Hey Joe! How’s That “Incredible Transition” Going For Ya?

Guest “Incredible Transition” my @$$!” by David Middleton

Does he even know what the initials EIA stand for? He wouldn’t sound nearly so moronic if he occasionally checked with the Energy Information Administration…

JULY 1, 2022

Fossil fuel sources accounted for 79% of U.S. consumption of primary energy in 2021

Fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and coal—accounted for 79% of the 97 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of primary energy consumption in the United States during 2021. About 21% of U.S. primary energy consumption in 2021 came from fuel sources other than fossil fuels, such as renewables and nuclear, according to data in our Monthly Energy Review.

The 4-quad increase in U.S. primary energy consumption last year was the largest annual increase on record and was mostly attributable to a gradual return to pre-pandemic levels of activity. The increase in 2021 follows a 7-quad decrease in 2020, which was the largest annual decrease on record.

Consumption of renewable energy in the United States increased slightly from 11.5 quads in 2020 to a record of 12.2 quads in 2021. Increased use of renewables for electricity generation, including wind and solar energy, was partially offset by a decline in hydroelectricity generation. U.S. nuclear energy consumption totaled 8.2 quads in 2020, the lowest level since 2012.

Petroleum has been the most-consumed primary energy source in the United States since surpassing coal in 1950. Consumption of petroleum in the United States remains less than its 2005 peak, totaling 35 quads in 2021. U.S. natural gas consumption totaled 31.3 quads in 2021, a slight decline from the previous year.

U.S. coal consumption increased to 10.5 quads in 2021, marking the first annual increase in U.S. coal consumption since 2013. U.S. coal consumption has fallen by more than half since its peak in 2005. Reduced coal-fired electricity generation has driven much of this decline.

Our Monthly Energy Review’s pre-1949 estimates of U.S. energy use are based on two sources: Sam Schurr and Bruce Netschert’s Energy in the American Economy, 1850–1975: Its History and Prospects and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Circular No. 641, Fuel Wood Used in the United States 1630–1930.

Appendix D of our Monthly Energy Review compiles these estimates of U.S. energy consumption in 10-year increments from 1635 through 1845 and 5-year increments from 1845 through 1945. Data for 1949 through the present day are available in the latest Monthly Energy Review.

Principal contributor: Owen Comstock

Tags: consumption/demand, coal, natural gas, renewables, wind, wood, liquid fuels, hydroelectric, oil/petroleum, biofuels

U.S. Energy Information Administration
Today in Energy would like to wish you a happy Fourth of July. New articles will resume on Monday, July 11.

Solar power? Oh where, oh where art thou?

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

Hiding in the “all other renewables” me thinks.

There won’t be an energy transition because there never has been one

We’ve never transitioned from one form of energy to another; we just pile new sources on top of the old sources and use them more efficiently, with less impact on the environment. We burn almost as much biomass now as we did when we started burning coal; we just no longer rely on whale oil as a major component of that biomass.

Bjorn Lomborg, LinkedIn

But, but, but… The future! Because climate change!

The EIA’s 2021 International Energy Outlook is also ignoring “Because climate change!”…

“Renewables” includes hydroelectric. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2021 (IEO2021)
Note: Petroleum and other liquids includes biofuels

OCTOBER 6, 2021
EIA projects accelerating renewable consumption and steady liquid fuels growth to 2050

Today we released our International Energy Outlook 2021 (IEO2021). In the IEO2021 Reference case, which assumes current laws and regulations, we project that strong economic growth and growing populations will drive increases in global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption through 2050. Much of the increase in energy consumption will be met with liquid fuels and renewable energy sources. Natural gas- and coal-fired generation technologies as well as the emerging use of batteries will also prompt increased consumption.

Some key findings of IEO2021 include:

If current policy and technology trends continue, global energy consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will increase through 2050 as a result of population and economic growth.
The industrial and transportation sectors will largely drive the increase in energy consumption. Electric vehicle sales will grow through 2050, causing the internal combustion engine fleet to peak in 2023 for countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and in 2038 globally. Despite this projected growth in electric vehicle sales, the continued growth in energy consumption will cause global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to rise through 2050 according to our IEO2021 Reference case.

[…]

Principal contributor: Michelle Bowman

EIA

They also forecast that fossil fuels will continue to be the world’s dominant source of primary energy for many decades to come…

Previous EIA graph plotted as a stacked area chart.

The problem with the future will always be…

The future’s uncertain and the end is always near…

Jim Morrison, The Doors, Roadhouse Blues, 1970

How about some Morrison Hotel?

The future’s uncertain and the end is always near…

Energy Transition Follies: ERCOT Edition

Jul 10, 2022

ERCOT Issues Conservation Appeal to Texans and Texas Businesses

Appeal Effective Monday, July 11, 2022

AUSTIN, TX, July 10, 2022 – With extreme hot weather driving record power demand across Texas, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is issuing a Conservation Appeal, asking Texans and Texas businesses to voluntarily conserve electricity, Monday, July 11 between 2-8 p.m. ERCOT also issued a Watch for a projected reserve capacity shortage from 2-8 p.m. At this time, no system-wide outages are expected.

