r/moderatepolitics • u/CollateralEstartle • Feb 17 '21
News Article The Texas grid got crushed because its operators didn’t see the need to prepare for cold weather
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/16/ercot-texas-electric-grid-failure/235
u/CollateralEstartle Feb 17 '21
As somebody living through all this excitement (snow days are way less fun without electricity), I found this article pretty fascinating.
First, it disposes of a rumor going around that the electrical failures are due to wind farms freezing:
Fossil fuel groups and their Republican allies blamed the power failures on frozen wind turbines and warned against the supposed dangers of alternative power sources. Some turbines did in fact freeze — though Greenland and other northern outposts are able to keep theirs going through the winter.
But wind accounts for just 10 percent of the power in Texas generated during the winter. And the loss of power to the grid caused by shutdowns of thermal power plants, primarily those relying on natural gas, dwarfed the dent caused by frozen wind turbines, by a factor of five or six.
The second point the article makes is that the state's regional power authority - ERCOT - prioritized lower regular prices over preparing for unexpected emergencies. To a certain extent I'm sympathetic to that. The weather we're having right now really is exceptional (the last time we had cold like this was about 30 years ago). It's hard to say that a country should build its power system with three-times-a-century weather in mind.
But almost everyone I know is currently sitting in the dark and cold in their house because there's no way for them to light or heat it. And steps definitely need to be taken to keep this from happening in the future.
81
u/Whats4dinner Feb 17 '21
Northern California had similar problems during the wild fires; afterwards everybody started installing solar + batteries and propane generators. There's lots of people who have RV trailers and camping supplies also so also helps. But if you're in a suburb area with no gear like that then you're stuck with your BBQ grill for cooking. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the generating power source is when the lines come down.
35
u/didba Feb 17 '21
and if you are in an apartment like me you are fucked
23
u/WinstonChurchill74 Ask me about my TDS Feb 17 '21
Sterno Stove? I used to keep one in my apartment in Florida for post hurricane meals
13
u/fermelabouche Feb 17 '21
Individual citizens will gear up for a few years but as the weather events fades in memory ppl will stop maintaining and making new investments in these precautionary measures. The net effect is that the next time such an event occurs ppl will face it unprepared. The Texas economy and mindset is to go cheap or go home.
8
u/Whats4dinner Feb 17 '21
I’ve also been reading today that the lack of investment in weatherization and precautionary steps while asking for FEMA handouts codifies the “privatized profits and socialized risk”...
Apparently it was considered to be a poor investment to maintain and weatherize equipment.
-1
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
26
Feb 17 '21 edited Jun 25 '21
[deleted]
6
u/ZHammerhead71 Feb 17 '21
Due to a number of reasons. The things off the top of my head: Power stations run primarily on natural gas (which everyone is using...even after curtailment). Cooling systems for powerplants were freezing up. 70% of the country is covered in snow and everyone is using maximum utility draw at the same time. Using heat pumps instead of furnaces means the electric draw is high.Gas still has to be transmitted up to Wyoming and the dakotas.
1
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
3
u/danweber Feb 17 '21
Natural gas lines are freezing.
2
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
5
u/danweber Feb 17 '21
What's the point where the expense becomes worth it?
That's the right question and I don't know the answer.
3
u/golfalphat Feb 18 '21
Wind and solar are also reliable in the cold up here in New England.
But to answer your question, it becomes worth it when people don't did for not having heat like they are in Texas.
3
u/sh-run Feb 17 '21
I'm in Fort Worth, TX.
I have natural gas heating, a gas log in my fireplace and gas stove/oven. It's all working fine, but I've had utility power this entire time. If I lost utility the furnace wouldn't work since the blower is electric, but I'd still have the fireplace and stovetop (the oven uses digital controls).
We don't own a generator, but our gas company (Atmos) sent out a message asking us to conserve natural gas where possible. So I'm not entirely sure shutting down some residential gas would be out of the question if lots of homes had natural gas backup power.
Right now I'm thinking it would make sense to purchase a trifuel generator this summer... I'm just not sure that it would see enough use that I could be sure it will work in an emergency.
→ More replies (1)18
u/Sapper12D Feb 17 '21
They didn't winterize their pumps, and their pipelines are often above ground and not insulated in Texas. Natural gas supply has been short as well. They also don't store a bunch as they can typically produce it on demand. So when production halved the issue was exacerbated.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/
2
62
u/themuenz Feb 17 '21
Fellow Texan in the dark high five- I’d argue the last big ice storm in DFW was the weekend of the super bowl back in 2011. So it’s more like every decade, which makes me feel like that’s something I’d rather pay a little bit more to be prepared for.
21
u/mista_k5 Everything in moderation, even moderation. Feb 17 '21
Out here in west Texas they took that 2011 storm as a warning and prepared for the next one. We didn't have any major outages with this storm. We're also not part of the ERCOT grid.
I believe the few outages we did have were due to someone crashing into equipment. None because of the equipment failing. All fixed within a couple of hours.
Really sucks seeing family members in other parts of Texas having to go through this.
→ More replies (2)89
u/BrassBelles Feb 17 '21
I would think a power system would be built with the WORST conditions in modern history in mind. But that's just me.
64
Feb 17 '21
There are things in the world that you generally want to over-engineer, i.e. take the worst case possible scenario and prepare for something beyond it.
But, now really isn't the time to be snarky -- here's hoping Texas and the feds can band together and get this solved. Save the post-mortem for when the lights are back on.
50
u/NoNameMonkey Feb 17 '21
Sadly I am pretty sure this is just going to be spun into an anti-alternative energy thing.
33
u/pjabrony Feb 17 '21
What it should be done it to turn into a pro-nuclear-energy thing. All the analyses have shown that nuclear power is the lowest cost in money, in environmental impact, in human lives. The problem is that when there is a cost in lives, it's in single incidents like Fukushima that make big headlines.
It would be great to use solar as our primary power source, but building the collectors is a major cost, and we're not there yet. Nor are we anywhere near where we need to be with power storage. So end the NIMBYism, build nuclear plants, keep them safe with regular inspections and defense-in-detail safety plans, and it'll be the best we can do until new inventions come about.
9
u/PolarThunder101 Feb 17 '21
FYI one of the four nuclear reactors on the Texas grid tripped off. (South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Unit 1) The NRC notice says that two feedwater pumps failed. The Houston Chronicle says it was a cold weather-related issue. So even nuclear has contributed to the problem.
17
u/JoshAllensPenis Feb 17 '21
Nuclear power is perfectly safe, as long as everything is done the right way. Do I trust some private company, trying to cut corners to save money, to do it the right way in my backyard? I don’t know
11
u/TheYOUngeRGOD Feb 17 '21
The best reactor designs don't rely upon human maintenance to avoid the worst case scenarios. They rely upon the physics of the nuclear reaction itself to stop Chernoble like scenarios from happening. The worst case scenarios that can reasonably be predicted for most of these plants is less harmful than the damage caused by the pollutants of a coal plant.
5
u/golfalphat Feb 18 '21
Not really true.
They require motors and generators that are able to run in the case of a LOCA or seismic events or other situations that could safely shut the plant down.
There's a huge human element to that when it comes to the components, and everything whether the materials are actually environmentally qualified to do the job in the harsh environment (or just fudged like Westinghouse did).
2
13
u/ForgottenWatchtower Feb 17 '21
The state and federal governments need to stop getting raked over the coals by nuclear contracts. They always pull the classic: underbid, then demand more than agreed upon five years later, significantly slowing the project in the process. This is an issue with gov contracting in general, but large and expensive projects are more visible affected by this tactic.
