they could try to push the renewable and sustainable labels with it, knowing all along this was temporary until the natural gas infrastructure was put in place. Once people realize that burning forests is unsustainable, which they should already, and the biomass shortages grow, as they already are, it will be easy to convince people that unfortunately there is no alternative to using natural gas for the foreseeable future. By then all the non recyclable, non reusable and non renewable solar and wind machines built are having to be replaced and all the greedy men will have made their money or passed away, so why would they care? If anyone thinks any of this has anything to do with saving the environment, they need to read something other than the headlines from the media.
Just have to laugh. So many things people have not thought about. Here is an example. The average gas station off a exit ramp takes in 60 to 80 vehicles an hour. The average time a vehicle is there is approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The average electric vehicle takes 8 hours to recharge. Now those gas stations are going to have to not only change to electric charging stations but increase the land size they are operating on. You would need approximately 450 to 500 charging stations which would mean a parking lot to park all those vehicles next to the charging stations. Remember each vehicle would take 8 hours to charge so there would be vehicles coming in on a constant basis to park over the 8 hours. Then you would need more land for hotels and restaurants as those people waiting 8 hours would need a place to stay or eat while waiting 8 hours. So more and more land to take up not just for the location itself but for the building material to build the hotels, restaurants and anything else needed. So this concept of reducing deforestation is false. You would be only increasing deforestation. A road trip that use to take 1 day will now turn into 3 days. Just have to laugh because no one is thinking about all of this. All they think about is the vehicle itself.
Solid state batteries are the future with low recharge times, check it out, VM and Toyota are invested in this. link to insideevs.com
Still very early in development per the article link you provided.
And then there is NUCLEAR energy-the greenest, highest KWATT producer unit. But because the Japanese screwed up a backup generator in Fukishima, we have to deepsix that tech too!
You are being dishonest. the reason for the mess in TX is …TX per the Houston Chronicle. the fact is TX has a lousy infrastructure per the newspaper. Also, why did not the billionaires who moved to TX helped? or why the newly arrived helped the crises? where is the TX miracle? and where is the TX magic? the truth is TX is a third world country that is inhabited by a few rich people and the rest are doing poorly as in 17% rate of uninsured compared with 7 % of CA residents uninsured and 12% in he US. Houston has the highest death rate for moms giving birth. higher than LA, NY, Chicago (your favorite whipping boy), Sand Diego, San Francisco and other big cities in North America.
Coal has pollutants, however they can be mitigated to fractional quantities with technology thays been in use for over 20 years. It is more labor intensive, but ultimately still cheaper than wind or CNG without fracking.
IE particulates are removed with a baghouse FFDC (Fabric Filter Dust Collector) and the ash can be recycled for use in flash fill, wallboard etc. SO2 is removed with dry scrubbers that use lime to react and remove the Sulphur (makes gypsum, thus the ash use in wallboard). NOx can be controlled with ammonia injection as it is on CNG units. Similar with mercury. CO2 can be recaptured and used industrially, however it is not as cost effective as current production methods but if it makes you feel better…
Bottom line, coal is dirt, burning dirt and getting energy is a win. Petrochemicals have other uses than fuel like lubricants, chemicals, plastics and medicine as well as strategic fuel for defense.
Wind and solar will never replace water driven turbines. Too unreliable. Hydroelectric is the best source of energy IMO. problem is you need a mountainous valley with a big river flowing through it. And they’re very expensive to build and operate.
Nuclear is the next best option. Nuclear power technology has progressed a lot since the 60’s when most nuclear power plants were built. They can be built much safer and more efficient.
Electric cars are the future, but they’re less energy efficient than a ICE. You’re replacing less energy from fuels with more energy from whatever boils water at the power plant. Their primary faults are there are more energy conversion steps and they weigh a lot more. They also go through tires at a much faster rate. That and battery disposal are going to be big ecological issues in our future.
We get lots of hydro from Canada, but it don’t work so well in the winter.
One solution to energy needs will likely be fuel cells using hydrogen captured through an electro-chemical process, using solar as the energy source. Equally crucial to electricity would be room temperature superconductors. If Biden wanted to kick-start a Green World, he’d offer $100 billion prizes for such quantum-leap discoveries, not stick more insulation in buildings.
Dms screw up the environment and help kill many fish. Many dams are being torn down because of these issues.
Good news with them shut down our cancer patients will decrease according to TRUMP.
Actually it was the gas pipelines that froze, there’s so little wind energy it could never cause a price spike of this magnitude.
