Texas to boost grid resilience with more wind & solar, according to Clean Technica

Guest “I really couldn’t make this sort of schist up if I was trying” by David Middleton

Reporting from Ice Mud Station Dallas… The pool is now ice-free for the first time on record (the record started very recently… ;).

Texas to Add 35 Gigawatts of Wind & Solar in Next 3 Years — Boosting Grid Resilience
By Zachary Shahan
Published 16 hours ago

Clearly, the news story of the week — well beyond CleanTechnica — has been Texas and some neighboring regions freezing over and losing electricity. The vast majority of the power plants that went offline were thermal power plants (mostly natural gas). They were not equipped enough for the cold. A number of wind turbines were also down because no one had bought the “cold-weather package.”

[…]

CleanTechnica

To the extent Texas is adding wind & solar to the grid, these plans were made long before Winter Storm Younger Dryas. The notion that this is for the purpose of “boosting grid resilience,” is totally fracking retarded.

Solar is flat-out not a factor in Texas’ electrical grid. While wind is a key component of our grid, generating 20-24% of our electricity over recent years. It totally failed over the past 10 days. As temperatures dropped below normal in the DFW area on February 7, wind output dropped from 35-65% of capacity to 10-30% from February 9-18. Over the same time period coal and natural gas power plants ramped up to nearly full capacity very quickly. As of Sunday February 14, the system was functioning normally. As temperatures plunged from 20 to 40 °F below normal in the DFW area, some thermal power plants went offline for a variety of weather and demand surge related issues and by Monday morning ERCOT was in full emergency mode.

DFW temperatures (dashed lines) and wind, natural gas and coal generation as a percentage of estimated capacity.

The graph above is preliminary, a “work in progress.” I’m still working on gathering more detailed data on capacity by fuel type. However, it clearly demonstrates that more wind generation capacity would have been as useless as mammary glands on a bull.

ERCOT’s single biggest failure was the lack of reliable backup capacity for wind power… ERCOT expected the wind power to fail under these conditions. It appears to me that the only way ERCOT could have made it through this unscathed, would have been for natural gas, coal and nuclear power to have delivered 80-90% of capacity for 7-10 days during record-cold weather (20-40 °F below normal in the DFW area) with a system geared toward hotter than normal weather. This was not a realistic expectation. ERCOT also failed to be sufficiently proactive in implementing rotating outages and when they did, they were unable to adequately rotate the outages.

Regarding the “cold-weather package” horst schist…

Why wind turbines in New York keep working in bitter cold weather unlike the ones in Texas
Updated Feb 19, 2021

Syracuse, N.Y. — Texas Republicans were quick to blame the state’s wind turbines for the massive power outages that millions of Texans experienced this week during an unusual blast of cold weather.

Texas leads the nation in wind power, with nearly 15,000 wind turbines producing 23% of the Lone Star State’s electricity last year. Many of the turbines shut down when the cold descended on Texas.

[…]

But we couldn’t help but wonder why wind turbines in cold-weather states like New York can operate in the winter with seemingly little trouble when their counterparts in Texas can’t.

[…]

“There are a variety of cold weather and anti-icing technologies that are used on wind turbines in the coldest regions,” she said. “These technologies help prevent the buildup of ice on turbine blades, detect ice when it cannot be prevented, and remove ice safely when it is detected.”

[…]

The sensors can even tell which blades have ice on them and which ones don’t. When ice is detected, heating elements inside the blades turn on to melt the ice.

For safety reasons, the turbines are shut down while the heating elements melt off the ice, Kurt said. That way, there’s no chance of ice flying off spinning blades, potentially damaging the turbines or, worse, striking someone on the ground, she said.

“We’d rather the ice drop below the turbine,” she said.

Once the ice is removed, the turbines are turned back on and the blades can safely spin in the wind again.

In Texas, wind turbines are not equipped with such de-icing packages because operators there never expected to need them, Kurt said.

“Turbines in Texas are built for the type of temperatures they usually get in Texas, where it’s 110 degrees, not 10 degrees,” she said. “It’s a cost thing.”

Rick Moriarty covers business news and consumer issues. Syracuse.com

So… Heating elements (which require electricity) melt the ice and the wind turbines have to be shut down to deice them? Maybe that’s why New York’s wind turbines generate almost no electricity all winter long.

EIA HOURLY ELECTRIC GRID MONITOR

Unlike New York, Texas doesn’t have a nice, steady, winter electricity load. Our load varies quite widely and our wind turbines can generate over 40% of our electricity on favorable days. Even at the peak of our recent deep freeze, Texas wind turbines generated more electricity than New York’s. There are days when Texas wind turbines generate more electricity and then all of NYISO.

EIA HOURLY ELECTRIC GRID MONITOR

Texas needs to winterize at least some portion of its most reliable generation capacity: natural gas, coal and/or nuclear. Texas doesn’t need to emulate what doesn’t work in New York.

4.9 40 votes
Article Rating
354 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sara
February 22, 2021 6:08 am

Oh, come on now!!! You actually expect these people to use Common Sense??? Really, David Middleton, they chase common sense right out the window.

Editor
Reply to  Sara
February 22, 2021 6:38 am

Sara, I agree. Common sense is a much-missed attribute in politicians. Thankfully, I find its absence very entertaining.

Regards,
Bob

Curious George
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 22, 2021 7:40 am

Is the Clean Technica run by politicians? That explains everything.

MarkW
Reply to  Curious George
February 22, 2021 7:58 am

I believe it’s run by climate scientists. Who in most circumstances are indistinguishable from politicians.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 6:57 pm

And, in many cases, Klimate Aktivists

MarkW
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 22, 2021 11:25 am

Common sense seems to be a job handicap for politicians. Just like having a conscience.

David A
Reply to  Sara
February 22, 2021 8:43 am

If they had common sense, they would have never built the wind turbines.

Trying to confirm the story that Texas asked the EPA to increase production, and were refused.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/shocker-biden-doe-forced-texas-power-grid-to-below-60-capacity-to-meet-arbitrary-green-emissions-targets-demanded-multi-million-dollar-residential-power-bills-to-overrule/

Also wind on the morning of the 16th dropped to far below 10 percent. It was not even visible on the charts I saw, and there was no wind to speak of.

David A
Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 8:44 am

Texas claims there NG and Coal had plenty of reserve capacity.

David A
Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 8:46 am

Must see graphiccomment image

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 11:42 am

Nuclear was the most stable. That should be the way forward.

2hotel9
Reply to  David Middleton
February 23, 2021 4:52 am

It amazes me that so many people still believe those towers at nuke plants are putting smoke in the air.

C. Earl Jantzi
Reply to  2hotel9
February 25, 2021 9:32 am

They are the same people who believe in “Glow Bull Warming”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 22, 2021 12:37 pm

Jeff
Coal comes in a close second for stability.

David A
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 22, 2021 3:54 pm

NG was very stable, please look at the graphic. It varied up and down according to the variance of wind. The main post shows a graphic for the same period, yet it does not vary as much as this chart??

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 8:36 pm

Exactly correct David. My point was the variability with natural gas was, unlike the fickleness of wind and solar, a feature of NG generation to be able to vary its output to not only load follow, but also to wind follow. Solar appears to be an afterthought.

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
February 23, 2021 5:05 am

David M, thanks, an informative chart, yet I think the resolution needs to be finer for the un-reliables in particular. ( Hourly at a minimum, as the variation on wind can easily have considerable flux in one hour. ) I am in affect asserting that wind, reduced to producing 10 percent of it’s capacity in the graphic, is likely way to high.

I would also add that 82 percent of NG capacity is A, reachable at will, whereas wind likely never reaches its capacity. ( Curious if the 82 percent was limited by the federal restrictions) and B, about double the wind output at 70 percent of it’s capacity.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 2:44 pm

I wish they would learn how to graph data.

David A
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 22, 2021 3:56 pm

?? What do you mean?

Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 11:57 am

David wrote:
If they had common sense, they would have never built the wind turbines.”

I published this highly technical grid-balancing solution in 2018:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/16/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/#comment-2520849

Here’s an even better solution:
1. Build your wind power system.
2. Build your back-up system consisting of 100% equivalent capacity in gas turbine generators.
3. Using high explosives, blow your wind power system all to hell.
4. Run your back-up gas turbine generators 24/7.
5. To save even more money, skip steps 1 and 3.

YallaYPoora Kid
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 22, 2021 12:26 pm

The ‘green’ state of South Australia realised your point 3 only that they laid the explosive around their last coal fired power station. We know how that ended up!

Mike Kelter
Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 2:14 pm

David A: look up DOE Order #202-21-1 which addressed the Texas request to waive emission limits so NG and Coal could increase generation to max capacity. The Biden Administration basically told Texas they could do this as long as they sold excess capacity at $1500/MWh, which is kinda like requiring a gas station to sell gasoline for $1500/gallon. You won’t get many takers.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Mike Kelter
February 22, 2021 3:17 pm

That was exactly what ERCOT had requested. Since power prices were pretty much locked at $9,000/MWh it was more of a rate capping exercise.

The ERCOT request:

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/02/f82/ERCOT%20202%28c%29%20Emergency%20Order%20Request%20-%2002.14.2021.pdf

David A
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
February 22, 2021 5:21 pm

Yet there was no rate cap. It was a “minimum of $1,500.00 per MWH.”