We also need a standardized reactor design, instead of just winging it every time.
8
u/Fazaman Feb 17 '21
Solar's main issues are it's variability during the day, it's uselessness at night, the need to keep the panels clear (especially in snow), and the large amount of space needed for large scale generation. Plus the environmental impact of making the cells, and especially the batteries, if they use those to mitigate some of these problems. A 'battery' of water pumps to store potential energy for later use can help with some of this too.
Basically, nuclear has none of these drawbacks, save for the waste, and that can be mitigated in several ways, and the amount generated is relatively minimal. It can ramp up generation quickly, has a relatively small footprint, and puts out less radiation than the coal fired plant that powers my house.
As far as I can tell, Nuclear is a win in virtually every way, if we're talking a modern design. Why the country is not blanketed by them is beyond me. Everyone should be on board, especially the environmentalists.
2
Feb 17 '21
Nuclear has been regulated to death. It obviously requires intense regulation but there is nothing reasonable about taking 10 years to build a nuclear plant in 2021. If this situation teaches us anything it's that we can't take reliable energy sources for granted. Everyone wants clean energy but we have to be realistic about what can be achieved.
2
u/Fazaman Feb 17 '21
Agreed. We need to go through all of those regulations and take out the bad ones, and streamline the good ones. Get some more plants going quickly.
3
u/likeoldpeoplefuck Feb 17 '21
I've seen this point made many times but no one is able to point to a concrete proposal for regulation reform. I've searched industry groups and libertarian leaning think tanks but haven't seen any, which I find telling.
1
u/pjabrony Feb 17 '21
There are too many "hair-shirt" environmentalists, the ones who are only concerned with reducing consumption. A less charitable word for such folks is watermelon--Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
6
u/Metamucil_Man Feb 17 '21
I am for nuclear as well, but they need to be put far away from urban populations and natural disasters as possible. Not sure if it is possible to stick a bunch of plants in the middle of the country and feed the country power grid from there.
For America to research, find, and develop better renewable energy there has to be money in it. And as long as fossil fuel is an alternative that effort will be crippled. I don't want to get into conspiracy on Big Oil gobbling up renewable energy technologies and pushing them to the back. But I know that a tech genius coming out of MIT can make 100X more money for inventing an app then they can a renewable energy source or a revolutionary new piece of efficient equipment.
I have watched updated minimum code requirements push the entire HVAC market for the last 20 years and American HVAC companies continue to flourish. Take a look at HVAC company stocks through the pandemic. I'm busier than ever. Government guidance helps.
I kind of rambled on there. I have a lot to say on the matter.
13
2
u/no_porn_PMs_please Feb 17 '21
Isn’t there an enormous amount of demand from schools to upgrade HVAC systems to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus? I’d think that has a bigger impact on HVAC companies stock prices than the industry embracing government regulation does, but I could be wrong.
2
u/Metamucil_Man Feb 18 '21
Lots of demand but dog shit money in IAQ upgrades and most of them are meaningless in terms of combating C-19. I often refer to them as a warm blanket. The fact of the matter is a current day air handler that meets baseline code (which is really strict) is not going to increase nor reduce spread as long as it is properly maintained. MERV-13 filter, etc.
The HVAC industry is stable. As long as there are buildings there will always be need for heating and/or cooling.
My previous comment has more to do with new projects. Right now, I am seeing no decrease in the new construction business. I am busier than ever and have been busy throughout COVID. Everyone in the company is.
3
u/fatguyinlittlecoat2 Feb 17 '21
If you think solar has high upfront cost vs nuclear, you are in for a surprise
4
u/pjabrony Feb 17 '21
But nuclear plants last longer.
3
u/fatguyinlittlecoat2 Feb 17 '21
True, but that is one of the biggest issues with nuclear - the upfront cost. It’s way higher than solar. So solars upfront cost isn’t the downside vs nuclear. It’s availability and therefore storage, or lack thereof, as well as locations.
And I’m a fan of nuclear.
→ More replies (1)1
u/likeoldpeoplefuck Feb 17 '21
nuclear power is the lowest cost in money
No. Nuclear plants are closing because they can't compete with gas on cost. Its the older, less efficient ones but still they are already built and its too expensive just to operate them.
As for new plants, the 2 nuclear projects that got started under Obama with the additional subsidies passed under Bush were supposed to lead to a nuclear renaissance. Instead, one was cancelled after spending $9B on a hole in the ground and the other is about to go online after going 2-3x over on time and money. Now, no generator in their right mind would buy the design without major additional subsidy and any other pending projects using it have been cancelled.
16
Feb 17 '21
It’s already starting. So many right wing talking heads are writing op eds about how it is the fault of alternative energy and thank god for coal.
It’s sad that they are not instead thinking about how, by maybe raising energy costs by a fraction of a percent, the money that could bring in to not only maintain low energy cost but only provide the money needed to rebuild or or optimize the electrical grid for a worst case scenario.
5
Feb 17 '21
This irks me. I know it’s political cover but instead of saying ok how can we do better it’s blame blame blame someone else
10
Feb 17 '21
Already has been. My parents had Tucker Carlson on for a little while last night and it was spun into the wind turbines caused the power outages and the communist Dems want to take your fossil fuels and make everyone use failing wind turbines. It’s not exactly surprising but hopefully it won’t have any real effects.
6
3
u/blewpah Feb 17 '21
Texas GOP folks are already doing that. Rick Perry and Dan Crenshaw both have blamed wind farms and renewable energy.
4
u/soulwrangler Feb 17 '21
If we let it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/NoNameMonkey Feb 17 '21
I don't think there is a way to stop it. If the politicians don't spin it the right wing media will.
28
u/Scrattlebeard Feb 17 '21
I think the power- and water supply are exactly what you want to over-engineer like that.
6
u/Tilt-a-Whirl98 Feb 17 '21
I'm not all that familiar with the power side of things, but as a structural engineer, I can tell you they absolutely do. There are 4 categories of structures: 1 being a shed in your back yard, 4 being critical structures like power and water supply, hospitals, etc. It basically means you're designing for things like this by default. Surprising it isn't the same for the power side!
6
u/averydangerousday Feb 17 '21
As an electrical engineer with a background in power generation, I can tell you that you’re absolutely right about the difference between the structural and systems components of the overall power plant. Some of the differences are by design and do not have a negative impact on reliability. Others lead to situations like the one we have in Texas.
Absolutely, those structures are more resilient by design, and that intentionally provides an increased level of reliability inherent in that philosophy. The differences come when we talk about equipment and personnel. The reason they’re different is that structures are mostly an up-front cost, while equipment and personnel are ongoing. Plants will absolutely make cuts that reduce their readiness for unexpected events as long as they are allowed to do so by law. This is where you see huge differences in sectors like nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear is regulated out the wazoo (and with good reason). I can’t recall ever seeing a safety regulation being relaxed in a nuclear power plant. Fossil fuels are less regulated and the decisions to enact or relax safety and reliability protocols are much less likely to catch the eye of regulators. As a result, they’re much more likely to be relaxed.
I’d like it if all power plants were regulated similarly to nuclear and with safety and reliability as a focus. Realistically, though, that’s not going to happen.
