Only in Texas....

[SMG]

My sister lives in the panhandle and they never lost power or water (as of yesterday; I haven't had a chance to speak with her since) although they have been asked to conserve all utilities. What's odd is their local government has planned on joining the TX grid in about a week; we're hoping they change their minds. It's bad enough i'm worried about my son and his family elsewhere in TX. Last I heard (yesterday), they had power but still no water.

Just let them know about those multi-thousand dollar bills people are already getting because of the shortage and needing to buy power at the market rate. That ought to change minds pretty quick!

I talked with my brother last night (within the ERCOT area) and he had water, but the power was still cycling. Another cold snap is coming through tonight.

I heard the federal government will be in to investigate what happened. (That might be a requirement of being declared a disaster area and getting federal aid, but I do not know that for sure.)

[AZgl1800]

Well we now have a busted pipe outside the house, I will have to wait for the thaw to see how bad it is, and what it is going to cost....

Duck Tape, it fixes the world, doncha know?

[Portreve]

CAUTION: The following post may express some unpopular or even disputed viewpoints.



It seems pretty clear to me that a bunch of Texas state policies are ideologically-, and not empirically, based, resulting in some very bad decisions which have led to this current crisis. Also, it would appear there are conflicts of interest with certain industries — in this case, the fossil fuel industry — and so I find it pretty difficult to take seriously the range of views which criticize non-fossil sources of fuel.

According to a social media post (which has since been removed) by the mayor of Colorado City, Texas (who has since resigned) it's survival of the fittest, baby. The government and the companies which provide service owe the public nothing. Texas, for the most part, has a power grid which runs on its own and isn't connected to the rest of the U.S. This is a product of the idea that the state wants to be free of control by parties external (i.e. the Federal Government). They have also worked hard to try and privatize as much as possible (again, due to a distrust of government) and so there's been fairly limited accountability, as evidenced by not trying to design or have an appropriately robust power grid. A few places in Texas decided, as mentioned in prior posts, not to go this route. They have power.

Lesson learned? I suspect not.

[slipstick]

Just let them know about those multi-thousand dollar bills people are already getting because of the shortage and needing to buy power at the market rate. That ought to change minds pretty quick!

I, like probably most people in Texas, am on a fixed price contract, so my price per KWH won't change due to the shortage. But there are a few providers offering variable wholesale rate contracts, and those customers will really get slammed. This has happened before, years ago, and there were news reports about the outrageous electric bills. I heard that at one point during this shortage the wholesale price of electricity had reached the limit of $9000/MWH ($9/kWH). I pay about $0.095/kWH, including delivery charges, taxes, and fees (my raw energy price is $0.05/kWH). Here's one of those wholesale rate providers telling their customers to bail out now:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 953843.php

[Portreve]

Here's one of those wholesale rate providers telling their customers to bail out now:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 953843.php

How's that privatization mentality working out for you now, Texas?

[slipstick]

How's that privatization mentality working out for you now, Texas?

Actually, in my experience, it works well if you stay with a fixed price plan. My electricity has been extremely reliable and at a pretty low cost. The only previous outages I can remember that lasted more than a few minutes (and very few of those) were some years ago (2011?) when there were some rotating planned outages due to weather (I think mine only went out once or twice for maybe a half hour), and the three day outage I had after my neighborhood was hit by a tornado in 2019 and they couldn't turn the electricity back on until the gas company had shut off the gas to the damaged houses and meters. Sure, they could have been better prepared for this, but on the other hand, being constantly prepared for a weather event that only happens 2 or 3 time in a century would mean higher prices for everyone.

[Portreve]

Sure, they could have been better prepared for this, but on the other hand, being constantly prepared for a weather event that only happens 2 or 3 time in a century would mean higher prices for everyone.

This assumes nothing is changing, and severe weather events aren't becoming the norm instead of the exception.

[SMG]

Sure, they could have been better prepared for this, but on the other hand, being constantly prepared for a weather event that only happens 2 or 3 time in a century would mean higher prices for everyone.

