By Emmet Penney at Nuclear Barbarians — 4 September 2024 — 550 words/4–5 minutes [Reposted with the author’s permission].
This is the moment I knew I could never step foot into a casino without getting fleeced by my own brain: a psychologist was on the radio explaining the cognitive difference between those likely to become addicted to gambling and normal people.
Say you’re at a slot machine, she told the interviewer, and you pull the lever. The wheels spin and then stop: you see two 7’s and a cherry.
If you’re normal, you say, “Aw man, I lost.”
If you’re predisposed to gambling addiction, you say, “I almost won!”
That’s when I knew. Because I said out loud to myself in the car, “That’s because you did almost win!”
Intellectually, like a normal person, I understood that a loss is a loss, but in some twisted corner of my brain, a small, forceful voice said, “But…two 7s…that’s almost there…”
This is how most pro-renewable energy modelers think.
Let me explain.
Over the last week or so, I saw this graph making the rounds, accompanied by a similar comment: “Wow, wind and solar seasonally balance on the grid. This is great news!”
And don’t they have a point? See how at the monthly level, whenever wind dips, solar rises, and vice versa? Maybe Europe just needs more wind and solar! Maybe if we can build the right models we can figure out how to get there!
But let’s take a closer look at Germany.
Notice where both wind and solar fail. At those moments, you’ll need full back-up, which means you’ll need capacity at least equal to demand in those moments to make it through random moments of renewable failure. Or else, blackouts.
Thus, the dream of seasonal balancing is two 7’s and a cherry—“almost” but actually “not at all.”
So, how do smart people get captured by this perspective? Maybe, like me, they have a slightly broken brain. And while that could be the case, I don’t think that’s a sufficient explanation. Instead, I think some well-meaning, intelligent people fall into this trap for a series of interconnected reasons:
- They believe not just that they are smart, but that being smart makes them good people.
- Deploying their smarts on a problem like decarbonization allows them to demonstrate their smartness and goodness simultaneously.
- Smart people are often attracted to complexity over simplicity because the challenge feels rewarding.
- Thus, to receive recognition (and we all crave recognition) for their smartness and goodness, they’re going to try and solve this difficult problem in the most complex way possible: with non-dispatchable, intermittent resources like wind and solar.
That’s why they can look at the first graph and say, “Man, if only I could be smart enough about this even harder, we could pull this off!” while disregarding the grim realities of the second graph. From a psychological perspective, theoretically complex and practically unworkable solutions (decarb through renewables) attract them more than theoretically simple and practically demanding solutions (building nuke plants).
If I pull the lever just one more time, I might get that third 7…
# # # # #
Note by Kip Hansen: I found this piece at Nuclear Barbarians and thought readers here might like it. Emmet Penny is unfortunately unavailable to respond to your comments. You’ll have to put up with me – I’ll do my best to answer your questions.
On a personal note, I discovered when I was 22 years old that I had the same disability as Penny, if I went into a casino to gamble, I would stay until I lost every dollar. The more I lost the more I became convinced that if I just gambled a little more, I would win it all back and more. This delusion only survived two gambling adventures before I came to my senses. Since that time, I have never gambled again.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The rule with casinos is that the house edge will always get you if you play long enough.
Tom ==> And, yes, I think that is a very valuable lesson in this tiny example of renewable energy vs. dispatchable energy.
Some state, nation, region might be able to build enough wind and solar to supply usual needs on a usual day — maybe, throwing enough money and resources at renewables, even most days. But then, since Nature has the odds in its favor – always – there will come a Great Texas freeze and instead of just blackouts, they will need Black Starts to get the power back on.
to Kip: Something my Engineering Geology prof said has always stuck with me, whether it applies to climate or to structures designed to “control” nature. to wit: “Mother Nature Always Wins”
Gilbert K. Arnold ==> Mother Nature, as a force, is far greater than anything we can muster, in the long run.
The only exception is the Lucky 38, where if you play your cards right you can beat the House and win a wasteland.
Story tip:
Wind turbines kill babies, because bats:
https://apple.news/AYm5DXewbRX6jzdlQK83atg
The reverse of “Almost won” is “Keep on playing and you will lose” or in the world of Quality Control it’s the rare event that will cost you your profit. It’s one of the arguments against nuclear energy. Build enough of them, and sooner or later one will go up in a cloud of radioactive debris. Build enough electric cars and some of them will spontaneously ignite and cause a lot of damage and law suits.
The fire that caused the Felicity Ace to sink in February 2022 is believed to have been caused by a faulty battery in a Porsche electric vehicle (EV) on board. The ship’s operator, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd., and insurer Allianz SE are suing Volkswagen, claiming that the company failed to warn about the risks of transporting lithium-ion batteries.
Not exactly the argument in Chips post but related.
Steve ==> Agree, if we kept building 1960s Nuclear Plants, Chernobyl style plants, we’d eventually get a meltdown somewhere. But nuclear advances have shifted the odds on our favor — maybe even giving humanity the edge instead of chaos.
Better safer more efficient batteries will someday make EVs practical — if we have enough electricity and enough grid to get and keep them on the road. Currently — more EVs = Grid Failure
Relate to EVs — I know a person that took advantage of this program:
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/news/commerce-opens-ev-rebate-program-2024/
The rest of us pay an extra 50¢ on a gallon of gas and higher cost on all other expenses.
Thanks, Jay Inslee.
As it is with gambling. A few winners but many losers as someone has to pay
Batteries aren’t a new and emerging technology, and there’s been a great deal of effort put into them over the last 30+ years due to the emergence of mobile devices, I don’t think there are any great leaps forward left for the technology.