Conservation is a reliability tool ERCOT has deployed more than four dozen times since 2008 to successfully manage grid operations. This notification is issued when projected reserves may fall below 2300 MW for 30 minutes or more.

ERCOT encourages all electric customers to visit the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) Power to Save or their electric provider’s websites to get important conservation tips. According to the PUC, ways to reduce electricity use during peak times include turning up your thermostat a degree or two, if comfortable, and postponing running major appliances or pool pumps during afternoon peak hours.

ERCOT continues to use all tools available to manage the grid effectively and reliably, including using reserve power and calling upon large electric customers who have volunteered to lower their energy use.

ERCOT emphasizes that the call for conservation is limited to the hours of 2-8 p.m.

Factors driving the need for this important action by customers:

Record high electric demand. The heat wave that has settled on Texas and much of the central United States is driving increased electric use. Other grid operators are operating under similar conservative operations programs as ERCOT due to the heatwave.

Low wind. While solar power is generally reaching near full generation capacity, wind generation is currently generating significantly less than what it historically generated in this time period. Current projections show wind generation coming in less than 10 percent of its capacity.

Under current projected scenarios, performance of the generation fleet Monday is:

Installed CapacityMonday (7/11) Tightest Hour (2-3 p.m.)Percentage of Installed Capacity Available at Tightest Hour
Dispatchable80,08367,91385%
Wind35,1622,6988%
Solar11,7879,55781%

Total forecasted demand is 79,671 MW.

How to track electricity demand

● View daily peak demand forecast, current load, and available generation at http://www.ercot.com.

● Follow ERCOT on Twitter (@ERCOT_ISO) and Facebook (Electric Reliability Council of Texas).

● Sign up for the ERCOT mobile app (available for download at the Apple App Store and Google Play).

● Subscribe to the EmergencyAlerts list on http://lists.ercot.com.

Consumer assistance

Public Utility Commission of Texas Hotline – 1-888-782-8477

-end-

ERCOT

If there are brownouts this afternoon… What are the odds that the media and Democrats (redundant, I know) will try to pin it on natural gas?

Supply and Demand
Supply and Demand is a graphical representation of the ERCOT system’s current power supply and demand using Real-Time data, as well as projected power supply and demand from hourly forecasts.
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2022 14:20 CT

The graph’s solid purple line represents the historical committed capacity (the amount of power that was available from on-line generating units). The graph’s turquoise line represents the historical system demand (the amount of power used). The purple shaded portion represents the amount of quick start capacity forecasted to be available in the near future. Quick start capacity is provided by generating units that can come on-line within 10 minutes of receiving ERCOT notice. These generating units are tested to ensure their quick start capability. The dotted turquoise line represents the forecasted future demand. These values are all provided in megawatts (MW).

Although supply should meet demand, the capacity displayed during each interval includes reserve power supplies. ERCOT procures reserves, which may be needed in case of sudden changes in operating conditions in order to help maintain reliability. For instance, reserves may be needed in an unexpected generation outage. Available capacity amounts are based on generating units’ Current Operating Plans and can change over time due to variations in start-up times among generating units. When the actual demand crosses into these reserves, it indicates that ERCOT may need to bring all available generation on-line and notify consumers that conservation is needed.

ERCOT

It could be an interesting afternoon in Texas. Or not…

In the meantime…

5 18 votes
Article Rating
123 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 11, 2022 2:10 pm

Ship all the greens to West Texas in front of a wind farm, and have them blow? 8% is seriously lame.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 11, 2022 2:19 pm

The word “transition” has certainly been bastardized in so many ways.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Scissor
July 11, 2022 3:17 pm

Can you define “transition”? 😎

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 11, 2022 3:44 pm

When Jules transitions into Julia…

Richard Page
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 11, 2022 5:06 pm

Ah the old ‘outy to inny’ switch!

paul
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 11, 2022 5:24 pm

i see what you did there…. lololo

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 11, 2022 5:19 pm

Biden is transitioning
from a human being
into a vegetable.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 11, 2022 7:06 pm

Good news, the transition is completed.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 11, 2022 8:51 pm

Trans turnip

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 12, 2022 4:17 am

That would make him a Pa snip!

Philo
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 13, 2022 1:18 pm

He”s trying for Corps, since he is so strong and energetic.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 12, 2022 11:23 am

NEWS FLASH
Reuters reports:
Representatives from oil refining companies and labor unions participated in a virtual meeting with Environmental Protection Agency officials to discuss the planned overhaul of the Renewable Fuel Standard and call for measures to lower the cost of renewable identification numbers, according to sources familiar with the discussions. The refining and labor representatives were reportedly upset that the EPA suggested they should raise their demands for changes to RINs policy and pricing with other lawmakers or officials in the administration.

ResourceGuy
July 11, 2022 2:24 pm

The evolution of political overreach in America started with a few short-term spending initiatives within agencies, then larger programs, then whole new agencies, and now wholesale industry experimentation to show off effort to the green donors and voter blocks. Good luck in the new national lab rat experiment.

John Bell
July 11, 2022 2:28 pm

Looking at those graphs, we need more nuclear in the USA. When will the LEFT realize wind and solar do not work well? Around here (Oakland county Michigan) I NEVER see solar panels on roofs.

