ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[MonkeyDoughnut 10310]

18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Bruh. You could at least link to the document you want us to read. There's a bunch of .PDFs under that link. That are all flavors of 10-K filings. 

No shit they're a customer - a QSE would be a utility provider or someone associated with critical public infrastructure. Not a fucking imported crypto farm. But why is ERCOT picking winners and losers to give free energy to an entity that's throwing away 99.999999% of the work being done with that energy? 

The entire reason for this setup is so that power companies can artificially shrink their supply (through granting future credits) so they can raise prices for regular ratepayers. It's to keep profits up. At the expense of the residents of Texas and anyone under ERCOTs domain. 

Yeah, it's not hard to find if you want to. I get it and I don't really want to derail with any defense of the crypto industry here as there's another thread for that and that's really all this argument is about. Plenty of other industries have participated in these ERCOT programs for a long time and they are cheered and welcomed in their participation.

I don't think anyone is going to jump into starting up a mining firm in Texas to get profitable from energy sales is all I'm saying. Power is always going to be their largest expense and will never be a net credit, ever.

[Captainant 27680]

6 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I don't think anyone is going to jump into starting up a mining firm in Texas to get profitable from energy sales is all I'm saying. Power is always going to be their largest expense and will never be a net credit, ever.

Well yeah they didn't go into business to make money on energy credits. They initially wanted to turn a quick profit with imported ASIC hardware from China after they banned it nationally. Since the crypto bust, those mining firms have sought out and received an absurd level of subsidy - AND - they just had two more deregulation laws go into effect a week ago to make it easier to monetize their credits. 

 

I don't understand this simping for socializing the cost of a failing business model. 

[FartingMonk 3608]

11 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah, those 200k sq Ft commercial buildings and their ACs were just waiting for that alert on pins and needles. And HEBs across centex. I’m sure they closed their doors and turned down their open air coolers as soon as one of their checkers got a text alert. 

Hey man don't be shitting on HEB.  They are actually part of the LAARS system.  They actually have a pretty robust generator capacity and most of the time they are able to sell back electricity into the grid.  

[TexasEd 8067]

18 hours ago, YGIFS said:

If only we had like a blue ribbon panel at our Legislature to oversee when the Sun would Set, so they could inform ERCOT.  Like a "Sunset Committee" if you will.  

I understand low wind, but the guy posted with no sense of irony, "And Sunset" yesterday.  I'm an O&G guy on some deals, and we're underwriting a nuclear SMR right now, and I think solar and battery storage has so much upside (we beta tested it on our tractor-trailers years ago but it's gotten so much more efficient and cost-effective).  But I'm just fucking done listening to some of you fucking people enable ERCOT when a talking point during rolling blackouts was "Sunset", and his tone was one of arm-shrugging vibe of "Sometimes shit happens, what can you do?  I dunno."  

Is this why we switched the Daylight Savings times?  Probably made it worse.

[YGIFS 19452]

Ah-ha!  So it's not Big Oil, but rather Big Sunset that's behind this sketchy energy grid!  So when we make the switch back to Standard time in November, that's gonna screw us up even more?  I honestly don't know how so many people defend this shit with a straight face.  

I can't wait to hear what they come up with on October 14th when the totality of the annular solar eclipse over Texas blocks out the sun for an extended period of time. 

"Well, uh, you see...the grid is programmed at 80% capacity on middays of weekends.  But there were some software issues that didn't account for the blocking out of solar from 10:30-1:30p, so you get this refraction from swamp gas on venus.  And a lotta ins and outs and what have-yous" 

This is shithole country bullshit and you fucking morons know it.  

[Dahobbs 17625]

15 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

First, no one is "paying" anyone anything (ie no money is exchanging hands). The miners are getting future credit on energy use. The reason miners are in Texas is because we have huge amounts of renewable energy capacity that often goes unused.

 

2 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

https://www.riotplatforms.com/investors/sec-filings/annual-reports

Using Riot, it's in their 10k filings catorgorized as "Future Power Credits". 

Riot isn't a QSE, they are a large customer. 

This is slightly misleading. ERCOT's various Demand Response programs can do either direct payments or future credits. And you actually can get regular payments just for participating, not including credits for specific curtailments. Here, Riot appears to call either form of payment a "credit" even if it involves a direct payment to Riot. Here is an example from one of their filings:

https://www.riotplatforms.com/investors/sec-filings/annual-reports##document-4653-0001558370-23-002704-2

Quote

Power curtailment credits during the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, were $27.3 and $6.5 million, respectively, from power sales to ERCOT through its Demand Response Services Programs. Depending on the spot market price of electricity, we opportunistically sell electricity back to ERCOT in exchange for cash payments or credits against future invoices, rather than using the power for the Company’s operations during these peak times. These peak times and spot market prices can vary significantly depending on consumer demand for electricity, the time of day and extreme weather.