The fear of nuclear energy is the same fear as that in the old Anglican prayer book –
“From ghoulies and ghosties and long legged beasties and things that go bump in the night, Dear Lord deliver us”.
Humans are programmed to fear things they cannot perceive or understand, from fear of tap water to something happening to the weather.
What’s that old saying about thermodynamics: You must play, but you can’t win.
And yet, there are people who think they can beat thermodynamics, including certain posters to WUWT.
Loved a picture of an EV where the guy had attached an extra trailing wheel that drove a generator to charge his battery when he was driving.
Well, thermodynamics does not say that you can’t reduce your losses. Just that you can’t ever break even, much less win.
Ginsberg Theorem:
You Can’t Win
You Can’t Break Even
You Can’t Even Quit The Game
O’Tooles Commentary on Ginsberg’s theorem:
Every major philosophy that aims to make life seem meaningful and worthwhile is a negation of Ginsberg’s Theorem:
To Whit:
From Murphy’s Law And Other Reasons Why Things Go Wrong
Disregard. Should have read further down.
I find casinos and gambling horrendously boring. Win or lose (and I happen to win a lot of times) I am tortured when our friend group decides to visit a casino.
I do not find the subject of the energy development and grid boring, I find it importantand crucial.I recommend this site to anyone who’s interested and quite a few who obviously aren’t.
I also find myself pretty ignorant on the topic unfortunately for me.
I have a question for all the smart people here, to help me learn:
If I understand the graphic correctly the so called renewable cannot in any way or form “supplement” the grid and work quite literally against the grid stability, because in during their failure there simply isn’t enough energy to fit the hole they leave?
I think I have a problem understanding why?
No, I’m not for more unicorn farts aka the renewable but I would love to understand why we can’t just plug the hole.
Could someone please explained it simply?
I find this website enlightening but for people like me, that are ignorant on the subject it is sometimes very hard to understand.
I think that a WUWT-lite version when it’s more spelled out and without a heavy use of acronyms would be grand so that then people can graduate to the WUWT-main.
The non-renewables that could be used to plug the hole are very expensive when just used for that purpose and sit idle the rest of the time.
Thank you, that would explain a part of it.
From a practical point of “plugging the hole” why are we talking about the grid instability too?
So if they are only too expensive the cult of AGW would, I think embrace it as their talking point,right?
I saw some commenters talking about this scenario collapsing the grid?
Is this in the realm of possibility? And if so, how?
Sorry for stupid questions but I seriously want to understand it in a way, that I can then explain to others.
So far I’ve been stating that the unreliables lead to grid instability and possible collapse but tbh I don’t have the innate understanding of how that happens.
Thank you once again.
Let me try. The grid is AC. That means it has both a voltage and a phase. Too much demand, not enough supply and the voltage sags—if only a little, it’s called a brownout. But voltage sag is accompanied by phase lag—the alternating current alternates more slowly. That is why grids need grid inertia—to keep the phase at either 50 or 60 cycles per second. Conventional generation provides this automatically and for ‘free’ thanks to the inertial momentum of large heavy spinning generators. Renewables provide none. So if renewable penetration gets high enough and then they don’t produce demanded electricity, the grid gets a double whammy and goes unstable.
This has just happened in NSW, Australia. There was too much wind+solar and the wholesale market had to be suspended till they could fix the frequency. I’m not fully up to speed on the details, but I think that the wholesale market has rules preferencing renewables, and that the market operator can ditch those rules in an emergency. Anyway, ‘suspended’ means blackout to consumers, but it seems sort of mild and harmless, so they say ‘suspended’. I understand that consumers got an actual blackout. Maybe someone can correct me if I’ve got it wrong.
I’m not sure whether this is recording a genuine power outage or just a data glitch: the recovery seems to suggest more the glitch.
I’m not an expert Rud, but I believe solar and wind are more phase (frequency) stable because they generate A/C with electronic inverters:
“Flywheel physics does not apply to inverter-connected solar farms or other DC-linked power supplies. However, such power plants or storage systems can be programmed to follow the frequency signal.[31] Indeed, a 2017 trial for CAISO discovered that solar plants could respond to the signal faster than traditional generators, because they did not need to accelerate a rotating mass.[32”
Wikipedia
Most inverters operate in grid following mode so that they don’t create wildly oscillating voltages that come when you add cos(120πt) to cos(118πt) – they match the grid frequency instead of maintaining 60Hz.
Grid forming inverters capable of black start are much harder to set up. The problem is synchronisation when there is no grid frequency to synchronise to. Any phase differences adding cos(120πt) to cos(120πt+φ) to cos(120πt+ψ) will lead to wildly oscillating voltages. There are further problems with handling loads being switched in at grid scale, where generation has to be ramped to match the load. That is very hard to do without inertia and controllable output.
The problems are made worse by the fact that when starting to generate wind turbines present a large reactive load, and there is no reactive power source available. That means that voltage and current are out of phase, and real power is limited.
Thank you. It really makes sense!
I expanded on Rud’s comment. I hope that helps.
To expand on that note, so called “renewables” need additional electrical equipment to follow the phase and voltage of the grid.
The equipment is not cheap nor always dependable.
It basically has to set up the timing and voltage of every cycle – 60 times per second in the U.S.. The following voltage is a digital reproduction of a sinusoidal waveform so is not an exact copy. If the reproduction is not clean, it could result in failure of customer devices.
“I saw some commenters talking about this scenario collapsing the grid?
Is this in the realm of possibility? And if so, how?”
Well, every electrical grid in the United States has now said there is a danger of blackouts on each of the grids and the reason given is they are retiring coal-fired generating plants and replacing them with windmills and solar.
Electrical grids are put in instability when windmills and solar start supplying around 30 percent, or more, of the electricity a grid uses.