The report that came out of the 2011 investigation indicated it should be expected at least once every 10 years. That's hardly 2 or 3 times in a century, especially with climate change (bringing big swings either hot or cold) accelerating all these once in a [fill in the blank] events that are now happening much more frequently.

Here's one of those wholesale rate providers telling their customers to bail out now:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 953843.php

I had heard about that earlier in the week. That is a company with a customer service mind set which I like, but I like a predictable budget more.

[old_noob]

I agree that natural gas is a necessary evil in the short term until we have more sustainable solutions in place. Vastly better than coal. Most of the households here in Vermont that do not heat with wood (more below) utilize propane or fuel oil, as this is a very rural area with few utility pipelines. Besides the fact that those fuels do not burn as efficiently as natural gas, there is the tremendous energy cost of trucking the fuel to individual houses. Not everyone in an area like this can be served, but there is a lot of room for improvement.

I do not think that nuclear power is the right solution. In theory, great. In practice, by far the most expensive source of electricity, at least in North America. And there's that Chernobyl thing... It is possible that technological improvements will make nuclear a cheaper and safer source of energy but I would not hold my breath.

My belief is that wind and solar will dominate soon, as energy storage technology is improving so quickly. Within a generation, wind, solar and big batteries will likely combine to provide the cheapest and most reliable source of electricity. We may just be billed a maintenance fee rather than by the kw/hr. I'm not saying it's all sweetness. Wind turbines are prone to mechanical problems, and they stress or kill wildlife to some extent. Some fairly toxic materials are used to produce solar panels and those wonderful batteries (though we are slowly learning to make do with less nasty stuff). And some of those batteries can be a fire hazard. Again, just choosing the lesser evil. Of course, the combination of politics and corrupt business interests could slow the timeline considerably.

Another thing that will help is rethinking the power grid. Our electric provider leases batteries at very low rates, basically just to recoup the cost of installation. They remain under the control of the power company under normal conditions. This means that they in effect have thousands of tiny substations scattered around their service area, so it is much more difficult for their grid to be disrupted compared to conventional power distribution. In the event of an outage, total control reverts to the homeowner. If you have solar panels you are all set until the regular grid comes back up. Often we do not even know there is an outage, even sitting at a computer. The company saves money on grid construction and maintenance and the homeowner has reliable power in an area where outages are common, especially in winter.

I love forests too, and spend a lot of time there. Clear cutting and industrial wood burning can be a bad thing, but I believe biomass use is sustainable and responsible on a small scale. We own several acres of forest and heat with wood (Tarm gasification boiler, highly recommended). We had a professional forester look at our property and he told us we could take 7 cords of firewood per year "forever". Since we typically burn about 4 cords per year, I think we are sequestering more carbon than we release. When we cut wood we take out less healthy or older trees, and never clear cut. Not wilderness but not a tree farm either. And we use zero fossil fuel. Many rural households in New England do the same.

[AZgl1800]

Contrary to all of the above, Coal is the least expensive fuel available, and it can be just as clean as Natural Gas.

the proof of that is just 1.05 miles from my house, PSO has a power plant there, with two generators.

the 1st one is on coal, and the smoke stack in cold weather is just as clean as the smoke stack from the NG power plant.... we got down to 0*F this week, about 35* colder than normal, but it sure made it plain to see, that our Power Plant is squeaky clean....

we need to put Coal back in business, that would negate the issues that happened this past week.

in Texas, all of the Nuclear power plants "froze up". why? their cooling towers did not have heaters or De-Icing equipment, a decision made on a 'cost vs risk' basis.

https://interestingengineering.com/wind ... ld-weather

[MartyMint]

Contrary to all of the above, Coal is the least expensive fuel available, and it can be just as clean as Natural Gas.

the proof of that is just 1.05 miles from my house, PSO has a power plant there, with two generators.

the 1st one is on coal, and the smoke stack in cold weather is just as clean as the smoke stack from the NG power plant.... we got down to 0*F this week, about 35* colder than normal, but it sure made it plain to see, that our Power Plant is squeaky clean....

we need to put Coal back in business, that would negate the issues that happened this past week.

in Texas, all of the Nuclear power plants "froze up". why? their cooling towers did not have heaters or De-Icing equipment, a decision made on a 'cost vs risk' basis.