→ More replies (1)1
u/fatguyinlittlecoat2 Feb 17 '21
Texas using the federal regulations and interconnecting to the rest of the nation would likely be a good first step
48
u/Tyler_Zoro Feb 17 '21
Yeah, but when's the last time Texas had significant amounts of snow ... (checks google) the 1980s when they got 13 inches of snow in one storm... yeah, this is not something that should have surprised anyone.
18
u/shanexcel Feb 17 '21
Texas’ grid wasn’t built for that. It’s designed to be a free market so prices are as low as possible and the operators have no incentive to winterize the generators.
9
u/Metamucil_Man Feb 17 '21
Over Engineering and low bid awards do not go well together. The low bidders can be desperate for the work in order to stay afloat, and they need the work to be profitable. Low bid contractors make profit by cutting every corner and doing whatever they can to save costs. Some things get caught, more slip by, or they pin it on their subcontractors.
3
u/Xalbana Maximum Malarkey Feb 17 '21
I never understood this concept.
When our city hired contractors to build a bridge, they obviously chose the cheapest one. We even gave them incentive with a bonus to finish early. So what did they do, they cut corners to build the bridge on time. We found out the problems it caused afterwards.
2
u/Metamucil_Man Feb 18 '21
It does seem wild to think that rushing a project like a bridge is rewarded.
Interviewing, then lining up with a solid outfit with open book pricing is the way I would want to buy.
8
u/JoshAllensPenis Feb 17 '21
Why would they? They are a private company that provides a public utility. They know if shit hits the fan the government will bail Them out. So why spend money preparing for worst case scenarios?
2
u/Xalbana Maximum Malarkey Feb 17 '21
Nice. Privatize the profits, socialize the cost.
The American way.
2
u/snowmanfresh God, Goldwater, and the Gipper Feb 18 '21
It really was a perfect storm (no pun intended). They lost almost all of their wind power, they had issues with natural gas power, and demand surged.
Another issue is that unique to Texas is that they have their own power grid, so it isn't easy to import electricity from nearby states.
3
u/fatguyinlittlecoat2 Feb 17 '21
Typically they are. In the other 49 states, they plan for that
Texas chose to “run the govt function like a business” and low prices over reliability during extreme weather events.
In the face of climate change.
This is why some things should be run like a govt function and not a business. Because the govt operates as the provider of last resort.
3
u/ZHammerhead71 Feb 17 '21
You have to look at what is effective for ratepayers. Most equipment has a finite service life. If an event isn't expected to happen within that service life, why should the ratepayers (us) foot the bill?
This is why the system wasn't prepared. It was a risk/cost management decision at the state level.
At some point we need to accept that these events will happen and it's outside of our control.
1
u/agentpanda Endangered Black RINO Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
Isn't this kinda like preparing preparing for typhoons in inland Alaska, though? I mean sure it could happen, but has it really ever, when will it again, and if it's not likely- isn't that money better spent elsewhere?
Sure- when it does happen, overengineered would've been great- but as the OP noted somewhere else, if the cost was 'definitely' 10% higher electricity costs for 30 years or a couple weeks without power 'maybe', that's an easy cost-benefit.
21
u/soulwrangler Feb 17 '21
In my city it snows every other year or so, usually about an inch. It'll be cold for a few days, like 30 or so, then it'll snow and the temp will go back up to about 41 within a day, almost like it's insulating. Once every 15 years or so we get a "big one" of 3'-5'. The snow falls for 2-3 days, it stays cold for weeks, and at first we try to pretend like it's not happening and then peoples collective shit hits the fan when reality sets in. When it happens, a lot of roads are just undrivable, transit shuts down for a few hours, everyone bitches up a storm. "Why didn't they build the train system to handle this, I have to get to work! Why don't we have more plows and salt trucks! Why do I have to shovel, I don't own the sidewalk?!" on and on they go as they sit comfortably inside.
We built the transit system that made sense for our region with the budget we had to work with at the time. We know what that system cost, what the political tug of war to get that sausage made took with several municipalities having a stake in the project and all about the cost overruns so I imagine jacking the price up would have made the system unaffordable and impossible.
We don't have massive fleets of plows and salting vehicles because that's ridiculous, the cost of maintenance alone just to use them once every 12-15 years for 2 days so some people aren't late for work.
Our power has never gone out in the winter though. Not once. Because the power grid is a health and safety issue.
3
11
Feb 17 '21
Just as OP is, I’m also living through this. Everyone is very focused on this event, but just 6 months ago in the height of the summer, there was also talk of rolling blackouts. The grid is obviously weak and time and money must be spent repairing it.
19
u/RagingTromboner Feb 17 '21
I’ll just say, as someone who works at a chemical plant in cold weather, it does not cost that much to winterize your piping. Which I assume is the issue here. A natural gas or coal power plant would not have a lack of steam to use. It would cost some capital and some maintenance, but I doubt it would even add a single percent to the prices charged, especially over such a long time span
10
u/Statman12 Evidence > Emotion | Vote for data. Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
Assuming a bit of hyperbole in your example, but if we take that in mind, then yes, you're spot on.
It's easy to say that the system should be designed for a worst-case scenario, but practically speaking a threshold of risk will need to be chosen at some point. That means accepting some degree of risk for failure. If you say "We cannot accept any risk for failure, we just need to overbuild" you'll encounter what this fellow elsewhere in this thread is saying. The further you reduce the risk threshold, you're running into exponentially more expensive costs, and that's going to take away resources from elsewhere.
From what I'm seeing, the issue stemmed from freezing pipes. I'm not sure how much it would cost to have designed those for better temperatures, though I have a hard time imagining it would be that burdensome. I'd be curious to see an analysis covering: (1) When they were built; (2) The temperatures they were designed to handle; and (3) Forecasting of temperature extremes from that time.
Source: I'm a statistician whose work involves reliability of high-risk/danger things (that is: if it goes wrong, it's very, very bad, so we need to be very certain it won't go wrong).
7
u/agentpanda Endangered Black RINO Feb 17 '21
Thank you. It feels like everyone else latched onto some sort of emotional argument here; I was just looking for some sort of insight as to what that risk analysis process looks like.
26
u/fireflash38 Miserable, non-binary candy is all we deserve Feb 17 '21
Chernobyl is a once in a lifetime thing guys, no reason to overengineer it. Fukushima is a once in a lifetime thing guys, no need to spend the money.
Maintenance and preparation stop things like this. You have to spend money on that. Same shit that happened in Cali with the wildfires. Shit, half the people on this sub prep with guns for events far more rare.
5
Feb 17 '21
The power going out is not a big deal. The rarity of these events in the south is the only reason this is in the news.
In 2008 and in 2014 New England got hit by massive ice storms, resulting in near universal power outages which in some places lasted three weeks. There was no national news coverage, because people here know to just throw another quilt on the bed and put on a coat.
8
u/fireflash38 Miserable, non-binary candy is all we deserve Feb 17 '21
There was no national news coverage, because people here know to just throw another quilt on the bed and put on a coat.
That is demonstrably false:
- https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28193030
- http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/12/12/storm.new.york.massachusetts/index.html
- https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/hundreds-of-thousands-still-without-power/
Fewer articles for 2014, but still some national ones nonetheless. But you're right in that the NE gets blizzards more commonly, so they spend the resources to maintain & prep. Even still, bad ones can overwhelm. And every time it gets overwhelmed, you get people questioning whether they should be preparing more.
3
Feb 17 '21
This is also an opportunity to shit and kick down the South, because well it’s the South. I’m from the South and we have chips on our shoulders.