The gas pipelines ? Russia must have a big problem then…. Although we never stopped receiving russian gas here, no matter how cold….
LNG is a liquid flowing through the pipes at about -260°F. [roflo]
You’d have to go to the outer planets & moons (Jupiter & further) for LNG to “freeze”. Get educated. Sheeze.
Try again. But there were certainly other factors. I’d guess there were quite a few downed power lines, and also a a huge surge in demand. Electric Heat pumps lose efficiency rapidly as temperatures fall, so the backup heating source kicks in. Electric resistance heat as a backup is common in the south, so now all these homes are essentially being heated with big space heaters.
Unlike what the Neo Socialist Green Con Pundits want us to believe, there is nothing like ‘a free lunch’, is there ?
No there is not such thing as a free lunch but there is a less expensive lunch… And get use to it greener energy is coming. Democrats are embracing the change not really leading it. Republican as usual are in the stone age. I know who wins this long term
No “free lunch” as in Texas utilities not preparing for the return of freezing weather and then having failures?
Right on he money Mish, by the way does John Kerry heat his house with wind, guess not.
I don’t know about Kerry’s houses, or Gore’s; however, George Bush’s ranch set the standard for sustainability. Go figure.
Kerry enjoys wind surfing. [lol]
A mix of ice and snow swept across the country this weekend as temperatures plunged below zero in the upper Midwest and into the teens in Houston. Cold snaps happen—the U.S. also experienced a Polar Vortex in 2019—as do heat waves. Yet the power grid is becoming less reliable due to growing reliance on wind and solar, which can’t provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Power outages in adverse weather conditions are usual local lines. Deregulation of the power companies has put pressure on the rural communities. Every new company into the power business is after the gravy, power generation without the expense of the local loops. Same goes for when the wild fires out west occur. Large companies have several options where the local consumers has very few.
I agree with 90% of what Mish says on this post.
The problem is that he says is very thin on facts but if it echos your chamber is all good
If it gets you off to make remarks like that then go for it.
What can I tell you the most current information is blaming gas as the culprit and not the wind turbines. Here is the thing the Wall-street journal stopped being a serious paper once the Murdoch family bought it.
Which 90%?
My own experiece being on the board of managers on my condo shows that a great deal can be accomplished simply on the consumption side. Simply swittching from incandescent bulbs to LED’s not only reduced energy consumption but resulted in cost savings for the building. Things like VFD’s allow motors to run more efficiently, revolvig doors in the lobby to retain more heat in the winter or cool air in the summer are also huge energy savers. Other item that also cut consumption but have a lower ROC depending on when they are done are switching to COGEN. It’s best done whe replacing a boiler. For older buildings energy insulated windows. Our building is only 20 years old but older buildings are extremely energy inefficient.
New wind or solar is cheaper than new coal or gas in most of the world. Green power is suited to small networked supply from many commercial and domestic supplies. Similar to the internet it should be deployed so that supplies can be moved around. Not based on a a few big local suppliers. This provides a more robust and secure supply. More secure from attack than a few big coal plants as well.
But certainly some situations need fossil fuels or nuclear. But doesn’t that make it more urgent to move to renewables. Unless you believe fossil fuels supply is endless then we need to avoid wasting it where we can use renewables instead !!
I suspect economies of scale will always be relevant, regardless of the energy source. Generating power at the home-scale would be utterly foolhardy. That said, various energy systems may have optimum scales, such differences lending themselves to decentralization.
Regarding economics favoring small suppliers, I have both solar and wind power feeding my batteries, and I have a 7Kw diesel generator as backup. This is a very expensive setup, however, I live on a boat, and before Covid, I spent half of the year cruising the Bahamas. I installed, maintain, and monitor the entire energy system. It was the sensible solution to a specific problem.
BTW, I hear there is a shortage of firewood in Texas–another renewable we tend to overlook.
Not if you include energy storage because your supply is intermittent.
Perhaps the Boomers need to stop living large and instead live simply so that others may simply live. Nah.
“One day after Kerry’s ridiculous rant, I noted GM to Phase Out Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035”
so GM is giving up on apartment dwellers, who generally don’t have access to electricity outside their apartments.
As I keep repeating, the solution is hydrogen fuel cells, not batteries.
Not well known, but prior to the Prius, GM was moving toward fuel-cell powered vehicles. One of the biggest issue with fuel cells was delivering/storing highly explosive hydrogen.
