ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Coal is the most criticized (and rightly so). It is expensive, dangerous to mine, and has profound health and environmental consequences. It is dying and deserves to die. The ideal economic mix is probably 70-85% renewables and the rest natural gas + nuclear (if it ever becomes economic). I think we are moving that direction at a fairly quick pace. Getting above the 80% mark with renewables is difficult because it requires a lot of over capacity and either significant storage and/or robust connections between regions. 

I don’t really consider coal given just how dirty it is. I was clearly thinking oil and gas.  Your ideal mix is inverted. An ideal “economic” mix to power electricity is 75-80%+ nat gas. Stating otherwise is insanity. 

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Eventually, yes.  I would love to Thanos snap them out of existence right this minute, but technology and political will has to catch up.

Are you on a mission to bankrupt Americans? Do you know how clean nat gas is?

[FartingMonk 3613]

Cold Iron to normal operating temperature and pressure for a nuke plant takes almost a week to achieve.  Conventional plants it's still 2-3 days.  Slow rolling some of those big compressors to full speed can take up to 24 hours.  The only way fully achieve the 80 percent renewables and have all your on demand guys chill is a fuckton of storage or have someone pay a lot of money while those plants are running at min rates.  And that's what it boils down to.  Money.

[miguelito 11466]

3 hours ago, utee94 said:

Doesn't look like a state issue, should probably check with your local power company.

I guess I was just lucky.

It was back on in less than an hour. 

[Dahobbs 18230]

2 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

I don’t really consider coal given just how dirty it is. I was clearly thinking oil and gas.  Your ideal mix is inverted. An ideal “economic” mix to power electricity is 75-80%+ nat gas. Stating otherwise is insanity. 

Are you on a mission to bankrupt Americans? Do you know how clean nat gas is?

We've gone over this before. Renewables are cheaper. We aren't at 80% fossil fuel now (60% nationwide). And it isn't happening ever. It doesn't make economic sense.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

We've gone over this before. Renewables are cheaper. We aren't at 80% fossil fuel now (60% nationwide). And it isn't happening ever. It doesn't make economic sense.  

Renewables aren’t close to cheaper in the present. 

[Dahobbs 18230]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Renewables aren’t close to cheaper in the present. 

I've given you the data before from multiple sources, including the department of energy and major accounting firms. I don't know why you refuse to believe the actual numbers. and I don't know why you refuse to recognize that the reason new developments are mostly renewable is because of the better economics. Renewables are cheaper as an addition to the grid. They get more expensive as they become a higher percentage of the grid due to the need for over capacity, interconnects, storage, and/or peaker plants. 

Gas isn't going to get to 80% of the grid. That's just not realistic when all fossil fuels combined are 60% right now. 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I've given you the data before from multiple sources, including the department of energy and major accounting firms. I don't know why you refuse to believe the actual numbers. and I don't know why you refuse to recognize that the reason new developments are mostly renewable is because of the better economics. Renewables are cheaper as an addition to the grid. They get more expensive as they become a higher percentage of the grid due to the need for over capacity, interconnects, storage, and/or peaker plants. 

Gas isn't going to get to 80% of the grid. That's just not realistic when all fossil fuels combined are 60% right now. 

Your argument was that more municipalities are setting up their infrastructure with renewables, if I remember correctly. Why is that?

60% FF - I’m not sure about that, but if it is, it’s probably 90% gas and that percentage will grow as coal is phased out and EVs are more prevalent and stress the system. So let’s just say gas at a max is 60%. To say that it can’t go higher is crazy. We have an overabundance of domestic gas. It is exceedingly cheaper than any renewable feedstock; there must be other reasons why you’re contending what you are. 

[Surly Bevo 25687]

Now saying 110 or 111 on Tuesday in DFW. Yea this fucker is gonna be tight.

[Dahobbs 18230]

On 6/16/2022 at 11:50 AM, Dahobbs said:

I've posted this many times, but I'll do it again:

Based on LCOE in the United States, with or without renewable subsidies (but including all indirect subsidies for fossil fuels), solar is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Onshore wind is roughly even with combined cycle and cheaper than other fossil fuel options. Of course, this is a March 2022 report and doesn't include recent price hikes in natural gas. I do note that the addition of storage will drive solar to be higher than combined cycle in this estimate. However, storage is largely unnecessary until reaching higher percentages of renewables on the grid (and there are plenty of studies on that if you need cites). Notably, battery storage systems are quickly reaching price parity with combustion turbines, which is a pretty big deal since they largely serve the same purpose in the grid.

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

Keep in mind, the EIA estimates for new renewable generation have been notoriously low-balled, with actual generation doing better than these predictions pretty much every year. There is a reason that something like 80% of new planned capacity in Texas is renewable (mainly solar), and you see a similar pattern nationally. It is economics. 

