ERCOT, PUC, and deregulation got us here

[Dahobbs 17454]

36 minutes ago, JohnLocke said:

The problem with wind is the same as it has always been.  You have to back it up with fossil fuel plants since you can't rely on it. This always winds up increasing what the consumer pays for electricity.   It is about 1/4 of our energy production in Texas. We only count on it being 1/10 in a crisis, and in this one it was considerably less than that.  Wind energy is not cheap, especially in Texas with the production so far from the usage. If we had spent the money that we spent on wind on nuclear or coal, we would have weathered this event much better.  Even though the main problem was the natural gas pipelines.  Natural gas in great, but there is some reliability risk given that you can't store it.  You are always vulnerable to a supply disruption.  I would hope we would focus our efforts going forward on nuclear and coal. My bet would be we will continue on the same path of increasing our supply of wind energy and natural gas production. Solar does match up nicely with peak demand in Texas, and there is a place for it. Storage at this point is like trying to deploy desktop computers in 1970. We need to get there before we can even think about it.

What a load of horseshit and completely disconnected from reality. Fucking coal? Jesus. Both wind are solar are significantly cheaper than coal. So is natural gas. Coal and nuclear are literally the most expensive energy sources we have. I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond to such nonsense. You couldn't be more wrong even if you insisted 2+2 is 5. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Dahobbs

[elfenix 34190]

hey guys lets send the wealth of texas to wyoming to buy shit we have in spades here!

[Dahobbs 17454]

4 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

1)It isn’t bad in and of itself, but it doesn’t leave enough reserve capacity for worse case days  
2)I’m aware. Here’s some slightly newer data through 2018.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39012
3) Now we’re getting somewhere. What’s your definition of “peaker plants”?
4) Maybe we aren’t building NGCCs near fast enough. 68 GWs solar, 30GW wind, and 8 GW Battery to just 6GW NG  by 2023 (chron article doesn’t reference  source, but I have a hard time believing those numbers are achievable for Solar and Battery)

https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Texas-to-build-more-solar-wind-batteries-than-15062905.php


Here’s another example where ERCOT needed 60MW from Mexico, a tiny fraction of total grid demand, because we didn’t have reserve capacity. 
https://www.powermag.com/texas-impending-reliability-issues-with-wind-power/

As mentioned in my long post, California missed reserve capacity by less than 0.5GW, and 1.3% IIRC and caused days of crippling their economy and jeopardizing the safety of their citizens. That’s a THIN margin for something so critical.

edit:chron link didn’t paste properly, then clipped the end of the post.

Peaker plants, plants designed to run for relatively short periods of time. Easier to turn on and off, but generally not very efficient. Notably, not combined cycle plants, as you wouldn't want the expense of building a combined cycle plant (and the efficiencies you gain by it) and then only use the plant 10% of the time.

As to the reserve, that's what peaker plants are for. Analyzing the capacity factor of ng-cc plants isn't going to tell you what reserve power exists for the grid. You want the ng-cc to have high utilization. That is what they are designed for.

Also, I come back to this: why do you want more NG plants? What purpose do you think they serve in a static or declining energy market? The ones we have literally ran out of fuel. More non functional plants isn't solving any problem. 

Finally, why on Earth do you keep citing to material from prominent climate change deniers like Mary Hutlzer and the "institute for energy research?" It is literally an organization founded by the Koch brothers with the sole purpose of serving their business interests. It isn't a real scientific or economic institution in any serious sense. It is a lobbying organization. And though you may consider it ad hominem, you should have a very skeptical eye towards any facts offered by them. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Dahobbs

[tx 3 putt 76472]

15 minutes ago, elfenix said:

hey guys lets send the wealth of texas to wyoming to buy shit we have in spades here!

 

abbott and patrick are going to force coal fire plants down our throats and we'll have to pay to keep them open / stay competitive with nat gas 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19096]

I still have not read that article, and I have been somewhat disconnected since Friday because work is nuts. Apologies.  I will eventually read that article and comment.  I think I have left a lot of knowledge in this thread up to this point.  