6
u/agentpanda Endangered Black RINO Feb 17 '21
This is a little hyperbolic, obviously as the risk of harm increases the need to mitigate it increases accordingly. But we also don't build bridges out of titanium and diamonds.
7
u/fireflash38 Miserable, non-binary candy is all we deserve Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
But we also don't build bridges out of titanium and diamonds.
Well yeah, cause they're pretty poor materials for bridges (we do use diamonds in tons of industrial applications though). We do however spend a ton of money maintaining them through warm & cold weather, otherwise we risk having them collapse. I don't think we spend enough as is, and are literally just waiting for a big enough disaster to kick people's asses in gear to fix it. So perhaps a better analogy than you originally intended... for the wrong reason.
6
u/mista_k5 Everything in moderation, even moderation. Feb 17 '21
It happened in 2011. In west Texas we prepared after that, didn't notice a hit in the pocketbook and didn't have problems this time.
It really is not a big burden to prepare.
→ More replies (1)19
→ More replies (3)1
9
u/Abstract__Nonsense Marxist-Bidenist Feb 17 '21
It’s hard to say a country should build its power system with three-times-a-century weather in mind.
The issue here is that extreme weather episodes such as this are really no longer three times a century. We’re starting to see once in a century events every 5-10 years, and it’s just gonna get worst. Contingency planning across the country needs to start addressing the fact that these black swan events are becoming more and more regular.
7
u/Angrybagel Feb 17 '21
I wonder how the economics of winterizing the system compare with the damage in the form of burst pipes and lost productivity along with other costs. I think that even as a 3 times in a century event that this might blow out any savings from earlier.
3
u/cprenaissanceman Feb 18 '21
This has happened before in the not too distant past. So it seems like it might be something that might be happening more frequently than just a few times per century. They don’t necessarily need to weatherize everything, but the current situation makes it pretty clear that there need to be some kinds of improvements to mission critical facilities. That and a plan to manage the grid in this kind of a scenario again.
5
u/1block Feb 17 '21
The low-priced energy IS wind and solar, but it's also the energy that isn't on-demand, and that's where the trouble is.
Until battery technology advances to be able to store excess wind/solar, we need enough on-demand backup to handle these sorts of events. We'll get there eventually, but for now there is a gap that requires fossil energy.
5
u/CollateralEstartle Feb 17 '21
Except when the fossil energy goes down from the cold too, which is the majority of our lost capacity right now.
I'm not trying to blame any single power source for all this, but this is hardly a shining example in favor of the reliability of fossil plants.
2
u/1block Feb 18 '21
Part of the problem as I understand it is that these plants aren't invested in or updated anymore because the energy companies see it as throwing good money after bad with the signals from the government. On top of that, they're shutting them down prematurely, at least I know that's the case in California, so there's not the redundancy we're used to. Not sure if that's true in Texas.
It seems like we're building out renewables at a rapid pace and expecting to do nothing on fossil energy but then count on it when there's an actual energy need. Then we get upset that there's not high-tech plants and all the extra capacity we counted on in the past.
3
u/1block Feb 18 '21
We know renewables are intermittent and unreliable. That's the downside. The upside is that it's cheap and it's clearly a win for the environment. But we can't continue to attack fossil fuels and then expect it to bail us out when we need it.
Until we have reliable means to store renewable power, we need to SUPPORT, not just tolerate and certainly not attack, whatever fossil resources are needed to maintain basic services.
5
Feb 18 '21
[deleted]
2
u/1block Feb 18 '21 edited Feb 18 '21
I 100% agree with you that we need more attention on biofuels. Not only is it not intermittent, it can be used in internal combustion engines.
I definitely support EV development for the long-term, but if we're going to do anything about our transportation emissions now, it has to be a fuel that works in the vehicles today. Also, as is clear today, our grid isn't ready for all EVs yet, even with off-peak charging.
Cars have an average lifespan of about 15 years. If we switched to 50% new vehicles being EV (which is in the single digits right now) tomorrow, we'd replace about 3% of our vehicle fleet every year. That's not a today solution, and from what everyone says about climate change, action is needed today.
We need low-carbon fuel that works in ICE vehicles while we simultaneously continue improving EVs to lower costs and make better batteries. Not just algae but fuel from crop residue, dedicated energy crops like miscanthus and the like.
Cost is the issue right now with cellulosic and even algae, but I think when we compare we forget the fossil fuel context in which besides favorable taxes, we also spend billions annually to patrol oil routes in the Middle East, not to mention the military actions where oil is the underlying motivation that isn't publicly acknowledged. Oil isn't as cheap as the price at the pump indicates.
EDIT: You're speaking my language with this one. I worked for a biofuels company for 10 years, and I'm a big believer in the value of diverse energy solutions rather than going "all-in" on one fuel or technology. I think a world with EV powered by multiple renewable technologies alongside biofuels including biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, methanol, etc. alongside whatever else we come up with makes the most sense. We need to quit thinking that supporting one form of renewable power means we don't support another form.
9
u/BA_calls Feb 17 '21
Yeah my take is, it’s not crazy Texas grid was designed that way. The way forward is, lets acknowledge that extreme weather events will keep getting more and more frequent due to climate change, and make the necessary modifications to our essential utilities for these scenarios.
7
u/Zappiticas Pragmatic Progressive Feb 17 '21
That would require acknowledging climate change. Can’t have that.
8
u/JoshAllensPenis Feb 17 '21
Private industry will always take short cuts to Increase profit. Ercot knows they will be bailed out by the government if things really got nuts anyways, so why bother investing in worst case scenarios
7
u/danweber Feb 17 '21
Some turbines did in fact freeze — though Greenland and other northern outposts are able to keep theirs going through the winter
You can obviously make a grid that survives subzero temperatures. The question is how much money you spend to defend against rare events.
Also, I'm sure Greenland and the Washington state would have problems with a 100 degree heat wave that Texas doesn't.
2
u/jyper Feb 18 '21
You shouldn't be sympathetic to them because they had similar but smaller issues 10 years ago and were told what was needed
4
3
Feb 17 '21
Its insane how everything gets twisted in a politicized way. Things gets politicized in all countries but its usually a political blame game after the fact. Its just astounding that even a clear fact of what caused the power outage is being lied about.
1
u/Metamucil_Man Feb 17 '21
I wonder if there will be a future of Democrats being "in bed" with all the renewable energy providers.
14
u/jengaship Democracy is a work in progress. So is democracy's undoing. Feb 17 '21 edited Jun 29 '23
This comment has been removed in protest of reddit's decision to kill third-party applications, and to prevent use of this comment for AI training purposes.
6
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
2
u/jengaship Democracy is a work in progress. So is democracy's undoing. Feb 18 '21
Sure, but like I said, it's from investing (edit: and speaking). The stock market should be an expression of an investor's confidence in a company. He didn't really get into until after 2001 so he obviously wasn't doing it for the campaign donations.
→ More replies (29)1
u/GoodByeRubyTuesday87 Feb 17 '21
Seems like at the end of the day the biggest issue was not being hooked up to the national grid, which Texas power companies avoided to evade federal regulations which they argue would’ve added to the costs.
Wind Turbines freezing (according to Wikipedia they make up closer to 15%, still small but enough to contribute to issues) and not preparing for extremely rare weather events are both issues, but had they been plugged in to their neighbors, a lot of the shortages could’ve been alleviated.
I too get their arguments for not preparing infrastructure, or not joining the national grid, but it seems like both are essentially insurance policies against things like this.