GM’s earlier experiments with electric vehicles had been put aside much earlier–the technology wasn’t there. The ‘electric’ Chev. Volt was VP Bob Lutz’s inspiration to compete with the mainstream-media-lauded Prius. After a US Dept of Transportation crash test, two Volts caught on fire after technicians did not disconnect the batteries after the crash test (warnings to the contrary). Conservative anti-Obama media used the fires to ruin the reputation of the Volt from that point.
As every thing that is in “transition” multi-modal solutions will come and some will stay and some will die. It may be hydrogen, batteries etc. What I do know from history is that when you spend trillions to solve a problem (real or imaginary) you end up leap frogging your competition and owning the new market. This is something Mish will never ever understand
I have no problem with that. That’s how it is supposed to work. Yet, I do have problems with governments trying to pick the winners and awarding money in grants to the technologies they pick. Let the free market take the risks. Let them have the failures, and also the successes.
” Let the free market take the risks”
This never happens in any system or type of government. Any major transitions have always been financed by the government. Capital is coward and avoids risk. The government always does the initial heavy lifting. The free market then follows. Take railroads for example. They helped get the US into the powerhouse it is today. How did that happen? The government took the land and gave it to the “free market” railroad barons. Without that no railroads, no US development etc….
There are times when government has to facilitate a transition, and the railroads are a good example. Without the power of eminent domain, you can’t build rail lines or gas pipelines. Yet, most transitions don’t need government intervention, and there is nothing special about the energy transition, at least at this point, that requires government to pick winners. OK, it’s a little late, and they already picked some that they though were important, like ethanol, and Solyndra, among others, but the track record isn’t good.
I totally disagree about capital being afraid to invest in new technology. That’s precisely what Venture Capital does. Some, like Amazon, turn out to be massive winners, but most never see the light of day.
Governments don’t pick “winners” but they pick where they want the country to go. The railroad barons could have paid enough to get access to the land to build. No entrepreneur would do that because the ROI would be to low ergo no railroads. Everything transformational has come from government taking initial risk. Amazon only came into existence because government created the internet (ARPA). Did venture capital at any time decided to do it?. Small computers created by the Bell Labs (and the transistor) came into being because the government allowed AT&T to be a regulated monopoly with a set ROI and any “extra” could be used for pure research. Rockets came into be financed by the department of defense and NASA ditto for satellites and the thousand of inventions that happened because of that.
As for your comment on not having a good record at picking winners who cares? There is enough winners to pay for all the wasted money on the losers
The problem with governments picking winners and losers, is the government is the antithesis of ‘creative’. What government needs to do is massively stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship, not throw money at the few solutions it is aware of, aka giving public money to its friends.
What’s needed is a backup system for when the wind doesn’t blow. I have the solution!
Attach hamster wheels to each turbine. When the wind doesn’t blow, hire the unemployed or illegal aliens to walk the wheels. This will spin the blades, generate power and the workers can earn some money. Killing two birds with one stone!
The wind is always blowing somewhere. It works the same way as when a nuclear power plant or gas plant goes off line.
Try moving that electricity around the planet. England’s experience is very telling.
Hmmm, maybe you could have a network of power lines, perhaps call it a “grid” and connect things so that one area needed more power, they could get it from areas with excess capacity…
Of course, Texas don’t need to interconnect…
…the U.S. power grid is made up of over 7,300 power plants, nearly 160,000 miles of high-voltage power lines, and millions of miles of low-voltage power lines and distribution transformers, connecting 145 million customers throughout the country…
I understand what a grid is, but thank you for explaining for those who do not. It hinges on sizing wires at high/low voltage, and cover the country with towers, or underground.
IMHO, what such a distribution system needs is a room-temperature superconductor. Make that the focus of the government and we will truly solve the energy situation well into the future. Once you see how far the polar vortex effects extend, we will end up building the grid into Central/South America.
I doubt that wind mills return much more energy than they consume to create, transport, maintain, and decommission. Natural gas is nice, but storage unfriendly and nonrenewable. Measure GDP in sun energy harvested, and then it’s off to the races.
We absolutely store natural gas. How do you think places like Chicago and Boston are heated in times like today? Look up natural gas storage fields of Pennsylvania. And our natural gas reserves are at an all time high.
Interesting that you have doubts. Do you have any facts?
Having been convinced that their North Sea cost will become the new riviera, Sweden planted thousands of turbines off shore. Then they install small diesel generators to keep the machinery warm. When the turbines freeze nonetheless, they overfly with helicopters to defrost the blades and gears.