[Bookman 4611]

I haven't heard that any natural gas pipelines failed. I've heard that water pipes burst.

[Dnaguy 11780]

9 hours ago, elfenix said:

unplugged everything i could find and got down to 3.8 and 3.7 kwh used on wednesday and thursday, so not entirely horrible as far as the wallet is concerned. spent most of the day elsewhere tuesday-thursday.  it did allow me to find that 60° is where my down comforter actually gets comfortable. 

there's a lot more selection on powertochoose now than there was this time last week.

 

Yeah... but there's practically nothing available that's not 12-36 month contracts.

Normally you could get 5-6 c/kwh per 2000 usage on a 3 month contract right now. There's maybe 1 or two options right now and they're are all >10/kwh.

Shit is wack.

My contract ends on 3/2.

Tried to sign up w/ Bulb because of the no contract thing and the posted 9 / kWh... but it looks like they're not taking any new customers right now either.

 

[SydneyCarton 47933]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

I haven't heard that any natural gas pipelines failed. I've heard that water pipes burst.

Is this sarcasm? I can’t tell. But yeah. A mother fuck ton of natural gas pipes froze. 

[wildcat09 29288]

9 hours ago, JohnLocke said:

The problem with wind is the same as it has always been.  You have to back it up with fossil fuel plants since you can't rely on it. This always winds up increasing what the consumer pays for electricity.   It is about 1/4 of our energy production in Texas. We only count on it being 1/10 in a crisis, and in this one it was considerably less than that.  Wind energy is not cheap, especially in Texas with the production so far from the usage. If we had spent the money that we spent on wind on nuclear or coal, we would have weathered this event much better.  Even though the main problem was the natural gas pipelines.  Natural gas in great, but there is some reliability risk given that you can't store it.  You are always vulnerable to a supply disruption.  I would hope we would focus our efforts going forward on nuclear and coal. My bet would be we will continue on the same path of increasing our supply of wind energy and natural gas production. Solar does match up nicely with peak demand in Texas, and there is a place for it. Storage at this point is like trying to deploy desktop computers in 1970. We need to get there before we can even think about it.

One minute of research would’ve saved you the time it took to type out this bullshit.

[Bookman 4611]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Is this sarcasm? I can’t tell. But yeah. A mother fuck ton of natural gas pipes froze. 

Transmission lines?

[SydneyCarton 47933]

3 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Transmission lines?

Yes. Transmission “lines.” Fuel lines. They happen to be big pipes. So, pipelines. 

[Bookman 4611]

If transmission lines froze them I guess we're all fucked.

[Biff Tannen 45512]

You're fucking with us right?

[gmr548 16533]

The problem with wind is the same as it has always been.  You have to back it up with fossil fuel plants since you can't rely on it. This always winds up increasing what the consumer pays for electricity.   It is about 1/4 of our energy production in Texas. We only count on it being 1/10 in a crisis, and in this one it was considerably less than that.  Wind energy is not cheap, especially in Texas with the production so far from the usage. If we had spent the money that we spent on wind on nuclear or coal, we would have weathered this event much better.  Even though the main problem was the natural gas pipelines.  Natural gas in great, but there is some reliability risk given that you can't store it.  You are always vulnerable to a supply disruption.  I would hope we would focus our efforts going forward on nuclear and coal. My bet would be we will continue on the same path of increasing our supply of wind energy and natural gas production. Solar does match up nicely with peak demand in Texas, and there is a place for it. Storage at this point is like trying to deploy desktop computers in 1970. We need to get there before we can even think about it.

You are a profoundly stupid human being and I legitimately feel bad for you.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

One minute of research would’ve saved you the time it took to type out this bullshit.

The real problem with windmills is windmill cancer. 