Smart Rock
Reply to  John Bell
July 11, 2022 2:58 pm

The Left are not stupid; they realise perfectly well that wind and solar will never (unless a miracle happens) be able to provide abundant and reliable energy. That’s exactly why they promote them. Permanent energy shortage is the end game, when we will have to be compliant little consumers to even get a measly ration of kWh. Use the wrong pronoun and you will get switched off entirely until you see the error of your ways.

Derg
Reply to  Smart Rock
July 11, 2022 4:44 pm

“ The Left are not stupid; “

Simon is pretty dumb.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
July 11, 2022 9:35 pm

Oh yes, incapable of learning anything except what he’s told to regurgitate.

Richard Page
Reply to  Smart Rock
July 11, 2022 5:09 pm

The left ARE stupid – all of their plans to transition away from hydrocarbons rely on technologies that have either not been invented or not made to work yet, even without any consideration of how cost effective these hypothetical solutions might be.

AndyHce
Reply to  Richard Page
July 11, 2022 8:05 pm

If they know that and they want that, is stupid more than a viewpoint?

Fraizer
Reply to  Richard Page
July 12, 2022 7:19 am

But they identify as smart.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Smart Rock
July 12, 2022 5:31 am

They will move us back to local power distribution where private citizens went together and purchased diesel generators (think right after WWII) and people paid to be wired to the generator. I’m sure the government will try to stop it, but if they can’t provide the power on a reliable basis I doubt they could win.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Smart Rock
July 12, 2022 7:52 pm

Some of the masterminds on the left are not stupid, just devious liars. But the useful idiots who believe their every word are either too stupid or too lazy to think for themselves.

John K. Sutherland.
Reply to  John Bell
July 11, 2022 3:41 pm

We are at the beginning of the nuclear fission revival, adding Breeders and modular reactors where possible.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  John K. Sutherland.
July 12, 2022 11:32 am

I’d love to have my own personal SMR. No grid required, I could just be self-reliant for electricity and not have to deal with bone-headed energy “policies” of the delusional government. Could use it for heat too, because it would be cheap AND reliable.

Reply to  John Bell
July 11, 2022 5:24 pm

Also living in Oakland County Michigan
Not the sunshine capital of the world.
My next door neighbor has solar panels
and a Prius with the MI license plate “Oil’s Gone”
But his latest vehicle was an ICE,
so maybe there’s hope.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 11, 2022 6:44 pm

But his latest vehicle was an ICE, …

There may well be a story worthy of Paul Harvey behind that switch.

AndyHce
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 11, 2022 8:05 pm

was, not is?

Reply to  AndyHce
July 11, 2022 8:47 pm

Is.
He bought a 20 year old Mercedes ICE SUV from some
old lady who rarely drove it. I expected to see a Tesla,
which he could afford, but he’s a cheapskate.

n.n
July 11, 2022 2:32 pm

Bidencares: transenergy… a state or process of divergence from normal energy affordability, availability, and sustainability. Spread the blight.

Smart Rock
July 11, 2022 2:39 pm

If there are brownouts this afternoon… What are the odds that the media and Democrats (redundant, I know) will try to pin it on natural gas?

More likely they will blame it on Climate Change, and call for less natural gas and more wind farms to “fight” it

Chris Hanley
July 11, 2022 2:52 pm

If there are brownouts this afternoon… What are the odds that the media and Democrats (redundant, I know) will try to pin it on natural gas?

Their causality chain: brownouts/blackouts -> natural gas -> Putin, hence Putin’s brownouts/blackouts.

Last edited 29 days ago by Chris Hanley
Bob
July 11, 2022 3:00 pm

Green devils, politicians, administrators and bureaucrats aren’t worth spit.

Greg Bacon
July 11, 2022 3:00 pm

“We’ve never transitioned from one form of energy to another”

We no longer use horses for transportation or agriculture.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 4:01 pm

No but energy determines how much work you can do. And we used to use horses to do work, whether carrying people or pulling things.

Scissor
Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 4:11 pm

It’s a good thing they don’t use horses in nuclear reactors because they would run away a lot.

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 5:32 pm

If horses aren’t a form of energy, then coal-fired power plants aren’t either. Both ultimately derive their energy from fusion in the sun. One takes a little longer to complete the cycle. But the transition from animal-powered life to fossil-fuel powered life was an energy transition.

Scissor
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
July 11, 2022 5:43 pm

Yes, the energy of each is derived from the sun.

However, David is referring to the form of energy from a physics thermodynamics (first law) perspective (mechanical, thermal, radiant, electrical, etc.).

Neither horses, nor power plants are energy. They are mechanisms to convert energy from one form to another.

AndyHce
Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 8:07 pm

who is this ‘we’? Horses are still in use for those purposes a few places in this country.

Graemethecat
Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2022 2:34 am

In Belgium horses are a source of energy – the Belgians eat steak de cheval, usually accompanied by a garlic salad. Yummy!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Greg Bacon
July 11, 2022 3:23 pm

When did we ever burn horses for energy?
Context. Good to read it.

Last edited 29 days ago by Gunga Din
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 11, 2022 6:48 pm

Not all usable energy comes from combustion.

