ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[StruggleBus 3922]

18 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

That’s just puro San Antonio

[horn4life 3758]

15 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

That’s just puro San Antonio

Dude!  In Texas that's the only sort of infrastructure you can get.... without a toll....

[Cement 314]

 

[DDD Dad 14272]

 

No commentary so as not to CR.

[SimonBolivar 10949]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

 

No commentary so as not to CR.

But why?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

As a former AG you would think he would be opposed to price gouging.

[DDD Dad 14272]

13 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

But why?

I'm not going to comment as I don't know that it's appropriate to do so here.  

[Captainant 27523]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

But why?

Because fuck you, shareholders aren't gonna increase their own value

[Captainant 27523]

hooray for an independent power grid that's managed like clockwork! 

 

[Horns99 155]

So more rapes will occur in the Texas dark, but fewer transgender medical procedures can occur in the Texas dark.  
4-D chess, yo.  
No CR, but not a great sign of leadership when one of the biggest political appointees in the U.S. uses the "I was just following orders" defense under oath.  

Why don’t you take that shit to CR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Lobo]

My bad on the first part, last Winter still stings.  Still, somebody is gonna have to answer for what the ERCOT Chief said  under oath.  A thread about ERCOT may invariably lead to its billing practices.  I'm told that's what those long envelopes in my mailbox every month are all about.  Texans, on a thread about ERCOT, have a right to inquire about why they chose the billing practices they did, and more curiously---why the strange timing? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

We should aspire for a power grid like California.  Where they have brownouts when it hits 85

[Guest Lobo]

Absolutely not.  It's not binary.  With all of of our energy production capability, we should certainly have something more reliable than we do.  And we shouldn't charge the maximum amount allowed to the end-users, who suffered horribly due to incompetence.  It's not just a California-esque system, or an ERCOT-esque system.  There are plenty of states with more turbulent weather than Texas has, with little to no energy resources (relatively speaking) who get by just fine during their extreme months of the year.  

Nobody wants California's brownouts.  But you're telling me we can't be like one of a dozen other states that experiences mild winters, hot summers, but can somehow keep their shit together despite having a fraction of our production capability, even in the face of unique weather phenomenon.  The sun shines almost every day, we have plenty of room for wind turbines, a robust amount of coal and nuclear, and we are swimming in natural gas.  That's not like most states, that's unique to Texas and Texas alone.  Our grid's leadership should reflect that unique advantage.  Power goes out, people die in extreme elements, people get gouged by utility companies, incompetent people lead the public sector.  I can accept all of those.  But I cannot accept them all at the same time.  

[Brisketexan 104802]

Absolutely not.  It's not binary.  With all of of our energy production capability, we should certainly have something more reliable than we do.  And we shouldn't charge the maximum amount allowed to the end-users, who suffered horribly due to incompetence.  It's not just a California-esque system, or an ERCOT-esque system.  There are plenty of states with more turbulent weather than Texas has, with little to no energy resources (relatively speaking) who get by just fine during their extreme months of the year.  
Nobody wants California's brownouts.  But you're telling me we can't be like one of a dozen other states that experiences mild winters, hot summers, but can somehow keep their shit together despite having a fraction of our production capability, even in the face of unique weather phenomenon.  The sun shines almost every day, we have plenty of room for wind turbines, a robust amount of coal and nuclear, and we are swimming in natural gas.  That's not like most states, that's unique to Texas and Texas alone.  Our grid's leadership should reflect that unique advantage.  Power goes out, people die in extreme elements, people get gouged by utility companies, incompetent people lead the public sector.  I can accept all of those.  But I cannot accept them all at the same time.  

Maybe we could aspire to another grid that outperforms both ours and California’s. Mississippi would work. Maybe someday we can perform as well as…..Mississippi.

[Captainant 27523]

28 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

We should aspire for a power grid like California.  Where they have brownouts when it hits 85

 

[FartingMonk 3606]

Y'all are foolish.  Hot wheels didn't have anything to do with it.  ERCOT didn't have anything to do with it.  It was the power makers themselves who fucked up.  ERCOT implemented something called LAARS.  But all the major OG companies assumed it was for summer when the grid gets taxed.  The winter time is when they actually think they get a relief.  But then you have bean counters and money allocation and "freeze protection" upgrades.  Well guess what is always cut from the budget when it comes to to turn arounds.  That's right freeze protection.  Do you think any company is willing to do that again?  Hell I think the unit I worked at lost 80 million dollars from repairs and unit being down because they skimped on a 500k upgrade.  The grid is fine as long as the companies don't cut corners for profits.  