In order to keep an electrical grid up and running, using windmills and solar, requires that there is 100 percent conventional backup power available for when wind and solar are not producing, so in effect, we have to have two separate electrical systems going at the same time, if we use windmills and solar, and that is one reason the costs of electricity increase as time goes along and more windmills and solar are added.
And are being shut down.
To be more specific, to “plug the hole” when both wind and sun fail, you would need a massively huge amount of (for example) battery storage in which excess energy would be stored to be used when wind and sun fail. In addition, you would need much more wind/ solar capacity than needed (most of the time) to power those batteries. It’s an economically impossible “double whammy”: (1) huge battery storage facilities with the equipment needed to turn battery energy into electrical energy of the right type/ amount and (2) huge amounts of over-capacity to have energy to charge those batteries and the equipment to turn wind/ solar electricity into battery storage energy.
I don’t have the data to say exactly how much would cost to create this requirement for a 100% wind/ solar energy system….maybe someone else here does (I believe the Manhattan Institute does this kind of economic analysis). But, I guarantee you it would be totally unsupportable and would crash any country’s economy to try to do this.
Far, far more efficient is to have energy that can (a) run at the needed capacity all the time, and (2) be able to add/ reduce power into the system as demand changes on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. Natural gas and petroleum-based the power required to support the demand from an electrical system.
And El Hierro demonstrated going to wind and storage did not work, even with very favorable conditions.
They never had enough storage to attempt it. You can see the tiny contributions from Hidraulica in the chart. Mostly it is used to provide stabilisation by pumping using surplus power and allowing the water to recirculate by falling freely down the other penstock to provide water to pump.
Thank you so much. I understand this much better now.
Examine this chart (balancing authority for part of OR/WA/ID) – mostly hydro power in the region. Has connections to California; see Pacific_DC _Intertie
https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
This is a weekly chart that updates every 5 minutes. A few years ago, they changed “Wind & Solar” to VER = green line.
When VER goes down, Hydro/blue goes up. Without the water power the region doesn’t have sufficient other producers (nuclear and thermal) to compensate when VER drops to near Zero.
Producers are shown under the chart – scroll down.
And you can be sure- you can ask any climate or energy question here and generate a good discussion, including often some big differences. And that’s fine- the way serious discussions should be.
There Has Been No Net Zero Proof Of Concept (it isn’t possible).
To date there has not been a single successful “proof of concept” renewable generation system that actually works without substantial Thermal/hydro/nuclear back up. (And this is only for existing electrification – not an “electrify all” solution i.e. does not include transport and heating.)
Example: El Hierro island in the Canaries – has ideal circumstances – persistent trade winds & lots of powerful sunshine all of which can be backed up by a high altitude volcanic caldera which serves as pumped storage reservoir – you couldn’t ask for a more ideal place where renewables could prevail – unfortunately even here it only managed to displace 30% of the diesel fired fuel use – the generators and associated distribution infrastructure still have to be there – only the fuel use was reduced.
There are a few others – King Island, Jeju Island, Faroes, Falklands etc. etc. all of which are touted as successes but sober analysis reveals that the renewables are overall a net destabilising and costly overburden and in no way demonstrate even remotely approaching net zero.
If we were to double, treble or quadruple the renewables, the zeros would still be zeros and the conventional generation and infrastructure would have to remain and the amount of fuel saving (reducing CO2) is stymied by the non-linear laws of diminishing returns.
Here’s the problem – being deliberately simplistic :-
Let the existing diesel generation = “X” MW
Then the solar has to be 2X to cover the hours of night via pumped storage for when the wind doesn’t blow (more realistically 3X).
The wind has to be 4X since you would be lucky to get 25% average energy return and for when there is no sun and only wind (typically every night).
Plus an additional 1X in pumped hydro (at least) to store energy from the wind and solar when there is a surplus – to fill in when there isn’t.
So we have to add at least 7 times the energy generation “nameplate” capacity plus the costly full power capable (but lightly loaded) additional grid network to support it. Little of the wind and solar are likely to be serendipitously sited near or alongside existing (already loaded) distribution lines.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/19/renewables-versus-the-grid-at-pjm/
All this if we are to stand any chance of supporting a nett zero grid. (And I haven’t considered possibly a further 2X in battery storage.)
Horror of horrors we still require the diesel generators to fill in when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow and we run out of pumped storage. Which in the case of “successful” El Hiero is 70% of the time.
Seven times the power generating infrastructure to reduce the diesel use by 30% – now you can clearly see why the intrusion of renewables into the grid simply raises the price of energy for very little gain (even if you believe CO2 is a problem – which I don’t).
Following the learning curve logic of this exponential relationship we would have to invest 14X to achieve 50% reduction and a 30X investment to achieve a 75% reduction – but we would still require the fossil fuelled generators and infrastructure to remain operational and maintained, some percentage of which would have to remain running in hot standby (thereby producing CO2) in order to be instantaneously available to “plug” the holes created by surging wind and solar.
So the actual CO2 reduction per unit of installed power is only 4.3% (30%÷7) of what the nameplate capacity might suggest it could save.
Do the math – we would have to throw a further 16 times this 7 times (i.e. 112 times existing) oversupply to reduce the diesel use by 95% and even then we would still require the diesel generators to fill in the 5% or live with – on average – 5% downtime due to “power failures” euphemistically called “load shedding” that’s about an hour a day (more likely one day or so per month due to overcast windless weather persisting for more than a couple of days) – do you think that’s reasonable enough when by this time you will be paying about 1500% more for electricity ?