John K. Sutherland.
Reply to  Greg Bacon
July 11, 2022 3:38 pm

Tell that to the Amish.

JimH in CA
Reply to  Greg Bacon
July 11, 2022 6:10 pm

Most cattle ranchers use horses to monitor, round up and work the millions of cattle in the US. Quads are used a lot, but cattle move easier with horses, along with the Border Collies to help direct them.
So, no transition here..!!

JimH in CA
Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 7:17 pm

The cattle ranching life here in Northern California hasn’t changed much in 100 years, except for using gas powered vehicles haul the tools to fix fences, put out salt,…
Horses are the only way to go into the really hilly parts here, where a wheeled vehicle can’t go.
Puckups haul the horses to where they’re need and we load the cattle onto the big trucks which haul 30-35 pair [ cow and calf ] about 100 miles from the Sacramento valley area to the high country, [ the Sierra Valley for my cattle], where there is ‘summer feed’ , watered with the Sierra snow melt.[ which is minimal this year. ]

Greg Bacon
July 11, 2022 3:02 pm

ERCOT can’t keep the power on when it’s freezing, and they’re gonna have a hard time keeping it on when it’s sweltering. Seems more like a management issue than a technological one.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 5:43 pm

Baloney

“Wind totally failed over a roughly 2 week period back then.”

That’s disinformation unbecoming of a WUWT writer !

Wind speed is always low in February in Texas.
One good reason to avoid windmills in Texas.

ERCOT forecasted wind power at 6% of nameplate capacity for February 2021.

Even with half the windmills iced,
they averaged about 4% of capacity
during th week of the blackout.

There was a big problem for a few hours before the blackout with very little wind power, but that can happen for an hour or more every weel of the year. That’s what the wind does. Another reason to avoid windmills.

It is not the windmill’s fault that ERCOT could not backup a mere 6% of windmill nameplate capacity with fossil fuels and/or nuclear.

Below the already low forecast of wind power for a few hours before the blackouts were a minor problem that should have easily been covered by fossil fuel backup.

It is ERCOTs fault, and owners of other energy infrastructure, that is unable to function in very cold weather. That was true in February 2011,
and is still true today.

The same thing happened in February 2011 with 3.2 million Texans affected by rolling blackouts. The August 2011 FERC report, which I read, blamed the lack of winterization of the entire Texas energy infrastructure for the 2011 blackouts. Beyond just the power plants.

There were few Texas windmills in February 2011.
Nowhere in the August 2011 report was there a
recommendation to build a lot of windmills
in the next decade.
Which is exactly what happened in TEXAS.
None of the 2011 lack of winterization problems
were ever fixed.

Last edited 29 days ago by Richard Greene
AndyHce
Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 8:20 pm

In previous posts here, supposedly official Texas records showed that wind supplied 25% to 27% of total Texas demand for that same period during the three previous yeas. During that period this year, wind power supplied from 0% to 3% of demand. Were those untruths?

Reply to  AndyHce
July 11, 2022 9:15 pm

The ERCPT forecast is a minimum worst case wind power for the month. Not an average. Averages don’t work well with wind power. Because there are frequent hours, at rando,. when the whole state gets very little wind power. Those hours are not predictable. That’s why there must be 100% fossil fuel backup. Far more interconnector capacity with other states would have helped a lot.

The lack of Texas fossil fuel power available during unusually cold weather WAS the cause of the February 2021 blackouts.
Same problem as in February 2011 blaclouts.

Last edited 29 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 9:09 pm

Baloney agapn

Wind always has large variations in output.

I told you that wind power in Texas in February is always weak. That was predicted.

I told you that wind can be very low for an hour or two every week of the year for Texas. That happened too.

That’s what wind does, and why it should not be part of any electric grid. That’s why wind requires 100% fossil fuel backup.

All of those windmlll performance flaws were known.
The lack of optional blade deicers were a decision
made to save money.

None of the wind problems caused the 2021 blackouts.

The blackouts happened because power plants and other Texas energy infrastructure could not perform in unusually cold weather. That problem happened in February 2011. and in February 2021. It can happen again too.

ERCOT created financial incentives for wind power construction. Yet had insufficient fossil fuel backup that could perform in UNUSUALLY COLD WEATHER.

They knew in advance there would be hours with very low wind power as a percentage of nameplate capacity, which could happen at random during any week of the year.

ERCOT was not prepared to back up wind power EXPECTED to be only 6% of nameplate capacity in February 2021. That is pitiful performance.

There would have been a blackout if Texas had no windmills in February 2021 — other sources of energy could not meet demand during unusually cold weather.

Were windmills a poor investment for Texas?
Yes

But windmills did not cause the February 2021 blackouts. They did exactly what windmills are designed to do: Erratic, unpredictable. hourly power output requiring 100% fossil fuel backup … a foolish investment
for an electric grid where reliable power is the primary objective.

AndyHce
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 11, 2022 10:47 pm

An hour or two every week does not lead to large scale damage and deaths. The previous years’ average supply from wind meant that more than enough gas was available to handle the occasional short term wind failure but long loss of so much capacity was an entirely different thing. While in total it was not a simplistic situation, the failure of wind power for those two weeks was a very major factor. Wind power is indeed a dumb/very expensive idea for the grid.