[Captainant 27523]

2 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

The grid is fine as long as the companies don't cut corners for profits.  

[Laughs in shareholder value]

[FartingMonk 3606]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

[Laughs in shareholder value]

Yep.  As long as the business group is allowed to outvote the operations and engineering group we will keep having these problems

[crash_davis 23090]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

We should aspire for a power grid like California.  Where they have brownouts when it hits 85

Newsflash. California's brownout affected roughly 500k customers for 2 hours on night and 320K customers for less than 2 hours the next night.

Our fucking grid was short 30 fucking GIGAWATTS affecting 5 million fucking people for over several fucking days which also killed at least 150 people.

If only we were as lucky as California.

Show your ass much?

[Guest Lobo]

It killed way more than 150 people.  But doctors and medical examiners were incorrectly coding causes of death so as to get more money from Big Wind.

Don't even get me started on Wind Cancer.  

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21100]

9 hours ago, crash_davis said:

Newsflash. California's brownout affected roughly 500k customers for 2 hours on night and 320K customers for less than 2 hours the next night.

Our fucking grid was short 30 fucking GIGAWATTS affecting 5 million fucking people for over several fucking days which also killed at least 150 people.

If only we were as lucky as California.

Show your ass much?

Every fucking time he posts anything. 

[crash_davis 23090]

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/ercot-rising-temperatures/285-5a440e19-0443-4364-a94c-1619fb938923

 

[Catpfish 618]

Ercot asking plants to defer maintenance to meet expected demand this weekend.  Are they going to postpone all the way until the temperature gets back to the mid-70s for highs?  I don't think the demand is going to go down anytime soon.

[Captainant 27523]

Just now, Catpfish said:

Ercot asking plants to defer maintenance to meet expected demand this weekend.  Are they going to postpone all the way until the temperature gets back to the mid-70s for highs?  I don't think the demand is going to go down anytime soon.

They'll defer it until a nice cool and quiet weekend, like Memorial Day!

[crash_davis 23090]

1 minute ago, Catpfish said:

Ercot asking plants to defer maintenance to meet expected demand this weekend.  Are they going to postpone all the way until the temperature gets back to the mid-70s for highs?  I don't think the demand is going to go down anytime soon.

it's already May. we aren't seeing mids 70s highs until October.

[utee94 15752]

Cooler weather is right around the corner!

 

 

[crash_davis 23090]

1 minute ago, utee94 said:

Cooler weather is right around the corner!

 

 

fucking lulz. this summer is going to SUCK!

this re-affirms my desire to move to cooler climate. this shit is only going to get worse. Texas is going to be damn near inhospitable in the summers. 

[MissingInAction 24878]

These fucking cunts.

[atomheartbevo 89514]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

this re-affirms my desire to move to cooler climate. this shit is only going to get worse. Texas is going to be damn near inhospitable in the summers. 

Even if the summers stay the same, we have so many people moving into the state, the state trying to lure the Bitcoin mining crowd, etc., I don't see how we won't get a regular rolling brownouts kind of situation.

[Brisketexan 104802]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Even if the summers stay the same, we have so many people moving into the state, the state trying to lure the Bitcoin mining crowd, etc., I don't see how we won't get a regular rolling brownouts kind of situation.

Just remember, all of this is not failure of the system.  This is a result of the system working exactly as designed.  It's a feature, not a bug.  "Blame" for all of this doesn't fall on the operators, from the bottom all the way up to ERCOT.  It goes to the architects of the system, and they work in a certain pink granite building.  This is how they WANT it to work.

[atomheartbevo 89514]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is how they WANT it to work.

There are things happening in November that should be an incentive for them to keep it going this summer.

[Captainant 27523]

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Even if the summers stay the same, we have so many people moving into the state, the state trying to lure the Bitcoin mining crowd, etc., I don't see how we won't get a regular rolling brownouts kind of situation.

lmao holy shit I forgot about that gem of an argument from @Immaculate Vibes about how bringing bitcoin miners into the state will actually help our power grid

[Brisketexan 104802]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

There are things happening in November that should be an incentive for them to keep it going this summer.