Electric generating plants did not properly winterize their equipment, said Dr. David Tuttle in the latest episode of the Y’all-itics political podcast. Tuttle is a research associate with the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
“There are things that can be done, but it will cost some money,” he added. “About every decade we have these long-sustained periods. And then, you know weatherization is supposed to happen, and then, it doesn’t because it costs money.”
ERCOT said almost 34,000 megawatts of electricity has been forced off the system. On average, a single megawatt can power about 500 homes.
This isn’t the first time that weatherization has been an issue with equipment failure and rotating outages in Texas.
In August 2011, six months after an ice storm crippled much of the state and resulted in rotating outages, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation issued a report with recommendations.
“Generators and natural gas producers suffered severe losses of capacity despite having received accurate forecasts of the storm,” the report states. “Entities in both categories report having winterization procedures in place. However, the poor performance of many of these generating units and wells suggests that these procedures were either inadequate or were not adequately followed.”
That investigation revealed what happened in 2011, also happened in 1989, which is the first time ERCOT ever implemented rotating outages.
“The experiences of 1989 are instructive, particularly on the electric side. In that year, as in 2011, cold weather caused many generators to trip, derate, or fail to start. The [Public Utility Commission of Texas] investigated the occurrence and issued a number of recommendations aimed at improving winterization on the part of the generators.
These recommendations were not mandatory, and over the course of time implementation lapsed. Many of the generators that experienced outages in 1989 failed again in 2011,” the investigation discovered.
Fast forward a decade and here we are again.
Winterizing equipment – making sure it can sustain extended periods of below-freezing temperatures – has never been a requirement in Texas like other states.
“All of us would love to say, we want super reliable [electricity],” Tuttle said. “It would be millions to really bulletproof the system for that. How much do we want to pay to go protect ourselves with insurance policies for rare events?”
It’s a fair point. Rotating outages are rare in Texas, only happening about every decade or so.
But in dangerous cold, like much of what has enveloped the state this week, lives could be put at risk since many people are trapped at home, unable to leave because of treacherous travel conditions. Not to mention, some older individuals live in poorly insulated homes.
But Texas lawmakers are asking questions, again.
With the legislature currently in session, it’s likely that this situation will get the attention of state leaders.
“The Texas power grid has not been compromised,” wrote Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, on Twitter Monday afternoon. “The ability of some companies that generate the power has been frozen. This includes the natural gas & coal generators. They are working to get generation back online.”
As it manages the emergency, ERCOT defended its winter plan.
“This event was well beyond the design-parameters for a typical or even extreme Texas winter that you would plan for,” said Woodfin, with ERCOT. “They began as rotating outages but they’re [now] controlled outages and they are lasting longer than what would normally happen because of the magnitude.”
But history says Texas should have known better. But what’s the price we’re willing to pay?
Ad
Unmute
by TaboolaSponsored Links
You May Like
A Man Was Declared Dead in 2000 – But That Wasn’t The End Of The Story
Scientific Mirror
The Number 1 Reason Banks Don’t Recommend Reverse Mortgages
NewRetirement
Look for any high school yearbook, it’s free
Classmates.com
18 Terrific Foods to Help Relieve Stress
alldelish
Most Vets Agree, These Are The Smartest Dog Breeds
mylovelymalinois
Why do anything when they can count on the Feds to declare a statewide emergency and throw money at them? Same as with the people who keep building houses in hurricane/flood plains.
Minnesota is MUCH colder with temps to minus 50F
Still have power. Nuke plant running. Wind turbines turning. Natural gas lines flowing. Peaking coal and gas plants running plants.
Cars start after sitting out all night. Workers going to work. We can drive in snow and ice.
Preparation. That’s how it’s done.
Is Texas the coming state, or a failed experiment?
I would bet part of the problems are infrastructure not being able to keep up with growth. I expect rolling blackouts to be normal in Texas when it’s too cold or too hot.
From my experience, an engineer designs to a range of conditions reasonably expected in the locality. Let’s change all engineering practice to design for the absolutely worst situation that can occur.
If it happens once a decade–do you say it’s worth the risk?
That’s what’s going on in Texas–once a decade or so there is a very cold spell.
If you have an earthquake once every 10 years–do you ignore the risk?
If you have a hurricane once every 10 years–do you ignore the risk?
If you live in a 10 year flood plain–do you ignore the risk?
If you have millions of people, critical infrastructure, business all dependent on your services, do you ignore a once a decade risk?
With climate change you have to. I think we will see more extreme weather events everywhere. Global warming really doesn’t begin to describe it.
No state income tax in Texas. You want to keep more of your money or do you want services? This is a painful lesson for Texans but they’ll be better prepared next time.