Reply to  AndyHce
July 12, 2022 6:35 am

Wind power did not “fail”
It did what wind power does when there are no blade deicers. Worked as expected — erratic unreliable power output.

Fossil fuel backup failed to deliver in extremely cold weather just as it did in February 2021.
The forecast was that wind power could drop as low as 6% of nameplate capacity in February.
It did worse than that, but the wind shortfall should have been easily covered by fossil fuel backup that actually WORKED in extremely cold weather.

If you want to claim that windmills were a poor investment for a growing state like Texas that has always had well below average spare capaciyty, that is correct.

But don’t blame windmills for erratic unpredictable power output — that’s what windmills do, and that’s why they need 100% fossil fuel backup.

Most Texans did not lose electric power in February 2021. Those who did should blame fossil fuel plants unable to perform in extremely cold weather, which has been a growing problem in Texas since the 1980s, that is never fixed (too expensive).

In the past decade, Texas “bribed” utilities to invest in windmills without optional blade heaters. SO EVEN many of them could not work in very cold weather.

The weatherization problem is not a new problem.
It was thoroughly explained in the 300+ page August 2011 FERC report on the February 2011 blackouts, when there was very little wind power in Texas. And this can happen again!

Windmills were not the answer to the cold weather
problem, especially with no blade deicers.
Texas, with so many windmills, needs well above average fossil fuel spare capacity, that works in cold weather, and far more interconnector capacity with other states.

AndyHce
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 10:12 pm

That is the sort of convoluted illogic that believers invoke to clain that MORE wind and solar is what is needed to ensure cheap, reliable electricity.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2022 6:47 am

The Texas blackout in 2021 was caused by fossil fuels plants and other energy infrastructure that could not operate properly in very cold weather.

Exactly what happened in February 2011.

Your charts show the weak wind period that should have been easily offset by more fossil fuel output. but they failed to cover a not very large gap.

There would have been blackouts even if wind power was not unusually low for 10 days.
That’s the point you are missing.

Look at power output of Texas fossil fuel plants in the extremely cold weather — they are supposed to work properly in all types of weather. They did not function properly in the very cold weather.

The bottom line is ALL Texas power plants (except nuclear, I believe) turned out to be weather dependent during extremely cold weather.
Wind and solar power are always weather dependent. Fossil fueled power should
not be weather dependent,
but they are in Texas.

oeman 50
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 12, 2022 9:08 am

Wind having 100% backup from reliable sources is not supported by the ERCOT market model. ERCOT operates an energy-only market, no payments for capacity, as in PJM in the east and mid-west. A power producer that only operates in standby mode waiting for the wind to stop blowing is in a very financially risky situation. This is why many of the legacy coal plants have shutdown, they can’t react quickly enough to cover sun and wind power variability so they can’t make enough money to cover their O&M.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2022 6:03 pm

I tried to do a wind analysis on points W & N of Dallas, where the wind potential is greatest & I found little, if any correlation at all for the period of Feb10-18. Either they had few wind
farms there or they were off-line due to the snow & possibly sleet that fell before then. The
wind was poor S of Dallas @ Austin but better further S @ San Anton during those 9 days.

The coldest day was the 15th to the W- Amarillo, Lubbock, & Midland- & the 16th for
Abilene, Wichita Falls, & Dallas. The wind also was poor when the temps bottomed but
picked up substantially after that as the wind switched to the S. After a day of the S wind,
the speeds dropped again. I just don’t see any parallels to that on your graph.

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/amarillo/historic?month=2&year=2021

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 11, 2022 6:55 pm

The winds were fairly poor in the far W @ El Paso & the NE @ Texarkana as well as
the S border. The only place with good, steady wind was along the Gulf from
Beaumont down to Corpus Christi. The temps there were warm enough to keep the
blades from freezing. This area could have been a source of some of the small, but
fairly steady generation from Feb 10-18.

Last edited 29 days ago by Old Man Winter
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Greg Bacon
July 11, 2022 3:18 pm

It is only a management issue in that Texas insisted on wind and ERCOT isn’t allowed to price standby capacity. It is a political failure.
ERCOT being standalone does not have enough dispatchable backup capacity to cover the extremes when wind mostly fails. February 21 in a cold snap, and now July 22 in a heat wave.

A lesson learned in Texas, and being learned in California, New England, UK, and Germany. NEVER let politicians ‘run’ an electricity grid that needs sound engineering.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 11, 2022 3:28 pm

Yes, they are right on the edge.

We are getting close to Peak Windmill.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 11, 2022 4:46 pm

We passed peak windmill shortly after they erected the first one.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 12, 2022 3:55 am

My sentiment, too.

If Texas adds more windmills, and reduces conventional generation as a consequence of adding windmills, then the grid will fail.

Texas can’t add more windmills unless they increase conventional generation, too. Otherwise, Texas will be short electricity if this same situation occurs.

Windmills are an ugly, destructive, expensive deadend.

That’s about to become apparent to a lot of clueless people.