* * *

Under the Demand Response Services Program, depending on the spot market price of electricity, we may, when there is a benefit to our Company, offer electricity back to ERCOT in exchange for cash payments or credits against future power costs, rather than using the power for the Company’s operations during these peak times to most efficiently manage our operating costs. During the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, we sold approximately $27.3 million and $6.5 million, respectively, in electricity back to ERCOT in exchange for credits against future power costs. These sales back to ERCOT are recorded in Power curtailment credits on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

As to QSE:

Quote

In April 2021, under the provisions of the Power Supply Agreement, and as a result of the weather event, the Company entered into a Qualified Scheduling Entity (“QSE”) Letter Agreement, which resulted in the Company being entitled to receive approximately $125.1 million for its power sales during the February winter storm, all under the terms and conditions of the QSE Letter Agreement. The Company received cash of $29.0 million in April 2021 (after deducting $10.0 million in power management fees owed by Whinstone), approximately $59.7 million was credited against power bills of the Company during 2022, with the remaining $26.3 million being contingent upon ERCOT’s future remittance. These amounts are recognized gross before fair value adjustments and expenses incurred by the Company for power management fees noted above and customer settlements. The fair value of the settlement agreement was estimated and recognized as an asset as part of acquisition accounting.

It appears that Riot treats the Future Power Credits associated with this event separately from other Power Curtailment Credits, although I haven't delved into the 10k in full detail. 

 

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105158]

10 hours ago, swraith said:

Please provide a direct link to how this "future credit" works because the ERCOT settlement protocols say you are 100% wrong.

For specific refence, look at Section 9: Settlement and Billing on this page Current Protocols - Nodal (ercot.com) 

 

If your post was an attempt to create some kind of metaphor, so be it, but acknowledge that.  Because it is factually not accurate.

ERCOT has a real time settlement system.  The bitminer here contracted an amount of supply for their load.  The miner then reduced their load in real time.  The ERCOT real time settlement processes look at this imbalance.  The imbalance results in the miner have more supply than load.  ERCOT then directly pays the miner for this excess energy.  It is settled at the interval level.  This payment happens on the standard load settlement cycle.  Technically the money is going to go to the QSE hosting the miner.  However, the miner is the only "customer" in the QSE, so they are going to get all the money.  Money is changing hands.  The miner can effectively take this money and gamble it in Vegas, have a crazy party in Dubai, they could reinvest in their business, or divest it to owner's of the private company.  It is a pure windfall for the miner.  The above process is the settlement for the $24.2 million ERCOT is paying Riot for energy sold back.  

 

The $7.4 million in demand response credits is a different discussion but it only represents 23% of the $31.7 million reference in this clickbait news story.  

All of the above is neither good nor bad. It just is how a very complex set of rules have evolved with the Zonal and now Nodal markets in ERCOT.  The miner hit the jackpot.  Oh and the miner still has to pay its energy supplier for the supply it contracted for. So, subtract that expense from this new "revenue".

Quoted because this is a really good post.  It's something of a complex system, but this explains it pretty well.

ERCOT: it's system operator, and a pass-through entity.  Money goes THROUGH ERCOT, not TO ERCOT (except a small amount that is a fee to actually fund ERCOT operations -- but seriously, as a percentage of the total dollars exchanged, it's de minimis).

QSEs: these are functionally brokers only.  An entity has to be registered with ERCOT to operate as a QSE.  That means they are equipped to interface with the ERCOT system and send and receive instructions on how to dispatch or receive electricity in 5 minute intervals.  Some entities that are generators or customers are also registered as a QSE, but their operation and role as a QSE is entirely separate from their role as a generator or customer.

LSE: that is a "load serving entity."  Generally, these are the customers.  For example, the City of Austin is an LSE.  It interfaces with ERCOT through its QSE to get energy, and to pay for that energy.

RE: that is a "resource entity."  Generally, these are the entities available to put power into the grid.  So, the gas-fired plant, or the solar farm out in West Texas - those are REs.  They dispatch power into the ERCOT grid via instructions from their QSE, and they receive payment through their QSE.

Nodes: these are specific points within the system where electricity is delivered and priced (again, I'm WAY simplifying this).  So, at the Jones Node, at 9:55 a.m. today, the price of a MWh of electricity might be $55.

LMP: that's the "locational marginal price."  That's the cost of electricity at a specific location (node).  So, the LMP at the Jones Node is $55.  There are other adders that come in, depending on market conditions, but again, that's the basic structure.

RE communicates with its QSE, which in turn communicates with ERCOT, to dispatch power to a delivery point (generally, the closest node to that generator).  ERCOT sends signals through the QSE via its pricing.  If the pricing is positive, then ERCOT wants power.  If the pricing is negative, then ERCOT does NOT want power to that node (that's called "curtailment," and happens when there is a risk of too much electricity getting on to a particular link in the transmission system -- in short, too much juice can melt the lines, so ERCOT makes sure that doesn't happen), so the RE doesn't send energy to that point.

And the LSE communicates with its LSE -- we need this much power at these particular times.  And the LSE submits that request for power to ERCOT, the power goes from the node(s) closest to the LSE to the LSE to distribute to its customers.

Then, there's a whole web of how an LSE contracts for and pays for its power, but that's a whole 'nother thing.

[Captainant 27680]

Just a bit more from some Chronicle reporting...

Quote

ERCOT estimated in 2022 that bitcoin projects accounted for 33 gigawatts (GW) of energy in its interconnection queue. All Houston households combined use an estimated 6 GW per year by comparison.

So these cryptofucks are burning more than FIVE HOUSTON'S worth of residential electricity usage annually. AND WE'RE FUCKING PAYING THEM TO TURN OFF WHEN WE NEED SOME MORE ENERGY! And we all get to pay an extra $25 a month on our bills to fund this shit.

 

It's pants-on-head stupid. 

[BrickHorn 18237]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just a bit more from some Chronicle reporting...