You are welcome to go broke feeling good about yourself but “include me out” (Sam Goldwyn quote)
“Unreliables, therefore, inflict not only a deadweight cost but also a deadweight surplus capacity to the grid, to say nothing of the costly instability caused by giving unreliables precedence over thermal in meeting demand.” Christopher Monckton (former science advisor to Margret Thatcher).
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-8-22-you-can-be-sure-that-net-zero-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-generation-will-never-be-achieved-heres-why
Thank you, very much, especially for going deliberately simplistic. To you, your comment is simplistic, but it will take me a while to grasp in full.
This is the level of my ignorance.
I think many commenters here have a hard time imagining that their simple comments are seriously very high and complex, and can be very confusing to anyone new and ignorant.
I know, at first, it was very hard for me to even decipher some of the acronyms you are using here. Who am I kidding, I still have to look up every article and a comment that uses, yet another acronym.
I don’t want you to lower your discussion level, far from it, but being mindful of many, many people who try to read and understand but are ignorant is good also it is a complement from me to you.
Again, thank you for the information. It will take me the most of my morning to fully digest but so far I can follow the main logic at lest lol
One more well intentioned tip –
I think when you write “simplistic”, you really mean “simple”.
“Simplistic” means the opposite of “simple “.
Dictionary definition of simplistic :-
Treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
I very strongly recommend you read “Unsettled” by Stephen Koonin. He’s a real climate scientist. The book is rather thorough, covering much of the science and the politics of climate. And it’s written at a level most people can understand. You can find it on Amazon. You will really like the book- and after reading it, you’ll know far more about the climate than most people you know.
Thank you for the book. Will read!
There’s a bit more to add about battery backup. You have to install enough battery capacity to carry you through any prolonged supply-demand deficit. There are several major problems: 1. Batteries are insanely expensive. 2. There is no upper limit to the length of time for which there can be a supply-demand deficit, so there is no upper limit to how much battery capacity is needed. 3. In a prolonged supply-demand deficit, all battery capacity has to be fully charged before the deficit starts, and has to retain its charge. That means it’s too late to add more battery capacity if it is realised that there isn’t enough. 4. Other regions can’t provide backup power, because if one region is in supply-demand deficit, all its neighbours will be too.
Compare that with fuel-based power, where power stations can back each other up, and neighbouring regions can provide back-up too.
Batteries also degrade, to the point where they have to be replaced with new ones on a regular basis, that are somehow manufactured without use of fossil fuel.
Bloomberg said it would cost $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050, using wind and solar I guess.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain
And, the investors want $US275 trillion spent
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-21/investors-call-for-policy-unleashing-275-trillion-for-net-zero
Figuring about 2 billion households in the world and 90 percent of the household can’t afford anything additional, using the US$200 trillion figure, that means around $US1 million per household in the developed world to stop warming by 2050.
End of Fish ==> The problem consists and depends on the fact that any and all electrical grids must have [almost] exactly the same amount of electricity going into it as is being used at any moment. (This is almost universally not understood — but true). Keeping the input and output exactly matched is called balancing the grid.
Adding more sources to balance the grid when wind drops or clouds roll in requires that those sources are there, operating at scale, and ready in an instant (relatively — minutes not hours or days).
In the illustration of Germany, there are times when 2/3 of the entire demand needed to be taken up by some source — one can’t start a closed nuclear plant in minutes (years are required) or a shut down coal plant (weeks) or even spin up a hydro plant takes an hour.
There must be some generation source operating waiting to be switched online incrementally as the renewable sources decline.
In a massive no wind/continental-scale winter snow event, there must be power stations already operating ready to supply not only the entire usual load, but all that extra heating and lighting.
I think I understand, thank you.
So, basically we have a situation, where the “evil” CO2(which of course is the first tennant of the AGW cult) is produced regardless of how many unicorn fart sources are available. This is because we would need many, many more unicorn farts, that are unreliable, and drop at the most “unexpected” (like the night time forsolar) times to try and balance themselves first(impossible?) without the input from the “evil” sources to try and have a reliable grid and a Netzero-ish situation.
Because we need many many more times the unrelaible sources to try to balance the grid vis a vis the energy consumption that we have money/technology for this is a pipe dream.
Please correct me if I’m wrong here but this is what I understand from all your wonderful comments.
Plus, all of this is terribly expensive.
Bloomberg estimates $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050.
So figuring 90 percent of the 2 billion households can’t afford anything else means $US1 million per household for those with any money not used for survival.
I guess that could be spread over many years but then interest rates have to be added in.
Think about that for a moment.
Grid base (alleged backup) runs literally 100% of the time, outside of regular maintenance.
By law, regulatory mandates and contract, alleged renewable electricity are the mainstream energy sources.
Leaving superior stable energy generators to fill the gaps on as needed basis.
In this scenario, where superior stable energy generators could fill 100% of the need, they are forced to idle back or stop producing energy while the renewables are working.
The stupidity of this situation is incredible.
Enough money has been flushed down the renewable energy hole building short lived very low capacity low quality wind & solar farms, where America could have installed many nuclear sites.
Case in point, failure to reliably supply electricity to a aluminum smelter in Australia.
Instead, government officials have been shutting down fossil fuel plants. To force greater need for inconsistent inconstant inefficient electricity generators.
Coal, Natural Gas, Hydro, Nuclear energy plants generate high quality electricity. That is, excellent production stability producing consistent reliable frequency, amperage & voltage usable in most modern machines.
Even then, Data centers, CNC, smelting, refining, assemble, computer industry require consistent precision frequency, amperage and voltage that they install expensive line conditioners to maintain that quality of electricity they feed their equipment.
Wind & solar electricity quality vary constantly. Very bad for even low grade home equipment. What conditioning they get is from base load generators of coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro.