Not yet certain I understand this at all. Why in any sane world are generators limited from reaching maximum output?? Is it not insane enough that wind and solar get precedence, and sale 100 percent of their production, yet there us some cap on what coal NG, and nuclear are allowed to generate??? WUWT.

Last edited 1 month ago by David A
It doesn't add up...
Reply to  David A
February 23, 2021 5:23 am

As Scottie used to say “She cannae take any more, Captain. It’s the dilithium crystals!”

Running at absolute maximum increases risks of breakdown when done over protracted periods. But also, it can overwhelm pollution mitigation measures such as stack scrubbers which are sized to deal with an occasional maximum power run, not a continuous one. You may want to argue about the legally mandated maxima, but they are voted into law.

Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 8:20 pm

Sara said: ” there was no wind to speak of”

So what?
That happens lots of times with wind power. Probably almost every week, at some point. Texas went ten years without blackouts (since rolling blackouts affected 3.2 million Texans in early 2011). They didn’t have blackouts every week since 2011, every time wind power was really low.

The entire energy infrastructure of Texas was not prepared for extremely cold weather, including the windmills, and even a nuclear plant. The official 2011 report recommended winterizing the entire Texas energy infrastructure. But no one read the 2011 report because it was 357 pages long. So the cause of the 2021 incident was an excessively long 2011 rolling blackout analysis report published in August 2011. Who’s got time to read a 357 page report? Not Texans.

David A
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 22, 2021 8:52 pm

Are we not still looking for a quantifying breakdown of exactly what caused how much power loss?
My initial guess ( and a true WAG) in order of power lost, most to least, is…
1. Wind, ultimately a complete fail, and possibly a negative.
2. NG diverted to heating only as wind failed and demand soared. ( Only a drop in their increase)
3. Compressors for NG failed due to being caught in the rolling blackouts.
3. Coal and nuclear drop off due to ???
4. NG drop off due to some winterization issues.
5. Federal rules regarding not allowing fossil fuels to reach full output. ( An ongoing mystery as to policy and affect.)

( Would love to see this quantified)

Last edited 1 month ago by David A
Neo
Reply to  Sara
February 24, 2021 6:25 am

Common Sense has been irretrievably poisoned.
Use Good Sense instead.

hunterson7
February 22, 2021 6:09 am

Jonathan Swift, the famous satirist who wrote Gulliver’s Travels, couldn’t have written a satire showing idiocy on display as what the climate obsessed are coming up with in reality today.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  hunterson7
February 22, 2021 7:31 am

They are devoid of reason, common sense, or even a sense of reality.
Time was, not long ago, that everyone knew ‘global warming” or “climate change” did not mean “weather”.
Gradually the media made sure that distinction was erased from the public consciousness, and at this point, “climate change” is synonymous with “weather’.

Each and every weather event is called “climate change” with no qualification, and every time a severe weather events makes the news, hundreds of headlines blare about how bad this latest bout of climate change was.
The net effect is to erase the distinction from peoples’ minds.
And the follow on is, when the media and the politicians bloviate about the “climate crisis”, no one bats an eyelash or wonders WTF they are talking about.

To listen to these jackasses talk, one would be well justified in supposing that they believe that human beings have the ability to control the weather.
And that the warmistas are being prevented from effectively controlling that weather by people who resist their mind-numbingly idiotic and rapacious policies.
See here:
Texas and California built different power grids, but neither stood up to climate change (yahoo.com)

Texas storm blackouts shows power grid vulnerable to climate change (cnbc.com)

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-02-16/texas-blackouts-california-climate-change

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 22, 2021 12:40 pm

Nicholas
You said, “Each and every weather event is called “climate change” with no qualification, …”
That isn’t quite true. If it advances the alarmist meme, then it is called “climate change.” It is doesn’t, it is called “weather.”

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 22, 2021 1:37 pm

Exactly. Myself, I’m thoroughly enjoying my bit of “climate change” today at just about 2:30 PM – 77F, absolutely clear blue skies (except for a very tiny bit of cirrus way down in the southwest), and a breeze that is gusting up to maybe 3 MPH.

Now, if they really COULD lock that in for all time, I’d send them some money.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 22, 2021 9:47 pm

I stand corrected.

Glen Livingston
Reply to  hunterson7
February 22, 2021 11:10 am

I am thinking of a monologue from George Carlin on the idiocy and fake-ishness of today. Talk about a material rich environment!!

Phil Rae
February 22, 2021 6:19 am

Ha! Ha! Ha! As you correctly said, David, you really couldn’t make this kind of stuff up. But sadly, the propaganda machine has conned so many people into believing the stuff they read every day in the MSM.

Given the epic failures of the political class and the commercial and financial interests now stacked up to harvest vast amounts of public and private money, things are going to get worse before they have any chance of getting better, unfortunately.

Robert H Watt
Reply to  Phil Rae
February 22, 2021 7:38 am

The US already has the technology to bring extra generators online quickly in the event that the normal electrical supply is insufficient, or interrupted by bad weather. A number of GE90-115B based gas turbine generators, each with a 65 Megawatt capacity, strategically sited throughout the state of Texas would solve the problem. After all, Texas is not exactly short of oil to provide fuel for gas turbines. Even the “CO2 is evil” brigade would have to concede that any additional CO2 emitted by running these generators during short periods of emergency would be miniscule.

With the current downturn in aviation orders due to the pandemic I expect General Electric would welcome the business. All that seems to be lacking is the necessary willpower to make things happen.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Robert H Watt
February 22, 2021 7:46 am

I may be mistaken, but my understanding of the magnitude of the power deficit is that it would have taken many hundreds of such generators standing by, AND with all the fuel they needed to run.
And that inability to supply gas at the rate it was needed was one of the big issues at the critical pint in time that things went to hell.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Robert H Watt
February 22, 2021 8:37 am

That “number” you speak of is at least 100 to cover the sorts of shortfall at times last week. And, I admit to nitpicking here, gas turbines do not run on “oil” although some turbines can run on liquid fuels of various types.

oeman 50
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 22, 2021 9:01 am

Where I’m from, some(not all) gas turbines and combined cycle units run on
#2 oil stored on site as a back-up to natural gas. And when the cold hit here in the east and gas prices spiked, some units were running on oil because it was cheaper.

pflashgordon
Reply to  oeman 50
February 22, 2021 11:55 am

Indeed, a look at GE’s website confirms that CCGTs can be configured to run on liquid fuel. In earlier times, before distortion of the energy market, it was normal practice for gas-fired plants to have on-site tank farms of petroleum distillate as emergency backup fuel. But that costs money, and warped energy policy here in Texas (due to unreliable “renewables”) militates against generating companies building in such emergency reserves. That alone would easily have prevented the near-collapse that Texas experienced last week. Skewed markets subsidizing wind energy and controlling energy pricing to favor wind are the principle cause.

When wind can provide reliable baseload power on its own, at competitive cost and without price and tax support, then it will simply be an environmental disaster rather than both an environmental and economic disaster.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert H Watt
February 22, 2021 12:43 pm

Robert
You said, “All that seems to be lacking is the necessary willpower to make things happen.”

And the ideological mind set to actually want to protect the population. The current POTUS (with a cloud over his legitimacy) does not appear to have the necessary willpower.

old engineer
Reply to  Robert H Watt
February 22, 2021 4:06 pm

There is no engineering reason that what you are advocating couldn’t be done. The problem is cost .Remember the recent post here, that pointed out that. in Texas, you only get paid for electricity you generate. So how do you pay for, let alone make a profit, if these units must sit idle until there is no wind. The answer in Texas, is you allow these generators to charge up to $9000 a Mwhr. Which if I did the math correctly, is $9.00 a kwhr. (And that’s a wholesale price).

No doubt that amount was paid during some of time period from 2/9 to 2/18. To get an idea of how much this is going to cost a homeowner consider my situation. I use about 20 kwhr a day for my 2100 sq. ft. house. Suppose at least 5 of the days during this period the maximum rate was allowed. So my bill for this month would include 100 kwhr (5 x20 =100 kwhr) at $9 a kwhr or $900 (and that just the wholesale cost).

No wonder the Texas governor has told the electric companies not to invoice their customers until the State has time to figure out what to do.

David A
Reply to  old engineer
February 23, 2021 4:46 am

What ever that price is, it is not free enterprise. Curious as to exactly how the price is set.

February 22, 2021 6:32 am

Interestingly, we’re not that stupid about the renewable role, we’re too emotional.

  • One of the principles of branding is that people don’t buy what you do, they buy WHY you do it.
  • We make most of our decision based on feelings and emotions, NOT data and facts.

The WHY in this equation is = getting off fossil fuels reduces emissions. Emotions takes it from there, and any data or facts are categorized as deniers.

Elected and appointed and special interest groups feed off the WHY for votes and money
The Press will not report on DATA or FACTS that counter the emotions as they are deemed as deniers of that emotion driving the public.

Editor
February 22, 2021 6:33 am

Thanks, David. Once again, I thoroughly enjoyed your post.

Sure am glad I moved from Texas decades ago so that I avoided this event…though I do miss Texas and and my friends there occasionally.

Regards,
Bob

beng135
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 22, 2021 7:19 am

We’re running out of still-decent places to go…..