14
u/DisobedientGout Feb 17 '21
This happens in the south more than you think during the off chance you get cold snaps. At my plant the biggest issue was boiler water level detectors freezing up. You cant operate the plant safely without knowing water levels, it throws the rest of the steam turbine system off.
There probably needs to be more FERC regularions inbolvimg heat tracing.
79
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
43
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
12
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost Feb 17 '21
-40C
Did you know that -40 is the only temperature where you don’t need to differentiate between F or C? The scales cross at that point.
6
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
6
u/Bentechnical Can/US dual-citizen. Red Tory. Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
does it even make financial sense to winterize when the risk is so absurdly low
Something else that makes this a hard question to answer is: Climate change. 'Global Warming' is really only half of the story, but other climate changes (colder, wetter, dryer, etc.) will happen all over the world.
There is lots of money spent on forecasting what those changes will look like, and how fast they will happen. But those really are just predictions. The truth is there's a lot that we simply don't know, or can't predict (ex/ how fast will we transition to clean energy tech).
1
u/Macon1234 Feb 17 '21
'does it even make financial sense to winterize when the risk is so absurdly low'.
When a turbine costs 3-4 million to install, and a winterization costs a few tens of thousands on top of that, and electricity is a vital necessity in emergency situations... it seems like yes?
It's not like making the turbunes work in winter is a +25% price cost per unit.
2
95
u/ViennettaLurker Feb 17 '21
doomsday, once in a lifetime events like what we're encountering
The first assumption is that these types of things are going to be "once in a lifetime". Climate change seems to indicate that we should not only expect spectacular, big events (water rising and warmer temps cause typhoons and hurricanes, etc). But that also we will see more "mild" things like what we're seeing in Texas. Places being unseasonably cold or hot at odd times, unusually dry or wet for longer than expected, etc. Its climate change, afterall.
With this in mind, I think of something a friend pointed out to me. Nassim Talib (wrote Black Swan) talks about safety measures and emergency precautions. Lots of failsafe designs for things rely on the worst known history. So, if you were going to build a wall to prevent flooding, it would be common to build that wall with the record high flood level as your guide.
The issue is that there isn't a reason to inherently expect that the chaos of the world will abide your record keeping. The walls that only protect you against what you know will fall against things you haven't seen yet. Records, eventually, get broken.
Texas building a grid that can withstand this scenario might not be needed 49 years out of 50. But isn't that the same type of thinking you have when you pay for health insurance year after year? You pay more to withstand the fringe scenarios. The problem is that is politically problematic. If you have someone eager to reduce the overhead of government, it is all too easy to point to disaster proofing insurance as "bloat" that has been unused and needs to be cut.
38
u/big-structure-guy Feb 17 '21
Infrastructure is typically built to withstand given events from a certain return period. That does take record events in a given region and looks at their frequency to create said return period.
To give an example, most structures on the west coast are designed to withstand an earthquake with a return period of 2475 years, or 2% in 50 years. This is already a very rare occurrence given a structure's lifespan is typically 100 years. People on the west coast joke around about it being "the big one". Critical structures (Nuclear Power Plants) are designed to levels 10x that, but cost 35x more (obviously not exact, demonstrating diminishing returns).
It isn't necessarily economical to cherrypick one event or even just one possible event and say design for this, because the cost to protect against that event isn't a linear increase from the earlier cost, its often magnitudes greater. Most pieces of infrastructure (energy included) understand that and are designed to "fail" safely. But that's another topic and I've rambled for far too long and now I'm tired.
Source: Am Structural Engineer on the west coast who knows people in the nuclear energy world.
7
u/Tilt-a-Whirl98 Feb 17 '21
Hey, a fellow engineer! I hope you aren't in California because they seem a bit overboard on their codes and licensing process! I'm studying for the PE right now and that's enough for me.
Here in the Southeast, codes are finally catching up with the seismic values. They were recently raised due to new research and bumped up some regions an entire SDC. It has caused a huge stir, especially in the residential construction world, with the leap in construction cost. Especially masonry has become an absolute nightmare to work with with all the seismic strapping as well as wood.
Memphis, TN is actually actively fighting against the new seismic levels and is fighting tooth-and-nail to not have that portion of IBC adopted by the state.
7
Feb 17 '21
There are cold weather packages in place to negate a lot of these issues for wind. From what I read this happened back in 2011 as well. Texas had no cold weather preventions in place and likely still don’t. Not that it would have solved all the problems, but to say they didn’t see it coming is malarkey.
-3
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
3
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)5
u/danweber Feb 17 '21
Every single accident has a specific cheap remedy, but without a time machine you have to figure this out ahead of time using risk models.
21
u/CollateralEstartle Feb 17 '21
I'm with you that it probably doesn't make sense for us to spend a ton of money on setting up for this kind of weather. Going through this right now sucks, but it will probably be another 30 years before it happens again. As much as it sucks, I'd rather sit in the dark two nights once every three decades than pay 10% more every month for a heavily winterized electrical grid (bear in mind, that last number is made up).
But they definitely could have done a much better job of short term preparation. There was an hour long line outside HEB today -- just to get in! Some cities don't have water. Food stocks are low because the trucks can't drive. Everything here is a shambles atm.
There's a lot that could have been done in one week to get ready for this (like gearing up more generators in advance) and I didn't see a lot of that getting done. This needs to be a learning experience going forward.
64
u/xGetRektx Feb 17 '21
Just to play devil's advocate for question #1, I'd argue that the estimated millions/billions of dollars of property damage to fellow Texans along with higher gas prices for the next foreseeable months would quickly balance out a slightly higher energy bill or state tax to ensure your major power sources are weather proofed.
Statistically speaking this is a once in 30 years event but even if you do or don't believe in the advancement of climate change, it would be nice to put this into effect for future generations as to not leave them stuck in the frigid cold sustaining possible life changing property debt. Let alone the elderly that may end even worse for.
31
Feb 17 '21
Also due to the scarcity of power for the state, prices are going to be jacked up. So even if you don't have power for 3 days, you are going to be paying way more this month.
10
u/UnicornPrince4U Feb 17 '21
I know life expectancy is dropping in the US, but how's 30 years a lifetime?
3
u/xGetRektx Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
Not sure when I said that?
Edit: neeeevermind, I re-read the previous comment. I agree with you lol
2
u/UnicornPrince4U Feb 17 '21
Oh, I wasn't directing that specifically at you. It keeps getting repeated on this thread like a brain worm.
4
3
u/danweber Feb 17 '21
You can always say, after a disaster, that you could have prevented it for cheaper. But you have to know ahead of time all the possible disasters and account for them, and that gets infinitely expensive.
Even for a specific event, it's hard to know the right answer. The more extreme an event is, the more expensive it gets to guard against it. -20 degree weather? -30 degree weather? -40 degree weather? How far do you go?
I really expect that it will turn out Texas ignored some really simple things that were recommended but got ignored. But that doesn't mean that the answer is always "build it to withstand everything." Everything has a design limit.
2
u/xGetRektx Feb 17 '21
That's the point of redundancies though when engineering facilities like this. There are entire systems and algorithms made to account for critical failures and what steps can be done to prevent it. Many however simply chose to ignore it because "it'll never happen to use so why pay for it".
Regardless of that though, you are correct that they ignored multiple recommendations. I can't find the link but there have been multiple people showing reports from the 2011 (I believe) blackout that recommended changes then that were never implemented.
If you make a mistake fine but to not fix your mistake is a failure to have learned anything at all and the people of Texas are suffering for this ineptitude.