If you have a solar farm on one side and a wind farm down the road, you really should buy or rent an instrument that records line quality over time. You may not want to feed your home or business some of this stuff.
Then there is the baseplate nonsense used throughout the renewable industry. When funding/building renewable plants every statement from them is couched in “base plate” possible generation numbers. Actual generation is far less and they know it.
Instead, they lock up incredible amounts acreage with temporary often toxic alleged renewable generating facilities that utterly fail to match one small fossil fuel plant.
Keep in mind, the true base load generating facilities might be able to “idle back”, a little. While idled back, they are unable to fill sudden renewable gaps. Most take time to get up to speed, from 20-30 minutes to half a day.
Nuclear reactors using pebble fuel and helium or liquid salt coolant that can’t melt down has just recently been announced by China and the US.
China has a small reactor running and in the US a company received approval for a pilot plant
What is going to happen is the the large users, (data/AI centers?) will self power. The new SMRs are a good candidate for that but they’re a ways off.
Ihad no idea!
To translate it to myself the first thought I had was this is stupid, then I thought that has to be an error.
I understand that the stupid government ruled that the wind and solar have to be used “first” when supplying electricity and the, still operational, regular energy sources, second?
Is this really truly how it is?
Because from what I understood from your comments this is absolutely bad because of all the problems with solar and wind and how we would have to produce hundredth fold amount of the energy from wind and solar to try and make them balanced, stable and just plain relable…
Tome this looks like they, the PTB are trying to destroy the grid on purpose?
HHowcanthis be that they don’t see it? I think they do, that’s unavoidable.
I knew that the Texas freeze was caused by their involvement with unrelaibles but now I think I finally understand HOW that happened.
Iguess they had not enough of the normal, reliable electricity to “plug the hole” fast enough.
Thank you and Jesus Christ this is the worst kind of information I read so far.
From what I could gather from the comments this is what happened in Texas, right? They could not bring the normal electricity generation up, fast enough?
Texas has about 25% of the grid tied to the unicorn farts from what I read. That means it’s going to get worse. They avoided it, this year and it was a mystery for me, because they did not drop the unreliables.
Now I’m thinking that they simply stopped idling the regular, good sourcess and brought them up to speed before the freeze happened. That way, when the solar/wind failed, they did plug the hole. I wonder how much more Texans had to pay for it?
I did not expect such great comments, really. I thought I will be chastised and told to educate myself first and then come and ask smart questions.
Eceryone: thank you so much.
If you don’t mind I will be asking my ignorant questions a little longer and in different topics too.
I’m excited. You are all a great community.
Not quite. You are missing significant information regarding the “electric” switches on natural gas pipelines that were mandated instead of the Nat gas powered switches that work so long as there is natural gas.
When the grid’s electric power went down, those switches failed to work.
The news keeps referring to the switches as frozen switches when it was another illogical renewable mandate to prevent a miniscule amount of CO₂ emissions.
In the 15 years I’ve been visiting WUWT, Anthony has never allowed or tolerated such behavior, though many of the trollops often resort to insults and ad hominems.
You asked a rather honest question and admitted a need for knowledge.
There are many on this site that will oblige and over time my response to you will be corrected by those with better knowledge.
What is available to you is the ability search WUWT for the answers and links to knowledge you desire. Including full discussion of what failed in Texas during that cold front.
Look for the magnify symbol in the menu bar.
Another problem not mentioned so far is the grid requirement for all sources to match the generation frequency of the grid. Without the generation momentum of thermal generators intermittent generators are very difficult to sync.
Let me guess the unicorn farts do not match the generation frequency of the grid?
Can you expand and tell me how so?
I have so much to learn. I didn’t even know what I don’t know.
I thought it will be a simple explanation. So far I spent yesterday and today a little to read about it.
I discovered I’m missing the basics in all this.
I can’t promise I won’t ask ignorant questions in the future on this site because I seriously don’t even know what I don’t know. I think I even can’t ask smart questions in the majority of topics.
Damn the indoctrination that they call education. They taught me absolutely 0 about the important things.
“I find this website enlightening but for people like me, that are ignorant on the subject it is sometimes very hard to understand.”
I was that way- sort of- about 5 years ago- I actually had faith in the climate emergency! Since then I’ve read about 90% of the essays here and most of the comments. I still know less than most people active here but I’ve learned a great deal- more than most friends and other people I know. It’s a very complex topic- it takes time- the more you read here- it’ll slowly soak in, that the climate emergency really is a hoax.
“It’s a very complex topic- it takes time”
Yes, it is. One needs a collection of experts on various topics, like you find here at WUWT, to explain it all.
Thank you!.
I tried just to read to not put my ignorance in the comments but if it comes to the grid it was taking too long, hence my questions lol.
Also I knew that it was a hoax since the “data scandal” nearly 2 decades ago.
There was not much then and hard to find but from what I gathered they covered up their faking of the data and called it “denialaism”.
Believe it or not I actually dealt with data in academia and could understand what happened.
Ever since then I looked for a website like WUWT to help me understand. I found it about a year ago (so 4 years to ho before I grasp things, right? Lol).
I’m no cultist and abhore treating science as a religion and this is what the seven day warmists do…except it looks like they have NO science to back them up, only scientism and grift.
The grid demand and supply must be matched exactly at all times.
If renewables are supplying the grid when it suits them and are given priority of supply, then the large output swings are inherent in the electricity output. The backup system must be capable of providing full supply to meet demand, because there are significant periods of time when wind and solar output is extremely low, almost zero.
Thus two systems must be maintained in parallel, the backup running inefficiently as it must be ready to cycle up on short notice.