I have no idea what that means. Plenty of countries have renewables generating a majority of their power. But there are certain things gas is better at right now and it needs to stay in the mix (particular as a capacity resource technology as defined above for combustion turbines). 

As to your last sentence, again, there is a reason that something like 80% of new planned capacity in Texas is renewable (mainly solar), and you see a similar pattern nationally. It is economics. 

 

On 6/16/2022 at 12:46 PM, Dahobbs said:

Using renewables as feedstock? I'm talking about the cost to generate electricity. But, I see you're a ignore reality type of guy. Whatever floats your boat. Renewables are more economical right now and that isn't changing. 

But, you don't have to take my word for it. I gave you the numbers above. But, you could also ask Deloitte (https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/power-and-utilities/us-renewable-energy-transition.html😞

Or you could just look at what companies are actually investing in and what new capacity is planned. The answer is renewables:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/122821-commodities-2022-most-new-us-generating-capacity-will-be-solar-followed-by-wind

https://electrek.co/2022/03/07/solar-and-battery-storage-make-up-60-of-planned-new-us-electric-generation-capacity/

Or, we could ignore that information and assume that all the companies actually building new capacity are acting irrationally since gas is a much better investment. You tell me what is more likely. 

 

On 6/16/2022 at 2:05 PM, Dahobbs said:

Yes, oil and gas is a bigger industry right now. I don't think anyone debates that. And in terms of total dollars returned, oil and gas has returned more money to investors. I don't think any debates that. It is after all the older, more established industry. But, if the question is where should  a power generating company invest its funds (I'm not talking about anything else oil and gas does like petrochemicals or even gas for cars, just power generation),  then the answer is going to be renewables. They just have a better bang for your buck right now in that particular space. That's what the economics says. And that is why 80% of new generation coming online this year and for the foreseeable future is going to be renewable.  

As to your criticism of my stock selection, I chose some of the bigger players in the renewable space. It is a growing sector, not an established one with large entrenched players. 

 

On 6/17/2022 at 6:09 AM, Dahobbs said:

The LCOE information was linked on the same page as your post. I've quoted it again below. Utility scale solar LCOE without subsidies, is $36.09 per mWh, combined cycle is $37.05.  I also provided links regarding actual capacity being built and analysis from Deloitte. It all has the same conclusion: solar is cheaper than gas. I don't know what banks and private equity your dealing with (or to what end). But apparently it's not the ones actually funding the build out of new capacity, the vast majority of which is renewables. 

As to my person system, rooftop residential solar has a completely different cost profile and is a lot more expensive per mWh. But it isn't really relevant to this thread when we are talking about power plants. My personal system was more like 20k for a 30k system after tax credits. No subsidies would drag the payback period to around 15 years. Still doable, but definitely less financially attractive. Again, not really relevant to what we are talking about. 

 

Here ya go @Porterhouse. I requoted our extensive discussion on this topic, along with the sources. Renewables are cheaper and are the vast majority of new electric generation development. Deal with it. 

oh, and here is the source for fossil fuels being only 60% grid since you refuse to believe that as well. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

 

[FartingMonk 3613]

49 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I've given you the data before from multiple sources, including the department of energy and major accounting firms. I don't know why you refuse to believe the actual numbers. and I don't know why you refuse to recognize that the reason new developments are mostly renewable is because of the better economics. Renewables are cheaper as an addition to the grid. They get more expensive as they become a higher percentage of the grid due to the need for over capacity, interconnects, storage, and/or peaker plants. 

Gas isn't going to get to 80% of the grid. That's just not realistic when all fossil fuels combined are 60% right now. 

Anyone who believes renewables can make up 80-85 percent of total energy either has no idea what they are talking about or seriously drinking the Kool aid.

[4th&Five 41919]

Set my thermostat to 82 all last week because we were in Europe. Turns out that’s too hot for a hamster. You have blood on your hands ERCOT!!!

[InkaUtexas 26843]

Forget to water it didn't yah? 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

 

 

Here ya go @Porterhouse. I requoted our extensive discussion on this topic, along with the sources. Renewables are cheaper and are the vast majority of new electric generation development. Deal with it. 

oh, and here is the source for fossil fuels being only 60% grid since you refuse to believe that as well. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

 

I never doubted you - I know you know those statistics. I questioned it. I’m pretty surprised gas is 2/3rd of the hydrocarbon mix. That should go up considerably once coal becomes the bit player it should already be.

I’ll read the rest of your post later. Thank you. 