Last edited 1 month ago by beng135
Tomsa
Reply to  beng135
February 22, 2021 9:39 am

Come to “friendly” Manitoba where 95% of our power is hydro, still costs less than 9 cents a kWh, sure it’s cold here in the winter especially last week but summers are great!

Tomsa
Reply to  Tomsa
February 22, 2021 9:40 am

Oh, and forgot to mention that we very rarely ever lose power.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Tomsa
February 22, 2021 12:29 pm

Yes, except the mosquitos the size of crows.
The Polar vortex avoids Manitoba, to cold for it in winter
🙂

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
February 22, 2021 12:48 pm

I remember being in Fairbanks on April 2nd, with snow still covering the ground, although the streams were running. The mosquitoes (State Bird) were already flying around!

BobM
February 22, 2021 6:35 am

“The sensors can even tell which blades have ice on them and which ones don’t. When ice is detected, heating elements inside the blades turn on to melt the ice.”

Can we assume the power necessary comes from the grid and not other turbines? And whenever ANY maintenance is performed, that power comes from the grid and not other turbines? Is that net-metered, or do they separate “production”, to obtain subsidies, from “used” power and therefore cheat the system even more?

Pauleta
Reply to  BobM
February 22, 2021 7:07 am

They might have diesel generators to be used for this type of situation.

Nikki
Reply to  BobM
February 22, 2021 7:27 am

Apparently it didn’t work.

commieBob
Reply to  BobM
February 22, 2021 7:40 am

Electricity is fungible. That said, the electricity used for de-icing the blades reduces the amount of electricity available for other purposes.

Since a windmill isn’t generating electricity when it’s de-icing, that’s the big deal. The extra electricity it sucks from the grid just adds a bit of insult to the injury.

Last edited 1 month ago by commieBob
Citizen Smith
Reply to  commieBob
February 22, 2021 9:12 am

Careful with the assumptions. Airplanes don’t have to land before turning on deicing equipment. Net positive production probably only takes a bit more wind speed. Start-up production would be negative, but only for a short period. But the thought of a back-up generator for a wind-mill is funny.

Whether to include deicing equipment in the original build was dependent on the spec. The spec was likely based on 20, 50,100, 500 year weather events and weighed against the costs and alternatives. I expect the cost was not justified and that existing power sources would be used as back-up. Over time in the Texas case, as the wind power capacity was built out and half the politicians deferred their judgement to science-politicians, ERCO got wobbly and lowered the priority or forgot about the back-up plan. Splat!

commieBob
Reply to  Citizen Smith
February 22, 2021 9:44 am

According to the article, they stop the blades so the ice that comes off goes straight down instead of flying off in all directions.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  commieBob
February 22, 2021 11:52 am

Or worse, ice flies off only one blade first, then unbalances the whole thing. Then the blades start flying off.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
February 22, 2021 1:44 pm

At the speed the tips of the blades are travelling, a chunk of ice coming off a tip could fly for miles.
In addition to the damage such a chunk of ice could do to houses, cars and people, just imagine how much damage such a chunk could do to another windmill blade.

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 4:30 pm

IT’S THE BATTLE OF THE TEXAS TITANS!

Watch in amazement as huge windmills hurl giant chunks of ice at each other!

Tonight on Sports Net. 10:30 local

Tom Abbott
Reply to  commieBob
February 22, 2021 7:09 pm

I wonder how long it takes to de-ice a windmill?

I imagine it would be a losing battle in a heavy ice storm, at least for a while.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  commieBob
February 23, 2021 9:07 am

Airplane deicing systems are designed to prevent build-up while in flight. Preflight is hot glycol. If the wait is too long before take off, another treatment is required which strangely seems to disappoint some passengers. It doesn’t get much better than a winter Chicago O’Hare connection. I expect windmills would not start up with ice and need continuous deicing similar to planes. Given the size and remoteness of mills, an electrical system could provide both functions. Some small plane use air bladders to deform the wing skins. Seems barbaric though.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  BobM
February 22, 2021 8:01 am

My assumption in any such questions is that they are ripping us off and lining their pockets coming and going.

For one thing, in Texas at least, it seems this last couple of weeks would have been the first time such heaters would have seen much usage, and so whatever money needed to be shelled out for the heating package far exceeds the cost of the power they would have used.
So, if these things are subsidized, which we know they are, the question becomes, do subsidies cover the cost of such add-ons?

Common sense would seem to argue they they apparently do not, or else they would have been bought and hence increased the size of the graft.

Personally, to me the best outcome would have been for the ice to have caused them all to collapse into a heap of worthless scrap.
However, concern for the people who have suffered and the economic damage done, almost makes me wish that if they are gonna do these turbines, they should have at least done them right.
But they are too harmful to think that way…the sooner they are discredited, dismantled, worn out, caught on fire, fallen over, and by any means just plain gone, the better.

Sommer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 22, 2021 9:02 am

“Personally, to me the best outcome would have been for the ice to have caused them all to collapse into a heap of worthless scrap.”

Yes, it would have been very interesting to see how they would recycle the tower and blades and to have a current evaluation of the cost of doing this.

Paul C
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 22, 2021 9:33 am

From what I recall, the weight of adding heating elements to the blades slightly reduces efficiency, and hence the subsidy that the whirlygigs can generate. Over the course of a decade (or however long the subsidy collectors last), it is the reduced total generating capacity that is decisive in not adding the heating elements. They’re inefficient enough already, and that odd icy day might not be windy anyway.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 22, 2021 10:45 am

Greed and avarice explain much of what we see in the world of men.
Consider what appears to be a vast metropolis in North Dakota, when viewed at night by satellite; the get- rich- quick operators are flaring natural gas at the wells, rather than spend money to build the pipelines to transport it.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 22, 2021 11:36 am

If it cost more to build a pipeline then they could ever sell the gas for, then only an idiot would build the pipeline.
If they could sell the gas for more then the pipeline cost, they would do it.

Think before you assume that people who aren’t doing what you think they should are either stupid or greedy.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 12:53 pm

And as Biden demonstrated, it isn’t the oil men who make the final decision.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  MarkW
February 23, 2021 12:18 am

Are you quite sure that is the case, that flaring occurs only because of the conditions you stated?
It’s a complex situation, but there are alternatives to the flaring and more have been coming online.
It would be knee- jerk and naive to claim that greed and avarice aren’t part of the complexities.

Did you know that by ND law, that operators must pay royalties on flared gas after 1 year from first production at a well (with some exceptions.)
The flaring problem was so widespread, that laws/goals were set to capture 91% of flared gas, by 2020.
Flaring was not doing the royalty owners any favors. Consider that Nat gas constitutes generally about 10% of the value of oil/gas production in Bakken Field, (with gas:oil ratio increasing over time,) then longer term outlooks call for build out of gas gathering infrastructure, wouldn’t you agree?

I don’t think that you would also argue that greed and avarice don’t play a part in the wind energy sector, as well.
I’d go so far as to say that greed and avarice are the main drivers of the entire wind generator industry… along with blatant ignorance and stupidity.

Alo
Reply to  BobM
February 22, 2021 8:14 am

I work on wind turbines in the north and gotta say I have NEVER heard of heaters in the blades to melt ice from them….Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of in theory or use.

Wind turbines have blades freeze up in the north just as they did in Texas. It doesn’t happen as much in the north because we get more snow than ice due to temps being colder. Also, wind turbines will run with ice on the blades but they will reach a point that the ice creates a balance issue and they have to shut down.

Yes, wind turbines pull power from the grid when not producing. In order to get the true output MW from wind turbines you have to find the difference between output and the MW consumed. I haven’t seen that info and prob won’t.

David A
Reply to  Alo
February 22, 2021 9:39 am

Alo, do you have a WAG on how much power, how often? Wind Turbines are very often not turning.

Last edited 1 month ago by David A
Alo
Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 10:31 am

I just looked at a 1.5 MW GE wind turbine that is paused (meaning sitting idle). It is consuming 4kw per hour. Wind turbines vary by design on how much power they consume while in idle, so you would have to look at real time consumption for the different manufacturers. The consumption may also vary due to some systems running intermittently at idle.

If you had all of that info and did the math for how much power the turbines in Texas consumed while sitting idle due to icing, it would be eye opening.

David A
Reply to  Alo
February 22, 2021 5:35 pm

“If you had all of that info and did the math for how much power the turbines in Texas consumed while sitting idle due to icing, it would be eye opening.”

Interesting, as a negative useless draw at such a critical junction is a bad situation worse.

Gar Wood
Reply to  Alo
February 24, 2021 10:23 pm

15,000 windmills in Texas was what I read recently, possibly in the article above. I also read that approximately half of the windmills were offline during this storm. Based on your figure, estimating this to be roughly equivalent across the board for all of the wind turbines installed in Texas, that’s 7,500 X 4KWH/Hr = 30MWH/Hr.
My electrically-heated home in North Houston consumed right at 4KWH per hour for the three coldest days of this storm … so (based on the above calculation, 7500 of my homes’ consumption went to serve idle wind turbines.

Let’s not forget that this severe storm (the worst in at least 30 years if not 50 years) was an unprecedented power demand.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gar Wood
MarkW
Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 11:38 am

Actually, wind turbines are always turning. When they aren’t being driven by the wind, they are being driven by an electric motor. If the blades stop for long, they will create a flat spot on the bearings that will quickly make the turbine unusable. A stopped turbine also runs the risk of bending the shaft on which the blades are attached.