Last edited 28 days ago by Tom Abbott
Mr.
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 11, 2022 4:41 pm

Yep.
The people who do climate conjecturing and the people who possess electricity supply expertise should be totally separated from ever interacting.

The former could be left to their conjecturing until they disappear up their own fundaments, and nobody would really notice, while the latter could be harnessing all required resources and technologies to ensure the future of necessary energy provision.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 11, 2022 5:48 pm

The lesson learned is that windmills belong in museums.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 12, 2022 2:51 am

…and in Dutch oil-paintings.

Derg
Reply to  Greg Bacon
July 11, 2022 4:46 pm

Using wind on the grid is DUMB.

Disputin
Reply to  Derg
July 12, 2022 2:25 am

Using wind on the grid is DUMB.

No, using it is DUMM. Dumm is German for “stupid”, whereas dumb means bereft of speech.

AndyHce
Reply to  Greg Bacon
July 11, 2022 8:11 pm

Many things have upper and lower boundries. Water is only liquid within a limited temperature range, although changes in pressure do modify that range somewhat.

Gunga Din
July 11, 2022 3:14 pm

Question/clarification:
In Texas did they add the unreliable Green on top of the reliable or actually replace/shutdown
the reliable and replace it with the unreliable Green things?
I was under the impression it was the latter.

Pat Frank
July 11, 2022 3:59 pm

The morons are in charge, David. Including intelligent morons mesmerized to blind madness by their climate virtue.

They intend to crash everything, they have the levers of power, and they’re going to stuff it down everyone’s throat no matter the protests, the deaths, the disasters. All for the greater good.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 11, 2022 5:18 pm

Love that video, no surprise there is a ‘Greater Good Science Center’ at the University of California, Berkeley.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 12, 2022 2:46 pm

Ugh! 🙂

RickWill
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 11, 2022 8:07 pm

Pat Frank
Knowing your interest in systems as black boxes, you may be interested in how the ocean surface responds to solar EMR at top of the atmosphere. This is the black box system comprising the ocean surface and atmosphere above responding to solar EMR at the top of the atmosphere.

Two very clear inflection points and more subtle one above 26C.

I even indicate why the 30C limit occurs. The reflected EMR acts as the governor, limiting the heat engine throughout the ITCZ, that drives global circulations, to a hot end temperature of 30C. That is all she’s got. Literally runs out of steam at 30C surface temperature.

OST_Solar_Response.png
Pat Frank
Reply to  RickWill
July 11, 2022 9:25 pm

Thanks for the comment, Rick. I’ve seen your posts about the limit to SST, but don’t have any insight into the problem.

If you can do, you should write it up for publication. Mainline climate journals will likely not touch it, but you may get it into a reasonable on-line open access journal.

I’m not interested in systems as black boxes, thanks. The approach just lent itself perfectly to treatment of climate model error.

RickWill
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 11, 2022 11:31 pm

Very difficult to overcome the greenhouse gasses propaganda.

But I have a reasonably simple paper focusing on the fundamentals of deep convection that a variety of people have found informative and educational.

Something few people realise is that the Southern Ocean has cooled in response to lower solar intensity since 1980; the Nino34 region is essentially stuck at 27C despite increasing solar intensity in that region and the mid NH latitudes have increased in temperature in direct response to increasing solar intensity over the last 40 years.

OR the changes in temperature or not could be the result of positive, negative and neutral responses to CO2 depending on how this GHE magic works. The one thing that is clear is that there is no universal correlation between CO2 and surface temperature. It is truly a magical gas beyond the life it spawns.

NCEP_Three_Trends-3.png
RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
July 11, 2022 11:34 pm

I find it more than interesting that Jupiter’s 11.8 year beat is clearly evident in the actual surface temperature measurement in the Nino34 region. Jupiter is able to muscle the sun about!

Graemethecat
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 12, 2022 2:53 am

The elites should reflect on the fate of their French equivalents at the end of the Eighteenth Century. What happened two days ago in Sri Lanka is probably a foretaste.

paul courtney
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 12, 2022 8:07 am

Mr. cat: Thank you for that, it is so rare to see such an optimistic outlook! I’m thoroughly enjoying a scene I imagine on a remote Delaware beach, a mob descends on Dr. Jill to stuff her with a variety of breakfast tacos.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 12, 2022 1:32 pm

Let’s hope things begin to resolve on the November election with the ejection from Congress of progressives and their enablers, Graeme.

Gary Pearse
July 11, 2022 4:26 pm

“Low wind. While solar power is generally reaching near full generation capacity, wind generation is currently generating significantly less than what it historically generated in this time period”

It seems likely that when a very windy place, say a hilly pass; gets gets exploited with windmills, this has a damming effect that might make another another route serve as a bypass for the ‘backed up’ and slowed wind, reducing the energy for a given wind farm.

Imagine wind blowing from a high pressure area to a low pressure area. The low pressure area demands its full volume of air. If it’s normal source is dammed or slowed, then it draws its needed air from another direction. This aspect must be taken into consideration … mustn’t it?¿

paul courtney
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 12, 2022 8:10 am

Mr. Pearse: It should be taken into consideration by people in a room lit with coal-fired electricity, and recognized as an intellectual endeavor along the lines of angels dancing on pinheads. Specifically, Joe Brandon’s head.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 12, 2022 12:08 pm

That’s one of the biggest elements of the hypocrisy of “renewables” – they have not given a moment’s thought to the effects THEY might have on the weather, ecology, etc. while wailing incessantly about the imaginary horrors of “global warming.”