So these cryptofucks are burning more than FIVE HOUSTON'S worth of residential electricity usage annually. AND WE'RE FUCKING PAYING THEM TO TURN OFF WHEN WE NEED SOME MORE ENERGY! And we all get to pay an extra $25 a month on our bills to fund this shit.

 

It's pants-on-head stupid. 

Look, crypto mining is far from perfect. But it’s the only market-based solution to a problem caused by relying on the free market for energy. 

It would be extremely wasteful to over-invest in power plants that are only needed during extreme weather events that happen only very rarely. Like the 100-year ice storms we have every two years. Or summer.

Edited September 8, 2023 by BrickHorn

[Dahobbs 17625]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Quoted because this is a really good post.  It's something of a complex system, but this explains it pretty well.

ERCOT: it's system operator, and a pass-through entity.  Money goes THROUGH ERCOT, not TO ERCOT (except a small amount that is a fee to actually fund ERCOT operations -- but seriously, as a percentage of the total dollars exchanged, it's de minimis).

QSEs: these are functionally brokers only.  An entity has to be registered with ERCOT to operate as a QSE.  That means they are equipped to interface with the ERCOT system and send and receive instructions on how to dispatch or receive electricity in 5 minute intervals.  Some entities that are generators or customers are also registered as a QSE, but their operation and role as a QSE is entirely separate from their role as a generator or customer.

LSE: that is a "load serving entity."  Generally, these are the customers.  For example, the City of Austin is an LSE.  It interfaces with ERCOT through its QSE to get energy, and to pay for that energy.

RE: that is a "resource entity."  Generally, these are the entities available to put power into the grid.  So, the gas-fired plant, or the solar farm out in West Texas - those are REs.  They dispatch power into the ERCOT grid via instructions from their QSE, and they receive payment through their QSE.

Nodes: these are specific points within the system where electricity is delivered and priced (again, I'm WAY simplifying this).  So, at the Jones Node, at 9:55 a.m. today, the price of a MWh of electricity might be $55.

LMP: that's the "locational marginal price."  That's the cost of electricity at a specific location (node).  So, the LMP at the Jones Node is $55.  There are other adders that come in, depending on market conditions, but again, that's the basic structure.

RE communicates with its QSE, which in turn communicates with ERCOT, to dispatch power to a delivery point (generally, the closest node to that generator).  ERCOT sends signals through the QSE via its pricing.  If the pricing is positive, then ERCOT wants power.  If the pricing is negative, then ERCOT does NOT want power to that node (that's called "curtailment," and happens when there is a risk of too much electricity getting on to a particular link in the transmission system -- in short, too much juice can melt the lines, so ERCOT makes sure that doesn't happen), so the RE doesn't send energy to that point.

And the LSE communicates with its LSE -- we need this much power at these particular times.  And the LSE submits that request for power to ERCOT, the power goes from the node(s) closest to the LSE to the LSE to distribute to its customers.

Then, there's a whole web of how an LSE contracts for and pays for its power, but that's a whole 'nother thing.

Great post. I'll just add that Resource Entities include both generating resources and load resources. Load resources are like the bitcoin miners in that they can reduce their usage, freeing up capacity. ERCOT has a handful of programs that Load Resources can participate in to generate cash or credits for curtailing their use of energy. It seems likely that Riot is operating as a Controllable Load Resource, although it appears they are registered through some subsidiary so it is hard to find them in public listings. 

[Captainant 27680]

5 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

It would be extremely wasteful to over-invest in power plants that are only needed during extreme weather events that happen only very rarely. Like the 100-year ice storms we have every two years. Or summer.

Building a more stable grid with safer operating margins is not "wasteful". It's only "wasteful" if you're some business ghoul that thinks profitability is more important than people's health and safety.

Literally every other market has a reserve capacity function - not just a "committed capacity" (that has no serious repercussions if you welch) - that provides more cushion and stability. 

It's just harder to do an Enron in a market like that, so ERCOT has built their market to allow for this sort of wild instability that is more hospitable to higher customer prices and improved profitability.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Captainant

[Dahobbs 17625]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Building a more stable grid with safer operating margins is not "wasteful". It's only "wasteful" if you're some business ghoul that thinks profitability is more important than people's health and safety.

Literally every other market has a reserve capacity function - not just a "committed capacity" (that has no serious repercussions if you welch) - that provides more cushion and stability. 

It's just harder to do an Enron in a market like that, so ERCOT has built their market to allow for this sort of wild instability that is more hospitable to higher customer prices and improved profitability.

You may have missed some sarcasm. Or maybe I'm imagining it. 

[Brisketexan 105158]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Great post. I'll just add that Resource Entities include both generating resources and load resources. Load resources are like the bitcoin miners in that they can reduce their usage, freeing up capacity. ERCOT has a handful of programs that Load Resources can participate in to generate cash or credits for curtailing their use of energy. It seems likely that Riot is operating as a Controllable Load Resource, although it appears they are registered through some subsidiary so it is hard to find them in public listings. 

Good follow-up -- thanks.

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You may have missed some sarcasm. Or maybe I'm imagining it. 

And yeah, this.

Texas made a philosophical choice to take electric power, which had long been treated and regulated as a public utility (pay attention to the plain english meaning of those words), and turn it instead into a purely market-based activity.  Sure, there's a "market design" that is the regulatory overlay, but that market design is pretty much a "make money....and if you want more power, pay a lot more money" design.