Alo
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 12:31 pm

This is flat out false, wind turbines are NOT driven by an electric motor when the wind is not blowing (at least the 7 different manufacturers of wind turbines that I worked on – 1.5 MW and greater). They pinwheel. The lowest of wind will spin the rotor back and forth slightly. If they do reach a standstill it won’t be there for very long and will not affect the main shaft or bearings. I’m not sure where you got this information but it’s not true.

Substation outages are required from time to time to address issues with either the transmission company or the renewables company substations. These can and have lasted weeks. The wind turbines are not powered during this time and are required to have the high speed brakes released in order for them to pinwheel to avoid damage.

MarkW
Reply to  Alo
February 22, 2021 1:46 pm

Who should I believe. You, or industry documentation?

Alo
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 2:16 pm

I have 8 years of experience working on wind turbines. I would know if the rotor was spun by an electric motor in low winds. What industry documentation are you reading? They spin the drive train with an electric motor when it is in storage (meaning, not installed and waiting to be sold). No where in a functional wind turbine is there an electric motor to spin the rotor/drive train when the wind is low, they just pinwheel or free spin.

Please provide the industry documentation where you learned this. Make no mistake, I don’t think wind or solar is the answer for anything nor will it ever be. I am just trying to stop you from providing false information. False information doesn’t advance anything.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  Alo
February 22, 2021 4:44 pm

Don’t ask MarkW for documentation, or even a link to it…..he has none

MarkW
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:10 pm

I see BJ is still suffering from the butt hurt he got over on the Willis thread.
What’s the matter BJ, found that Willis was more than you can handle so you scuttled off to another thread to lick your wounds.
BTW, I’ve never seen you present any documentation either. Just bad analogies that even a 5 year could rebut.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 12:33 pm

I don’t think so
I see lots of turbines here in AB on calm days, not turning at all.

Maybe they turn them a 1/4 turn every few hours?

Regardless, just another inefficiency whatever the truth is

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 12:55 pm

Mark
I have driven by a lot of wind farms where only about half are clearly turning. Maybe they are moving too slowly to assess from a moving car. However, they weren’t in production mode.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 22, 2021 1:47 pm

They move pretty slow. Less than one revolution per minute.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Can you show us the documentation you spoke of? Should be easy.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
February 25, 2021 9:00 pm

No documentation Mark?

Lrp
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 22, 2021 6:23 pm

Wind turbines are great at standing still

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Lrp
February 22, 2021 8:36 pm

I thought that was a design feature to make it easier for the suicidal bats and raptors to fly into the blades.

BobM
Reply to  Alo
February 22, 2021 10:36 am

One can only hope that whatever power they used from the grid last week cost them $9,000/MW.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Alo
February 23, 2021 4:53 am

I work on wind turbines in the north and gotta say I have NEVER heard of heaters in the blades to melt ice from them…”

Probably true. But we need more info on the actual modes of failure. For any Texas turbines that stopped for control or mechanical issues in their innards, the operators need to consider Iowa equipment additions.

https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/iowa-wind-turbines-equipped-to-handle-extreme-cold-ice-is-another-matter-20210219#:~:text=Unlike%20Texas%20wind%20turbines%20that,winter%20storm%2C%20Iowa's%20kept%20turning.&text=And%20because%20Iowa's%20turbines%20are,up%20to%2020%20below%20zero.

Oh, BTW, Mr. Middleton’s apologia that the gas sector performed well, but just couldn’t ramp up fast enough is quite FOS. Texas gas fields, from the lack of chemical injection downhole to the lack of glycol pumps on the wellhead, to the lack of heated well site heated gas production units and dehydration, to the lack of buried lines, undrained drip pots, to the non pigging of gathering systems, to the lack of anything like adequate gas storage capacity, and on and on, weren’t equipped or manned for deliverability requirements that MUST have been forecast.

The nat gas supply chain not only needs to take the responsibility, but the blame. Channels Nixon during Watergate accepting the responsibility, but not the blame. When aksed for the difference, he said “If you take the blame you go to jail”.

The next episode of this Gong Show will be months of whiny finger pointing to avoid paying for the exploded utility rates that were in the contracts all along. Followed by nada….

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
February 23, 2021 9:00 am

The post isn’t about the natural gas sector. Read the fracking title:”

I did. Read my fracking comment. It was an FYI. In case you haven’t noticed, folks go off topic quite regularly here. Some even to fact free comments about Biden’s election.

Natural gas did ramp up fast enough. The problems happened after it had ramped up.”

Your loosey goosey use of terms like “ramped up” makes your comments hard to follow. But the fact is, implicitly and explicitly, natural gas was the expected source to carry you all thru this emergency, and it failed. The failure was fully avoidable. I.e., there is NO reason that Texas could not have taken reasonable precautions to avoid this NATURAL GAS calamity.

ERCOT’s single biggest failure was the lack of reliable backup capacity for wind power… ERCOT expected the wind power to fail under these conditions”

I hope so? The BS expectations about wind power in these conditions are breathtaking. No one should have expected good wind performance in the trans zero, icy conditions that prevailed last week. Wind can handle cold, snow, but not relentless icing.

  • Natural gas is great, probably the best, fuel for electricity generation; but sudden onsets of extremely cold weather can cause supply disruptions.”

It appears to me that the only way ERCOT could have made it through this unscathed, would have been for natural gas, coal and nuclear power to have delivered 80-90% of capacity for 7-10 days during record-cold weather (20-40 °F below normal in the DFW area) with a system geared toward hotter than normal weather. This was not a realistic expectation.”

More apologia. This not only didn’t have to happen, it wouldn’t have in most of the rest of the CONUS. Either ERCOT knew about this and decide not to make sure that the “Alamo” fuel – natural gas – was ready, or did and chose not to manage.

Either way folks, ERCOT – and the eff you underlying philosophy guiding it – will get some sunshine in the coming months….

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 23, 2021 9:52 am

As opposed to the apologia for wind? You mean the “Not our fault! You trusted us!”

Either way, sport, wind siphoned off precious capital for unreliable energy and away from reliable thermal baseload. But that won’t get the required sunshine in the coming months because the narrative must be maintained at all costs.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
February 23, 2021 10:14 am

“As opposed to the apologia for wind?”

Please point out my “apologia for wind”. I said that ERCOT was correct in not counting on it for events that occurred a few parts/ten thousand’th of the time. Other states protect the innartds of wind turbines against bitter cold and would have done better. But ERCOT apparently counted (theoretically correctly) on gas, without doing their homework.

“Either way, sport, wind siphoned off precious capital for unreliable energy and away from reliable thermal baseload.”

Total BS. “Thermal baseload” has not only been capitalized wherever and whenever it stands a chance of profiting, but has had a free ride for decades. There are low to mid 11 figures worth of shirked asset retirement obligations (well plugging, site restoration, platform abandonments) against it – some over a century old – just in Texas. As with other extractive endeavors in US history, those proud Texans will whine and wheadle those costs onto the rest of us…

Last edited 1 month ago by bigoilbob
bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
February 23, 2021 9:12 am

Oh almost forgot, David. Gotta love that clean Texas coal.

https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/Texas_Ash_Fact_Sheet-2015-05.pdf

But I’m sure there’s lots of $ put back by the operators to cleanup these poison pools. Right? I mean they MUST be doing better than the oil and gas operators who are bonded for only a tiny fraction of their actual, expected asset retirement costs. Right?

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 23, 2021 10:29 am

Coal is far cleaner than the manufacture of wind turbines

And coal ash has MANY uses, its all around you.

Wind turbine refuse has none, just massive non-biodegradable landfill.

Add that to the huge benefits of coal in bringing buried carbon back into the carbon cycle where it can actually be used by all life on Earth.

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
Gums
February 22, 2021 6:37 am

Salute!

The other thing that helps us down here along the “sunny” coast (Galveston to Panama City, more or less) is what we do when a storm is coming – prepare! You can’t wait to leave if the water is already creeping up the driveway.

We also get freeze warnings because we normally remain warm enuf to keep from freezing pipes and such. So covering faucets and shutting off lawn/garden irrigation is another thing we have to do. The power companies advise us to run a little cooler if on heat pumps. Sometimes we even get warned about implementing the dreaded rolling blackouts if the overall load is close to a grid collapse.

I was surprised at the conventional plants in north Texas having problems, as I recall many very cold spells when stationed just north of Dallas and we would run to Colorado for Christmas. That Panhandle, as in Amarillo, can get as cold as North Dakota.

Glad to see the wakeup call without “pandemic” scale fatalities. And pray we can get the general populace educated about the benefits of nuclear power.

Gums opines…

beng135
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 7:24 am

Worked for a power utility, and saw something very strange in one of the trade magazines — turbine-generator sets OUTDOORS without shelter, IIRC maybe in Saudi Arabia or somewhere similar,

oeman 50
Reply to  beng135
February 22, 2021 9:09 am

It’s not uncommon in the US, even for nuclear plants. South Texas , St. Lucie in Florida and Shearon Harris nuke plants all have open turbine decks, along with a number of fossil plants.