Their primary plan is "hope, duct tape, and baling wire."  It worked this past winter (no huge cold snap).  They'll count on it again this summer.

But no worry, if it fails, you know they'll point the finger elsewhere.  It will never be fixed, because that's not where the money is.

[Updawg 2263]

Hey, they didn’t say they fixed the grid for summer. Only winter

I should have bought a bigger generator. I guess a spare window ac will be needed now

I’m starting to really get sick of this fucking state and I’ve lived here 50 years.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Even if the summers stay the same, we have so many people moving into the state, the state trying to lure the Bitcoin mining crowd, etc., I don't see how we won't get a regular rolling brownouts kind of situation.

 

54 minutes ago, Captainant said:

lmao holy shit I forgot about that gem of an argument from @Immaculate Vibes about how bringing bitcoin miners into the state will actually help our power grid

It’s really a simple argument. I’m not sure why you have trouble understanding it. Building out of power sources, especially green energy, is often limited for financial reasons. When there is lower demand in the market for electricity they don’t make much money if any. Bitcoin miners are a buyer of last resort. They will always buy at reasonable prices and therefore help make more projects viable. They also run variable load programs which throttle down their electricity utilization when demand is higher so they aren’t pulling off power when the grid can’t afford it. There aren’t a lot of downsides to it.  

[Updawg 2263]

Unless they don’t power off when we need power

Also are they just creating more demand raising the price for everyone. I know there is a sweet spot and they can’t pay too much but I wonder how much extra supply is being created to account for them

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

10 minutes ago, Updawg said:

Unless they don’t power off when we need power

Also are they just creating more demand raising the price for everyone. I know there is a sweet spot and they can’t pay too much but I wonder how much extra supply is being created to account for them

My understanding is the powering down is contractually stipulated. 
 

As far as supply goes, we want the extra supply. That’s the whole point. 
 

These aren’t immediate changes either. They’ll take time, but should make a material impact eventually. 

[Dahobbs 17498]

23 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

It’s really a simple argument. I’m not sure why you have trouble understanding it. Building out of power sources, especially green energy, is often limited for financial reasons. When there is lower demand in the market for electricity they don’t make much money if any. Bitcoin miners are a buyer of last resort. They will always buy at reasonable prices and therefore help make more projects viable. They also run variable load programs which throttle down their electricity utilization when demand is higher so they aren’t pulling off power when the grid can’t afford it. There aren’t a lot of downsides to it.  

Why on earth would they do the last part? It literally costs them money if they don't use all the energy production they have paid for. In fact, Bitcoin miners are generally better off paying more for energy to maximize their up time. This is a terrible idea. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Captainant 27523]

21 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

It’s really a simple argument. I’m not sure why you have trouble understanding it. Building out of power sources, especially green energy, is often limited for financial reasons. When there is lower demand in the market for electricity they don’t make much money if any. Bitcoin miners are a buyer of last resort. They will always buy at reasonable prices and therefore help make more projects viable. They also run variable load programs which throttle down their electricity utilization when demand is higher so they aren’t pulling off power when the grid can’t afford it. There aren’t a lot of downsides to it.  

Bitcoin mining at scale is just data center operations. Those suck a shitload of power and water and are not prone to frequent on/off switching as you are postulating here. In terms of operations and reliability and return on investment with a volatile crypto market, goddamn every mining operator would keep mining through demand peaks. There's no personal benefit to them to stop mining, and real quantifiable upside to just eat a temporary loss of profit.

Plus, all that serves is to further capitalize crypto scams and ponzis with more energy investments for hash cycles. Fuck that noise.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why on earth would they do the last part? It literally costs them money if they don't use all the energy production they have paid for. In fact, Bitcoin miners are generally better off paying more for energy to maximize their up time. This is a terrible idea. 

You still don’t get it. If the electricity costs too much it’s not profitable for them to mine so it makes sense to turn off. It doesn’t hurt the machines to turn off and on and they can do it quickly. 

[Dahobbs 17498]

17 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You still don’t get it. If the electricity costs too much it’s not profitable for them to mine so it makes sense to turn off. It doesn’t hurt the machines to turn off and on and they can do it quickly. 