Contrasting market designs exist....pretty much everywhere.  Most of those places don't have the problems we have (shit reliability).  And when the Texas electric market was "deregulated," it was 100% sold as a pitch of "consumer choice!  Will be cheaper!".....which is bullshit.  Texas is pretty much smack-dab in the middle of average electricity prices in the US -- typically ranked something close to 25th out of 50 states.  We don't have the worst prices (those are in the northeast (mostly New England), California, Alaska, and Hawaii), but we also are pretty far from the best prices.

Now, if we want to have a more reliable grid, we're going to try about 100 things (other than the one thing that would make sense: a capacity market element), all of which will cost us more money, and will be much better at putting ratepayer money into private hands than it actually will be at making sure we have sufficient power, than a capacity market element would work (short summary on what a capacity market is: you pay some adder on all power costs to pay for backup power supplies to be ready and available.  It works a lot like insurance, in that you pay a premium every month whether you need to make a claim or not.  BUT, when you need to make a claim (e.g., February of 2021), you are damned glad the insurance is there.  OR, if you chose NOT to pay for that insurance, when a calamity strikes...you're fucked.  Texas chose "we'll be fucked."  It hasn't un-chosen that yet).

ERCOT continues to work as designed: almost zero margin for error or protection against high demand/calamity, and a jillion mechanisms for making sure that lots of ratepayer dollars keep flowing into the pockets of the donor class.  The fact that your lights are working right now is incidental to that market design and purpose.

[Nathan Jessep 147]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Just a bit more from some Chronicle reporting...

So these cryptofucks are burning more than FIVE HOUSTON'S worth of residential electricity usage annually. AND WE'RE FUCKING PAYING THEM TO TURN OFF WHEN WE NEED SOME MORE ENERGY! And we all get to pay an extra $25 a month on our bills to fund this shit.

 

It's pants-on-head stupid. 

Let me get this straight. This is complicated to me. 
 

We just hit a demand record of ~85GW the other day. 
 

Bitcoin mining is up to 33GW of usage?

 

So bitcoin mining is almost 40% of capacity, but when needed they turn off and give power back to the grid for money? These seem like crazy numbers. 
 

I guess the flip side is how much of that capacity would be profitable and running for ercot if there weren’t bitcoin miners using the electricity at lower demand times. 
 

 

[wildcat09 29355]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Just a bit more from some Chronicle reporting...

So these cryptofucks are burning more than FIVE HOUSTON'S worth of residential electricity usage annually. AND WE'RE FUCKING PAYING THEM TO TURN OFF WHEN WE NEED SOME MORE ENERGY! And we all get to pay an extra $25 a month on our bills to fund this shit.

 

It's pants-on-head stupid. 

The only sensible thing to do is to burn them all to the ground.

[Dahobbs 17625]

8 minutes ago, Nathan Jessep said:

Let me get this straight. This is complicated to me. 
 

We just hit a demand record of ~85GW the other day. 
 

Bitcoin mining is up to 33GW of usage?

 

So bitcoin mining is almost 40% of capacity, but when needed they turn off and give power back to the grid for money? These seem like crazy numbers. 
 

I guess the flip side is how much of that capacity would be profitable and running for ercot if there weren’t bitcoin miners using the electricity at lower demand times. 
 

 

The Chronicle article was clearly not reviewed by anyone with technical expertise. Those figures mix apples and oranges. The 33 GWs refers to planned projects requesting to connect to the grid, many of which will never come online or will not do so for years. The 6 GWs for Houston refers to actual (I assume peak? average?) power usage for Houston homes. The article also uses the term energy consumption, which isn't typically measured in watts but rather watt hours. Watts just tell you instantaneous power, not total energy consumption over time. As an example, running at 1 GW for 1 hour will consume 1 GWh of energy. Your figure on record demand refers to actual peak usage for the day.

I think right now there about 2 GWs of Bitcoin projects connected to the grid. That just means that at any one moment they could draw up to a max of 2 GW of power. I assume these sort of project runs pretty close to maximum as much as possible, but I don't really know one way or the other.  

[TexasEd 8067]

What if we charged the Bitcoin guys a flexible rate based on surplus capacity instead of refunds/credits when we want them to shut down.  Get out of the subsidization of their business model and make it true market based.

 

We have 1 GW excess price = x

We have 10 GW excess price = .9x

We have a shortfall and the price grows to 3x or 4x,  a point that it is unprofitable to stay online, so market forces cause them to drop offline.

This model would probably actually encourage more investment in production to capture the surge pricing.

There are things to work out but that would be better than corporate welfare for bitcoin

Edited September 8, 2023 by TexasEd

[Dahobbs 17625]

7 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

What if we charged the Bitcoin guys a flexible rate based on surplus capacity instead of refunds/credits when we want them to shut down.  Get out of the subsidization of their business model and make it true market based.

 

We have 1 GW excess price = x

We have 10 GW excess price = .9x

We have a shortfall and the price grows to 3x or 4x,  a point that it is unprofitable to stay online, so market forces cause them to drop offline.

This model would probably actually encourage more investment in production to capture the surge pricing.