[Guest Lobo]

Yes, but early data are already in suggesting that wind cancer rates will be down this month because many turbines were frozen shut.  If they can't turn, they can't generate cancer.  It's the one upside to this energy story.  Sure, a lot of people with wind cancer couldn't make it to their chemo appointments due to the power outages, but at least new cases will be decreasing.  And thankfully some of those afflicted with wind cancer were able to get a hot meal at least, soup.  Soup, for their family.    

If the turbines won't run for my family, then wind cancer won't run in my family. 

If any of you are having trouble sleeping tonight---let me add to it.  Go ahead and let your mind game out the kinda shit that would have been said about our suffering here in Texas if Twitter was open and available to everyone and anyone.  

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Be specific. 
...

There is a bogeyman being promoted that lack of constancy implies lack of predictability, and that's just not true.  We obviously have a baseline of total generated power below which we should not drop, and that should be accounted for, but just because sun and wind are not static sources doesn't mean we can't incorporate them into the overall infrastructure and reduce dependence on fossil fuels in the process.

I can’t be because the Chron article I found doesn’t list project names or a source, and I found the total power numbers and timeline very lofty.

Solar, I agree it is predictable (see Cali model). Wind I disagree. Look at the EIA #s I’ve posted in this thread. The variability of wind in our grid is 50% some times. That’s GWs and GWs of power that lack predictability on the day to day.

Peaker plants, plants designed to run for relatively short periods of time. Easier to turn on and off, but generally not very efficient. Notably, not combined cycle plants, as you wouldn't want the expense of building a combined cycle plant (and the efficiencies you gain by it) and then only use the plant 10% of the time.
As to the reserve, that's what peaker plants are for. Analyzing the capacity factor of ng-cc plants isn't going to tell you what reserve power exists for the grid. You want the ng-cc to have high utilization. That is what they are designed for.
Also, I come back to this: why do you want more NG plants? What purpose do you think they serve in a static or declining energy market? The ones we have literally ran out of fuel. More non functional plants isn't solving any problem. 
Finally, why on Earth do you keep citing to material from prominent climate change deniers like Mary Hutlzer and the "institute for energy research?" It is literally an organization founded by the Koch brothers with the sole purpose of serving their business interests. It isn't a real scientific or economic institution in any serious sense. It is a lobbying organization. And though you may consider it ad hominem, you should have a very skeptical eye towards any facts offered by them. 

I disagree fully, that’s my whole point. In name and function NG are peaker plants. GTs can fire up in hours (if ready operationally and logistically, see TX this week) to meet peak demand. That’s inefficient until the steam generation kicks and and you get CC Rankine cycle efficient from heat recovery. New England uses hydroelectric for peaking to some extent, but show me an American (exception of some small percentage hydro, as noted) grid that is using a fuel source other than NG as a peaking. NG has been our fuel source of choice for peaking for at least the past 20s and I was taking Thermodynamics.

I think policy makers are missing it, just as you are in a “static or declining energy market”. You want more NGCC for a baseline, fine it can be cheap efficient baseline. We take coal plants offline (which is good) Dahobbs cheers. Reserve capacity of our NGCC which were intended to be peaking plants, goes down. We “electrify” our world more and more, climate change cause more extreme peak demand curves. Reserve capacity goes down further. We’re asking NGCC to fill two roles with its existing capacity and then bitching when it fails and injecting more variability into then system via wind which in turn further strains our peaking plants.

If we aren’t dependent on NGCC for peaking, which resource would you cite in the below past 30 days of ERCOT as filling that role?


I haven’t referenced Hutlzer, Koch brothers or any institutions or think tanks anywhere in this thread. If that PowerMag article referenced something by them, I wasn’t aware, I found it googling other failures and emergency responses by ERCOT in TX brown out situations.

The American model to get to cheap reliable carbon-free power is the dual curves method utilizing NG as the lesser of two evils. We’re getting there, but we aren’t there yet and a couple of stop gaps solutions seem clear as day to me. 2011 TX fucked it up. 2019 TX came within 60MWs of fucking it up. 2020 CA fucked it up. 2021 TX fucked it up again, the same week Iowa almost fucked it up. I’ll be very surprised if when the half-ass investigations, finger pointing, and dust settles we make 2025/2030 without a few more colossal fuck-ups along the way.