Tombstone Gabby
July 11, 2022 4:31 pm

“Brown-outs” can cause more problems than black-outs. The lowered voltage can have an impact of electric motors. A friend lost an older commercial grade air compressor that way last summer in Banning, California. He was not amused.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
July 12, 2022 12:11 pm

Power plants can be damaged too – that’s why they were shutting down, automatically, to avoid damage when frequency in the grid fell out of spec upon the face-planting of wind power.

They continually deny it, of course, but wind was the domino that nearly brought down the entire Texas grid in February 2021.

Geoff Sherrington
July 11, 2022 4:59 pm

Propaganda rules, OK?
From ERCOT above, ‘With extreme hot weather driving record power demand across Texas, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is issuing a Conservation Appeal’

What is extreme about the weather? It is mid-summer, we have had a century of recovery from a little ice age.

What is record power demand? Texas has a population that is rapidly increasing and needing more electricity. In the simple, good old days we would just build a new coal-fired plant, problem solved, be happy and think of more pleasant topics. Geoff S

July 11, 2022 5:18 pm

Great article.
My only comment is on the choice of Roadhouse Blues song.
I love the blues, and The Doors, but not that Doors song!
I just completed a CDR mix called Forever Young Singers
featuring singers who never made it to age 40.
Jim Morrison was one, of course.
I chose a Doors song I liked more,
that did not get released as a single,
so is not that well known.

The W.A.S.P.
The Doors The Wasp (Texas Radio And The – YouTube

Unfortunately, the YouTube video doesn’t sound that good
on tiny phone or laptop speakers

RickWill
July 11, 2022 5:24 pm

How many dedicated solar panels does it take to make the next solar panel and firming batteries in this new sustainable energy nirvana. If it is more than 0.2, then it is not sustainable.

It takes about 10t (300GJ) of coal equivalent to dig up the materials sent from Australia to China to be converted into 1kW of solar panels and returned to an Australian roof. Those panels on a typical southern Australian roof will produce 3.6GJ in a year. At that rate it will take 83 years to recover the energy that went into making, transporting and mounting the panels.

It could be argued that the electricity from the solar panel is higher “quality” energy whereas the coal is low “quality” energy and is recoverable at lower efficiency to do work. However I have not included any lost output from the solar panel due to curtailment or anything for the firming battery or other storage.

It is all an illusion because China is using coal mined last year to produce solar panels sold this year (and wind turbines). They are not using solar panels to make solar panels. Germany is trying to undertake such foolishness but the insanity has been masked to some degree by the ease of getting gas from Russia. That has changed. German heavy industry is kaputt. All those resources mal-invested; a truly sad tale.

RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
July 11, 2022 5:36 pm

Based on the above and if the storage was infinite and cost nothing so there was no curtailment then a solar panel life of about 83 years would mean the coal was used wisely. The panel would offer greater utility than the coal used to make it.

With curtailment and battery costs included, a panel life of 500 years might result in a better use of the coal to make panels than just burning it.

AndyHce
Reply to  RickWill
July 11, 2022 8:30 pm

And if solar input increased by what percentage would the solar panel reach pay back? Are all fantasies equal?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  RickWill
July 12, 2022 12:15 pm

Not to mention that solar panels are lucky to last 20-25 years, much less 83. So you’re actually talking about building THREE panels, all while STILL ignoring the “intermittency” problem.

Jon Le Sage
July 11, 2022 5:36 pm

Horses were and still a form of energy. Where do you the word horsepower came from. One “horsepower” is equal to 746 watts. Watts is a unit of work… So don’t say that horses are not a form of energy…

Andy May
Reply to  Jon Le Sage
July 11, 2022 5:51 pm

Jon,
Power is not energy. The energy used by horses comes from grass.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Jon Le Sage
July 11, 2022 7:15 pm

Jon,
Have ever been around horses. They are mostly only happy when they are eating. They do seem happy when barrel racing, especially when young women are the riders.
rawImage.jpg (2048×1365) (hdnux.com)

John
July 11, 2022 5:45 pm

Remember when Eastern airlines and Continental went to net zero carbon a couple of decades ago?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-issues-update-on-climate-change-diversity-with-esg-report-271657574366

observa
July 11, 2022 6:01 pm

Well the Germans and Czechs are transitioning-
German, Czech Rep Russian gas flows stop (msn.com)

Chris Hanley
Reply to  observa
July 11, 2022 6:47 pm

By referring to ‘low carbon energy’ that MSN report gives the false impression that Germany and Czech Rep will expand wind and solar whereas another report (Financial World) uses ‘green energy’ and adds that ‘green energy’ in the EU now can include gas and nuclear.

Last edited 29 days ago by Chris Hanley
AndyHce
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 11, 2022 8:35 pm

They put a condition on nuclear that activists will assure is never met.

observa
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 11, 2022 11:04 pm

South Australia’s aspirational goal towards carbon neutrality is now within reach.