There are things to work out but that would be better than corporate welfare for bitcoin

That's essentially how the ERCOT market is supposed to work. Price is supposed to simultaneously encourage capacity to come online and encourage demand to drop where possible. Of course, just like residential power, businesses aren't typically exposing themselves to the real time market price, but rather locking up long term rates. The Demand Load programs are a way to reintroduce short-term price based incentives to entities that typically wouldn't be subject to them.  But, this model also means our power supply will, by its nature, be lean, since power generators want prices to be higher. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Dahobbs

[TexasEd 8067]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

That's essentially how the ERCOT market is supposed to work. Price is supposed to simultaneously encourage capacity to come online and encourage demand to drop where possible. Of course, just like residential power, businesses aren't typically exposing themselves to the real time market price, but rather locking up long term rates. The Demand Load programs are a way to reintroduce short-term price based incentives to entities that typically wouldn't be subject to them.    

Yes, but instead of market forces influencing behavior we have subsidies that encourage bringing consumption online instead of production.

[Nathan Jessep 147]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The Chronicle article was clearly not reviewed by anyone with technical expertise. Those figures mix apples and oranges. The 33 GWs refers to planned projects requesting to connect to the grid, many of which will never come online or will not do so for years. The 6 GWs for Houston refers to actual (I assume peak? average?) power usage for Houston homes. The article also uses the term energy consumption, which isn't typically measured in watts but rather watt hours. Watts just tell you instantaneous power, not total energy consumption over time. As an example, running at 1 GW for 1 hour will consume 1 GWh of energy. Your figure on record demand refers to actual peak usage for the day.

I think right now there about 2 GWs of Bitcoin projects connected to the grid. That just means that at any one moment they could draw up to a max of 2 GW of power. I assume these sort of project runs pretty close to maximum as much as possible, but I don't really know one way or the other.  

Thanks for the explanation. Typical contemporary news story. Outrage achieved. Clicks attained. Mission accomplished. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

6 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Yes, but instead of market forces influencing behavior we have subsidies that encourage bringing consumption online instead of production.

I understand what you're saying, but my point is that your model isn't any different than how ERCOT functions now. Your solution is to get rid of Demand Response programs and I guess to force Bitcoin miners pay the real time prices. The former would likely reduce the incentive to build new demand, but it doesn't change the incentives on the capacity side. I don't see anyway the latter could be enforced or why you'd want that over just creating an actual capacity market. 

[Brisketexan 105158]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I don't see anyway the latter could be enforced or why you'd want that over just creating an actual capacity market. 

This.  The whole conversation about reliability is effectively this:

"If only there were a way to make sure that we could be made whole if something happens to our house."

"There is.  It's called 'insurance.'"

"No, not that.  I'm thinking we can create a complex web of attempted incentives that will spur third parties to pay us money if something happens to our house."

"But we could do that directly, by buying insurance."

"I know!  We could create incentives that would result in us paying $10k a year to third parties, and hopefully they'll pay us money if something happens to our house."

"But....we could pay $5k a year in insurance premiums, and that insurance policy absolutely WILL pay us money if something happens to our house.  Every other person who owns a house in the US does it this way."

"That sounds like socialism.  And the insurance company hasn't written the governor a campaign contribution check yet.  So, we're gonna go with our plan instead of this cockamamie 'insurance' idea you keep pitching."

[Captainant 27680]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That's essentially how the ERCOT market is supposed to work. Price is supposed to simultaneously encourage capacity to come online and encourage demand to drop where possible. Of course, just like residential power, businesses aren't typically exposing themselves to the real time market price, but rather locking up long term rates. The Demand Load programs are a way to reintroduce short-term price based incentives to entities that typically wouldn't be subject to them.  But, this model also means our power supply will, by its nature, be lean, since power generators want prices to be higher. 

This is a fucking problem. We should not have utility operators and exchange platforms seeking to intentionally increase the price of their utility through induced instability. That's literally just doing an Enron.

 

Also, lulz at the "new" poster chiming in to downplay the cryptofuck subsidy. Is it a new GRUhorn sock I smell?

[texasdago 7575]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The 6 GWs for Houston refers to actual (I assume peak? average?) power usage for Houston homes. The article also uses the term energy consumption, which isn't typically measured in watts but rather watt hours. Watts just tell you instantaneous power, not total energy consumption over time. As an example, running at 1 GW for 1 hour will consume 1 GWh of energy. Your figure on record demand refers to actual peak usage for the day.

I think right now there about 2 GWs of Bitcoin projects connected to the grid. That just means that at any one moment they could draw up to a max of 2 GW of power.

Soooo... even if the article is not quite clear, what we're saying is... crypto miners consume the same amount of power as about 300,000 Houston households.  I feel much better now.  

[Brisketexan 105158]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

But, this model also means our power supply will, by its nature, be lean, since power generators want prices to be higher. 

 

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This is a fucking problem. We should not have utility operators and exchange platforms seeking to intentionally increase the price of their utility through induced instability. That's literally just doing an Enron.

It's the EXACT problem with our market design.  Any economist -- fuck, anyone who got better than a D in Intro to Economics -- will tell you that the "sweet spot" for that market design is "JUST ENOUGH power....and not a MW more."  

That design is functionally GUARANTEED to result in shortfalls whenever there are major spikes in demand and/or major outages in supply.

Only an idiot would take a 20 mile walk through the desert with JUST ENOUGH water for a healthy person to walk for 20 miles.  What if one of the water bottles springs a leak?  What if you twist your ankle, slowing your pace and causing your demand for water to be 20% more than it would have been?  Bringing "just enough" water is a good way to fucking die.  But....that's what Texas has done.  Because it's more important to make massive profits on that last liter of water than to have a modest rate of return on all the liters of water, including the extra liter you carry as insurance.