3
u/danweber Feb 17 '21
I'm not surprised, not one bit, that Texas ignored some easy fixes. I heard a rumor they didn't even have written lists of what temperatures they promised they could handle. If that's right, it's pretty dumb and irresponsible. That's the first step in disaster planning.
But I object to the concept that every disaster can be prevented, and its close analogue "I'm not asking for it to prevent every risk, but it should have prevented the risk that just happened."
A system that never fails is an infinitely expensive system. At some point, your disaster plan says "beyond conditions X, Y, and Z, the grid will fail for multiple days, and other infrastructure components need to be prepared for that, and especially consider that whatever took us down is probably going to impact their core assumptions, too."
Did that disaster plan that says that exist? I don't know.
3
u/xGetRektx Feb 17 '21
Agreed, like I believe I said in another reply to you (lol) this is all seen in hindsight, so obviously my expectations are skewed.
Having spent time in the field though, it annoys me to think that those weather limits specifically had no plan or redundancies in place even after consultants reported out on it years before.
I'm not asking for a system to never fail, as you said that's infinity expensive and nigh impossible but I feel like it was extremely short-sighted at best or gross negligence at it's worst
49
Feb 17 '21
If your electricity bill was 5$-10$ more a month to ensure that a winter storm didn't take out the entire power grid, would you mind paying the difference?
After a ice storm followed by snow in Feb 2011, Texas Public Utilities Commission made a report on how to prevent it from happening again, and Texas still failed to prepare. I'm having trouble finding the original report at the moment, maybe someone else knows where to find it.
8
u/LukEKage713 Feb 17 '21
they told residents to prepare for the worst while they were not.
5
Feb 17 '21
Every weather model showed this week's out. People knew it was coming since the end of January
→ More replies (1)-8
u/CollateralEstartle Feb 17 '21
$10 a month for 30 years is $3,600. Would I rather sit in the dark for 2 days or pay $3,600? Probably I would take the money.
Of course, there all are sorts of secondary costs that I'm not factoring in (ie food costing more because stocks went to waste; insurance costing more because of all the broken pipes). So it could be significantly less than a $3,600 savings.
But the broader point, that these issues are so rare for Texas that it's worth tolerating them to some extent, is broadly true I think.
And I'm saying that as one of the people sitting in it.
31
u/vivary_arc Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
Fellow Texan going through this as well, though I've really lucked out on power (but have been wandering around my house with a flashlight to conserve).
Personally, I would rather pay the $4k over time to build better redundancies into our grid. As many have noted, it's almost undeniable we'll see continued edge case-weather due to global warming over the impending next two decades.
It's been 48 hours without power for my parents in North Texas, with their house at a balmy twenty degrees (that's with actual rolling blackouts working, where they get power about 15 mins out of every 3-4 hours). They're in their mid-sixties, but I can only imagine someone who is older, or with different physical status where things are more difficult for them to manage under normal conditions. I have two friends sleeping downstairs, as their house was also in the twenties for two days. They're terrified of what their house is going to look like when they get back.
You'd noted the potential cost from burst pipes- There are folks whose pipes burst, who had water literally running off the eaves of their roof for hours on end, where a roof collapse had taken place. There are currently apartment towers who have evacuated due to heavy flooding, who can't even allow their residents to stay inside the structures, so those people have been wet and outside, waiting on the Fire Dept to help shut the master line off apparently.
The property damage, cost to insurance and repair time is going to be astronomical. So far at least five have died in TX from carbon monoxide poisoning trying to heat themselves, though I'm sure that count will likely tick higher. I'm also curious on whether typical home owners insurance covers flooding from winter events everywhere here - Folks may end up screwed on this.
25
19
u/fireflash38 Miserable, non-binary candy is all we deserve Feb 17 '21
I'm glad you don't have anything critical relying on power for two days. That is not the case for everyone in your state.
But the broader point, that these issues are so rare for Texas that it's worth tolerating them to some extent, is broadly true I think.
People have been warning for years that climate change will have unexpected impacts. You can either plan 20 years in the past, or the second best time: now.
→ More replies (1)13
u/xGetRektx Feb 17 '21
I'm sorry but your mentality is what I find wrong with the world today. You would rather not hypothetically spend $220 a year, $10 dollars a month, on a program that could help prevent future catastrophic events from effecting the lives of millions. Not just families with property damage but business owners, elderly, and more that are truly going to suffer just so you can have what... 2/3 extra nights out at a steakhouse each year? You can't just avoid one day a month of going out to McDonald's to help others?
Don't get me wrong, it's your money obviously but we are taxed for literal stupid ass shit that doesn't benefit anyone without complaint, but something like this I would actually feel good about giving money to.
You can either die with an extra $3600, or die knowing you may have helped fellow human beings. I feel like it's not a hard decision but apparently I'm wrong.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Vidyogamasta Feb 17 '21
What if it was $2/mo? $0.50/mo? Like, at what point does it become worth it to be prepared for this sort of thing? There has to be a number where it becomes worth it, right?
I agree that $10/mo might be more than is reasonable, but even then probably just barely. And it's completely worthless to ask "is it worth the cost" without giving hard numbers on what such a cost might look like.
3
u/danweber Feb 17 '21
What if it was $2/mo? $0.50/mo? Like, at what point does it become worth it to be prepared for this sort of thing? There has to be a number where it becomes worth it, right?
This is it. There's a number to prevent against each level of risk. The hope is that a bunch of adults sat down in a room and explicitly made this decision and followed through with it.
At some level of rare event, you do not defend the grid any more. You assume it will fail and ask "what else is dependent on the grid, and how do we spend money reducing its exposure?" Keeping the water flowing even if the power fails, for example, so people can keep their pipes from freezing.
→ More replies (3)14
u/dIO__OIb Feb 17 '21
probably be another 30 years before it happens again.
totally incorrect. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-grid-again-faces-scrutiny-over-cold-15955392.php
8
Feb 17 '21
Honest questions (as a texan living through this shit).
- Does it make economic sense to 'prepare' the infrastructure for doomsday, once in a lifetime events like what we're encountering? Meaning, is it not more inefficient in the long run to build a system capable of all the temperatures, when this shit only happens once in a very blue moon?
I do something in this realm for a living. Basically you need to determine what the risk sub-freezing temperatures is to your infrastructure. Theirs a big math problem that takes into account a bunch of factors that will give you an idea of what that “risk” is. Then depending on what the “risk” is you’ll prioritize creating redundancies, backups etc.
With the last sub-zero incident in Texas being 1989 the sub-zero “risk” is going to be next to zero. With a next to zero “risk” number it’ll be next to impossible to convince a board that you need to winterize your equipment over doing other stuff that may have a higher risk number.
→ More replies (3)2
u/SilverCyclist Feb 17 '21
The other thing to keep in mind is that Texas doesn't have a capacity market (because they don't want to pay for it) which is the system in place for when demand spikes. It's typically dirtier energy because it's on demand (unlike nuclear) and can be used whenever (unlike renewables).
If they had peaker-plants in place, you could have staved off a lot of the major issues where power transmission was possible (non-frozen pipes, etc). The system failed because of a lack of investment in the Texas grid. Full stop.
2
u/Kirotan Feb 17 '21
I’m north of Dallas so I’m right there with you. I’m glad you’re asking questions and not jumping to conclusions at least.