Adding more renewables to fill the hole will do little as solar and wind output are surprisingly linked; more capacity will provide more power than can be used when conditions are good and do little when conditions are bad. As an investment it is terrible as the only revenue you can make is the small part when conditions are bad, the market is already flooded with zero cost power when conditions are good.
Thank you!
This is about what I’m understanding right now from almost the comments.
Basically, it’s a pipe dream.
I need to go back to basics to understand more in depth explanations but darn if it’s all more morose than I thought.
I just thought the wind and solar ARE the backup. Seriously, this is how ignorant I was.
This is a good description of the core human issue of the climate movement and the allure of “renewables.”
And about the global climate models, they will keep pouring money into incremental improvements and pulling the lever again. CMIP7 is on the way. But the “house” will always win in the end. And what is the “house” in this case? It is the real atmosphere, the authentic model of its own performance. It operates dynamically to dissipate the energy absorbed by clouds and “greenhouse gases.” It cannot be otherwise and make any sense at all out of the physics and math of the general circulation.
The ‘allure’ of renewables is the destruction of the economy – ie. the destruction of Capitalism, or the free market.
The capitalists are the ones hoping to make trillions in profit off of the $US200 trillion Bloomberg estimates it will cost to stop warming by 2050.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain
Bloomberg investors want $US275 trillion spent.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-21/investors-call-for-policy-unleashing-275-trillion-for-net-zero
The capitalists own the media that is pushing the so-called “climate change” agenda. They control the politicians with their campaign contributions and the universities with their grants.
“The capitalists own the media that is pushing the so-called “climate change” agenda.”
So you equate radical leftists with capitalism?
It’s the radical leftists who own most of the Media and push the climate change agenda. At best, these people are Crony Capitalists, i.e., radical leftists profitting from their political connections.
Many slot machines are designed to produce more “near-miss” combinations than they statistically should, to exploit that fallacy.
Some also have a hidden “pity” feature that will guarantee a small payout after enough pulls, to prevent dry runs from going for too long.
The odds always favor the house in the long run, of course. They have to. The casino would make no profit otherwise.
Casinos are not charities.
Neither are governments, although all politicians claim that they want to help people. But generally, long term observation shows that’s after they help themselves.
You also have to recognize that these people, as well intentioned as they may see themselves, never seem to pay a price for being wrong. Maybe there is a job security aspect here too. Why bite the hand that feeds them.
Uh, no.
Slot machines do not work that way. Each 7, or cherry for that matter is on an independent wheel.with it’s own odds of landing.
One way the odds are adjusted is there are many chances to land a cherry and darn few for a 7.
Each gambling house has it’s own odds for winning any game.
Some sound good for the consumer.
The house edge is so that players can feel like they are winning.
Indeed they may win occasionally and win big.
Trouble is, “win” means pick up your winnings, cash out and go home. If you are confidant that you can win more, by luck or skill, then try a few more plays. But, set a limit so that you actually leave with winnings.
By the same token, spend only a certain amount.
For most of my life that means $20 or sometimes $100. When that’s gone, I leave or find the entertainment.
Once a boss of mine was up over $600 playing black jack because he had a remarkable string of luck. When that string ended, he quickly lost $200. I got the others of our group together and we literally dragged him out of the casino.
He said he felt it was wrong to leave the casino with more money than when he arrived.
He went back the next night and lost that $400 plus a lot more.
The rest of our group stayed at the hotel and found cheaper entertainment.
The house edge is how much of your bets the house will take for each and every play, when averaged.
The individual statistics, say for rolling triple 7s are astronomical. Perhaps better than winning a lottery, but definitely not in your favor.
Still, you show uncommon good sense about gambling now.
And YES!
I also believe “pro-renewable energy modelers” are addicted to their models producing results they desire, not to producing real world results.
I found out last month that at least some casinos are pretty all-electronic—no dice or cards, wheels, or arms to pull on slot machines. The floor was nothing but a big collection of video games. No dealers for blackjack, the players sit in front of a display. It was very odd.
One advantage I noticed since the last time I set foot in a casino (about 1990) is that the incessant din of the slot machines is gone, all replaced with electronic sounds.
You are correct.
Even the one arm bandits in gas stations and convenience stores are now electronic.
There is a way to play any state lottery (not scratch offs) and consistently win in the long run. Compute the expected value of ALL possible prizes, then play (moderately—my max is $10 per draw) when the grand prize alone is above the expected value of all. You won’t win the grand prize, but you can win enough second, third, and fourth prizes (all of which have much better odds) to earn money consistently in the long run. Trick is not to play at all until the suckers have rolled over the grand prize enough to meet the total expected value rule.
As a concrete example, the Florida Lotto total expected value is about $7.5 million. When the grand prize is that or more, play. Two weeks ago when it had rolled over to $12 million (a no brainer) I won $150 on a $10 five line ticket.
As another concrete example, play Megamillions when the grand prize reaches $375 million. The grand prize odds are about 1/305 million. The money is in the lesser but more probable payoffs. I have won $4 many times, and ~$20 twice. Eventually I will hit a bigger payoff worth several hundred thousand.
The snag there is that others know about this and do the same. When the prize pool swells, so does the amount gambled. It’s the same with every punter system, on casinos, stockmarket or anywhere: the more people that play a given system the less effective it is.
When at 375 million, there are more plays and your chances of splitting the 375 is greater….
When you pay taxes and take the lump sum payment you lose about 70% (or more depending on present worth rate of return value). So for even money odds, if there are only 305 million plays, the pot needs to be 1 billion.
All that being said, I too buy ticket(s).
I haven’t has such luck and I’ve played lotteries that way for years.
Twice, I went and got into a line buying Lotto tickets with mind numbing values and found that I was behind the CEO of the USPS. He was there for the same reasons I was after.