[Dahobbs 17625]

20 minutes ago, texasdago said:

Soooo... even if the article is not quite clear, what we're saying is... crypto miners consume the same amount of power as about 300,000 Houston households.  I feel much better now.  

I think a better way to phrase is that crypto miners have the capability to use as much instantaneous power as 300,000 Houston households. I don't think we have enough data in this thread to compare the total energy consumption. If crypto miners use on average 2 GW of power and Houston households use on average 6 GW of power, then you'd be right. 

[atomheartbevo 89732]

Luckily, things are going to be tight for the next 3 hours.

[Nathan Jessep 147]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

This is a fucking problem. We should not have utility operators and exchange platforms seeking to intentionally increase the price of their utility through induced instability. That's literally just doing an Enron.

 

Also, lulz at the "new" poster chiming in to downplay the cryptofuck subsidy. Is it a new GRUhorn sock I smell?

I like how seeking clarification on some gaudy numbers gets you accused of being some dipshit crypto poster. 
 

Seems that you’re a little embarrassed you got emotionally triggered by some obviously off numbers. You must be easily duped.
 

A little healthy skepticism is always warranted. 

[Guest]

On 9/5/2023 at 11:47 PM, Dahobbs said:

Nah man. It is more like I think Quarterback Rating it is a useful, but incomplete metric for comparing QB play. @axiom of foundation thinks it is a useless metric because it does not consider strength of schedule, strength of line and WR play, or play calling. For some reason he also feels inclined to declare that I know nothing about football. LCOE is similar. It provides a set metric to compare the overall cost of producing electricity at the facility level, but doesn't provide any information about the cost of incorporating facilities into a specific electric grid. In order to figure that latter cost, you have to expand beyond the facility and consider a variety of outside factors that will vary between different grids and overtime, like how the electric grid in question is configured, what percentage of the grid renewables currently account for, and what your goal state is.  You definitely want that information, but you also (should) want the more basic and direct comparison that doesn't include a bunch of factors not directly tied to facilities. 

Kind of. Adjusted earnings and GAAP can both be useful or misleading if used on their own, it just depends on the specific context.

The truth is that converting the grid in the United States to a high percentage of renewables will be very expensive. Some of those costs are going to in the nature of one-time capital costs, like needed upgrades to transmission in order to accommodate more distributed generation. Other costs will be ongoing, e.g., energy storage costs and the need to overbuild capacity. A truly honest analysis would also take into account benefits of a renewable grid, mainly reduction in carbon footprint (and reduction in the costs associated with climate change), but also including the resiliency and stability benefits of fully converted grid (e.g., quicker reactions to changes in voltage/load, distributed generation preventing single points of failure, and better interconnects allowing compensation for regional outages), and including a reduction in ongoing costs once everything is setup. 

By the way, a good part of the reason why essentially all of Texas' planned new generation is intermittent renewable is because the Texas energy market doesn't have a mechanism to directly account for needed backup capacity. See @Brisketexan constant call for a capacity market in Texas. We run lean by design. And running lean why relying on an increasing amount of intermittent energy isn't the best idea. 

On page 39 you said NG was not cheaper than renewables and gave a chart comparing LCOE to support the claim.  I said that LCOE is not a useful metric to compare them because it doesn’t account for all relevant factors.  You then refer to other posts and reports you have linked elsewhere that reference these additional costs & factors and somehow believe justifies it all.  I ignore all of that because using LCOE as justification for the claim NG is not cheaper doesn’t suddenly make sense as long as you link other reports that show there are other relevant costs not in LCOE that should be considered.  
 

You used a metric to compare energy sources that even your own references claim should not be used for that purpose. 

[Dnaguy 12002]

Not ERCOT per se but my August CPS bill for ~4450 kWh was $591 bucks.

Ouch.

[C-Man 27230]

12 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Not ERCOT per se but my August CPS bill for ~4450 kWh was $591 bucks.

Ouch.

My bill for the past month was $650 or so. It's never been close to that high and we've been in this house since 2016.

[Brisketexan 105158]

5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

My bill for the past month was $650 or so. It's never been close to that high and we've been in this house since 2016.

I haven't even looked at my bill.  I don't want to.  And you fuckers can't make me, so fuck off.

[Dnaguy 12002]

8 minutes ago, C-Man said:

My bill for the past month was $650 or so. It's never been close to that high and we've been in this house since 2016.

 

Seriously.

 

The CPS add-ons, summer escalators, etc. are getting stupid.

 

Let's not monkey around here. Either really help me get some solar panels / power wall action or stop with the gamesmanship.

 

What is a fucking going on with all these shenanigans adders?

 

IDK what it is, but a service availability charge is rich. But my main beef is all the other shit:

 

 

Peak capacity charge.....

Fuel adjustmett.....

Regulatory adjustment...

[Captainant 27680]

1 hour ago, Nathan Jessep said:

I like how seeking clarification on some gaudy numbers gets you accused of being some dipshit crypto poster. 

Seems that you’re a little embarrassed you got emotionally triggered by some obviously off numbers. You must be easily duped.

This is surly, nobody gets embarrassed. But we do have a bad rash of trolls that keep making new sock accounts and acting like someone new only to take the mask off later. You seem to fit the bill ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

Either way, the end result is still that our grid is needlessly unstable, our bills for power are significantly higher than it's ever been per kwhr, and we are still giving cryptofuckbros free money for simply not using power. And it's all funded by the above insane fees and bill creep. 