https://interestingengineering.com/wind ... ld-weather

Did you even bother to read your own posted article?
Were you being ironic?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Contrary to all of the above, Coal is the least expensive fuel available, and it can be just as clean as Natural Gas.

the proof of that is just 1.05 miles from my house, PSO has a power plant there, with two generators.

the 1st one is on coal, and the smoke stack in cold weather is just as clean as the smoke stack from the NG power plant.... we got down to 0*F this week, about 35* colder than normal, but it sure made it plain to see, that our Power Plant is squeaky clean....

we need to put Coal back in business, that would negate the issues that happened this past week.

in Texas, all of the Nuclear power plants "froze up". why? their cooling towers did not have heaters or De-Icing equipment, a decision made on a 'cost vs risk' basis.

https://interestingengineering.com/wind ... ld-weather

Actually, coal is not as clean as gas and is not less expensive to use. Just because you don't see particulates (commonly called smoke) coming from the stack doesn't mean there aren't pollutants being emitted. The utility I used to work for (and retired from with a pension and medical coverage) recently shut down and is dismantling the huge, coal-fired Navajo Generating Plant near Page, AZ because it had reached its design end of life, because gas generation was much less expensive, and it would have cost too much to convert the plant to gas.

It costs more to mine coal than gas. Coal mining damages the land more than drilling for gas. Coal is more expensive to mine and transport. The Navajo plant had to get its coal from the Black Mesa Mine via rail and a slurry pipeline (and, when Black Mesa was shut down by a strike, by truck; I worked on that massive truck haul, 12 on and 12 off 7 days a week, weighing the trucks as they came in and out.

[lexon]

My daughter has lived in Copperas Cove since Gulf War 2 ended. I drove her there and flew back to Mass.
She is now married with two kids and three grand children.
No power for some days. Lots of snow and ice.
She is an assistant editor and reporter for the newspaper in the city of about 35,000.
What a mess. Just got power and grocery trucks arriving. She keeps me updated on Facebook.
Even as a kid when I worked for NASA many years ago she liked adventure.

L

[MurphCID]

Texas needs about four big nuclear plants run by Navy guys for safety purposes. Put them around Mason, Texas, and in areas like that. We get 42% of our power from Wind, and according to the local news we were closer to an even worse disaster with the "green" energy monster. One my best friends is a retired "Nuc" from the Navy, and he says done right, a nuclear power plant is safer than all other forms of energy.

[SMG]

We get 42% of our power from Wind, and according to the local news we were closer to an even worse disaster with the "green" energy monster.

Where did you get that wildly inflated percentage? Article in the Austin American-Statesman, What percentage of Texas energy is renewable? Breaking down the state's power sources from gas to wind., says "Wind power has been the fastest-growing source of energy in Texas' power grid. In 2015, wind power generation supplied 11% of Texas' energy grid. Last year it supplied 23% of the system's power, surpassing coal as the second-largest source of energy."

Per the article:
"An ERCOT report on generating capacity listed the top sources of power in the state:
Natural gas (51%)
Wind (24.8%)
Coal (13.4%)
Nuclear (4.9%)
Solar (3.8%)
Hydro, biomass-fired units (1.9%)"

All "green" sources total 30.5%.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...done right, a nuclear power plant is safer than all other forms of energy.

And there's the rub (apologies to Billy Wigglestick); getting it done right. We've seen how well ERCOT manages things; would you really trust them to properly regulate nukes? I trust the Feds far more than I would trust ERCOT! Wind generation and, to a lesser degree, solar generation can be built for the same cost, or less, per unit of power, be safer, even if mismanaged, brought on line sooner than nukes could be, and will create far less pollution and contribute far less, if any at all, to global warming.

[slipstick]

.....
Per the article:
"An ERCOT report on generating capacity listed the top sources of power in the state:
Natural gas (51%)
Wind (24.8%)
Coal (13.4%)
Nuclear (4.9%)
Solar (3.8%)
Hydro, biomass-fired units (1.9%)"

All "green" sources total 30.5%.