Nikki
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 7:32 am

Warm is life, people spend big money going to places to bask in the sun and heat. Cold is death. We are in an ice age right now. Both poles of our planet is frozen over and nothing can live there. And we are more likely to have ice ages than anything approaching dangerous warming. Where we live, the temperature can switch tens of degrees in a day. From freeze to thaw.

commieBob
Reply to  Gums
February 22, 2021 7:56 am

So covering faucets and shutting off lawn/garden irrigation is another thing we have to do.

Our pipes run six feet below ground. Even so, occasionally a house will lose its water. The drill is to run a hose from that house’s outside faucet to the neighbor’s outside faucet. Then you leave one of the inside faucets open. As long as water is flowing in the garden hose, it doesn’t freeze. The water company doesn’t charge for the extra water used that way.

So, keeping the water flowing also works. If we have pipes that will be subjected to freezing temperatures, we drain them. Frozen pipes do burst.

Last edited 1 month ago by commieBob
Joe Crawford
Reply to  commieBob
February 22, 2021 9:02 am

I had a couple of friends that made good money one winter in Denver when many of the water lines from the street, all buried at least 6ft deep, froze. They used a portable welder to thawing them out. They connected it to the meter at the street and the main line where it entered the building.

yirgach
Reply to  commieBob
February 22, 2021 4:07 pm

What can also happen is septic tank freezing due to low snow cover.
Ugli.

Gar Wood
Reply to  commieBob
February 25, 2021 12:06 am

Dripping outside faucets is SOP in Texas for the occasional deep freeze such as this. I had to check and adjust mine at midnight and again at 2:30AM to make sure it was dripping just enough to keep them from freezing. I flushed the toilets and ran inside faucets every couple hours overnight. Even so, my hot water line to the bath at the opposite end of the house from the water supply entrance riser froze up over the garage by 2:30AM, and I was immediately in the attic with a heat gun to avoid a pipe burst. I ended up dripping both hot and cold bathtub and vanity faucets to keep that from happening, then took a long hot shower before I got to bed at 4AM.

Two of my neighbors weren’t so lucky. I helped one with a broken sprinkler system supply line that burst outside so he could turn his water back on, and the other rigged up a temporary patch on a burst pipe in the garage attic until the plumber could come out today.

Tom Halla
February 22, 2021 6:41 am

That chart of what New York wind turbines actually produce is invaluable, “winter packages” and all.

Curious George
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 22, 2021 7:48 am

That chart shows megawatthours. Why not megawatts?

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Curious George
February 22, 2021 8:09 am

Because it is reporting the daily total energy in MWh. You can on short timescales have the charts show hourly data for MWh, which gives the same as the average power in MW. I guess the EIA find it easier just to add up the hourly data into daily totals. But you should ask them. It’s their charting system.

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 5:41 pm

Yet this chart shows how much NG has to mirror Wind Powers failure, daily! I don’t think that information should be lost by averaging.
comment image

February 22, 2021 6:52 am

Texas dodged a bullet: Would you like explosions with your blackouts?
Texas toyed with cascading crisesThe Green Experiment could have gone so much worse. Here’s a man who was a gas industry executive involved in a near miss in New England in 1989. The four day blackout sounds bad, but it was a lottery win compared to the worst case scenarios. Not only was a full state-wide blackout possible, which may take months to correct, but the gas system is a bomb waiting to go off too.
ERCOT officials admit they only just averted a blackstart:
Texas was “seconds and minutes” away Texas’ power grid was “seconds and minutes” away from a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months, officials with the entity that operates the grid said Thursday.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 22, 2021 7:24 am

Fear mongering BS from ” The Texas Tribune ”

“The worst case scenario: Demand for power outstrips the supply of power generation available on the grid, causing equipment to catch fire, substations to blow and power lines to go down. ”

Really ? ?

They are so poorly designed and constructed that they will catch fire , blow up , and the lines will go down ?

Really ? ?

MarkW
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 22, 2021 8:05 am

Has ERCOT never heard of circuit breakers?

LdB
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 22, 2021 5:52 pm

There are figures for this stuff … It’s an outside chance 4% that an overload will lead to a transformer failure. So given the number of transformers involved statistically you would have to expect a couple to go up.

2hotel9
February 22, 2021 7:12 am

As long as the same idiots are allowed to do the same idiotic crap everything is going to get worse.

Curious George
Reply to  2hotel9
February 22, 2021 7:50 am

How much did late T. Boone Pickens pocket on wind development?

Scissor
Reply to  Curious George
February 22, 2021 8:48 am

Not as much as his widow.

She’s the one, BTW, that sold her Del Mar beach house to Bill Gates, for almost $50 million. If I recall correctly, she had paid $7 million for it. That was quite a good investment right there.

Last edited 1 month ago by Scissor
Scissor
Reply to  Scissor
February 22, 2021 9:03 am

I got this all wrong. First, he didn’t marry a window. He did marry a handful or more than a handful of women. It wasn’t his most recent wife that sold the Del Mar house to Gates and it was listed for $48 million and sold for $43 million.

The purchase price in 2007 was apparently $35 million. She probably netted several million though.

Rick C
Reply to  Curious George
February 22, 2021 9:05 am

A lot more than he would have if he’d ordered the Winterization Package” for his turbines. 😄

Reply to  2hotel9
February 22, 2021 10:54 am

We are fortunate that Ol’ Boone left the scene….he wanted huge windmill farms….and also wanted to change the diesel powered trucks to natural gas powered trucks…..why?….to put more money in his accounts – that’s why.

beng135
February 22, 2021 7:15 am

The notion that this is for the purpose of “boosting grid resilience,” is totally fracking retarded.

That about sums it up accurately.

Nicholas McGinley
February 22, 2021 7:19 am

Personally, talking about percentages does not give me the sense of knowing exactly how much power each source was producing.
For me at least, the best graph to use to understand how each power source was performing over time as the situation changed, if the one that tracks megawatts of power being added into the grid.
A percentage increase or decrease could mean demand was changing, with no change in the amount of power being produced.

David A
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 22, 2021 5:42 pm

comment image

This is illustrative.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  David A
February 22, 2021 9:58 pm

I am not sure I understand the chart that shows energy rather than power, and does so on this style of graph.
I could understand it if this one was a bar graph.

Nikki Cavin-Grace
February 22, 2021 7:25 am

That will work out well. Winter kill is here.

Nikki
February 22, 2021 7:28 am

That will work out well. Winter kill….

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nikki
February 22, 2021 1:02 pm

Did this go into moderation? It seems that Word Press doesn’t like the last word you used.

Tim Gorman
February 22, 2021 7:29 am

We are now finding out that the Feds didn’t let TX run its nat gas and other generators full out because it would violate emission standards.

Can the government get any more idiotic?

Spetzer86
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 22, 2021 8:52 am

You mean the same government that won’t let states enforce federal rules on immigration, or their own state rules regarding elections, gets upset when states don’t follow rules regarding anything else?

TonyG
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 22, 2021 11:08 am

That sounds like a “hold my beer” type of question.

David A
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 22, 2021 9:00 pm

Yes Tim, posted above, trying to confirm. If true then the Governor should have defied the order.

Vuk
February 22, 2021 7:30 am

Meanwhile, the true and original global warming has hit Sicily again in a spectacular way, fourth time in the four days
https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2021/02/22/9133087132692559429/640x360_MP4_9133087132692559429.mp4

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
2hotel9
Reply to  Vuk
February 22, 2021 8:22 am

Bet that is more than 0.1c of warmining.

Vuk
Reply to  2hotel9
February 22, 2021 9:36 am

A bit of warming is always welcomed on a cold late winter day, but even more so it is one of the essential ‘goldilocks Earth’ events, recycling CO2 and other base minerals required so that life on the planet could flourish, as my ‘personal geologist’ tells me and Mr. Middleton might affirm.

Olen
February 22, 2021 7:38 am

Does not matter if it is a bad idea when there is money to be made as long as the ones making the money don’t have to put up with the consequences. For instance liberal democrats don’t want the turbines in their back yard but it’s OK to impose on rural folks.

Ric Haldane
Reply to  Olen
February 22, 2021 8:04 am

Wind and solar are parasites on the grid. With all of the subsidies, they do not have to contribute to load balancing. When they are producing little power the fossil generators have to pump power into the grid to balance the load. When renewable production is up, the fossil fuel companies have to cut back on what they add to the grid. Less power means less revenue. They can only charge so much. With less revenue, they have no incentive or money to increase their capacity. Why not make renewables provide their own backup. Only then will people understand the true cost of renewables. Texas will only be more screwed with more renewables coming on line.

Tim Spence
February 22, 2021 7:47 am

Clean Technica is Griff Central, need I say more.

Reply to  Tim Spence
February 22, 2021 10:46 am

The Clean Techo Chamber.

It doesn't add up...
February 22, 2021 7:59 am

De-icing would not have solved the wind shortage. That was mainly due to low wind speeds, in many places dropping below minimum cut in speeds. If the iced turbines had been available they would have added little. Doubling wind would not have solved it either. Twice zero is zero.

There was simply insufficient dispatchable capacity available to meet demand. That became aggravated as with no spare margin, any plant that suffered problems had no backup. When power got cut to gas pipelines there was a fuel shortage for power stations feeding off them. A bit like chopping you own legs off, they fell over. Prior to outages there had been enough gas to run 44GW to help meet the 69GW peak demand. When one large plant tripped out, frequency fell rapidly, tripping out several others. There was no spinning reserve. I’m sure that the 59.3Hz load shed trips were triggered.