 

But sure, because chron had some not great analysis that means there's no problems whatsoever right? I just don't get your glee to distract from the actual real issue that's affecting literally the entire state. 

[Anastasis 23475]

40 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Not ERCOT per se but my August CPS bill for ~4450 kWh was $591 bucks.

Aug 2022: $488 4084 kwh

Aug 2023: $514 3874 kwh

[Dahobbs 17625]

2 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

On page 39 you said NG was not cheaper than renewables and gave a chart comparing LCOE to support the claim.  I said that LCOE is not a useful metric to compare them because it doesn’t account for all relevant factors.  You then refer to other posts and reports you have linked elsewhere that reference these additional costs & factors and somehow believe justifies it all.  I ignore all of that because using LCOE as justification for the claim NG is not cheaper doesn’t suddenly make sense as long as you link other reports that show there are other relevant costs not in LCOE that should be considered.  
 

You used a metric to compare energy sources that even your own references claim should not be used for that purpose. 

You can compare costs at different levels. LCOE will tell you how much it costs the facility to produce to power. It'll tell you the pricing levels needed for a facility to operate and it'll help explain private actors decisions on what type of facilities to build. LCOE is a useful metric for understanding and predicting private investment in power generation facilities, which is what we were discussing.

Separately, there are externalities associated with different types of generations. Those externalities are, by definition, external to the facility, and thus don't affect a private actor's decision on what type of facilities to invest in and operate. Different types of externalities are going to be important to look at depending on the level of analysis. For instance, if you just wanted to expand the analysis to include direct effects on the grid, you'd want to look at factors like grid stability, additional transmission needed, and other grid wide capital expenditures necessary to incorporate new types of facilities. You'd also want to consider that some of those costs are ongoing and some are one time affairs associated with converting an existing grid rather than building anew. And you may also want to do a higher level of analysis that looks at externalities to the grid itself. In that case you'd want to consider the impact of things like CO2 emissions, global warming, particulates, and downstream health effects. 

My response to you has simply been that we need to put all of these costs in separate buckets so that they can be grouped and ungrouped as needed depending on the type of analysis we are doing.

Further, you continue to misrepresent and ignore the actual words of my posts. In my very first response to your question as to whether LCOE of intermittent and dispatchable generation can be compared, I said yes, although it is an incomplete picture. Prior to you even entering this thread, I had posted extensively about the high costs associated with making renewables a high percentage of the grid and how those costs accelerate as you convert to higher percentages of intermittent energy. 

Your citation to the Breakthrough Institute, a entity whose primary purpose appears to be to challenge any attempted action on climate change while providing a façade of scientific reasonableness, raises some suspicion. I'm also confused by your refusal to accept any hard numbers or estimates for the things you say you want analyzed.

• You asked for a figure that included grid level costs to renewables, I provided you a set firming costs estimates based on differing assumptions (I also pointed out numerous studies address this topic and it varies depending on level of renewable penetration);
• You asked for a comparison that included CO2 costs associated with thermal generation, again I provided an example of that figure

Rather than acknowledge any of that or discuss whatever issues you have with Lazard's firming costs analysis, you continue to argue about LCOE and insult my intelligence. If you want to actually discuss these things, then let's have at it. Maybe you can even find some sources, models, and estimates of your own that you prefer. 

[C-Man 27230]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

 

Seriously.

 

The CPS add-ons, summer escalators, etc. are getting stupid.

 

Let's not monkey around here. Either really help me get some solar panels / power wall action or stop with the gamesmanship.

 

What is a fucking going on with all these shenanigans adders?

 

IDK what it is, but a service availability charge is rich. But my main beef is all the other shit:

 

 

Peak capacity charge.....

Fuel adjustmett.....

Regulatory adjustment...

This is making me look back at last summer's at the same time. It's actually pretty close to last year's at this time, closer than I remember. I'm with EnergyOgre. My last company was PowerNext and I was paying 12.7 cents per kWh. Now I'm with Value Power and like 6.3 cents per kWh. However, I'm getting hammered with a PASSCHG:TDSP Passthru Charge that I didn't have last summer. I've used about the same amount of electricity and bills are same but looks like different charges.

This year's Value Power bill:

Last year's for July (used about the same kWh) -- my bill this time a year ago was less kWh and less overall so thought July was a better comparison.

[Dahobbs 17625]

6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

This is making me look back at last summer's at the same time. It's actually pretty close to last year's at this time, closer than I remember. I'm with EnergyOgre. My last company was PowerNext and I was paying 12.7 cents per kWh. Now I'm with Value Power and like 6.3 cents per kWh. However, I'm getting hammered with a PASSCHG:TDSP Passthru Charge that I didn't have last summer. I've used about the same amount of electricity and bills are same but looks like different charges.

This year's Value Power bill:

Last year's for July (used about the same kWh) -- my bill this time a year ago was less kWh and less overall so thought July was a better comparison.

Here is mine. Total energy usage for August was 2,752 kWh (not all reflected below because of solar panels):

[Firemans4Horn 18110]

Brown out in east Dallas. My AC was set at 79 prior to power loss. Fuck you Abbott and your piece of shit donors. 

[Hpara759 1780]

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

My bill for the past month was $650 or so. It's never been close to that high and we've been in this house since 2016.

SQ. Feet?