[Dahobbs 18230]

29 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Anyone who believes renewables can make up 80-85 percent of total energy either has no idea what they are talking about or seriously drinking the Kool aid.

I think that is on the high end of what will eventually be possible. But, as I said, it'll require significant over capacity, storage, and regional interconnects. Plenty of studies have said that 100% is technically possible, but would be very expense (though less expensive than climate change consequences). 

Also, by total energy, I assume you mean electric generation and not primary energy. 

[FartingMonk 3613]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think that is on the high end of what will eventually be possible. But, as I said, it'll require significant over capacity, storage, and regional interconnects. Plenty of studies have said that 100% is technically possible, but would be very expense (though less expensive than climate change consequences). 

Also, by total energy, I assume you mean electric generation and not primary energy. 

Oh.  We are playing the money is not a factor game.   Yeah......... Okkkk

[Dahobbs 18230]

4 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Oh.  We are playing the money is not a factor game.   Yeah......... Okkkk

I didn't say that? A high level of renewables is economically efficient. But at some point, around 75-85%, the numbers start to turn due to those other factors. Technically doable, but too expensive for the medium to short term. But 70% is currently doable and economically efficient. Other countries have reached that level (and even higher). 

Also, the 80% figure I cited earlier was for new generation being developed, not total mix. That may be the confusion. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Captainant 28463]

15 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Oh.  We are playing the money is not a factor game.   Yeah......... Okkkk

Bruh. Building interconnects and storage isn't "money is not a factor", it's building infrastructure to service our power needs. We'd have to do that either way, it's just that you need large scale usage to have renewables make sense. 

When Texas locks itself out of those large economies of scale by isolating it's grid from other markers we could be selling renewable energy to, but pumps shitloads of oil and gas across the borders, no fucking duh renewables "can't compete"

[Biff Tannen 46099]

Your troll bores me.

[atomheartbevo 90597]

1 hour ago, Surly Bevo said:

Now saying 110 or 111 on Tuesday in DFW. Yea this fucker is gonna be tight.

[Nivek 17387]

Delete me. Too dark.

[Dahobbs 18230]

13 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Oh.  We are playing the money is not a factor game.   Yeah......... Okkkk

I feel like you missed key words in my post:

13 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I think that is on the high end of what will eventually be possible. But, as I said, it'll require significant over capacity, storage, and regional interconnects. Plenty of studies have said that 100% is technically possible, but would be very expense (though less expensive than climate change consequences). 

Also, by total energy, I assume you mean electric generation and not primary energy. 

I was pretty sure we agreed on this point from your prior posts. Someday those higher levels will be economically feasible in the US (e.g., once battery storage prices drop and further development is made on the grid), just not today. 

[Trey3216 15451]

"Pave paradise, put up a solar/wind farm"  

[Brisketexan 106797]

If one was to re-design the Texas grid to maximize efficiency, while also ensuring that peak demand is met, at a reasonable cost, one would:

1 -- interconnect with neighboring grids to provide emergency relief via transmission of generation from outside of Texas

2 -- add to intrastate transmission so the massive amounts of renewables generating in far West Texas could get to the parts of Texas that actually need them (current transmission does not have adequate capacity to carry all that generation, so we have generation that gets curtailed even thought it's needed)

3 -- add a "capacity market" function, where all ratepayers pay a small surcharge to pay for additional quick-fire gas generation that can come online and meet peak demand

4 -- incentivize storage/battery projects in areas closer to large-scale users (cities) so that transmission isn't an impediment

5 -- actually require winterization of natural gas production that supplies generation facilities

 

Those are the big starters.  There are others.  But none of those create windfall profits for major political donors, free of any federal regulation, so they either won't happen at all or won't happen anytime soon (intrastate transmission improvements will happen, but much later than they should; some battery/storage projects are happening, but driven solely by profitability analysis as opposed to meeting public need).

[FartingMonk 3613]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If one was to re-design the Texas grid to maximize efficiency, while also ensuring that peak demand is met, at a reasonable cost, one would:

1 -- interconnect with neighboring grids to provide emergency relief via transmission of generation from outside of Texas

Agreed this should happen but there is long ass parts of this where it is basically nothing so we have hundreds of miles of power lines to maintain.

 

2 -- add to intrastate transmission so the massive amounts of renewables generating in far West Texas could get to the parts of Texas that actually need them (current transmission does not have adequate capacity to carry all that generation, so we have generation that gets curtailed even thought it's needed)

Same reason

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

3 -- add a "capacity market" function, where all ratepayers pay a small surcharge to pay for additional quick-fire gas generation that can come online and meet peak demand

No such thing is in existence.  How fast is quick fire?