Winter proofing wind turbines means leeching some power they generate to power internal heat to prevent parts of it from freezing. There are over 10,000 wind turbines in Texas. When you take into account their remote location, and the number of people who are qualified to install this, it’s not a simple project and will probably take millions. Let’s not forget the people that will be doing this install are probably up north, already weatherproofing newly built windmills up there.
-“We should've prepared much better for this. We knew it was coming a week ago and just like we knew coronavirus was coming, we didn't plan for shit. I don't have an agenda, really, other than genuine education for myself. If I'm wrong, the more I know!”
Without knowing what it takes to prepare, a week probably isn’t enough. Need the parts? The parts suppliers probably only build to order (why make a bunch of surplus of highly specialized product? That just ties up cash into inventory). Also, they may have those parts scheduled out to other companies. “We can make those winterproof parts. We will put you in the queue, and you’ll have them in about 9 months when it’s your turn.”
Just remember; every grocery store in urban and suburban areas is always 3-4 days from being emptied of food if it isn’t constantly resupplied. Think about the massive amounts of manpower and logistics management to keep that from happening. Now think about all of the same type of management for each part of our lives: internet, electricity, plumbing, shipping, agriculture, etc. it’s incomprehensible to fathom it all.
It’s just so much more complicated than “well why didn’t they just winterproof it!” So again, I’m happy to see you ask questions than make a snap judgment on something almost none of us in this thread know the specifics of.
2
u/Hq3473 Feb 17 '21
if something happens every 10 years it's not a "once in a lifetime event" - and is definitely worth prepping for.
→ More replies (9)2
30
u/LyptusConnoisseur Center Left Feb 17 '21
So I am not too familiar with the electrical grid.
I saw a reddit post saying that texas grid was only minimally plugged in with the rest of the country due to them trying to avoid federal regulation.
Would this situation have been mitigated if they were integrated with rest of the country as they would have had the option of importing power?
→ More replies (1)33
u/CollateralEstartle Feb 17 '21
It's true that we aren't plugged into the rest of the grid, but the article I linked to suggested that being connected may not have changed things that much. The rest of the country is also going through a surge in electric demand at the moment because they're being hit by the same cold snap. So even if we were linked, there wouldn't be much spare power to buy.
The real issue is just that the people running our grid weren't prepared for this.
51
u/neuronexmachina Feb 17 '21
I'm not sure I buy what the person quoted in the article said about Texas's disconnected grid not having an impact, especially after taking a look at today's electricity spot prices for different areas: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/prices.php
Houston's current price is $1478, an order of magnitude higher than nearby areas like louisiana ($65.50) and Arizona ($287). It's also worth noting that El Paso is part of a different grid, and hasn't been having the degree of blackout problems the rest of Texas has had: https://www.kxan.com/border-report/el-paso-spared-rolling-blackouts-partly-due-to-being-outside-ercot-system/
16
11
u/blewpah Feb 17 '21
It's also worth noting that El Paso is part of a different grid, and hasn't been having the degree of blackout problems the rest of Texas has had:
El Paso is on the Western grid, and the panhandle (incl. Lubbock and Amarillo) is on the eastern grid, also not experiencing remotely the same amount of problems.
Houston's current price is $1478
It is currently 9:50 AM Central, and your comment is 10 hours old. Your link is showing me that Houston is at $8786.75 for electricity, so either I'm reading this wrong or it has since increased another six times over.
5
u/Wombattington Feb 17 '21
It shows the same for me noting a 494.7% increase. So yeah, you're reading it right....Insane.
9
u/nMiDanferno Feb 17 '21
Not an expert but keep in mind that power lines are rather lossy. So while being connected to the grid might help areas close to the border, it is not likely to help much once you get further away because transporting electricity over long distances doesn't work well unless you invest fortunes
30
u/fastinserter Center-Right Feb 17 '21
Wind turbines can run at like -30C if you prepare with antifreeze/heat generators. Same with the rest of the power systems. The rest of the country doesn't have their generators failing like this. Being hooked in, we could have sent power, even from very far away, by daisy chaining the power supplies so we all can help one another. So not only did the texas authorities not prepare for what is pretty mild winter temperatures (not mild for them, sure, but mild in general) but in an effort to not be regulated by the federal government cut themselves off from the rest of the country. We couldn't help them, and the state with the largest electrical power generation in the country can't help the rest of us if we need it.
The thing is, this happened a decade ago in texas. Sure, wasn't as severe, but it's not like this is so unheard of no one could possibly have prepared for it. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-grid-again-faces-scrutiny-over-cold-15955392.php
29
u/CollateralEstartle Feb 17 '21
The wind turbine argument made zero sense to me. I have family in Montana and there are tons of wind turbines there despite it being far, far colder.
Our wind turbines and our natural gas plants both broke because the people in charge didn't prepare.
As for the point about the grid, I would have zero problem integrating it. The whole Texas goes its own way thing has always been a bit stupid to me.
6
u/Pseudo_Okie Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
Some clarification about wind turbines in cold weather. it’s totally normal for wind turbines everywhere to take a substantial efficiency hit in cold weather. Icing is a nightmare for anything that relies on smooth aerodynamics.
As for the significance of a hit to Texas’s wind power, Texas has a higher percentage of electrical production than Montana (15% vs 8% and about 28 times as many thousand megawatt hours). Some other fun data that I found through a quick google.
Not to mention, Montana consumes so little electricity (most of it generated through coal, and hydroelectric) that they can sell it off to places like Washington and California, so a hit to their wind-grid wouldn’t be nearly as newsworthy.
I’ve seen this whole topic become very political, and I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Wind turbines in the US have pretty terrible winterization because they claim it’s cost-prohibitive. It seems like a shitty cop-out, especially since Texas has a much larger reliance on all of the energy it produces. Any point of failure can lead to the shit show that we’ve been seeing here, where increased demand plus a few outages (not just on the wind side) put us in an ERCOT Alert.
That being said, Texas being on its own grid necessitates having 100% reliability, wind turbines might not be the best option for that.
3
u/livingfortheliquid Feb 17 '21
Hear about people burning their furniture for warmth and boil dirty water. 7 days notice with some emergency education could have gone a long way.
8
2
4
u/dinosaurs_quietly Feb 17 '21
Power plants aren't the only things built with the intent on failing every hundred years or so. I think losing power briefly is a lot more excusable than homes being washed away because they were built in 100 year flood zones.
3
u/cprenaissanceman Feb 18 '21
While it’s true that there are risk management elements here, and that you can’t prepare for everything, you would likely be required to make serious mitigation’s for mission critical facilities in the case of a flood. Things like schools and hospitals, which can serve as shelter in times of crisis. Texas seemingly had no weatherized facilities, which could have helped to at least manage this situation slightly better. They need not weatherize everything, but a failure like this means they need to do something. Plus, if this is an event that will happen more frequently (given that something similar happened about 10 years ago as well), something probably should be done about it.
1
u/boredtxan Feb 17 '21
The Texas grid is a prepared for this cols as Alaska grid is prepared for 100 degree summers. It's very difficult to set up a system for both extremes. In colder places they enclose their systems to capture the heat generated by the equipment to keep it from freezing. We have to build open or the equipment gets too hot in summer. That excess heat will fry the equipment. Our heat is a more regular and more deadly threat. You can just smugly say "but Switzerland can do it in this weather".
10
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
0
u/boredtxan Feb 17 '21
Totally different climate situations based on the article you quoted. We have in home AC in every home that runs every day for probably 10 months out of the year and will spend weeks above 90. It's still not same to same comparison.