[Eastwood 4394]

Either way, Texas is stuck with a multi-billion dollar bill that will need to be paid over the course of 10 to 20 years. I think the Ds, if they are smart, will use this coming financial crunch to legalize and tax weed. Texas needs tax revenue, everything else is pretty much locked into their current rates for the foreseeable future, and it is the only thing that I can think of that is new ground to tax for Texas.

[jimmyjazz 45602]

18 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

Solar, I agree it is predictable (see Cali model). Wind I disagree. Look at the EIA #s I’ve posted in this thread. The variability of wind in our grid is 50% some times. That’s GWs and GWs of power that lack predictability on the day to day.

All power sources have associated capacity factors.  Wind is highly predictable in the minute-to-hour range, and reasonably predictable on larger time frames.  The larger the wind field over which turbine forecasts are aggregated, the lower the error.  

I think you are bringing old news and personal bias to a current discussion, and you're drawing conclusions that are no longer valid.  Modern turbines are larger, more efficient, and more optimized for local conditions.  Modern weather forecasting is much, much better than it was 20-30 years ago.  The upshot is that wind power can be managed in a way that makes it a cost effective alternative to thermal energy sources, regardless of what 'used to be" true.

[hayden_horn 11360]

1 hour ago, Eastwood said:

Either way, Texas is stuck with a multi-billion dollar bill that will need to be paid over the course of 10 to 20 years. I think the Ds, if they are smart, will use this coming financial crunch to legalize and tax weed. Texas needs tax revenue, everything else is pretty much locked into their current rates for the foreseeable future, and it is the only thing that I can think of that is new ground to tax for Texas.

gambling, too.

[Captainant 27495]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

gambling, too.

[fertitta has entered the chat]

[Bookman 4611]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

You're fucking with us right?

Half of my law practice is representing utilities and pipeline companies and I’m not hearing anything regarding pipeline failures, certainly no transmission lines. Any failures must have been at the wells or the plants. But I certainly haven’t spoken to everyone.

If you know more can you name which transmission lines failed? I’d like to look into it.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Bookman

[Biff Tannen 45512]

4 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Is this sarcasm? I can’t tell. But yeah. A mother fuck ton of natural gas pipes froze. 

This.

[SydneyCarton 47933]

1 hour ago, Eastwood said:

Either way, Texas is stuck with a multi-billion dollar bill that will need to be paid over the course of 10 to 20 years. I think the Ds, if they are smart, will use this coming financial crunch to legalize and tax weed. Texas needs tax revenue, everything else is pretty much locked into their current rates for the foreseeable future, and it is the only thing that I can think of that is new ground to tax for Texas.

Ha, that's cute. Patrick and many members of the lege have said weed will not be on the ballot in Texas, this term or any term in the near future because Drugs are Bad, Mmmmkay. It will never even make it to a vote. But yes, Democrats should probably start creaming loud AF about it because maybe, maybe, they'll get some republican voters. Then again, they probably already have a weed hookup and they're white so maybe they continue to think fuck everyone else, I've got mine and my shot at prison time is pretty fucking slim. 

35 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

gambling, too.

This, this might happen. And outside the fact I love to gamble, I think it would be a boon to Texas. As another poster alluded, I'd hate to see Fertita primed to make more money because he's a piece of shit, but Galveston would be primed for a serious, serious upgrade on all levels. Casinos, Dining, Cabs/Uber workers. Billions would flow into that place and it would be tremendous for the entire state. Someone can try to educate me on a negative because I can't fucking see one. 

[Eastwood 4394]

This, this might happen. And outside the fact I love to gamble, I think it would be a boon to Texas. As another poster alluded, I'd hate to see Fertita primed to make more money because he's a piece of shit, but Galveston would be primed for a serious, serious upgrade on all levels. Casinos, Dining, Cabs/Uber workers. Billions would flow into that place and it would be tremendous for the entire state. Someone can try to educate me on a negative because I can't fucking see one. 