 

4 -- incentivize storage/battery projects in areas closer to large-scale users (cities) so that transmission isn't an impediment

That sounds like a good idea on paper but are you sure you want that?  If you do.  You better get local FD trained up on how to deal with a runaway battery.  That's my biggest concern.  First gen battery of any type has a tendency to go BOOM.  You're talking about Hiroshima level type dentonations.  You get one you'll be NIMBYd and people will be begging for coal.

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

5 -- actually require winterization of natural gas production that supplies generation facilities

That's a no brainer

Those are the big starters.  There are others.  But none of those create windfall profits for major political donors, free of any federal regulation, so they either won't happen at all or won't happen anytime soon (intrastate transmission improvements will happen, but much later than they should; some battery/storage projects are happening, but driven solely by profitability analysis as opposed to meeting public need).

 

[Captainant 28463]

Just now, FartingMonk said:

That sounds like a good idea on paper but are you sure you want that?  If you do.  You better get local FD trained up on how to deal with a runaway battery.  That's my biggest concern.  First gen battery of any type has a tendency to go BOOM.  You're talking about Hiroshima level type dentonations.  You get one you'll be NIMBYd and people will be begging for coal.

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

IMO, adding a capacity market is exactly the best mechanism to improve our grid's durability if we MUST use a market-based utility model. It would give financial incentive to companies to develop safer and more efficient battery banks. I don't disagree that batteries are potentially dangerous, but my dude, we get from A to B by driving around a small box of explosions that's mere feet from a dozen gallons of explosive liquids under your kids in the back seat. There's risks in inherent to every technology, and part of advancement is mitigating those risks rather than using them to drum up FUD about how dangerous batteries are.

[Brisketexan 106797]

17 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Same reason

That sounds like a good idea on paper but are you sure you want that?  If you do.  You better get local FD trained up on how to deal with a runaway battery.  That's my biggest concern.  First gen battery of any type has a tendency to go BOOM.  You're talking about Hiroshima level type dentonations.  You get one you'll be NIMBYd and people will be begging for coal.

 

Responding to all of your points:

Transmission often goes through unpopulated areas.  That's how it's done.  Yes, it costs money.  All infrastructure does, no matter where it is.  Transmission going through isolated areas is the norm.

You're saying that quick-start generation doesn't exist?  Quick-start gas-fired generation is the standard for non-spinning reserves.  That kind of asset is used to add quantities like 100 MW of generation to the grid in 10-30 minutes (which is pretty damned fast when you're responding to peaking needs).  So maybe I don't understand your comment.

Sure, batteries have risks.  That's why you don't put the facility in the middle of a neighborhood -- you just need to put it adjacent to nodes that serve significant load.  And, it's my understanding that it's not just one giant battery, it's interconnected chains of them.  So, if a battery cell does go boom, they don't all necessarily go boom at the same time.  Of course, we're shipping explosive natural gas to generation units all the time, so the risk of "boom" is there for a crapload of our power infrastructure.

[FartingMonk 3613]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

IMO, adding a capacity market is exactly the best mechanism to improve our grid's durability if we MUST use a market-based utility model. It would give financial incentive to companies to develop safer and more efficient battery banks. I don't disagree that batteries are potentially dangerous, but my dude, we get from A to B by driving around a small box of explosions that's mere feet from a dozen gallons of explosive liquids under your kids in the back seat. There's risks in inherent to every technology, and part of advancement is mitigating those risks rather than using them to drum up FUD about how dangerous batteries are.

I was stating in regards to Briskets answer for a capacity market was quick fire gas generation and I was simply stating that doesn't exist.  There is no such thing as a quick firing gas generation plant.  You can't be shutdown and all of a sudden push a button and be started up. And be at full rates.  Just not how it works.

 

In regards to all of this I am simply stating right now.  As in the present day.  We have a power issue like we don't have enough.  The only logical answer at the moment is to build more natural gas plants until we can bridge the gap and let technology catch up so these 80-20 renewables ideas are actually feasible because right now it is not.  Because I can sit here and keep hoping that cold fusion is viable one day.  But until it is it isn't.  So I'll be hoping in the dark.

[FartingMonk 3613]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Responding to all of your points:

Transmission often goes through unpopulated areas.  That's how it's done.  Yes, it costs money.  All infrastructure does, no matter where it is.  Transmission going through isolated areas is the norm.

You're saying that quick-start generation doesn't exist?  Quick-start gas-fired generation is the standard for non-spinning reserves.  That kind of asset is used to add quantities like 100 MW of generation to the grid in 10-30 minutes (which is pretty damned fast when you're responding to peaking needs).  So maybe I don't understand your comment.