He didn’t win either.
I believe I’ve had lottery tickets return $5 twice and one $10 dollar prize. I bought lunch that day.
Now as a fixed pension retiree, I no longer play most lotteries, though I did buy lottery tickets one day when my wife had a most remarkable run of luck.
I should’ve had her buy the tickets…
Rud ==> And Good Luck to you, too, Rud.
Back in the day wear and tear could result in a machine tending to give more payout than it was supposed to. It could also influence the nudge and hold features. Those who played such a machine regularly could come out ahead, much as a card sharp counting cards at blackjack.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I have a slight inside knowledge advantage. My brother was a craps dealer in Vegas for 17 years.
Generally, none of the dealers leave the industry rich and they all play after watching someone play one or three machines for hours without a main hit.
Each major casino charts payoffs and failures to hit winning numbers. Even back in the bad old mechanical days any machine paying outside of expectations is overhauled and recertified.
The house detests worn machinery.
It used to be that small casino operations did allow their machines to wear out. Mostly because the equipment is expensive to purchase and get licensed. Locals watch those machines avidly for anyone playing a long losing streak.
Good post. I was with several of the “smart people” Wednesday evening. It is an experience. I have to be on my best behavior.
“… you did almost win!” Hmm, 🤔
How many other symbols are on the reels? That is, there is a cherry and a 7 – how many others?
Background reading: https://betandbeat.com/slots/reels/
[On long trips from northern Idaho to San Jose (CA), we would stop for lunch in Reno. We went to a small casino, carrying a roll of quarters and a roll of nickels – never more. Usually, the coins and lunch would be consumed in an hour and off we went. The Web suggests this was Eddie’s Fabulous 50 that opened in 1987. That date is not early enough. Was there a prior similar place? ]
Intellectually, like a normal person, I understood that a loss is a loss, but in some twisted corner of my brain, a small, forceful voice said, “But…two 7s…that’s almost there…”
This is how most pro-renewable energy modelers think.
stick to your knitting
because you suck at mind reading.
Mosher ==> You’ll have to visit Nuclear Barbarians site to communicate to Emmet Penny.
Thanks for your insightful comment, as usual.
Poor mosh…. his brain has been sucked dry !
The quote included ‘like a normal person’ …
He should not have taken it personally.
Mosh still hasn’t mastered the arts of punctuation or capitalisation.
I treat a visit to the casino as entertainment and I set a budget to spend on “entertainment” .. makes it easier to walk away … now on the odd times that I’ve been winning its usually tomorrows schedule which drives how long I stay at the tables (I force myself to go to sleep becasue I’ve got that “thing” to do in the AM …)
Well, I gamble every month – with Premium Bonds (getting just over 5% tax-free last year)! Some of course prefer the lottery (with a 50% loss on average).
I buy municipal bonds but never heard of premium bonds. Can you explain?
There is a prize fund set at a given annual percentage of the invested bonds. ERNIE, a computer that makes use of quantum randomness to select the prizewinning numbers. You can read about it here:
https://www.nsandi.com/get-to-know-us/about-premium-bonds
Thanks. Appears these bonds are British. No tax advantage for me.
Fortunately, Kip, I had had a couple statistics classes before I ever set foot in a casino. However, my wife loves the slots. I spent an enjoyable couple hours with her in The American Room at the Casino in Monte Carlo while she lost 37 franc. Two hours to lose, what was at that time, about $US7.
Retired ==> Gee, if she finds it ample fulfilling entertainment, $3.50 an hour is cheap.
It was some time ago, when French franc was worth something. Alas, there has been a lot of inflation since then.
My statistical understanding tells me I have a far, far better chance of becoming a millionaire via a lottery..
… than I have from working as a semi-retired very casual Uni lecturer/tutor. 😉
From out here in the Middle of Nowhere, eastern Washington State, I’m watching Governor Hochul’s one-day ‘Future Energy Economy Summit’ in real time as it is now taking place in western New York State.
Roger Caiazza is attending this summit in person and I look forward to comparing his observations with mine, once he has his own comments posted on his blog in the next several days.
Beta ==> I look forward to them too….Hochul has been seduced by the free energy unicorn and is going to wreck NY’s economy with her madness.
The New York one-day energy summit has just concluded. I found it most interesting and informative. Not just the substance of the various topics, but also the kinds of questions which were asked and the kinds of answers which were given.
The morning sessions focused on the state of non-nuclear renewable energy technologies and where things stand with the adoption of those technologies. Yes, much of the substance of the morning sessions was a repetition of standard AGW and RE talking points, but points were made which indicate to those in the know that trouble is on the horizon.
The afternoon sessions focused on the energy needs of large, middle size, and small size industrial customers for electricity, and the role that nuclear power can play in supporting those needs.
The summit examined the benefits of 24/7/365 nuclear power and touched upon every issue and challenge of implementing a strong nuclear new-build program.
The summit’s examination of the issues and challenges for nuclear went far beyond anything we’ve seen done in a public policy forum for wind and solar. And it was done in a constructive way.
As someone who has followed the politics and the public policy trends of energy issues, I have to say that Governor Hochul is an exceptionally canny politician. Do not underestimate her ability to recognize a developing issue which might threaten her political position in New York State.
This is my personal opinion based upon what was said during the summit, and by whom. I am all but certain that Governor Hochul and her administration have already added nuclear power to the mix of energy options that New York will be pursuing as part of the state’s Net Zero transition. This summit was one means of setting the stage for making a formal announcement of this policy change at some point in 2025.