What doubling the renewables will achieve is regular periods of surplus generation and extensive curtailment, when prices will fall close to or below zero, crippling the economics of running anything, including wind farms, and reliable, inertia providing generation. It will crowd out inertia on the grid, making it much less stable and prone to blackouts. Yet when the wind doesn’t blow backup for the full demand will be needed. Prices will become highly volatile, because absent any other form of remuneration underutilised plant will be trying to recover costs, and there is likely to be a capacity shortfall anyway. There will need to be a reset in how the grid is managed. Costs for consumers overall will rise sharply. Reliability will become Californian.

February 22, 2021 8:01 am

This is like after a doctor’s advice to eat healthy after a heart attack and the patient decides to limit their diet to bacon and butter.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 22, 2021 8:36 am

Bacon flavored butter!

homer_smoking_butter_s.gif
John Garrett
February 22, 2021 8:07 am

I am really and truly beginning to believe that I have been sentenced to live in the midst of Mencken’s “Commonwealth of morons.”

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  John Garrett
February 22, 2021 8:37 am

Confederacy of Dunces?

At the time, I thought “Idiocracy” was a movie, not actual future history.

February 22, 2021 8:08 am

For what do you prepare with such a forecast (left) ?

comment image

2hotel9
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 22, 2021 8:27 am

More real energy production, less wind/solar stupidity, then you are prepared.

Reply to  Vuk
February 22, 2021 10:05 am

Who of the weathermen look at SSW ? At least not these being part of the AGW lobby.
And the forecast was published a month earlier.
Nevertheless it’s necessary to follow day by day what may happen.

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Dmacleo
February 22, 2021 8:10 am

iirc, and I may be wrong, the lubricants used in the colder climates would not work in TX due to summertime heat. can’t remember where I read that though so take with grain of salt.

MarkW
Reply to  Dmacleo
February 22, 2021 11:50 am

Hydro-carbons thicken as they get colder.
With motor oil (10W40 for example) the first number is how well the oil flows when cold, the second number is how well the oil protects when it gets hot. I forget what temperatures are used to measure the two numbers.

I would assume that the heavy duty greases used in big motors like these have the same issues.

Back when I changed my own oil, I would buy different grades depending on what time of year it was.

Alan
February 22, 2021 8:29 am

I live in ackbasswards Arkansas only about 7 miles from the Texas state line. Were I live, we didn’t have a one second glitch in electricity.

Kit P
Reply to  Alan
February 22, 2021 9:14 am

For some reason, people who live in big cities (aka cesspools) think they have common sense and are worldly.

Reply to  Alan
February 22, 2021 10:30 am

Where you live in Arkansas you also have the fairly new USC coal Turk plant on the Swepco grid.

Steve45
February 22, 2021 8:39 am

So… Heating elements (which require electricity) melt the ice and the wind turbines have to be shut down to deice them? Maybe that’s why New York’s wind turbines generate almost no electricity all winter long.

Ummm… no. Wind turbines in New York generate about the same small amount of electricity during the winter as they do all year, as about 5 minutes of google searching will show. But you knew that didn’t you? You just wanted to spread the usual disingenuous WUWT BS.

“The texas grid collapsed in exactly the same manner as the old Soviet Union or today’s oil sector in Venezuela. It limped along on underinvestment and neglect until it finally broke under predictable circumstances.”

Cue incompetent, whiny republicans blaming someone/something else for their own follies as usual instead of taking responsibility. Completely pathetic.

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 9:00 am

Whinging, incompetent, ACDS-plagued Stevie-IQ-45 makes whining sounds while producing zero-evidence to back up in chihuahua-brained comments.

His usual empty, disingenuous, dumb BS. !

Doesn’t even reach as high as “pathetic”

WASTING ELECTRICITY, when its in low supply, to heat up wind turbine blades..

Don’t you realise just how STUPID that sounds. !

Steve45
Reply to  fred250
February 22, 2021 1:03 pm

I gave $200 as part of AOC’s fundraising effort to help out the folks in Texas. It’s about 5 million in total now.

What did you do Fred?

SFA I bet- just bitched and moaned about the greens/democrats while jacking off in your momma’s basement.

What a creepy little pathetic man you are.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 1:49 pm

So much hatred, so little intelligence.
No wonder he likes AOC.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 5:32 pm

AOC was raising money to help out Texans while Cruz was vacationing in Cancun.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:04 pm

That’s precious. Now can she get started on repealing the wind PTC and other nonsense that caused the problem in the first place instead of doubling down?

MarkW
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:13 pm

It really does look like BJ is stupid enough to believe anything, so long as it agrees with his picayune brain wants to believe.

Lrp
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:27 pm

She feels guilty

fred250
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 23, 2021 10:40 am

Best way to help Texans would have been get rid of the BUILT-IN UNRELIABLITY of the grid

AOC, and those with similar hatred of carbon based life, have SIGNIFICANT BLAME for the problems that occurred in Texas.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 9:29 pm

If it weren’t for morons like AOC going on and on and on about a non-existent climate crisis, Texas wouldn’t have been in this position in the first place. So yes, people like you should pony up.

2hotel9
Reply to  Steve45
February 23, 2021 5:04 am

Sure you did, sure. I want to see the financial statement on Accusatory Occasional-Cortex’s “charity” fund raising. Oh, yeah, that will never be released.

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
February 23, 2021 10:37 am

So much self-hatred.

poor little IQ-45

You are a wasted piece of humanity.

Sorry if it hurts your tiny barely functional mind to realise that using electricity to de-ice useless wind turbines means it can’t be used elesewhere

Wind turbine de-icing is a PARASITIC LOAD on the grid..

just as people like you are a PARASITIC LOAD on society.

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
February 23, 2021 10:43 am

It is also noted that as always, you go on a little 5yr year old tantrum to deflect from you total lack of evidence.

Off you go, “feel” yourself with great virtue-seeking.

Poor IQ-45

Steve45
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 12:47 pm

Gee that electricity generation by wind looks a bit larger over the winter months doesn’t it? thanks for making my point David- it’s much appreciated.

Republicans/libertarians just can’t take responsibility for their own mess can they?

Texas is the only state not connected to the national grid because succession, and yet go crying to the federal government when their incompetence comes back to bite them.

It’s no wonder Republicans are bleeding support nationally.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 1:12 pm

Except when it doesn’t. Wind power doesn’t get built to the scale it has in Texas without government interference. Democrats/totalitarians just can’t take responsibility for their own mess, can they?

And interconnects are magic. They don’t create power out of nothing and they run the risk of cascade failures not to mention the complexities of managing phase over continent-scale distances.

We’ve already seen this story before : https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=2594

This study examines the cold weather event now known as the Bomb Cyclone that blanketed much of the eastern half of the United States from Dec 27, 2017 through Jan 8, 2018. Analyses focus on six areas of organized markets administered by independent system operators in the US Eastern Interconnection and Texas. This report finds: (1) Combined, fossil and nuclear energy plants provided 89% of electricity during peak demand across all the ISOs; (2) Coal provided the most resilient form of generation in PJM; (3) The value of fuel-based power generation resilience in PJM during this event was estimated at $3.5 billion; (4) Natural gas price spikes, increased demand, and pipeline constraints led to significant fuel oil burn in the US Northeast; (5) Renewables imposed a resilience penalty on the system as output decreased as demand increased; (6) Underestimation of coal and nuclear retirements could give rise to reliability concerns and an inability to meet projected electricity demand.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
February 22, 2021 5:34 pm

Texas built wind because it was cheaper than coal. In Texas they always take the cheapest option.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 5:56 pm

It was only cheaper than coal because of government distortions. And as we just saw it really wasn’t cheaper at all. Take the market distortions out and we’ll talk.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 6:18 pm

The failure was in not winterizing enough reliable thermal generation to cope with the longest stretch of subfreezing weather since 1983.

We didn’t experience a 2011/2021 power crunch in 1983, because the vast majority of our generation came from coal back then.

Both can’t be true unless you want to argue that winterization was better in 1983. Was it?

And if they approved the wind build out when gas was expensive isn’t that even more irresponsible given that gas is the only real option for backing up wind.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 8:27 pm

Incomplete answer. Are you saying that coal does not require winterization? I think that’s generally true but we still need an explanation for the dip in coal generation last week.

And if gas was expensive during the wind build out then isn’t it irresponsible to build more wind when gas is the only backup? Or was that hidden by playing games with CF assumptions? Certainly the cost of backup is never considered in the LCOE projections which makes them fraudulent IMO.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
February 23, 2021 5:12 am

It seems highly likely that some coal tripped out on grid frequency issues. Some also on loss of water supply caused by blackouts to pumping.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
February 23, 2021 9:57 am

I find that plausible, but that takes some of the air out of the “winterization” calls.

MarkW
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:14 pm

WInd has never been cheaper than coal. But then you prefer propaganda to reality every time.

Lrp
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 6:32 pm

These guys come here for trolling only; they always have an idiot at hand to suck people’s time with their green rubbish

Lrp
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:30 pm

That’s a joke, right?

fred250
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 23, 2021 10:53 am

“because it was cheaper than coal”.