Sure, batteries have risks.  That's why you don't put the facility in the middle of a neighborhood -- you just need to put it adjacent to nodes that serve significant load.  And, it's my understanding that it's not just one giant battery, it's interconnected chains of them.  So, if a battery cell does go boom, they don't all necessarily go boom at the same time.  Of course, we're shipping explosive natural gas to generation units all the time, so the risk of "boom" is there for a crapload of our power infrastructure.

Yes.  You can get more capacity going on the non spinning turbines in that time.  But the rest of the plant has to be online to achieve that.  That's the long part of it.  Being on hot standby with nowhere to go is expensive.

[elfenix 34681]

Quote

You better get local FD trained up on how to deal with a runaway battery. 

for cost reasons i think you're more likely to see gravity batteries for fixed installations over the next 10-15 years. 

[Brisketexan 106797]

5 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

I was stating in regards to Briskets answer for a capacity market was quick fire gas generation and I was simply stating that doesn't exist.  There is no such thing as a quick firing gas generation plant.  You can't be shutdown and all of a sudden push a button and be started up. And be at full rates.  Just not how it works.

 

In regards to all of this I am simply stating right now.  As in the present day.  We have a power issue like we don't have enough.  The only logical answer at the moment is to build more natural gas plants until we can bridge the gap and let technology catch up so these 80-20 renewables ideas are actually feasible because right now it is not.  Because I can sit here and keep hoping that cold fusion is viable one day.  But until it is it isn't.  So I'll be hoping in the dark.

I am truly flummoxed by you saying that quick start gas generation doesn't exist.  It's literally the standard for having peak reserves.  Here's just a blurb on one type of system I grabbed off of Google -- this is the sort of system I'm referring to:

Quote

Siemens Energy offers several gas turbines that can fill the replacement reserve niche. Siemens is supplying Minneapolis-based Great River Energy with a simple cycle gas turbine unit at the Elk River plant in Minnesota. Scheduled for service next year, the Elk River fast-start unit is unique because it can deliver 150 MW to the grid within 10 minutes. The unit is based on Siemens’ SGT6-PAC 5000F gas turbine package, consisting of an SGT6-5000F gas turbine, air-cooled generator, exhaust stack and SPPA-T3000 plant control system. The plant also includes the dual fuel, ultra low NOX combustion system, extended outage interval components and the 10-minute static fast-start system. The fast-start capability of the SGT6-5000F gas turbine will allow Great River Energy to deliver power to the grid more quickly while reducing NOX, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compound emissions.

“We modified the starting system on the SGT6-5000F so we can get 150 MW in 10 minutes and baseload in about 12 minutes, said Rick Antos, director, global product line marketing, 60 Hz. for Siemens. “The engine can be totally cold, but it’s on turning gear and all the safety systems are set. It takes about five minutes to get up to synchronization and we start making megawatts in the sixth minute. By the tenth minute we’ve gone from zero MW to 150.”

That's what electric utilities all around the world are using for their peaking reserve units.

[Captainant 28463]

4 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

In regards to all of this I am simply stating right now.  As in the present day.  We have a power issue like we don't have enough.  The only logical answer at the moment is to build more natural gas plants until we can bridge the gap and let technology catch up so these 80-20 renewables ideas are actually feasible because right now it is not.  Because I can sit here and keep hoping that cold fusion is viable one day.  But until it is it isn't.  So I'll be hoping in the dark.

We don't solve a long-term problem by just building more and more small-term, bandaid fixes in the form of gas burning plants. Eventually, we'll hit a squeeze on natgas availability and we're back to the same problem. 

Likewise, you're making out solving battery technology to be as difficult as cold fusion. Give me a break lmao.

Furthermore - our lack of energy is a problem of our own making! Our neighboring states have functional grids that could interconnect to ours and supply power when we're facing extreme conditions. But for the private business interests of those power utility companies that do not want to incur the cost of actually complying with real oversight and maintenance, our state is hobbled by uncertainty and rolling blackouts.

[Brisketexan 106797]

1 minute ago, FartingMonk said:

Yes.  You can get more capacity going on the non spinning turbines in that time.  But the rest of the plant has to be online to achieve that.  That's the long part of it.  Being on hot standby with nowhere to go is expensive.

Which is why they get the rest of the plant online based on projected need in advance, and in a capacity market, are compensated for doing so.

It's like having Maverick on Alert 5.  You don't keep it there the whole time, just when Iceman is out there and there are Mig 28s in the vicinity.  Maybe Ice handles them by himself, and Maverick stands down.  Maybe Maverick has to go to full throttle, launch, and save Iceman's ass.

Everything I know in life I learned from Top Gun.

[FartingMonk 3613]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which is why they get the rest of the plant online based on projected need in advance, and in a capacity market, are compensated for doing so.