Has anyone pointed out that nuclear and renewables do not play well together? It’s a point I made to the BEIS Select Committee in evidence I submitted here in the UK. The French started finding out the hard way after the former clown energy minister Nicolas Hulot planned to shut half the nuclear fleet and replace it by wind. Nuclear is not able to ramp to support renewables at the required rate. The French system was dominated by hydro and some thermal and power exports providing flex to cover most of the demand variations, with variations in nuclear output generally confined to longer timescales by careful scheduling of shutdowns for maintenance and refuelling, or more modest power ramping of only part of output.
“Has anyone pointed out that nuclear and renewables do not play well together?”
In the course of the panel discussion on nuclear technology, the stated requirement for a purely nuclear system was to be able to ramp up or down between 50% power and full power in the space of two hours.
If we are willing to sacrifice the high capacity factors which are currently the holy grail of nuclear power plant operation, then the oncoming SMR’s can in fact load-follow the renewables with faster response times than just 50% power to 100% power within the space of two hours, or 100% to 50% in the space of two hours.
The Natrium reactor design is supposedly capable of doing ramping up and down with faster response times. Another approach is to use a ganged set of SMR modules which are coordinated to come up or down in overlapping increments in a fashion which mimics what a gas-fired power plant can do for quick response load-following. That’s what the NuScale design does. Yet another approach is to directly pair a nuclear reactor with a gas-fired plant which handles those quick response requirements which are tighter than 50% to 100% up/down in the space of two hours.
What is clear to me from listening to the panel discussions is that each of the participants in the two panels was thoroughly versed in the technical, the operational, and the economic issues of mixing nuclear with other kinds of zero emission energy resources.
For one good example, one of the panelists noted that the New York ISO has called for 25 to 30 GW of Dispatchable Emission Free Resource (DEFR). But if electricity demand grows as fast as is now being predicted, nuclear generation which is assigned to the DEFR mission will, over time, become baseload. The probability that this will happen must be taken into account in choosing a particular nuclear technology for assignment to a particular mission.
The ideal scenario is that baseload nuclear would actually be used to force wind and solar off the grid.
bnice2000: “The ideal scenario is that baseload nuclear would actually be used to force wind and solar off the grid.”
That isn’t going to happen. What I think is happening is that Kathy Hochul needs the support of the business community and the union members residing in the Syracuse area to keep her job as governor of New York. Adding nuclear power in to the targeted mix of zero emission technologies does that for her.
The anti-nuclear activists in New York will raise holy hell with her decision. I suspect that in her political calculations, gaining the support of the business community and the union members in the greater Syracuse area of the state is well worth the risk of losing support from the anti-nuclear activists.
Given that there are many more business people and union members who might be persuaded to support her move towards nuclear than there are anti-nuclear activists to oppose her, she might just politely tell all those activists to suck it up and get with the program.
In reality the reverse has occurred at least in the UK. Baseload coal and nuclear has been replaced by gas plus renewables, with the gas being essential to providing rapid ramping to match changing renewables output.
Things can be done, but at a cost. The French solutions are lower cost than throwing all the load on nuclear. Still, it’s really quite good, allowing 70% of demand to be met by nuclear, substantially above what a strict steady baseload would imply.
“Hochul has been seduced”
My opinion is that she chased down and tackled that unicorn in her race to the bottom.
ATheo ==> As Beta Blocker pointed out, Hochul is a very canny, say instead, devious, politician. I’m not convinced that she works for the public good though.
There are several things missing, peak demand, reasonable expectation of constant demand and the absolute minimum that is acceptable. Also we need to know the productivity of all other generators, if they are capable of being powered up and down and how much they could safely produce day in and day out. If the other generators are capable of producing the power we need and want then there is no reason to look to wind and solar. Remove them from the grid.
And don’t they have a point? See how at the monthly level, whenever wind dips, solar rises, and vice versa? Maybe Europe just needs more wind and solar! Maybe if we can build the right models we can figure out how to get there!
you dont need a model to get there,
heres the thing Kip.
Kip thinks if he says the word model, hes won the debate.
thats his model of reality.
europe will get there and theres opportunity galore for those who want to seize it.
Again, you can see the first part that moosh cut-pasted.
The latter part is basically just incoherent garbage that looks like it was written by a 5-year-old.
Moosh has lost the debate before he even starts…. Emulating Biden.
Get where Steven? Starving to death in the cold and dark?
You had an opportunity to get an education in English, (and very other subject)
Seems you failed utterly to seize it.
Mosher ==> I’ll save your prediction in a text file, and see how close you come to reality in ten years. I have serious doubts.
You still don’t seem to understand who the author is that wrote the piece above. Emmet Penny. So all those words and ideas are his words and ideas.
In the context of what Penny is saying, a model is just an approach to handling the Intermittent Renewables + Real Grid Demand problem.
You really believe Europe is showing the World the way?
Volkswagen Group has announced the closure of its plants in Germany and their relocation outside Europe as a result of the high energy costs.
I once worked for a company that supplied computer systems to casinos for Keno gaming.
On one visit, a manager told me that they never have to bring money into the casino, they only take it out.
The house always wins
There is a sucker born every minute
Amarillo Slim, a famous poker player, said, “Look around the table. If you don’t see a sucker, get up because you’re the sucker.”
John ==> and you didn’t think to sneak a little back door into that code? controllable from your cellphone?
This is similar to the situation where on average you are ok when your foot is in the fridge and your head is in the oven.
Up until leftists with their bizarre ideas began to infest the ruling class of Western countries, the natural inclination of humans was to develop energy sources that reliably produced power all day, every day. Now we are suposed to believe that unreliable energy production is even better than reliable energy production. And looney leftists wonder why people aren’t getting it. They think their messaging is the problem. They’re right. It is. No sane person buys the message that unreliable energy is better.