.

Now just plain out LYING ..

… or is it just gross ignorance like you showed in that Willis thread

Brian Jackson
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 5:38 pm

If Texas connected to the neighboring grid(s), they would have been subject to Federal regulations requiring proper weatherization. Since Texans don’t like regulations, and take the cheapest route available, they repeat the past (2011).

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 6:01 pm

He’s presently sitting on it. Once it’s no longer in use you’ll have your answer.

Gar Wood
Reply to  David Middleton
February 25, 2021 12:42 am

$193 Billion more federal Taxes yearly paid by Texans than is received in federal funds returned to Texas.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 1:51 pm

In addition to his many other mental shortcomings, Steve can’t read charts.

What I find fascinating is he seems to believe that more government is always the best answer.

I’m guessing that Steve is another progressive who has utterly failed to make it in the free market, and blames everyone else for his own shortcomings.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 5:39 pm

Texas choosing isolating their grid to avoid federal regulation is the prime reason their grid failed.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 5:59 pm

No. Texas choosing to overbuild unreliable wind power because of federal regulation and subsidies is the reason their grid failed.

MarkW
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
February 22, 2021 6:18 pm

BJ doesn’t need facts. His handlers have told him what to believe and that’s all he needs.

MarkW
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:17 pm

Are you really as stupid as your posts make you seem?
David has presented the evidence that puts the lie to your beliefs.
The isolation had nothing to do with the problems faced in Texas. (The grid never failed, is even possible for you to tell the truth? Or has your hatred totally precluded that possibility?)
The surrounding grids had no power to sell, so even if there had been an inter connection every 10 miles, it would have made no difference.

fred250
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 23, 2021 10:57 am

“is the prime reason their grid failed.”

.

Complete BS, as always..

Prime reason is because of the green agenda and CO2 hatred.

Build UNRELIABILITY into any system, it become unreliable.

That is what wind turbine do, by their very nature.

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
February 23, 2021 10:51 am

“Gee that electricity generation by wind looks a bit larger over the winter months doesn’t it?”

.

You mean that INSIGNIFICANT little green line, hey mindless moron.

Maybe you over-estimated your IQ when you put it down as 45 !!

Ercot managers are DUMBOCRATS. Why keep trying to DENY that, IQ-45 ?

Yes, we all agree the Republican should never have bowed to the marxist ACDS illness.

The green agenda is TOTALLY TO BLAME for the problems that occurred in Texas..

Why is it that low-IQ marxists like you can never accept responsibility for any of their idiocies ?

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 10:08 am

If there is little to no wind, and grid electricity is used to “de-ice” wind-turbines..

.. the those turbines become a PARASITIC LOAD on the supply system

You like, like marxists like stevie are on modern society.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  fred250
February 22, 2021 5:41 pm

If you have ten turbines, and de-ice one, it starts producing power that can be used to de-ice the remaining nine.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:00 pm

Because that magically makes the wind come back?

MarkW
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:19 pm

How do you de-ice in the middle of the storm?
Do you think that helicopters can fly in icing conditions?

Lrp
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:36 pm

Why not de-ice all of them at the same time?

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Lrp
February 23, 2021 9:58 am

That’s all the backup diesel generator can support?

fred250
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 23, 2021 10:58 am

roflmao.. you really are TOTALLY CLUELESS, aren’t you brianles. !!

David A
Reply to  fred250
February 23, 2021 5:25 am

Apparently even when not driving, a wind turbine not operating is yet drawing power, about 4 KWH.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 11:52 am

David provided a chart that demonstrated his point.
Where’s your data.
Do you have any evidence that there was under investment in the Texas power grid, or are you as usual, just making it up as you go.

Speaking of pathetic, have you read any of your own posts lately?

Steve45
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 12:43 pm

Actually, David provided data in the form of a graph which makes my point nicely. Thanks David.

Imagine spending all day, every day reading posts on a website created by a failed weather girl, that’s full of imaginary BS and nobody important cares about.

And that is the totality of your life.

Speaking of pathetic.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 1:13 pm

So you got nothing.

MarkW
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
February 22, 2021 1:54 pm

Has he ever had anything? Other than a streak of hatred towards those who have done better in life than he has?

MarkW
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 1:53 pm

Actually, David’s graph proves the exact opposite of what your tiny little mind wants to believe.

I see that Steve suffers from the standard progressive mental disorders.
He actually believes that he can read minds and knows everything about someone from one or two web posts.

Then again, progressives in general suffer from delusions of godhood.
It comes from all those participation trophies they kept getting as kids.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
February 23, 2021 11:02 am

Progressives just SUFFER

Its their way of life.. its who they are.

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
February 23, 2021 11:01 am

“Speaking of pathetic.”.

Yep see that little green wind line in NY (with a microscope)

Now THAT IS PATHETIC !!

Poor IQ-45, and dropping fast!

Not one bit of real science, just mindless blathering

So sadly PATHETIC. !

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve45
February 22, 2021 1:18 pm

I prefer David’s graphs to your unsubstantiated (and wrong) claims. By extension, I think that we can put as much stock in your partisan screeds.

Robert of Texas
February 22, 2021 9:11 am

Well, if you add enough Wind Turbines, expect that 50% will be covered in ice and another 10% out of commission (as usual), and just count on the wind to be blowing on the days you have a peak demand so that you are generating at least 20% of Name Plate Capacity for those wind turbines still working, you can lower the risk of not being able to meet demand.

So 35GW would equate to ( (35 x 0.9)/2 x 0.2) = 3.15 GW of additional power (assuming the wind is actually blowing). Therefore, using this logic, you only need to build somewhere on the order of 130 GW of new wind turbines and you can meet the needs of out last peak demand (assuming the wind is blowing). Sounds *COMPLETELY REASONABLE* to me… (NOT!)

Can we PLEASE just build some more base load power generation stations and actually fix this problem?

Bruce Cobb
February 22, 2021 9:11 am

Let me be Griff:
Not true. Blah-blah.
Germany. Blah-blah-blah.
Grauniad Link.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 22, 2021 11:56 am

You beat him by 3 minutes, and got the nonsense down perfectly.

griff
February 22, 2021 9:14 am

since it was mainly the natural gas which failed, seems fair enough.

And as the rest of the world apparently has turbines which don’t freeze, perhaps the new ones will be of those models…

still need some grid scale batteries, demand response and above all a connection to other grids though.

Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 10:01 am

Experts say, you are wrong, ergo, you aren’t an expert, what doesn’t make we wonder. following all your comments 😀

Brian Jackson
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 22, 2021 5:44 pm

Ask the expert Mr. Middleton what happens to the moisture coming out of the natural gas well that is fed into collection’/gathering pipelines that lack insulation during this event.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 10:05 am

Grid batteries:

20GW x 24 hours x $500,000,000/GWh for a day’s outage cover. $240bn every 10 years. when they have to be replaced. Or spend $20bn on 20GW of gas generation that will last 40 years.

Economics is not your strong point, is it?

MarkW
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
February 22, 2021 11:57 am

Like most progressives, griff believes money is printed by government thus costs don’t matter.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
February 22, 2021 2:00 pm

Griff has strong points?

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 6:20 pm

He could moon light as a spear catcher.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 10:20 am

Keep telling that lie, it is all you ever have.

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 5:55 pm

David m, did not see your post to Griff before I responded. Great to see the T added!

And Data, well that good fun. It looks like wind dropped to zero at one point.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 10:27 am

Griff, natural gas was able to ramp up production 450% during the storm. How much did your vaunted wind and solar power sources contribute?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Kamakaris
February 22, 2021 8:04 pm

Natural gas saved the Texas grid. Without natural gas the whole thing would have gone down. And Windmills were of no help. They couldn’t do anything to help the situation.

Had the whole Texas grid gone down, the estimate is it could take a month to get it back up and running, and the costs would be in the tens of billions of dollars.

Natural gas saved Texas’ hindquarters.

Windmills put Texas’ hindquarters in jeopardy.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
fred250
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 10:58 am

“since it was mainly the natural gas which failed,”

.

STILL LYING through your teeth, as always, hey griff-tard.

Even the data that showed GAS ramping up by HUGE AMOUNTS to cover for AWOL wind isn’t FACT enough to sway your ACDS diseased little mind, is it !

Brian Jackson
Reply to  fred250
February 22, 2021 5:46 pm

Natural gas was diverted from power plants to residential users for home heat.

MarkW
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:21 pm

Production from natural gas power plants went up by 450%. It could have gone up by more had the EPA permitted it.

fred250
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 23, 2021 11:04 am

And wind powered electricity disappeared completely

Do you have yet another empty meaningless point to make ?

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 10:59 am

Griff, did you even read the post?
Yes, there is de-icing technology. The wind turbine has to use electricity and it has to shut down to de-ice.
I looked the other day when one of your collective was going on about de-icing, the best i could find on Vesta was that it “might use 2% of the turbines generated power over the course of a year for de-icing”.
A 3.6mw turbine that makes 35% availability generates 11000mwhr a year, 2% is 220MW.

But assuming de-icing is a small portion of time, that is an awful lot of power that has to come from elsewhere.
Weasel words, 2% of annual production.
Why not state how much it actually takes?