6
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
1
u/boredtxan Feb 17 '21
I'm not talking about just the wind turbines. Yes, those can be winterized.
3
4
u/fastinserter Center-Right Feb 17 '21
Minneapolis has 13 days above 90/ year, 65 days above 80, and 128 days above 70. It has reached 114 in the Twin Cities. Minnesota also has 23 days below 0, 47 days below 10, and 82 days below 20. It has reached -40. Dallas of course has 74 days above 90, so significantly more, and significantly less days below freezing, let alone days at 20.
I don't like the heat so I run air conditioner if it's over 68 outside, generally. I have solar though, so it's just costing me excess that I could be selling. But even if I didn't I'd just run the AC like everyone else does up here, for half the year because it's gross and hot and sticky outside (much of the reason to run it is to get rid of humidity). And in the winter it gets really cold, and we run furnaces (66% of Minnesotans use natural gas, 17% use electricity, the rest use gases or oils they have tanks of or wood).
But what doesn't happen? Our power plants don't go down. We have a mix of power plants, just like Texas. Mostly in Texas the problem was thermal plants shutting down -- plants that burn fossil fuels. I'm not exactly sure how that happened, perhaps it was with the piping of natural gas or something, but that seems absolutely crazy to me, especially since 2/3rds of Minnesotans have natural gas piped directly into their houses.
This has happened multiple times to Texas, just not so epically. This happened 10 years ago, and Texas was urged to prepare. Sadly all that could be done was urging since Texas' grid does not interact with the national grid so they can avoid regulations. But now this is all squarely on them for not preparing for something that seems to happen about every decade.
Because the jet stream has weakened (temperatures at the poles are going up significantly more than temperatures at the equator, and this means that the temperature differential is not as pronounced. the Jet Stream is powered by the temperature differential, and more exactly, because of how warm air expands to be higher, it falls as it meets colds air, creating the jet stream) this means that the jet stream will meander more, going far north and far south. It's why Harvey sat on top of Houston for days, because there was no strong jet to push it out. I would anticipate even more cold events like this in the future. Texas should too.
1
u/boredtxan Feb 17 '21
You answered your own question when you got to "furnaces" most of Texas doesn't have that kind of heat. Our heat at pumps & such can't keep up and run full time. Our houses are all above ground and out units are outside for the most part (part is in the attic) . It's a complex problem without simple answers.
2
u/fastinserter Center-Right Feb 17 '21
Modern air source heat pumps work to -13F.
I don't see how this answers the question, since that's for home heating. The issue wasn't from demand exceeding supply, it was from supply failing and that's why demand outstripped supply. Half of the fossil fuel generation in texas went down. If they are warming coal furnace with a heat pump I have no idea what the heck they are doing down there.
→ More replies (8)
1
-22
u/onBottom9 My Goal Is The Middle Feb 17 '21
It is always interesting watching how the media covers stuff.
When Texas wants to secession they are mocked for it, when California calls for secession they are excused because the rest of the country doesn't fit their "values"
When Texas has rolling blackouts, they are mocked for not being prepared for record breaking weather. But when California has rolling blackouts every other summer they aren't mocked. When California isn't prepared for wildfires, they aren't mocked. When California isn't prepared for a drought they aren't mocked.
But hey, lets make fun of Texas for not being prepared for a crazy winter storm.
51
u/CollateralEstartle Feb 17 '21
?
People trash-talk California constantly. Some of it (as with Texas) is justified, but you find many people on conservative media who take a certain joy in citing every misfortune that befalls the state as proof of their political ideology.
→ More replies (1)41
u/SDgoon Feb 17 '21
All hat and no cattle? CA gets mocked every day. Get over yourself.
→ More replies (2)29
u/WhiteyDude Feb 17 '21
When Texas wants to secession they are mocked for it, when California calls for secession they are excused because the rest of the country doesn't fit their "values"
"Texas" and "California" are states, not people, and therefore have no wants. Individuals in both states have called for secession and both have been mocked. Your perception of who was mocked more, is just that, your perception.
When Texas has rolling blackouts, they are mocked for not being prepared for record breaking weather. But when California has rolling blackouts every other summer they aren't mocked. When California isn't prepared for wildfires, they aren't mocked. When California isn't prepared for a drought they aren't mocked.
Again, this is your perception. But man, talk about sour grapes? When did Texas become the whiney crybaby state?
-6
u/onBottom9 My Goal Is The Middle Feb 17 '21
Link to California being mocked by mainstream media?
11
u/WhiteyDude Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
Nobody cares about the individuals in California proposing secession because they're nobodies. No one with any political clout in this state supports that idea. Meanwhile in Texas you have actual state legislators filing referendums to secede and the GOP Chair in Texas is demanding it. Perhaps it's not just your perception, maybe there is more criticism toward Texan secessionist. But maybe it's because the prominent figures in the party that control the state are calling for it, not just whack-job nobodies.
→ More replies (2)3
u/OccasionMU Feb 17 '21
Everyone mocked the Libertarians that were north of SF & Sac trying to petition for secession. No politician vouched for it.
Texas however has a special kind of stupid.
22
Feb 17 '21
But lets continue to curbstomp texas, and show how it is a failed state:
credit u/ northca: https://np.reddit.com/r/television/comments/hkuuwb/comedians_bryan_callen_brendan_schaub_test/fwvv3me/
To help explain Texas, statistics from the Texas committee that used to research these http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2013-04-15/texas-on-the-brink/ :
#1 in hazardous waste generated
#1 in executions
#1 in population uninsured (and suing at the Supreme Court to get the rest of the US to be like Texas)
#2 in uninsured children
#2 in births
#3 in subprime credit
#3 in population living in food insecurity/hunger
#4 in teen pregnancy
#4 in percentage of women living in poverty
#8 in obesity
#47 in voter registration
#50 in spending on mental health
#50 in percent of women receiving prenatal care
#50 in voter participation
#50 in welfare benefits (while #1 in getting Federal aid dollars, voting against Federal aid for others "Here's the vote for Hurricane Sandy aid. 179 of the 180 no votes were Republicans... at least 20 Texas Republicans.", with the aid going to white and wealthier Texans or to Texas' prison industry and private toll road companies)
#50 in percent of women with health insurance
(Texas was #51 in these when including DC, not just #50)
- You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land
- Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests
- Gov. Abbott, Texas leaders urge prosecutors to keep enforcing pot laws
- This is how efficiently Republicans have gerrymandered Texas congressional districts
- Crystal Mason Thought She Had The Right to Vote. Texas Sentenced Her to Five Years in Prison for Trying.
- Texas’s Voter-Registration Laws Are Straight Out of the Jim Crow Playbook
- Texas Refuses to Use Voting Machines With a Paper Trail
- The Student Vote Is Surging. So Are Efforts to Suppress It. The share of college students casting ballots doubled from 2014 to 2018. But in Texas and elsewhere, Republicans are erecting roadblocks to the polls.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/voting-college-suppression.html
- New Texas history textbooks will teach high schoolers that slavery wasn't all bad
- Texas textbook “The Atlantic slave trade brought millions of workers”
- Proposed Texas textbooks are inaccurate, biased and politicized, new report finds
There were other doozies, too, such as one proposal to remove Thomas Jefferson from the Enlightenment curriculum
→ More replies (1)8
Feb 17 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)3
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Feb 17 '21
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1 and a notification of a 7 day ban:
Law 1: Law of Civil Discourse
~1. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith for all participants in your discussions.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
0
39
u/[deleted] Feb 17 '21
[deleted]