I don't see a negative, either, but has the same headwinds that leaves you to reasonably think weed won't happen and the same reason I can't buy liquor on Sundays. Patrick, et al can scream about the vices Texans now want, but Texans are wanting the energy companies to pay out of pocket for this mess. The billions need to be found somewhere. We now have an unstoppable force heading towards an unmoveable object.

[Fudge Nuggets 19152]

46 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

gambling, too.

Well there’s a very large and obvious existing source available that 41 other states draw from.  But we won’t because “muh taxes” and somehow that devolves into “socialism “.

[gmr548 16533]

I think the Ds, if they are smart, will use this coming financial crunch to legalize and tax weed.

What state do you live in?

[Brisketexan 104744]

2 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

 

 

I don't see a negative, either, but has the same headwinds that leaves you to reasonably think weed won't happen and the same reason I can't buy liquor on Sundays. Patrick, et al can scream about the vices Texans now want, but Texans are wanting the energy companies to pay out of pocket for this mess. The billions need to be found somewhere. We now have an unstoppable force heading towards an unmoveable object.

 

The looming financial impact of this is the next storm.  Do not underestimate how perilous this is.  We're talking potentially a "2008 financial collapse" level event, MOSTLY localized to Texas....but with a national impact just the same.

[SydneyCarton 47933]

8 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

 

 

I don't see a negative, either, but has the same headwinds that leaves you to reasonably think weed won't happen and the same reason I can't buy liquor on Sundays. Patrick, et al can scream about the vices Texans now want, but Texans are wanting the energy companies to pay out of pocket for this mess. The billions need to be found somewhere. We now have an unstoppable force heading towards an unmoveable object.

 

FWIW some of the legislators who've shat on weed have in the same sentence advocated taking a hard looking at gambling this session. 

[smuggs 9342]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

FWIW some of the legislators who've shat on weed have in the same sentence advocated taking a hard looking at gambling this session. 

Some of those that ban grasses, are the same that roll dices.

[jimmyjazz 45602]

15 minutes ago, smuggs said:

Some of those that ban grasses, are the same that roll dices.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

All power sources have associated capacity factors.  Wind is highly predictable in the minute-to-hour range, and reasonably predictable on larger time frames.  The larger the wind field over which turbine forecasts are aggregated, the lower the error.  
I think you are bringing old news and personal bias to a current discussion, and you're drawing conclusions that are no longer valid.  Modern turbines are larger, more efficient, and more optimized for local conditions.  Modern weather forecasting is much, much better than it was 20-30 years ago.  The upshot is that wind power can be managed in a way that makes it a cost effective alternative to thermal energy sources, regardless of what 'used to be" true.

Agreed never contended that they don’t.

Fair enough and makes sense to me, well outside my field there. Always made sense to me that while more wind turbines increase volatility in the grid it is also a form of diversification if the turbines are in different arrays from Perryton to Pearsall to Padre.

No doubt I have some ingrained bias and talking points I heard from my father and his father long before I entered O&G myself and hear it from peers.

Electrification is only increasing, population of TX is only increasing, and we’ve had more frequent misses in our forecasting to meet demand. IMO we need something; a larger baseline, more reserve peaking capacity, or an immediate step change in storage to get us into the next decade and beyond.

I’ll leave it there, and let this thread get back to the subject at hand.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

I knew Gene a little through Facebook and mutual friends. Hypothermia has been listed as cause of death since this article came out. I know Austin is doing its level best to kill off the music scene but fuck this. Gene was a global treasure, even if he was an ornery son of a bitch.

Failed state, @Brisketexan

 

https://bestclassicbands.com/gene-taylor-musician-obituary-blasters-2-21-21/

[Brisketexan 104744]

3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I knew Gene a little through Facebook and mutual friends. Hypothermia has been listed as cause of death since this article came out. I know Austin is doing its level best to kill off the music scene but fuck this. Gene was a global treasure, even if he was an ornery son of a bitch.