But these are meaningless arguments. Most of the wind production failed because there wasn’t much wind, i was checking various texas locations last monday with my weather channel APP, no wind anywhere.

Same thing we had here in AB for 9 days in the exact same system except it was -30C here.

No wind

So it doesn’t matter if texas spends $5 trillion more on cold hardened wind turbines going forward, when this sort of system hits again, and it will, there will be no wind power

And people will Freeze and die.

If the $80 billion spent on crap renewables in the last 15 years had been spent hardening the real power supplies all we would be arguing about is the polar vortex and what it means

because there would have been no blackouts.

MarkW
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
February 22, 2021 11:59 am

griff is famous for providing links to articles that actually refute the point he’s trying to make.
So it’s probable that griff did not bother to read the article.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
February 22, 2021 9:36 pm

weather channel APP”

I wouldn’t trust TWC to tell me if the sun was up.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 11:01 am

“still need some grid scale batteries”

.

Another one of your little hallucinogenic FANTASIES. !

Your congnitive non-functionality on just how much battery would be needed to become “grid-scale” is hilarious.

Its as though you haven’t got a single functioning brain cell inside that empty abyss between you ears.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
February 22, 2021 12:00 pm

griff still seems to believe that “grid scale” batteries are capable of powering the entire grid for hours, if not days.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 12:48 pm

As i showed here in AB during the recent polar vortex, we had functionally zero wind power for almost 9 days, at -30C
Because there is little to no wind in the middle of one of these winter siberian highs.

So our little AB grid for 4.4 mil people, 11GW, would require at least 7 days of grid battery back up, would require 1,850GWHr of battery back up

To ensure everyone doesn’t die.

I think that battery would bankrupt Canada and make a big Dent in USA GDP if you tried to do that.

And if constructed as one piece it would likely bend gravity and create a black hole based on its mass.

All bad

MarkW
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
February 22, 2021 1:55 pm

I’m willing to bet that had you had solar power, it wouldn’t have been providing any power either.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
February 22, 2021 8:17 pm

“As i showed here in AB during the recent polar vortex, we had functionally zero wind power for almost 9 days, at -30C”

What electrical grid could survive nine days without electricity?

That’s what AOC wants us to gamble on. She wants us to get off fossil fuels and power the world with windmills.

AOC doesn’t seem to understand that sometimes windmills just do not work. Windmills are not ready for prime time.

If you want to live in something other than the Stone Age, then you have to have generating facilities that will work regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Windmills do not meet those requirements.

Windmills are a disaster waiting to happen.

Alarmists need to give up on windmills and solar which are weather-dependent, and put their efforts towards building more nuclear power plants. That’s the future for them.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Joe Born
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 11:40 am

That battery idea seems problematic: https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/battery-grid-backup

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joe Born
February 22, 2021 1:41 pm

Something that rarely gets mentioned is the effect that ambient temperatures have on the efficiency of batteries. In the Texas scenario, cold weather is the situation when back-up batteries would be most valuable. However, they are least efficient under those conditions!

Brian Jackson
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 22, 2021 5:51 pm
Lrp
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 6:43 pm

How many batteries would you have used?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 8:45 pm

The article you linked to says nothing about insensitivity to low temperatures. I doubt your claim because chemical reactions in general proceed more rapidly at elevated temperatures. Thus, it seems unlikely that your NaS batteries are immune to reduced performance at low temperatures.

fred250
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 23, 2021 11:15 am

You really are a low-education, non-thinking gullible twerp, aren’t you Brianless.

190 of them in Japan, with an overall capacity of just 530MW on micro grids .. a tiny niche market.

And of course totally unnecessary if you don’t have the idiotic imposition of the UNRELIABILTY of wind farts on your grid.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 11:56 am

Looks like griff’s got himself a new lie that he will repeat ad infinitum, no matter how many times he is refuted.

Actual data, shows that natural gas did not fail.
Actual data, shows that wind and solar did fail.

Looks like poor griff still doesn’t have any idea what grid level batteries are and how expensive they are. (I’d love to hear how griff would use 5 minutes of power (what the best grid level batteries provide) was going to solve the problems in Texas)

David A
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2021 5:51 pm

Griff, NG failed…
Can you see? Can you see and think at the same time? ( Not sarcasm)comment image

Len Werner
February 22, 2021 9:16 am

Heated turbine blades solves the problem does it? I know I’m not the only pilot that checks this site, but is that really feasible? How fast does ice build up on a turbine blade; will you spend more time and energy de-icing than generating?

  • “Heavy icing: A descriptor used operationally by flight crews when they report encountered icing intensity to air traffic control. The rate of ice buildup requires maximum use of the ice-protection systems to minimize ice accretions on the airframe. A representative accretion rate for reference purposes is more than 3 inches (7.5 cm) per hour on the outer wing. A pilot encountering such conditions should consider immediate exit from the conditions.”

(Moderate icing is 1-3″/hr, light icing is less than 1.) If a winter wind turbine in icing conditions is going to work–‘consider immediate exit from the conditions’.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Len Werner
February 22, 2021 3:52 pm

Here is some insight from a Finnish company that offer turbine ice control systems:

https://wicetec.com/technology/

Note they do not recommend the system unless there is reasonably signficant regular icing problem.

Kit P
February 22, 2021 9:24 am

David is an armchair quarterback living in a big city.

What I liked about working at power plants is being able to love in the country and have a few acres of land. In cold climates I heated with wood. When I lived in mild climates, I kept a two weeks supply of

Kit P
Reply to  Kit P
February 22, 2021 9:34 am

wood. My house was never cold.

Although I worked in the power industry, I never owned backup generator. They are dangerous and not very reliable.

Since retiring, I travel in a motorhome and spend lots of time dry camping especially in Texas. For example Crystal beach east of Galveston is 22 miles of beach where you can park for free.

I have three generators. A large propane genny to run two air conditioners. A small gasoline genny to charge batteries. An intermediate size that I can sti

Kit P
Reply to  Kit P
February 22, 2021 9:41 am

still lift that can run one air conditioner.

It is simple, redundancy and dual fuel source provides reliability.

I do not have solar on the roof of my RV. If it was a good idea I would.

The best I can tell the purpose of wind and solar is to talk about it.

It is like David mentioning ice in his pool. Subtle ways people let you know they are rich.

Nothing wreong with being rich and clueless about making electricity.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Kit P
February 22, 2021 10:48 am

I ready your rambles twice, trying to figure out what you are trying to say?
Dave is saying the real power supplies need to be hardened.
What part of that are you disagreeing with?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 1:48 pm

Maybe he’s not in the same gene pool that you are and is suffering from ‘pool envy.’ When I lived in Phoenix, it seemed that there must have been a law requiring everyone to have a pool. Even rental homes had pools.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
February 22, 2021 8:47 pm

Can you also turn water into wine? 🙂

fred250
Reply to  Kit P
February 22, 2021 11:04 am

“Nothing wreong with being rich and clueless about making electricity.”

.

Still, it beats being POOR, DUMB and CLUELESS. !!

MarkW
Reply to  Kit P
February 22, 2021 12:11 pm

Having pool means you are rich?????

Not in any neighborhood I’ve ever lived in.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 6:37 pm

Either you have not live in many neighborhoods, or the ones you have lived in aren’t representative. Only 4.1% of home have them.
.
https://aquamagazine.com/news/does-the-future-hold-25-million-new-pools.html

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 22, 2021 8:49 pm

Pools are a LOT more common in homes in the US South-west than in other areas of the country.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 22, 2021 10:23 pm

And in Florida.
Anyone who did not get lassoed by the housing collapse was able to buy any sort of house they wanted for dirt cheap, even as late as 2013 and in many places even later.

TonyG
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 23, 2021 7:45 am

that appears to be a nationwide stats.

What percent of houses have pools in places like NYC? What percent have pools around LA?

It’s not so much about wealth as it is about location.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kit P
February 22, 2021 10:20 pm

Where you are from only rich people have a pool?
I suppose by “rich”, you mean “has a job”.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kit P
February 22, 2021 1:45 pm

Why is it that you currently have three generators when you state unequivocally that backup generators are dangerous and unreliable?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 22, 2021 10:27 pm

I think he must be talking about back in the olden days, re them being dangerous and unreliable.
In general, backup generators are seldom used, and so long term reliability is not much of an issue.
And they are only dangerous if you are stupid enough to put one in a place it should never be.

Joe Crawford
February 22, 2021 9:34 am

I seem to remember several people on this site with experience in the industry proposing that the maximum renewables you could support on a power grid while still maintaining reliability was around 15%. Looks like Texas has joined both Germany and South Australia in proving that correct.

CO2isLife
February 22, 2021 9:39 am

Only a fool would “diversify a portfolio” by adding less reliable, higher risk, more expensive sources. Diversification is intended to lower risk, lower costs, and increase reliability and output. Green energy does none of those. Real diversification would overweight the most reliable lowest costs sources, and that is why China is focused on coal and nuclear.

CO2isLife
February 22, 2021 9:43 am

Here are 400+ locations that show now warming uptrends, many of them in Texas. Texas and the Green Energy Zealots are literally fighting a non-existent problem. Many areas in Texas are actually cooling.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/21/hadcrut5-shows-14-more-global-warming-since-1850-than-hadcrut4/#comment-3190000