Recent reports indicate that we get much less than 23-25% of our power from wind during the winter. The Texas Lt. Gov. on TV last night said about 11-12%, and this report says that the freezing wind turbines were not the main cause of the lost capacity in the storm:
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16 ... es-frozen/

[Pjotr]

...done right, a nuclear power plant is safer than all other forms of energy.

And there's the rub (apologies to Billy Wigglestick); getting it done right. We've seen how well ERCOT manages things; would you really trust them to properly regulate nukes? I trust the Feds far more than I would trust ERCOT! Wind generation and, to a lesser degree, solar generation can be built for the same cost, or less, per unit of power, be safer, even if mismanaged, brought on line sooner than nukes could be, and will create far less pollution and contribute far less, if any at all, to global warming.

Well, think what you may of traditional nuclear energy, but it sure doesn't contribute anything to global warming. Zero carbon emissions. That's perhaps its only advantage.

The thing is, you need some energy source to stabilize the unstable and irregular solar and wind energy. And not for a small percentage of the total power production, either....

Traditional nuclear can certainly do that, but I agree that it's undesirable because of its radioactive waste, that's dangerous for an outrageously and uncontrollable long time (millions of years). Plus you can make nuclear weapons with it, which is also a bad thing.

I think we both agree that burning wood ("biomass") isn't good as well, as we've discussed earlier in this thread. Nor is burning coal, because that's highly polluting. To a lesser degree, the same objection that speaks against coal, applies to oil.

For the short and intermediate term, that leaves us natural gas: the least polluting of all fossil fuels, cheaply and widely available worldwide for hundreds of years to come. You're very lucky that Texas has lots of it as well.

Green nuclear energy, with radioactive waste that's "only" dangerous for a controllable period (in the case of Thorium: a "mere" 300 years), and which doesn't provide nuclear weapon material, is only decades away. So there's a long-term stable and green solution just around the corner.

Rushing the energy transition by too quickly abolishing all fossil fuels, notably natural gas, will be perversely counterproductive and ruin our planet instead of saving it.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...The thing is, you need some energy source to stabilize the unstable and irregular solar and wind energy. And not for a small percentage of the total power production, either...

You just don't pay attention, do you? Ways to compensate for the irregular production of solar and wind energy through energy storage already exist and more and better ones continue to be developed. There is no need to build new fossil fuel plants instead of solar or wind generation; the current gas powered plants are enough.

Texas is infamous for its winds so wind generation makes the most sense for them.The wind can blow almost any time of day, depending where you are. Many coastlines in many parts of the world have almost continuous winds so wind farms can be (and many already are) located off shore on a relatively shallow continental shelf so they don't use up land.

Other areas of the world, such as parts of AZ and and CA, have almost continuously sunny days and large areas of land that is otherwise unusable, most notably deserts, so solar is best those for those areas. Solar and wind generation is already successfully in use, proving we do not need to rely on more fossil fuel plants for generation energy.

All power generation plants have finite lives. Replacing the fossil fueled ones that harm our planet through carbon emissions into the atmosphere with nonpolluting ones as they wear out makes far more sense than building more fossil fuel plants that will accelerate the buildup of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. We need to stop using fossil fuel powered plants as soon as possible, not use more, if we expect our planet to remain hospitable! Just because natural gas is still abundant (although no where near for hundreds of years) doesn't mean we should use it.

Something no one has mentioned yet is that we can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the amount of energy we are consuming. Reducing light costs is a good example. Using LEDs instead of incandescent, halogen, or even fluorescent (including CFLs) is easy, even costs less in the long run, especially when you factor in heat reduction, and has a larger impact on energy use reduction than one would think.

Reducing fuel consumption in our vehicles is another way to reducing carbon emissions. Replacing fossil fueled vehicles with electric ones, where practical, also helps. Right now, a lack of range is the main drawback to electric vehicles but that won't adversely affect many people. Many people use their vehicles only for commuting to and from work and for local shopping. I have friends who never travel long distances (unlike me before the pandemic) so they do just fine with full electric or hybrid cars.

[AndyMH]

Nobody's mentioned geo-thermal, not appropriate everywhere, but 24/7...