 

[YGIFS 19452]

Fucking sun is setting again at almost the same time as last time.  Fucking smarmy ass bullshit you ask me.  What, if just clocks out when it fucking feels like it as if it's some lazy immigrant with no work ethic?  Hyperion, specifically told me, it would ride the Sun Chariot across the sky until ERCOT felt it was adequately supplied and he could rest...wherever it is the fuck sky horses nap at night.  I dunno.  

I mean, I can talk to my wizard friends about what time the sun may rise again tomorrow so as to properly prepare the energy blend for proper coverage on a weekend.  But nobody knows these things except sorcerers and llamas.  

[AUS-97HORN 11809]

KUT had an interesting article

saying that the main triggering issue might actually be the inability to transmit power from the places its being made to the places its needed because at peak need the transmission lines arent able to handle the power surge

Quote

What happened to the grid in South Texas?

 

During the power emergency, ERCOT worried that a transmission line that runs power from South Texas to the rest of the state could overload with electricity. That put the transmission line itself at risk of, essentially, frying. Rather than risk the line tripping off or breaking down, ERCOT cut the flow of power running over the system right when people needed it most.

Given the fact that the power was moving from wind-rich South Texas, it seems likely it was wind-generated electricity that was curtailed.

That complicates the grid operator's frequent suggestions that low wind output is responsible for this summer’s requests for energy conservation. There was, apparently, wind power being produced in the state on Wednesday. The grid simply didn’t have the capacity to move it.

“All the wind that was on in the south was struggling to get to Dallas to help meet demand,” former ERCOT head Brad Jones told Bloomberg. “So right in the middle of this, ERCOT had to reduce generation in the south to prevent that line from being overloaded.”

Jones says ERCOT needed to cut about 1,000 megawatts. That’s about enough energy to power 200,000 homes, a significant amount of power in an energy emergency.

In an email to KUT, ERCOT confirmed that “a transmission limitation in the south Texas region that restricted the flow of generation out of South Texas to the rest of the grid” factored into Wednesday’s emergency.

 

[Cap33 384]

3 hours ago, C-Man said:

My bill for the past month was $650 or so. It's never been close to that high and we've been in this house since 2016.

$620 here. 

I feel like I need a generator for the ice storms and solar panels for the summer bills to cover everything that the utilities should be able to handle in the 21st century. Fuck you, ERCOT.

[Brisketexan 105158]

KUT had an interesting article
saying that the main triggering issue might actually be the inability to transmit power from the places its being made to the places its needed because at peak need the transmission lines arent able to handle the power surge

What happened to the grid in South Texas?

 

During the power emergency, ERCOT worried that a transmission line that runs power from South Texas to the rest of the state could overload with electricity. That put the transmission line itself at risk of, essentially, frying. Rather than risk the line tripping off or breaking down, ERCOT cut the flow of power running over the system right when people needed it most.

Given the fact that the power was moving from wind-rich South Texas, it seems likely it was wind-generated electricity that was curtailed.

That complicates the grid operator's frequent suggestions that low wind output is responsible for this summer’s requests for energy conservation. There was, apparently, wind power being produced in the state on Wednesday. The grid simply didn’t have the capacity to move it.

“All the wind that was on in the south was struggling to get to Dallas to help meet demand,” former ERCOT head Brad Jones told Bloomberg. “So right in the middle of this, ERCOT had to reduce generation in the south to prevent that line from being overloaded.”

Jones says ERCOT needed to cut about 1,000 megawatts. That’s about enough energy to power 200,000 homes, a significant amount of power in an energy emergency.

In an email to KUT, ERCOT confirmed that “a transmission limitation in the south Texas region that restricted the flow of generation out of South Texas to the rest of the grid” factored into Wednesday’s emergency.

 

Power output being curtailed because of congested transmission lines is a huge issue. It’s going to take years to catch up…if we ever do.

This happens ALL THE TIME.

[Armybrat 40851]

My latest bill, due Sept. 22….. 

we used 1518 kw last month and the bill is $362, the highest ever for 2,060 sq/ft.

 

[Captainant 27680]

32 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

KUT had an interesting article

saying that the main triggering issue might actually be the inability to transmit power from the places its being made to the places its needed because at peak need the transmission lines arent able to handle the power surge

 

Lack of transmission capacity was identified as a deficiency in 2011 and again in 2021. There's loads of power being generated but not enough bandwidth to send it to where it's needed. 

It's not news, but it's not profitable to fix it because it would lower the price of power in high demand locations. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

26 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

My latest bill, due Sept. 22….. 

we used 1518 kw last month and the bill is $362, the highest ever for 2,060 sq/ft.

 

You need to find a different energy plan. That's way too high for that amount of energy. 

[Armybrat 40851]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You need to find a different energy plan. That's way too high for that amount of energy. 

Last year it was only about $210. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

Just now, Armybrat said:

Last year it was only about $210. 

That's still pretty expensive. A good plan would have you paying between 10 and 12 cents per kwh on average. 210 for the same usage is 14.  362 is 24. The first is ok. The latter is just unacceptable. 

[Armybrat 40851]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That's still pretty expensive. A good plan would have you paying between 10 and 12 cents per kwh on average. 210 for the same usage is 14.  362 is 24. The first is ok. The latter is just unacceptable. 

Yeah, TXU has gotten too damn greedy.

And we had 15” of insulation blown in the attic just 5 years ago (after the original settled a lot in the previous 22 years.