Failed state, @Brisketexan

 

https://bestclassicbands.com/gene-taylor-musician-obituary-blasters-2-21-21/

The cost in deaths....will be sobering as hell.

The cost in property damage....looks to be catastrophic, perhaps greater than Harvey (smaller individual claims....but they are statewide).

The economic fallout from what happened to the market....is still wildly unknown, and could be catastrophic, like "financial collapse" levels.

 

This was a slow-moving disaster, but it may prove to be the most horrific and impactful disaster in US history.

[Dr. Teeth 5832]

I own quite a bit of multifamily in Texas and have an energy broker. He just called me to tell me my provider was going under along with 21 other providers. He mentioned that the provider offered him 48 hours to sign with another provider to avoid the provider of last resort. He mentioned that my rates would actually go down. But will this mean a lot of people are going to see rates increase 4x or 5x fold this week if these guys actually go under? Or do I need to find a new broker.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This was a slow-moving disaster, but it may prove to be the most horrific and impactful disaster in US history.

Posts like this (and Texas being a failed state) are why you are a running joke. Your constant hyperbolic hysteria is more of a troll job than annoying posters who intentional troll.

This isn't even the "most horrific and impactful disaster in US history" from last week...which is still Covid-19 which just crossed 500k American deaths...more than American deaths in WW2, which was also an order magnitude higher in horror and impact than what we will encounter from last week. 

You are like that drunk homeless guy in Parasite. GET A GRIP!

Edited February 23, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[SydneyCarton 47933]

22 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

I own quite a bit of multifamily in Texas and have an energy broker. He just called me to tell me my provider was going under along with 21 other providers. He mentioned that the provider offered him 48 hours to sign with another provider to avoid the provider of last resort. He mentioned that my rates would actually go down. But will this mean a lot of people are going to see rates increase 4x or 5x fold this week if these guys actually go under? Or do I need to find a new broker.

When you say broker, you mean energy provider in this instance, right? A Broker is an independent guy/company that should be able to connect you with anyone. But a REP is what's going under. 

I've seen the initial reports of 21 or 22 guys going under, and it's sort of out there in the industry rags, but not exactly confirmed. I believe the credit agencies and the states have significant reasons to float some of these guys on credit and get repaid over time. That being said, ERCOT did release a statement today that generally accounted to "Fuck you REPs, pay me" this morning. So...maybe. 

Folks going under this week shouldn't result in massive rate increases. Honestly, even guys on variable plans *should* have had their rates locked in this month already and avoid massive price swings. The only folks who should be proper fucked are Griddy customers, or folks who had their meter read/cycle start like the 16ths and had their variable rates (if they were on variable) jacked up at the last minute. That should be a small percentage, but in this instance could still be thousands of folks.

In your instance, it sounds like you're under a contract, so your rates are safe. If you're moved to the POLR (provider of last resort) they can (although many won't) adjust your rate accordingly. But that would be for next month. Either way, the best thing you can do, once you can confirm you won't be penalized for an early termination fee, is find a new energy provider. If you're moved to POLR they should also notify and allow you to leave without penalty within the course of the month. 

 

[wildcat09 29288]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

I own quite a bit of multifamily in Texas and have an energy broker. He just called me to tell me my provider was going under along with 21 other providers. He mentioned that the provider offered him 48 hours to sign with another provider to avoid the provider of last resort. He mentioned that my rates would actually go down. But will this mean a lot of people are going to see rates increase 4x or 5x fold this week if these guys actually go under? Or do I need to find a new broker.

...so you're a slumlord?

[Horn80 6078]

While watching an ERCOT update last week, I got a big red flag when their guy was talking about ERCOT’s   “guidelines” instead of regulations.  

Edited February 23, 2021 by Horn80

[Dr. Teeth 5832]

18 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

When you say broker, you mean energy provider in this instance, right? A Broker is an independent guy/company that should be able to connect you with anyone. But a REP is what's going under. 

I've seen the initial reports of 21 or 22 guys going under, and it's sort of out there in the industry rags, but not exactly confirmed. I believe the credit agencies and the states have significant reasons to float some of these guys on credit and get repaid over time. That being said, ERCOT did release a statement today that generally accounted to "Fuck you REPs, pay me" this morning. So...maybe. 

Folks going under this week shouldn't result in massive rate increases. Honestly, even guys on variable plans *should* have had their rates locked in this month already and avoid massive price swings. The only folks who should be proper fucked are Griddy customers, or folks who had their meter read/cycle start like the 16ths and had their variable rates (if they were on variable) jacked up at the last minute. That should be a small percentage, but in this instance could still be thousands of folks.

In your instance, it sounds like you're under a contract, so your rates are safe. If you're moved to the POLR (provider of last resort) they can (although many won't) adjust your rate accordingly. But that would be for next month. Either way, the best thing you can do, once you can confirm you won't be penalized for an early termination fee, is find a new energy provider. If you're moved to POLR they should also notify and allow you to leave without penalty within the course of the month. 

 

That's correct, REP is going under. I am fine. They already have a new provider lined up. We are one of their biggest clients, so they have no issue moving us to a new group at a lower rate. I just wondered if others heard the same thing and if it was going to affect a lot of people. I like the broker, but I have to make sure everything is on the up and up during times like these.

 

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

...so you're a slumlord?

No. We are doing well even in COVID and did quite a bit last week to help out tenants with water and supplies. We also aren't evicting anyone. Easy for us to do with 98% collections throughout COVID. But I figured if we are having this issue, then it will hurt those who aren't in a good position pretty hard.

[Js1 85149]

 

[Dnaguy 11780]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

Except the big hit to wind last week wasn’t that the wind didn’t blow. The problem was....the same thing that happened to gas: they froze up because they weren’t winterized. Had they been, they could have contributed material amounts of generation. Like they do in the winter in other cold climates, like Iowa.

And as for coal, forget it. Even with the cost of winterizing built in, gas is much more cost effective than coal (all of which, in Texas generation, comes by rail from Wyoming).

Our near-future power mix should continue to include (winterized) wind and (winterized) gas. We don’t have to overthink this. We just need to stop stepping on our collective dick.

i don’t think that’s the case. hwys 164 between Waco and Buffalo, and 7 between Marlin and Centerville have huge coal mines specifically to feed 3 (used to be 4) coal fired electrical plants within 30 miles of the mine, respectfully.

[Nivek 16873]

On 2/22/2021 at 2:15 PM, Llano Estacado said:

Your questions in the first post posited that wind turbines were intentionally turned off by unnamed sources to increase demand for oil and gas, and profits. That is ludicrous.

Im not manipulating or omitting anything. I’m pulling screen grabs from the EIA.gov web tool. If you think their graphs lack pertinent detail or are shitty maybe write their web team an email or something.

 

Actually, I did not pose the question that was another.  What I stated was that it was not ludacris to not accept a graph without explanation.    Since you were the one to present the material as evidence I/we? (I can be a bit presumptuous) assumed you read the material and could comment on it.   This is probably an error on my/our part.  I know that when I decide to unload both barrels on here (rare), I present evidence to support my position and I cite the shit out of it and because I am science minded, I try to present evidence for other belief systems as well and cite that.  But more often than not, I ask questions not to support some preconceived position but to learn.    

What I stated was that charts, without context are useless and prone to manipulation.  And the more busy the chart, the more explanation should be accompanying it.   Since you presented it, the onus should be on yourself.    

 

 

[BearSchlong 8078]

i don’t think that’s the case. hwys 164 between Waco and Buffalo, and 7 between Marlin and Centerville have huge coal mines specifically to feed 3 (used to be 4) coal fired electrical plants within 30 miles of the mine, respectfully.

Yep. Personally I prefer the hwy 164 route to hwy 7, though I've driven both at least 100 times enroute to and from Waco

https://westmoreland.com/location/jewett-mine-texas/

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Actually, I did not pose the question that was another.  What I stated was that it was not ludacris to not accept a graph without explanation.    Since you were the one to present the material as evidence I/we? (I can be a bit presumptuous) assumed you read the material and could comment on it.   This is probably an error on my/our part.  I know that when I decide to unload both barrels on here (rare), I present evidence to support my position and I cite the shit out of it and because I am science minded, I try to present evidence for other belief systems as well and cite that.  But more often than not, I ask questions not to support some preconceived position but to learn.    
What I stated was that charts, without context are useless and prone to manipulation.  And the more busy the chart, the more explanation should be accompanying it.   Since you presented it, the onus should be on yourself.

I conflated your response with someone else, Sorry. You confused my response to him as a comment to you. Sorry, I don’t feel it’s worthwhile to go back pages and 3 or 4 quote strings to figure it out.

I don’t know why you have red-ass about titled, labeled, stacked line graphs, that all include “source US EIA” at the bottom. I have several long posts in this thread that explain and give context to the charts and what I’m utilizing them to show. That is, Our electric grid, the existing and future policies governing the grid, and our current rough plan to carbon-free power generation all rely increasingly on Natural Gas Combined Cycle plants to fill two roles. I believe (due to our current policies and the market places) on peak demand days this plan will lead to more rolling blackouts, more economic impact, and possibly more deaths that all could be avoided by policy makers.

All I wanna hear from anyone in this thread’s ass is, "You ain't got no problem, Llano. We’re on the motherfucker. Go back in there, chill them fellas out and wait for the cavalry, which should be coming directly." But I haven’t, and I don’t think the Wolf is coming. I think this Bonnie situation is explosive and we’re in for a rough decade, both in terms of direct energy costs to consumers and dependability.

[Captainant 27495]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

it was not ludacris

[TwiceHorn 31318]

3 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

 

i don’t think that’s the case. hwys 164 between Waco and Buffalo, and 7 between Marlin and Centerville have huge coal mines specifically to feed 3 (used to be 4) coal fired electrical plants within 30 miles of the mine, respectfully.

 

There's two types of coal, bituminous and lignite and only lignite is found/mined in Texas.  Most or all of the coal plants in Texas were lignite, but now there's only a couple, maybe three, in South Texas.  The rest have been shuttered or converted to bituminous, which does, indeed, come from mines in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.

There used to be a massive strip mine with a ginormous dragline up near Mt. Pleasant, but it's gone and the nearby plant converted to bituminous. Also, and this is kind of cool to me, modern coal generation plants crush the coal into dust, aerated it, and burn it in a turbine like natural gas or oil, they don't generally boil water with it anymore.

Lignite burns with more emissions, generally, than bituminous, so is less environmentally favorable.  And I don't think it works in the "gasified coal" turbines.

Edited February 24, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27495]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's two types of coal, bituminous and lignite and only lignite is found/mined in Texas.  Most or all of the coal plants in Texas were lignite, but now there's only a couple, maybe three, in South Texas.  The rest have been shuttered or converted to bituminous, which does, indeed, come from mines in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.

There used to be a massive strip mine with a ginormous dragline up near Mt. Pleasant, but it's gone and the nearby plant converted to bituminous. Also, and this is kind of cool to me, modern coal generation plants crush the coal into dust, aerated it, and burn it in a turbine like natural gas or oil, they don't generally boil water with it anymore.

Lignite burns with more emissions, generally, than bituminous, so is less environmentally favorable.  And I don't think it works in the "gasified coal" turbines.

I thought gassification was the way to go with coal since it permits more filtering of contaminants before burning, and it can be more easily burned than coal dust

[tx 3 putt 76472]

the 5 members that resigned today were making between $87 and $99k / year