It's like having Maverick on Alert 5.  You don't keep it there the whole time, just when Iceman is out there and there are Mig 28s in the vicinity.  Maybe Ice handles them by himself, and Maverick stands down.  Maybe Maverick has to go to full throttle, launch, and save Iceman's ass.

Everything I know in life I learned from Top Gun.

Yep.  That'll work if someone is willing to pay for it.  

[Brisketexan 106797]

2 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Yep.  That'll work if someone is willing to pay for it.  

Insurance to pay for the cost of my house in case it burns down.  Insurance to replace my car in case I smash it into a wall.  "That'll work if someone is willing to pay for it."

That's what a capacity market is: insurance.  You pay for it.  You may never need it.  But when you need it, you need it, and it's worth every penny you spent and then some.  This is not some radical idea.  Most grids have a capacity market function.  Except ours.

[FartingMonk 3613]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We don't solve a long-term problem by just building more and more small-term, bandaid fixes in the form of gas burning plants. Eventually, we'll hit a squeeze on natgas availability and we're back to the same problem. 

Likewise, you're making out solving battery technology to be as difficult as cold fusion. Give me a break lmao.

Furthermore - our lack of energy is a problem of our own making! Our neighboring states have functional grids that could interconnect to ours and supply power when we're facing extreme conditions. But for the private business interests of those power utility companies that do not want to incur the cost of actually complying with real oversight and maintenance, our state is hobbled by uncertainty and rolling blackouts.

Guess what battery technology and cold fusion have in common?  That's right we haven't solved it yet.  I'm not saying not to keep trying to solve the issue.  I'm saying right now we haven't solved the issue and until we do our energy grid isn't getting any better.  We can blame Texas all we want but other states run into the same shit too.  Rolling blackouts isn't a Texas only thing.

[FartingMonk 3613]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Insurance to pay for the cost of my house in case it burns down.  Insurance to replace my car in case I smash it into a wall.  "That'll work if someone is willing to pay for it."

That's what a capacity market is: insurance.  You pay for it.  You may never need it.  But when you need it, you need it, and it's worth every penny you spent and then some.  This is not some radical idea.  Most grids have a capacity market function.  Except ours.

Yeah.  That was the problem with deregulation.  And that's partly the consumers fault.  They wanted the cheapest electric bill as possible.  Well with that you gotta start taking out the bells and whistles.  Part of the bells and whistles is a guarantee that the lights won't go out.

[FartingMonk 3613]

21 minutes ago, elfenix said:

for cost reasons i think you're more likely to see gravity batteries for fixed installations over the next 10-15 years. 

Yeah.  I agree with that.  Lithium is just going to get more expensive and rare.  We are a heat dissapating gel or a new polymer away from achieving battery breakthrough but with that lithium consumption is going to skyrocket.

[Brisketexan 106797]

7 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeah.  That was the problem with deregulation.  And that's partly the consumers fault.  They wanted the cheapest electric bill as possible.  Well with that you gotta start taking out the bells and whistles.  Part of the bells and whistles is a guarantee that the lights won't go out.

The bolded -- it is, but that's in large part because they were sold a bill of bullshit about a complex subject that 99% of people don't and can't understand (and that's no knock on the general public -- 99% of the public doesn't understand how a 747 operates, so we leave that to the engineers and the FAA to oversee).  When the public was sold the SB-7 model, it was heavy on "it'll lower your bills!" and functionally silent on "but....it will add some risk that you won't get power when you need it most."  Not even in the "fine print," just silent across the board.

Tell most people that option X will lower your bills, but don't tell them anything about enhanced risks, and they'll take option X in a heartbeat.  

We sold the option that offered the greatest profit opportunity to the political donor class.  We sold it HARD.  And salesmanship works, that's no surprise.

[Captainant 28463]

13 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Guess what battery technology and cold fusion have in common?  That's right we haven't solved it yet.  I'm not saying not to keep trying to solve the issue.  I'm saying right now we haven't solved the issue and until we do our energy grid isn't getting any better.  We can blame Texas all we want but other states run into the same shit too.  Rolling blackouts isn't a Texas only thing.

Guess what going to Japan and going to Mars have in common? That's right I haven't been to either yet.

You're comparing two wildly different things with wildly different problem statements. One is a civil engineering problem, the other is discovering and mastering entire new field of physics that are still emerging as a science and technology. 

Just because you can go "unga bunga PROBLEM!" to both doesn't mean they're equivalent in scope or scale.