No, you don't get it. Turning the machines off means less money and less return on investment for their equipment. Cost of energy isn't a big deal because even very expensive energy is still financially productive. Equipment sitting unused IS a big a deal because it isn't financially productive. It is wasted money. 

The only way any of these deals work is if government subsidizes the cost of the downtown time or the cost of producing the new generation. But of course, the government could do that anyway without artificially increasing demand. The idea is bad. 

 

 

 

[Updawg 2263]

I saw an article the other day that predicts bitcoin mining in Texas will use more electricity than all of Houston in a fairly short time.

That makes me doubt we will have enough supply

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No, you don't get it. Turning the machines off means less money and less return on investment for their equipment. Cost of energy isn't a big deal because even very expensive energy is still financially productive. Equipment sitting unused IS a big a deal because it isn't financially productive. It is wasted money. 

The only way any of these deals work is if government subsidizes the cost of the downtown time or the cost of producing the new generation. But of course, the government could do that anyway without artificially increasing demand. The idea is bad. 

 

 

 

You’re just wrong my man. I don’t know what else to tell you. 
 

The number one input determining mining profitability is electricity cost. They can actually lose money by running so they won’t run them. 
 

Also, the machine don’t become obsolete that fast. They can have down time. 
 

Anyway here’s a graph representation of the benefit. 
 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Immaculate Vibes

[Dahobbs 17498]

9 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You’re just wrong my man. I don’t know what else to tell you. 
 

The number one input determining mining profitability is electricity cost. They can actually lose money by running so they won’t run them. 
 

Also, the machine don’t obsolete that fast. They can have down time. 
 

Anyway here’s a graph representation of the benefit. 
 

 

I'm not. You're incorrect. Low utilization is what kills miners. And, again, where is the money coming for new generation? The only answer that makes any financial sense for the miner is the government. And if the government is subsidizing energy production, what value are the miners bringing to the table? 

[Updawg 2263]

I'm not. You're incorrect. Low utilization is what kills miners. And, again, where is the money coming for new generation? The only answer that makes any financial sense for the miner is the government. And if the government is subsidizing energy production, what value are the miners bringing to the table? 

This

I could understand if they they were tapping burn off gas in west Texas
But creating big data centers in rockdale doesn’t make sense if you are tapping the same supply

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You’re just wrong my man. I don’t know what else to tell you. 
 

The number one input determining mining profitability is electricity cost. They can actually lose money by running so they won’t run them. 
 

Also, the machine don’t become obsolete that fast. They can have down time. 
 

Anyway here’s a graph representation of the benefit. 
 

 

I have some O&G clients talking about using gas that would be flared to fuel generators to power bitcoin mining.  Is that even feasible?

[Updawg 2263]

I have some O&G clients talking about using gas that would be flared to fuel generators to power bitcoin mining.  Is that even feasible?

That’s what I originally thought the boom for bitcoin here was about. But it doesn’t look to be that way to me so far. Internet is weak in west Texas probably. Plenty of fuel but keeping that stuff cold would be hard. Instead they have been building data centers basically.

I’m no expert though

[Horns99 155]

I have some O&G clients talking about using gas that would be flared to fuel generators to power bitcoin mining.  Is that even feasible?

Yes, lots of people doing it now - especially in the Bakken & Perm - anywhere gas is trapped & would other wise be flared, it’s a great idea. Lots of articles out there on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TKthunder2 4981]

 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not. You're incorrect. Low utilization is what kills miners. And, again, where is the money coming for new generation? The only answer that makes any financial sense for the miner is the government. And if the government is subsidizing energy production, what value are the miners bringing to the table? 

It’s coming from private money 
 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/23/lancium-raises-150-million-for-renewable-run-bitcoin-mines-in-texas.html
 

And Public money

https://news.yahoo.com/argo-blockchain-bitcoin-begins-building-green-crypto-mine-texas-101532690.html

Those comments and you’re being completely wrong on what makes bitcoin miners profitable has me wondering why you’re so adamant while being wrong. 
 

It’s a complex topic and I’m far from an expert on the grid, but here’s something good I’ve read delving into this. 

 

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

I have some O&G clients talking about using gas that would be flared to fuel generators to power bitcoin mining.  Is that even feasible?

Yes. There’s multiple companies that help set people up. Here’s a cool video. 
 

This is pretty dope.