Easy peasy-
Most of SA’s energy via renewables: report (msn.com)
Makes you wonder why we have that interconnector to Victorian brown coal and we’re building a new interconnector to NSW black coal now doesn’t it?

William Haas
July 11, 2022 8:20 pm

There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Hence all efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will have no effect on global climate. There is no climate crisis. Joe does not under stand any of this. He does not have a mind of his own. He exercises so little power that he has to ask permission to answer questions and he takes direction from the Easter Bunny. Most of what Joe Biden says turns out to be false so he has no credibility. Biden always chooses the wrong way to do things. In Order to conserve on the use of fossil fuels, rather than reduce domestic production and supply that drove prices up, they should have worked to decrease demand. They should have a program in place where ageing fossil fuel power plants are replaced with nuclear power plants. I like the idea of home solar power systems that allows one to live off the grid but we need better and cheaper solar panels and batteries all made from materials obtained here in the USA and manufactured here in the USA.So far huge amounts of money have been spent in the name of fighting climate change with nothing to show for it. If you think that mankind has actually changed the climate by reducing CO2 emissions then please tell me how much has mankind reduced the global average temperature over the past 20 years.. From what the warmists are saying, absolutely no progress has been made..

Rah
July 11, 2022 9:16 pm

To sum it up! Change is not the same thing as progress.

In the case of Texas the steady increase in population combined with the change of a considerable amount of power generation to unreliable “renewables” has resulted in a gradual progression to 3rd world conditions.

Shut off the power to the morons in Austin, Dallas, and Houston where the population of leftist morons are most concentrated that voted for this crap and the rest of the state will have plenty of power.

Or just fire up your whole house fossil fueled generators if you can afford the fuel prices.

marlene
July 11, 2022 11:32 pm

“Does [Biden] even know what the initials EIA stand for? He wouldn’t sound nearly so moronic if he occasionally checked with the Energy Information Administration… JULY 1, 2022 Fossil fuel sources accounted for 79% of U.S. consumption of primary energy in 2021 Fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and […]” It doesn’t matter to him – he’s on a global track that has nothing to do with an abundance of affordable energy – or with “climate change.”  

Rod Evans
July 12, 2022 12:48 am

The subtle use of words and phrases continues to be the Green/left wing strategy to advance their madness.
People are encouraged to use the phrase “wind farm” when describing a once rural area, that is now an industrial landscape devoid of any farming or trees.
The industrialisation of our wild landscapes must stop now, before we have destroyed all of them along with all of the rare birds that previously lived there.
We must encourage people to use accurate words and terms, to describe the unreliable state funded intermittent (so called) green energy sources.
Solar panels are permanently 50% unusable/inefficient and get ever more inefficient over time. They are being installed using state grant support only. People will not invest knowing they never work half the time and only work occasionally the other half of the time. without state funding aiding the economics. Studies are showing solar panels have less than 20% performance against plated capacity. The further north or south you live the worse it gets.
Industrial wind sites manage about 30% efficiency against plated capacity.
No one would invest in any so called green industry that can only boast these pathetic outputs.
That raises the question. Why are state funds all across the western world, being squandered on these useless unreliable systems? Where is the upside for the tax payer?
NB the misuse of the word farm in the unreliable energy industry, has helped state funded eco zealots, target real farms and demand food production stops!
At a time when we have peak population, the last thing we should be doing is blocking food production, yet that is what is being encouraged.

July 12, 2022 2:39 am

This is beautiful about Biden’s autocue/teleprompt and the horrors thereof. However even they are preferable to the alternative:

https://youtu.be/hCmbVHtJSnM

observa
Reply to  Phil Salmon
July 12, 2022 5:51 am

Seems sleepy Joe has been ordered by the minders of the autocue to go off to Saudi Arabia to do some more transitioning-
Saudi Arabia’s powerful prince unbowed by Western uproar (msn.com)
That’s sublime climate change diplomacy for you.

yirgach
July 12, 2022 6:16 am

observa
July 12, 2022 7:00 am

I’m shaking my head at the leadership in Washington but here in Oz we’re in the same sinking boat-
Coal-fired power plants ‘failing more often’ (msn.com)
and here’s Senator Matt Canavan nailing the underlying problem-
People are ‘out of touch’ with the real world and ‘Albanese is their leader’ (msn.com)

TexSwede
July 12, 2022 9:02 am

Actually, yesterday July 11th at 1:00 PM wind was producing 749 MW of electricity. That is 2% of its installed capacity.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  TexSwede
July 12, 2022 9:29 am

Message to all greenies. Go nuke or go home! Wind and solar will never meet our energy demands.If you are not willing to transition to nukes then please for the love of God stop talking about renewables and net zero carbon.

ResourceGuy
July 12, 2022 9:46 am

The advocacy-driven podium continues…..

White House: To help salmon, dams may need to be removed – ABC News (go.com)

In the future we will just have a meta figure to announce the latest overreach moves.

raybbr
July 15, 2022 2:26 am

Please stop calling them “renewables”! There’s no such thing as renewable energy! You’re contributing to the lie by using that term.

%d bloggers like this: