ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[YGIFS 19452]

While we're doing out part by running AC in the low 80's and not doing any cooking/washing until after 9:00p, I couldn't help but notice the Lane Bryant and the Bloomchic near us are both open at full capacity and running HVAC at about 72*.  Gee, I can't help but wonder what politically connected official might be behind that shopping cavalcade?  

[drt 640]

We actually air dried some kitchen and bath towels the other day to be nice to those fucks.  Goddamn I forgot how scratchy air dried towels are.

[Brisketexan 105354]

1 minute ago, drt said:

We actually air dried some kitchen and bath towels the other day to be nice to those fucks.  Goddamn I forgot how scratchy air dried towels are.

Great way to give your nads a good scratch after a shower.

I mean, so I've been told.

[Biff Tannen 45742]

Apparently battery power saved our ass yesterday.  Good thing they are trying to legislate batteries to the trash heap.  What could go wrong?

My understanding is they want batteries to only be able to claim the energy they actually have on hand, not the amount they could store.  The thinking being that ERCOT needs to be able to plan for actual energy in reality, not in probability.  How is that different from what gas plants are doing now?  Randomly going offline and putting us at risk?

[Captainant 27783]

32 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Apparently battery power saved our ass yesterday.  Good thing they are trying to legislate batteries to the trash heap.  What could go wrong?

My understanding is they want batteries to only be able to claim the energy they actually have on hand, not the amount they could store.  The thinking being that ERCOT needs to be able to plan for actual energy in reality, not in probability.  How is that different from what gas plants are doing now?  Randomly going offline and putting us at risk?

Well their buddies and investments in the O&G business are threatened by the battery storage hurting the profitability of their NG plants. Can't have that.

[Guest]

On 8/29/2023 at 4:31 PM, crash_davis said:

Nola is on the commie communal Eastern grid. We don't do commie in Texas. Better to not have electricity than to have a shared sustainable grid.

Texas O&G dudes: 

 

On 8/31/2023 at 9:17 AM, crash_davis said:

Already discussed on this thread...

Texas leadership is committed to making sure their O&G buddies make as much money as possible. More money they make, the more money they can buy off, I mean contribute to the Representatives' re-election campaigns. 

 

https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2023-08-30/gas-and-coal-outages-behind-ercots-constant-calls-for-conservation/

Solar power has been helping ERCOT avoid rolling blackouts, but thermal energy (gas, coal, and nuclear) has been lacking and was behind the call for conservation Tuesday night. On Aug. 29, thermal outages were beyond what ERCOT defines as “extreme,” at 4+ GW above the 30-day average, energy researchers pointed out – about 120% more generation offline than ERCOT defines as typical. So far, ERCOT has not explained why thermal generation dropped so significantly on Tuesday.

To make up for these outages and reduce demand, advocates have been pushing energy efficiency programs. Though the Public Utility Commission (PUC) received recommendations for improving efficiency from the Energy Efficiency Implementation Project earlier this year, they have yet to implement them. Advocates also wonder why there is no demand response program – or why we aren’t getting paid for the voluntary conservation we’re doing. ERCOT already pays bitcoin miners and other major manufacturers that use a lot of energy for their conservation, but the only way for Austin residents to get compensation is to enroll in Austin Energy’s bill credit program for installing a smart thermostat.

In an even more puzzling move, ERCOT may vote Thursday to drive battery storage out of their ancillary services reserves – the batteries that provide backup power when the grid fails. In his Energy and Power newsletter, energy consultant Doug Lewin says, “ERCOT has made very clear it intends to banish storage resources from this market,” driving up costs for consumers.

 

On 8/31/2023 at 9:24 AM, crash_davis said:

actually, that would be "driving up revenue for producers." Who gives a fuck about consumers?

 

On 8/31/2023 at 9:30 AM, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I wasn't an economics major, but I'm relatively sure that electric costs to the consumer represent revenue to the producers.

 

20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well their buddies and investments in the O&G business are threatened by the battery storage hurting the profitability of their NG plants. Can't have that.

Oil and gas producers aren’t benefitting off of hot weather. First, oil isn’t used in any electricity generation. Heating oil is used in certain northeast US markets in winter. Second, gas producers are making about $2.75/mcf. 

Y’all need to aim your conspiratorial venom at retail electric providers and ERCOT. You sound silly and ill-informed. 

[After irth 1245]

18 hours ago, YGIFS said:

While we're doing out part by running AC in the low 80's and not doing any cooking/washing until after 9:00p, I couldn't help but notice the Lane Bryant and the Bloomchic near us are both open at full capacity and running HVAC at about 72*.  Gee, I can't help but wonder what politically connected official might be behind that shopping cavalcade?  

Tell me you're a crossdresser without telling me you're a crossdresser.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Dahobbs 17685]

17 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

 

 

 

 

Oil and gas producers aren’t benefitting off of hot weather. First, oil isn’t used in any electricity generation. Heating oil is used in certain northeast US markets in winter. Second, gas producers are making about $2.75/mcf. 

Y’all need to aim your conspiratorial venom at retail electric providers and ERCOT. You sound silly and ill-informed. 

I don't think retail electric providers really benefit from higher prices. That's not their gig. Unexpected higher prices usually hurt them. And they essentially have no control over anything. Generators benefit from having higher prices, and indirectly natural gas providers could benefit if prices of natural gas increase due to increased generation demand. However, while generation makes up a little less than half of Texas' consumption of natural gas, Texas exports significantly more gas than it consumes.  This limits the affect short term increased generation demand has on gas prices. 

Where oil and gas does benefit is the overall additional demand for gas due to consumption for generation. If that didn't exist, gas prices would be lower. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105354]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Where oil and gas does benefit is the overall additional demand for gas due to consumption for generation. If that didn't exist, gas prices would be lower. 

This.

Natural gas has been, and remains, such a large slice of the generation picture in Texas that gas prices are a near-direct proxy for electric prices.  Read the Panda Power case -- it's all about complaints of a generator that alleges it was "duped" into developing new generation to take advantage of future projected high electric and gas prices.  But when gas prices plummeted, the project was a money-loser.

The natural gas industry absolutely wants and needs the Texas grid to use gas, and more of it.  The more it can bulldoze competing energy sources out of the way, the better.  If you think petroleum interests haven't had a heavy hand in both legislation and design and implementation of ERCOT nodal protocols, you are being willfully ignorant.

[Captainant 27783]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If you think petroleum interests haven't had a heavy hand in both legislation and design and implementation of ERCOT nodal protocols, you are being willfully ignorant.

Rex? Willfully ignorant? Unpossible!

[YGIFS 19452]

45 minutes ago, After irth said:

Tell me you're a crossdresser without telling me you're a crossdresser.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Meh, it's too hot to put on all that makeup 'n shit.  I love the bit by John Mulvaney when he talks about whey Goth kids are always so depressed.  It's because they wake up every morning with the energy of a teenager and then think, "Oh god, I gotta put all that shit on again today..." and so they mope...

I probably would cross-dress but i can barely quit scratching my balls wearing boxers or boxer briefs.  I can't imagine what a shit-show it'd be wearing women's underwear.  

[NeverMarryAStripper 21922]

I was referencing electricity producers, not oil and gas producers

[Brisketexan 105354]

5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Meh, it's too hot to put on all that makeup 'n shit.  I love the bit by John Mulvaney when he talks about whey Goth kids are always so depressed.  It's because they wake up every morning with the energy of a teenager and then think, "Oh god, I gotta put all that shit on again today..." and so they mope...

I probably would cross-dress but i can barely quit scratching my balls wearing boxers or boxer briefs.  I can't imagine what a shit-show it'd be wearing women's underwear.  

I dunno.  I've thought that cross-dressing could offer some real benefits in this heat.  I mean, I'd dress like a trashy slut -- short mini-skirt, no underwear.  Think of the freeing ball-breeze you would get!  And the ease of reaching down, barely having to hike up your skirt, and give the boys a good scratch.

Yep, I'm gonna do this drag thing.  This summer has driven me to it.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Where oil and gas does benefit is the overall additional demand for gas due to consumption for generation. If that didn't exist, gas prices would be lower. 

Okay?  This is obvious. But this summer prices have gone ranged from $2.00 in June to $2.82 today. That is totally within range, and it’s still extremely cheap. Hint, it’s going much higher. It will triple in the coming years.  

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

Natural gas has been, and remains, such a large slice of the generation picture in Texas that gas prices are a near-direct proxy for electric prices.  Read the Panda Power case -- it's all about complaints of a generator that alleges it was "duped" into developing new generation to take advantage of future projected high electric and gas prices.  But when gas prices plummeted, the project was a money-loser.

The natural gas industry absolutely wants and needs the Texas grid to use gas, and more of it.  The more it can bulldoze competing energy sources out of the way, the better.  If you think petroleum interests haven't had a heavy hand in both legislation and design and implementation of ERCOT nodal protocols, you are being willfully ignorant.

I’m not being willfully ignorant. I would strongly suspect the E&P industry to lobby hard to keep nat gas as the primary generation feedstock. As they should. This has nothing to do with my point, which is they (producers) aren’t benefitting monetarily from this. They’re just not. If the industry’s efforts failed and ERCOT went total Dahobbs wet dream, gas would simply go elsewhere with little impact on price or producer revenue. 

17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Rex? Willfully ignorant? Unpossible!

How many threads are you going to enter bumbling around like a stupid drunken motherfucker, only to be proven wrong by a number of people who routinely own your ass, and disappear like the little bitch that you are?

14 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I was referencing electricity producers, not oil and gas producers

Gotcha. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Porterhouse

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I dunno.  I've thought that cross-dressing could offer some real benefits in this heat.  I mean, I'd dress like a trashy slut -- short mini-skirt, no underwear.  Think of the freeing ball-breeze you would get!  And the ease of reaching down, barely having to hike up your skirt, and give the boys a good scratch.

Yep, I'm gonna do this drag thing.  This summer has driven me to it.

Blast furnace to the balls?  No thanks. 

[Captainant 27783]

3 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

How many threads are you going to enter bumbling around like a stupid drunken motherfucker, only to be proven wrong by a number of people who routinely own your ass, and disappear like the little bitch that you are?

Lol, you're really proud of that fox news interview with the blindside author and touhey family saying "nuh uh" huh? I stopped replying in that thread because I didn't want to threadshit. I'm glad it makes you feel better to believe I'm a stupid idiot, and I hope you get help with your drinking problem Rex. Considering how that's your go-to insult and all that

Edited September 1, 2023 by Captainant

[Brisketexan 105354]

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

I’m not being willfully ignorant. I would strongly suspect the E&P industry to lobby hard to keep nat gas as the primary generation feedstock. As they should. This has nothing to do with my point, which is they (producers) aren’t benefitting monetarily from this. They’re just not. If the industry’s efforts failed and ERCOT went total Dahobbs wet dream, gas would simply go elsewhere with little impact on price or producer revenue. 

All of which is true.  Which gets us BACK to the underlying point: the petroleum industry is fighting tooth and nail to hamstring/eliminate renewable power generation and energy storage at every turn.  The fact that the gas is fungible makes it even more maddening (with the caveat that having Texas gas consumed here in Texas saves Texas producers some significant transport costs to ship it elsewhere, but that's not a huge driver in their decisionmaking, as such costs are largely passed through to the buyer/consumer as I understand).

[Biff Tannen 45742]

21 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I can't imagine what a shit-show it'd be wearing women's underwear.  

Seems like every time you bowl it'd just cut you right in two!

[Dahobbs 17685]

6 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Okay?  This is obvious. But this summer prices have gone ranged from $2.00 in June to $2.82 today. That is totally within range, and it’s still extremely cheap. Hint, it’s going much higher. It will triple in the coming years.  

I don't know what your response has to do with my point. You asserted that the O&G industry doesn't benefit from higher generation prices caused by hot weather. I agreed with you that it doesn't benefit as much as other posters implied from short term fluctuations in generation prices driven by our limited generation capacity. I clarified for other posters how O&G benefits from electric generation in Texas, i.e.  from the demand of the ~4 billion cubic feet of gas used daily for generation. 

I'm not sure how your prediction for the long term forecast of gas prices fits in this conversation. 

Quote

 

I’m not being willfully ignorant. I would strongly suspect the E&P industry to lobby hard to keep nat gas as the primary generation feedstock. As they should. This has nothing to do with my point, which is they (producers) aren’t benefitting monetarily from this. They’re just not. If the industry’s efforts failed and ERCOT went total Dahobbs wet dream, gas would simply go elsewhere with little impact on price or producer revenue. 

 

The idea that demand for 20% of the gas that Texas currently produces could disappear and have no affect on gas pricing is absurd. You yourself have pointed out that pricing is regional. And local demand for generation is going to be some of the easiest demand for O&G to fulfill with lower processing and transportation costs. And, right now, we don't have the capability to convert all of that gas to LNG for export even if we wanted to. 

Responding to your comment about my "dream," you continually misrepresent my posts on renewable energy. The vast majority of our discussion on this issue hasn't been me arguing for what should be. I've mainly just given you facts about what currently is and what the trends are; i.e., currently, renewable energy is cheaper (see LCOE data). Currently, renewable energy makes up nearly all of the planned new generation in Texas (see ERCOT planning data). That trend is also reflected nationally, although Texas is actually ahead of the overall national average (see Energy Information Administration trend analysis from last several years). Those are all facts irrespective of whatever personal desires or beliefs I may have about energy generation. You're the one arguing that thermal generation (particularly natural gas) should make up a more significant portion of the grid. While I may disagree with that assertion, that is irrelevant as to whether that is the likely result based on current trends.  

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Lol, you're really proud of that fox news interview with the blindside author and touhey family saying "nuh uh" huh? I stopped replying in that thread because I didn't want to threadshit. I'm glad it makes you feel better to believe I'm a stupid idiot, and I hope you get help with your drinking problem Rex. Considering how that's your go-to insult and all that

Your white guilt go-to is sooooo tiresome. You were an absolute moron in The Blind Side thread, as you are most places. I have no drinking problem. That is not my go-to insult. My go-to insult is that you’re a stupid motherfucker. Because you’re a stupid motherfucker. 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

All of which is true.  Which gets us BACK to the underlying point: the petroleum industry is fighting tooth and nail to hamstring/eliminate renewable power generation and energy storage at every turn.  The fact that the gas is fungible makes it even more maddening (with the caveat that having Texas gas consumed here in Texas saves Texas producers some significant transport costs to ship it elsewhere, but that's not a huge driver in their decisionmaking, as such costs are largely passed through to the buyer/consumer as I understand).

Well, I don’t KNOW that the industry is fighting tooth and nail, but I suspect they are, and they should. No, if you’re shipping on large interstate pipelines, the transpo costs are borne by the producer. I don’t know why it’s maddening to you. Gas is tremendously abundant in Texas, and extremely cheap (now). 

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know what your response has to do with my point. You asserted that the O&G industry doesn't benefit from higher generation prices caused by hot weather. I agreed with you that it doesn't benefit as much as other posters implied from short term fluctuations in generation prices driven by our limited generation capacity. I clarified for other posters how O&G benefits from electric generation in Texas, i.e.  from the demand of the ~4 billion cubic feet of gas used daily for generation. 

I'm not sure how your prediction for the long term forecast of gas prices fits in this conversation. 

You said it benefits due to the demand. Well, sure. I said Okay? Because it was an obvious point. And my point was gas prices are VERY low. For example, they were $8 this time last year. My prediction for where gas is going - back up to that level - was context for how little gas producers have benefitted this summer by Texas grid demand. 

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The idea that demand for 20% of the gas that Texas currently produces could disappear and have no affect on gas pricing is absurd. You yourself have pointed out that pricing is regional. And local demand for generation is going to be some of the easiest demand for O&G to fulfill with lower processing and transportation costs. And, right now, we don't have the capability to convert all of that gas to LNG for export even if we wanted to. 

It’s not absurd in the mid-term to long-term. It’s regional in that it’s not a global commodity like crude oil. Natural gas doesn’t vary inside the lower 48 with the exception of certain markets, particularly in the Northeast. So, gas would simply go elsewhere and it’d be quick. I do totally agree with your last 2 sentences, though - similar to what Brisket was saying. 

 

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Responding to your comment about my "dream," you continually misrepresent my posts on renewable energy. The vast majority of our discussion on this issue hasn't been me arguing for what should be. I've mainly just given you facts about what currently is and what the trends are; i.e., currently, renewable energy is cheaper (see LCOE data). Currently, renewable energy makes up nearly all of the planned new generation in Texas (see ERCOT planning data). That trend is also reflected nationally, although Texas is actually ahead of the overall national average (see Energy Information Administration trend analysis from last several years). Those are all facts irrespective of whatever personal desires or beliefs I may have about energy generation. You're the one arguing that thermal generation (particularly natural gas) should make up a more significant portion of the grid. While I may disagree with that assertion, that is irrelevant as to whether that is the likely result based on current trends.  

I’m just fucking with you. And yes, I believe natural gas ought to make up a more significant portion of the grid. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Porterhouse

[Brisketexan 105354]

4 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

And yes, I believe natural gas ought to make up a more significant portion of the grid. 

Any way we cut it, Nat gas has to be a bridge fuel to get us to a better place.

And if that better place includes "reliable" as well as "green," then there's only one answer:

Opposition to nuclear power is likewise maddening.

[Dahobbs 17685]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Any way we cut it, Nat gas has to be a bridge fuel to get us to a better place.

And if that better place includes "reliable" as well as "green," then there's only one answer:

Opposition to nuclear power is likewise maddening.

I agree natural gas has been (and continues to be) a great bridge fuel source. And I think it will continue to remain an important part of the grid (~10-20% of the grid). And I agree that nuclear would be nice. I disagree that a renewable grid can't be reliable. There are plenty of studies on this. Overbuilding capacity, connecting regional grids, and storage are all things that would allow a reliable renewable grid that would still be more economically efficient than nuclear (at least based on historic costs/experience).  

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Any way we cut it, Nat gas has to be a bridge fuel to get us to a better place.

And if that better place includes "reliable" as well as "green," then there's only one answer:

Opposition to nuclear power is likewise maddening.

I’m not sure you understand how clean natural gas is. It’s clean relative to oil, and MUCH cleaner than coal. It’s more reliable and cheaper than any renewable. We have an abundance of it in America. It’s maddening that people here and various pundits discuss it as a bridge fuel. Yeah, but it’s a long fucking bridge. 

[Captainant 27783]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I’m not sure you understand how clean natural gas is. It’s clean relative to oil, and MUCH cleaner than coal. It’s more reliable and cheaper than any renewable. We have an abundance of it in America. It’s maddening that people here and various pundits discuss it as a bridge fuel. Yeah, but it’s a long fucking bridge. 

CO2 is CO2, man. Lack of heavy metals and toxic chemicals in the combustion product is certainly a plus, but it's still releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and INCREASING the rate of warming that we are observing. We will always certainly need NG power production to cover gaps and valleys in renewable generation, but once we have proper accounting for the negative externalities of burning hydrocarbons I doubt they'll be economically favorable for long

[Dahobbs 17685]

29 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

It’s more reliable and cheaper than any renewable. 

It isn't cheaper. And this is before accounting for your projected tripling in price.  

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf

 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It isn't cheaper. And this is before accounting for your projected tripling in price.  

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf

 

 

No it’s not. It takes from 2022, when prices were very high. I could pick that chart apart. 

[Bullneck 19209]

 

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

I’m just a fucking idiot. And yes, I believe natural gas ought to make up a more significant portion of the grid. I want it to be 110 degrees at all times.

I'm out in Dripping Springs for the weekend and it seems all road work is done at night.  Wonder if the heat has anything to do with that.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bullneck

[Dahobbs 17685]

5 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

No it’s not. It takes from 2022, when prices were very high. I could pick that chart apart. 

You're confused. The figures are normalized to 2022 dollars. The estimates are not based on 2022 prices. 

The 2028 estimate actually uses ~$3.0/Mcf. 

Here is a LCOE report for 2023:

https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

I'm out in Dripping Springs for the weekend and it seems all road work is done at night.  Wonder if the heat has anything to do with that.

Great post. Hyperbolic nonsense. 

[wildcat09 29395]

27 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

No it’s not. It takes from 2022, when prices were very high. I could pick that chart apart. 

This is the funniest type of internet argument. If you can, go for it.

[Dahobbs 17685]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're confused. The figures are normalized to 2022 dollars. The estimates are not based on 2022 prices. 

The 2028 estimate actually uses ~$3.0/Mcf. 

Here is a LCOE report for 2023:

https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

 

I tried to edit, but it was supposed to be $2.85/MMBtu for the EIA report. 

The Lazard Report also covers fuel price variance:

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're confused. The figures are normalized to 2022 dollars. The estimates are not based on 2022 prices. 

The 2028 estimate actually uses ~$3.0/Mcf. 

Here is a LCOE report for 2023:

https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

 

I need to reread the chart. But $3.00 versus probably a $2.50 average for this year. Lazard used $3.45. Those assumptions are extremely favorable to renewables analyses. 

[Dahobbs 17685]

5 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I need to reread the chart. But $3.00 versus probably a $2.50 average for this year. Lazard used $3.45. Those assumptions are extremely favorable to renewables analyses. 

$3 is for 2028. You said you expect prices to triple. Sounds like the estimate is very favorable to gas generation, not renewables. I provided the Lazard analysis that used a range of 2.54 to 4 something. Solar still wins. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

$3 is for 2028. You said you expect prices to triple. Sounds like the estimate is very favorable to gas generation, not renewables. I provided the Lazard analysis that used a range of 2.54 to 4 something. Solar still wins. 

I need to study the charts more because I did not interpret that at all. Lazard’s footnote indicated $3.45/mmbtu

[Bullneck 19209]

8 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I need to study the charts more because I did not interpret that at all. Lazard’s footnote indicated $3.45/mmbtu

You're the Anastasis of natural gas.

[Dahobbs 17685]

37 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I need to study the charts more because I did not interpret that at all. Lazard’s footnote indicated $3.45/mmbtu

Check my second Lazard graph, footnote 2. $2.59 to $4.31. 

[PTINS 3484]

Re: ERCOT data from yesterday, Aug 31.

Power Generation @ 7.14 am;

Wind & Solar 4,887 MW, 9.9% of total generation (4,887/(12,636+10,427), 21.2% of summer capacity)

Gas @ 32,821 MW, 66.5% of total generation, (32,821/53,446,  61.4% of summer capacity)

Power Generation @ 7.49 pm;

Wind & Solar 7,381 MW, 10.5% of total generation (7,381/(12,636+10,427), 32.0

% of summer capacity)

Gas @ 46,624 MW, 66.0% of total generation, (46,624/53,446,  87.2% of summer capacity)

From 1:00-9:00 pm, gas fired generation was running at 80+ % of capacity, peaking at 46,981 MW, 87.9 % of capacity.  That is the gas portfolio total; probably a lot of individual plants running ~ 90% of capacity.

A few observations:

Where did the damn wind go?  Wind dropped to 948 MW @ 12:39 pm,  6.2% of summer capacity. I have to believe the wind just wasn't blowing v. unplanned shutdowns across the damn state. 

Very sobering for ERCOT, expecting a normal wind day, and getting less than 10% of available capacity during peak demand. 

Gas gets the bad press because of "unscheduled" outages. Imagine driving your car at 80% or redline for 8 hours a day, for 60 days in a row, in 100+ °F heat. Can't imagine why they would have an unscheduled shutdown.

When comparing the economics of various power generation sources, the differences between "on demand" v. "when available" is difficult to quantify on $/MW basis.  You cannot simply compare power output straight up without other considerations.  Like it or not, renewables require a much larger installed capacity v. expected power generated ratio than fossil fuel plants.

[blacklab 11952]

Roundabout way of asking the same question I was.

Does the cost of solar include the Nuclear/Gas/Oil/Coal that needs to run at night? Or do we just ignore that?

[Nathan Jessep 147]

45 minutes ago, blacklab said:

Roundabout way of asking the same question I was.

Does the cost of solar include the Nuclear/Gas/Oil/Coal that needs to run at night? Or do we just ignore that?

I also have questions about if this modeling considers the almost inevitable increase in the cost of minerals needed for solar and wind? The numbers I've seen before to do this at the scale that some people want is astronomical. Input costs could be volatile.

You also will need a lot of new expensive transmission infrastructure. Is that included?

With that being said, it's 5pm on Friday of a holiday weekend so I'll pass on skimming the report now.

[Dahobbs 17685]

48 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Very sobering for ERCOT, expecting a normal wind day, and getting less than 10% of available capacity during peak demand. 

In what sense was ERCOT expecting a normal wind day? It's been clear that wind has been low all week. Actual hourly wind production varied from 72% to 121% of the day-ahead operating plan.  The average hourly production was 101% of planned.  Even going back to the operating plan from the 29th, and the average hourly output was 97% of planned. 

[Dahobbs 17685]

1 hour ago, blacklab said:

Roundabout way of asking the same question I was.

Does the cost of solar include the Nuclear/Gas/Oil/Coal that needs to run at night? Or do we just ignore that?

I'm not sure that is an entirely fair question. For instance, we don't ask if the cost of a energy from a gas peaking plant that runs less than 10% of the time includes the cost for the other 90% of the time it doesn't run. Yes, other resources or storage are needed at night (wind is generally a very good one). But that doesn't change the fact that when solar is expected to be available, it is cheaper than other sources and would have a downward effect on prices.  The better question is how to calculate the cost when the intermittency of renewables results in them being unable to provide their expected or committed generation. One way to answer that is to look at firming costs. Chart below shows that solar is still competitive with NG, even after accounting for firming costs (except in the scenario where batteries are used for the firming, but those prices can be expected to continue their trend downward). 

 

We can also pull from a number of studies that look more widely at the feasibility of having renewables at increasing percentages of the grid. I've linked a few before. But the long and short of it is that renewables can be relatively easily an economically adding to the grid until they hit 50%-60%. It then becomes increasingly expensive, with the last 10% to 20% driving most of the cost. I'll try and pull some of those studies later. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

It makes no sense to compare the LCOE of dispatchable energy generation vs resource constrained renewable energy generation.  LCOE is simply the sum of the lifetime costs of an asset divided by the total energy produced over it's lifetime, factoring in the discount rate.  It doesn't factor in the value of energy produced at a given time (cost and value are different things), availability factor, reactive power generation, or any other important criteria other than total energy produced. 

The levelized cost of shelter is lower for tents than apartments.  Is this useful information?

 

[Dahobbs 17685]

5 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

It makes no sense to compare the LCOE of dispatchable energy generation vs resource constrained renewable energy generation.  LCOE is simply the sum of the lifetime costs of an asset divided by the total energy produced over it's lifetime, factoring in the discount rate.  It doesn't factor in the value of energy produced at a given time (cost and value are different things), availability factor, reactive power generation, or any other important criteria other than total energy produced. 

The levelized cost of shelter is lower for tents than apartments.  Is this useful information?

 

Of course it makes sense to compare them. That doesn't mean it is the whole picture, but it is important information. Electricity generated from solar will be cheaper than natural gas. You can consider other factors by looking at the levelized avoided cost of electricity (LACE). Solar tends to produce well during peak demand hours, so the results are favorable to it even after expanding the analysis.  

Your shelter analogy is inapt. Electricity is a commodity. If our instantaneous need is for one mw electricity, it matters not whether it comes from natural gas, nuclear, solar, or hamsters on a wheel. The electricity is all the same. The same is not true for different types of shelter. If our need is a permanent shelter with running water, a tent isn't going to be an appropriate substitute.  

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Of course it makes sense to compare them. That doesn't mean it is the whole picture, but it is important information. Electricity generated from solar will be cheaper than natural gas. You can consider other factors by looking at the levelized avoided cost of electricity (LACE). Solar tends to produce well during peak demand hours, so the results are favorable to it even after expanding the analysis.  

Your shelter analogy is inapt. Electricity is a commodity. If our instantaneous need is for one mw electricity, it matters not whether it comes from natural gas, nuclear, solar, or hamsters on a wheel. The electricity is all the same. The same is not true for different types of shelter. If our need is a permanent shelter with running water, a tent isn't going to be an appropriate substitute.  

In the eia report you posted above, why do you think they separated dispatchable power sources into one category and "resource constrained" sources into another category?  

Electricity and types of power/energy sources are different things.  Water is also a commodity, yet water on demand in your house faucets vs water in a well in the center of town are not equivalent water sources.  If you have to design a grid, there is a lot more to it than a source's total energy output over a ~12 year period.     

Edited September 1, 2023 by axiom of foundation

[Dahobbs 17685]

9 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

In the eia report you posted above, why do you think they separated dispatchable power sources into one category and "resource constrained" sources into another category?  

Electricity and types of power/energy sources are different things.  Water is also a commodity, yet water on demand in your house faucets vs water in a well in the center of town are not equivalent water sources.  If you have to design a grid, there is a lot more to it than a source's total real power output over a ~12 year period.     

So they can compare products and to be able to analyze those differences. Your assertion was that it made no sense to compare prices. That's ridiculous. Of course it makes sense to compare them. It is important information, but information that needs to be considered within a larger picture.  There are other factors to consider and I've addressed them pretty extensively in this thread. Again, look at LACE and look at firming costs. 

As to your water analogy, you're arguing something I haven't claimed. The facilities are different. I haven't claimed otherwise. But the output is the same. Your analogy also mixes up water resources at different levels from the consumer. It is a similar difference to whole sale electricity prices from a power plant vs residential electricity prices from a retail electric provider. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The facilities are different. I haven't claimed otherwise. But the output is the same. 

No, it is not.  One is an on-demand energy source and the other is not.  Even if you ignore this and confine it to a kwh to kwh basis as you want to do, wind and solar do not provide the same stability and inertia to the grid that a thermal plant does. Wind and solar do not provide reactive power the way thermal plants do.  So even when comparing a given amount of real power output for a solar or wind source in isolation to a thermal plant, the output is not the same:    

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/baseload/grid-inertia-why-it-matters-in-a-renewable-world/#gref

 

[Dahobbs 17685]

10 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

No, it is not.  One is an on-demand energy source and the other is not.  Even if you ignore this and confine it to a kwh to kwh basis as you want to do, wind and solar do not provide the same stability and inertia to the grid that a thermal plant does. Wind and solar do not provide reactive power the way thermal plants do.  So even when comparing a given amount of real power output for a solar or wind source in isolation to a thermal plant, the output is not the same:    

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/baseload/grid-inertia-why-it-matters-in-a-renewable-world/#gref

 

The output is the same. You're talking about other factors that are, again, addressed with firming costs. I have no idea why you insist on ignoring the rest of the context of my posts to focus on one single phrase. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

The output is the same. You're talking about other factors that are, again, addressed with firming costs. I have no idea why you insist on ignoring the rest of the context of my posts to focus on one single phrase. 

"Output" is what a plant outputs on the grid.  You seem to be only aware of real power output.

By "firming costs," do you mean all the infrastructure investment needed to make wind/solar provide the same benefits that thermal plants do?

[Dahobbs 17685]

Here is a good source on inertia and renewables: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73856.pdf

Quote

 

3. The importance of inertia to a power system depends on many factors, including the size of the grid and how quickly generators in the grid can detect and respond to imbalances. A grid with slower generators needs more inertia to maintain reliability than a grid that can respond quickly.

4. Using power electronics, inverter-based resources including wind, solar, and storage can quickly detect frequency deviations and respond to system imbalances. Tapping into electronic-based resources for this “fast frequency response” can enable response rates many times faster than traditional mechanical response from conventional generators, thereby reducing the need for inertia.

5. Replacing conventional generators with inverter-based resources, including wind, solar, and certain types of energy storage, has two counterbalancing effects. First, these resources decrease the amount of inertia available. But second, these resources can reduce the amount of inertia actually needed—and thus address the first effect. In combination, this represents a paradigm shift in how we think about providing frequency response.

 

In short, it is an historically important feature of our grid. It isn't necessarily needed moving forward. 

 

[Dahobbs 17685]

7 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

"Output" is what a plant outputs on the grid.  You seem to be only aware of real power output.

By "firming costs," do you mean all the infrastructure investment needed to make wind/solar provide the same benefits that thermal plants do?

Again, you're not reading context. Please read any of the material I've posted. You're also making very broad generalizations and assumptions without much factual support. For instance, see my post above on inertia and how renewables actually reduce the need for it. 

Firming costs are those incurred because of the intermittent nature of renewables. How that problem is resolved can vary.