[FartingMonk 3613]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded -- it is, but that's in large part because they were sold a bill of bullshit about a complex subject that 99% of people don't and can't understand (and that's no knock on the general public -- 99% of the public doesn't understand how a 747 operates, so we leave that to the engineers and the FAA to oversee).  When the public was sold the SB-7 model, it was heavy on "it'll lower your bills!" and functionally silent on "but....it will add some risk that you won't get power when you need it most."  Not even in the "fine print," just silent across the board.

Tell most people that option X will lower your bills, but don't tell them anything about enhanced risks, and they'll take option X in a heartbeat.  

We sold the option that offered the greatest profit opportunity to the political donor class.  We sold it HARD.  And salesmanship works, that's no surprise.

And that's why I said partly.  We were raised to believe our politicians were out there looking for our best interests.  Lobbyists who are nothing more than legal bagmen are the only people they care about.

[Brisketexan 106797]

Just now, FartingMonk said:

And that's why I said partly.  We were raised to believe our politicians were out there looking for our best interests.  Lobbyists who are nothing more than legal bagmen are the only people they care about.

Amen.

[FartingMonk 3613]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Guess what going to Japan and going to Mars have in common? That's right I haven't been to either yet.

You're comparing two wildly different things with wildly different problem statements. One is a civil engineering problem, the other is discovering and mastering entire new field of physics that are still emerging as a science and technology. 

Just because you can go "unga bunga PROBLEM!" to both doesn't mean they're equivalent in scope or scale.

The battery problem is a lot more complex than you think and I can assure you it's not a civil engineering problem

[Samson's Wig 3228]

On 7/13/2022 at 2:35 PM, South Austin said:

I honestly don't recall experiencing a summer rolling blackout since I've lived in Texas.  How long are these supposed to last?  An hour?  More?

You're in Austin.  Rolling blackouts last 7-10 days here.  There's a switch hiding somewhere that can prevent this, and if you can find it the city will name the next bike lane in your honor.

[Captainant 28463]

3 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

The battery problem is a lot more complex than you think and I can assure you it's not a civil engineering problem

100% solving the problem is extremely complex. But the problem statement itself is simple.

We need more mechanisms to store excess energy when it's being generated - OR - we need access to more markets to sell our excess energy and buy energy when we face a deficit. 

Our problems are solely self-inflicted and exacerbated by our state-sponsored monopoly on electrical utility in the state of Texas. To your point about lobbyists, our state is designed to be bought and sold. It's the entire point of having zero regulations for anything, and no teeth to the penalties for non-compliance.

It's also why there's multiple generations of Texans who reflexively think that we should just burn as much as possible because batteries are as complicated as cold fusion.

[FartingMonk 3613]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

100% solving the problem is extremely complex. But the problem statement itself is simple.

We need more mechanisms to store excess energy when it's being generated - OR - we need access to more markets to sell our excess energy and buy energy when we face a deficit. 

Our problems are solely self-inflicted and exacerbated by our state-sponsored monopoly on electrical utility in the state of Texas. To your point about lobbyists, our state is designed to be bought and sold. It's the entire point of having zero regulations for anything, and no teeth to the penalties for non-compliance.

It's also why there's multiple generations of Texans who reflexively think that we should just burn as much as possible because batteries are as complicated as cold fusion.

So what is the problem with battery storage?  What are they actually trying to achieve?

[Captainant 28463]

Just now, FartingMonk said:

So what is the problem with battery storage?  What are they actually trying to achieve?

Lol, just skip the far easier and more straightfoward solution to just interconnect to our neighbors.

What are you actually hoping we do achieve? More stable power? Or fatter margins for the walled garden of private power utilities? Because by your own argument, we can either have low prices or we can have durability - don't forget that we don't get options because we live in Texas.

[Dahobbs 18230]

2 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Guess what battery technology and cold fusion have in common?  That's right we haven't solved it yet.  I'm not saying not to keep trying to solve the issue.  I'm saying right now we haven't solved the issue and until we do our energy grid isn't getting any better.  We can blame Texas all we want but other states run into the same shit too.  Rolling blackouts isn't a Texas only thing.

Batteries are already near price-parity with gas turbine peakers. I'm not sure why you're acting like this is a completely unsolved problem. It is technically doable and being implemented in mass now. Yes, we need prices to keep going down and we'll need adjustments to manage fire risks (and those lessons are being learned an implemented quickly). But, fundamentally, we know how to do this. Like anything, it costs money. 

I'm also not sure why you think a high level of renewable electric energy generation isn't possible. A good number of countries are above 80%, including Norway, Uruguay, and Brazil (mostly relying on hydropower).  Denmark is at 60% with the bulk coming from wind power. Germany gets ~30% from wind and solar combined and another 10% from biomass and hydro. California gets ~35% from non-hydro renewables and another 14% from hydro. 

Article on new capacity being majority renewable: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/wind-solar-to-dominate-new-us-generating-capacity-in-2021/

Quote

 

Earlier this week, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) released figures on the new generating capacity that's expected to start operating over the course of 2021. While plans can obviously change, the hope is that, with its new additions, the grid will look radically different than it did just five years ago. The report includes the details of where a new nuclear plant may be started up, although it will be dwarfed by the capacity of new batteries. But the big picture is that, even ignoring the batteries, about 80 percent of the planned capacity additions will be emission-free.

The EIA's accounting shows that just under 40 Gigawatts of capacity will be placed on the grid during 2021, but there are a number of caveats to this. First and foremost is the inclusion of batteries, which account for over 10 percent of that figure (4.3GW). While batteries may look like short-term generating capacity from the perspective of "can this put power on the grid?" they're obviously not actually a net source of power. Typically, they're used to smooth over short-term fluctuations in supply or demand rather than a steady source of power.

* * * 

The market is now clearly responding. Less than 20 percent of the capacity added in 2021 will be natural gas (6.6GW), even if you disregard the battery capacity being added. That's down from 34 percent just two years ago, and over 60 percent three years ago. New additions are heavily concentrated in areas where a lot of natural gas is produced: southern Texas and near the Ohio/Pennsylvania/West Virginia borders.

Instead, wind and solar dominated, with 12.2GW of new wind capacity and 15.4GW of solar power. This is especially striking given that tax credits for renewable energy were set to phase out in 2020, leading many projects to be pushed through to completion late in the year. (Those credits ended up being extended in a recent budget bill.) Normally, the EIA predicts that these sorts of expirations cause the pipeline of new projects to empty out, leading to a temporary drop. There is absolutely no indication that this took place in 2021.

Notably, these values don't include residential solar, which is expected to add another 3GW to 4GW of capacity in 2021.

As in the past, Texas is one of the major sites of new wind construction, joined by its northern neighbor Oklahoma. Planned additions include a wind farm that's just a tiny bit short of a GigaWatt. Texas is also dominating solar additions, with over a quarter of the expected new capacity. Nevada and California will also be installing about 10 percent each, but they're closely followed by North Carolina, part of a growing trend of solar installations in the US Southeast.

 

 

[FartingMonk 3613]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lol, just skip the far easier and more straightfoward solution to just interconnect to our neighbors.

What are you actually hoping we do achieve? More stable power? Or fatter margins for the walled garden of private power utilities? Because by your own argument, we can either have low prices or we can have durability - don't forget that we don't get options because we live in Texas.

Ummm, how about a reliable grid using natural gas until we can figure out how to fully implement renewables.  You want to connect the grid.  Connect the grid.  That doesn't mean shit to me.  But if you think connecting to the grid is the answer.  I would beg to differ.  I just think everyone who is abandoning fossils are jumping off the ship too early.  You can't have a replacement with something that doesn't work yet with something that does.  We are pulling a Germany by doing that.  That's all I'm saying.  

[FartingMonk 3613]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Batteries are already near price-parity with gas turbine peakers. I'm not sure why you're acting like this is a completely unsolved problem. It is technically doable and being implemented in mass now. Yes, we need prices to keep going down and we'll need adjustments to manage fire risks (and those lessons are being learned an implemented quickly). But, fundamentally, we know how to do this. Like anything, it costs money. 

I'm also not sure why you think a high level of renewable electric energy generation isn't possible. A good number of countries are above 80%, including Norway, Uruguay, and Brazil (mostly relying on hydropower).  Denmark is at 60% with the bulk coming from wind power. Germany gets ~30% from wind and solar combined and another 10% from biomass and hydro. California gets ~35% from non-hydro renewables and another 14% from hydro. 

Article on new capacity being majority renewable: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/wind-solar-to-dominate-new-us-generating-capacity-in-2021/

 

The countries you cite have the luxury of hydropower and a very concentrated population.  I think like 90 percent of Uraguay lives in or around Montevideo.  Sweden and Norway has almost a year round wind.  And once again population density and land mass matters.  Germany well, let's see how Germany is doing.  Brazil went deep and hard on biomass.  I am still waiting to see how that turns out.  And I am not saying renewables don't work.  I am all for it.  I'm just not all in at the moment.

[Dahobbs 18230]

39 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeah.  I agree with that.  Lithium is just going to get more expensive and rare.  We are a heat dissapating gel or a new polymer away from achieving battery breakthrough but with that lithium consumption is going to skyrocket.

Lithium isn't really that rare. We just haven't been attempting to exploit it for mass use until recently. It is also completely recyclable. We aren't running out of it or anything, we just need to build the facilities to extract, process, and then recycle it.