For their power problems. I especially had to laugh when they inferred that wind power failed when it got cold. I mean MN has thousands of turbines running year round with no problem.
Now the Governor wants answers... Well the answers are well known apparently. If one denies that severe weather events are more likely now days, and does not prepare for them... They will have power outages.
52 comments:
Classic Reublicanism. It's always someone else's job, and when things get wrong, it is always someone else who gets the blame. For them, the sign says, "The buck stops here only when things are going well."
--Hiram
It definitely seems to be that way lately...
KD has a new website:
Fox News Just Lies and Lies and Lies
For once I totally agree with Kevin.
Figures don't lie. Wind took a massive drop in power provided, Natgas much less so, and of course coal and nuclear kept right on humming. Wind power is intermittent even in good times, and Texas has the most. The only reason to build windmills in the first place was to fight global warming. How ironic is this, to the point even Joe Biden has to declare it a "disaster." That's a /manmade/ disaster.
Republicans are oblivious to how deeply discredited they are. Whenever I hear Sen. Gazelka grumble about some political slight, I have a hard time thinking that this is a guy who risked the health of his colleagues, and was not able to keep his own caucus members safe.
--Hiram
Jerry, Source please.
Well, start with the EPA and IPCC. Asking THEIR [always too high] models what specific reductions in manmade CO2 would do for the climate, the answer is somewhere between 0.01 and 0.37 degrees over the next 100 years, depending on how many participate and how drastic the cuts. What wind and solar have done so far doesn't even rise to the 0.01 scenario. Their now-proven unreliabliity is a bug, not a feature. They are a costly non-solution to a non-problem.
So?
This was all wrong...
"Wind took a massive drop in power provided, Natgas much less so, and of course coal and nuclear kept right on humming. "
Really, even your own article (yes, I skimmed through it) quotes numbers proving my assertion. Relative to percent of capacity, solar was the poorest since snow cover makes them worthless, wind next lowest since the wind wasn't blowing and the turbines froze up, and natgas only reduced because the pumps ran on electricity.
Without "renewables" this manmade disaster would have been much less impactful, and WITH renewables, the impact on climate is essentially zero. All pain, no gain.
Your confirmation bias is showing again...
"The state has a generating capacity of about 67,000 megawatts in the winter compared with a peak capacity of about 86,000 megawatts in the summer. The gap between the winter and summer supply reflects power plants going offline for maintenance during months when demand typically is less intense and there’s not as much energy coming from wind and solar sources.
But planning for this winter didn’t imagine temperatures cold enough to freeze natural gas supply lines and stop wind turbines from spinning. By Wednesday, 46,000 megawatts of power were offline statewide — 28,000 from natural gas, coal and nuclear plants and 18,000 from wind and solar, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s power grid.
“Every one of our sources of power supply underperformed,” Daniel Cohan, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University in Houston, tweeted. “Every one of them is vulnerable to extreme weather and climate events in different ways. None of them were adequately weatherized or prepared for a full realm of weather and conditions.”
Or this humorous screw up...
"Natural gas is the largest energy source in Texas, accounting for 40 percent of the state’s energy.
But in a region ill-prepared for single-digit temperatures, that power supply got stuck in an unfortunate cycle.
Natural gas producers need electricity to run their compressors, but electric systems were strained by cold weather and a lack of natural gas."
So, look at the numbers again. Calculate the drop of each source, compared to its contribution to total capacity. And remember MAX availability for wind is about 35% of rated capacity, and for solar something like 10% (in Minnesota, don't know about Texas).
When I glanced at the raw numbers it seems like about 80% of wind's contribution and 20% of natgas was "offline." Do all of these need to be better prepared for cold weather? Certainly, since that is the inevitable result of Global Warming!
If you do not prepare your systems to operate below 32 degrees F, they will freeze when temperatures hit single digits.
This is a planning problem, not a technology problem.
Proportion, please. The susceptibility to weather extremes varies widely, by about 80:1, depending on the technology. You are trying to argue that wind and solar are useful, economic and reliable sources of electric power, and it is fundamentally false.
How about, instead of blaming the Texas GOP (a tenuous argument), how about we blame the idiots who insisted that wind power was not only going to save the planet, but make good economic sense in its entirety? Surely those massive subsidies weren't needed, were they?
Oh and by the way, MN windmills work in the winter because they are electrically heated, even when the wind isn't blowing. They are a net DRAG on the grid. Great idea.
You have a lot of interesting unsupported opinions.
Odd how your idea of "unsupported opinions" tracks so remarkably well with known (or at least easily discoverable if you look) facts and simple logic.
But I think I have this problem figured out. It's simple, really. Those windmills were put up to stop Global Warming. They did such a remarkably good job that the warming stopped, reversed, and it got so cold that the windmills froze. Once the windmills stopped turning, temperatures returned to normal within just a couple of days. Obviously we need to stop building them or we'll all freeze.
Oh, and have you heard about solar? They have discovered a downside. Solar panels, as you know, are somewhere around 20% efficient. That means their black surface absorbs about 80% of the suns energy as heat, which it passes on to the surrounding air. Local global warming, caused by the very thing that is supposed to stop it!
It's a real shame so many Iowans die every Winter in their homes from the cold for lack of energy, given that Wind is their largest source of energy and windmills don't work in the cold.
What's that? Iowa generates MORE wind energy in the Winter than at other times of the year? Oh...never mind then.
I don't know what right-wing "think"-tank you get your information from, but your moronic ideas can never stand up to the facts.
As for global warming, you've proven yourself not to be up to the task of even understanding the word "global", so move along or step aside.
Moose
Facts? Moose? Iowa's largest power source is wind? "Global" warming? How do you measure it? What is the historical record of it, and does it show the kind of "catastrophic" warming you claim? John always challenges me for "sources" for my claims. How about you?
Jerry,
It is sadly humorous that you ask for sources immediately after making silly claims with no sources. However we are kind of used to it.
So, if the claims are so silly, find a "source" that proves otherwise, or better yet, find the source I used for my statement first. As it is, it is only your poorly-informed opinion that says I am incorrect. I ask Moose for sources because you never seem to do so, despite the obvious errors. Can you understand why I find your argument lacking, when your opinion conflicts with what I know to be fact?
Jerry
"what I know to be fact"
Since you have no poof of your "facts"...
They are actually "opinions"...
Turns out I misspoke. Wind power is Iowa's largest source of electricity, which is no small feat, of course.
As for global warming, you've proven yourself to be a conspiracy theorist. I don't care what you think.
Moose
"Since you have no poof [sic] of your 'facts'"
And you have no proof to the contrary. You do not know what I know; you reject any attempt I make to increase your knowledge, and stubbornly refuse to search out any information that might challenge your pre-conceived conclusions on any subject.
I have made several assertions in this thread, all of them backed up by solid scientific data. You summarily dismiss them, with no evidence but your own unsupported opinion (or the unsupported opinion of those that agree with you) (or cites that actually support what I have been saying), as near as I can tell. Yet you complain about my lack of "proof"?
I have provided 6 linked sources to support my position...
You have provided ZERO...
I have looked at the two I could find. One of them was off-topic and the other proved my point. I've done my homework; I see no reason to do yours for you. Starting to feel like the meme of the guy in the park with the sign "prove me wrong."
It is a pointless waste of my time... Somehow your confirmation bias allows you to blank text like this out.
"The state has a generating capacity of about 67,000 megawatts in the winter compared with a peak capacity of about 86,000 megawatts in the summer. The gap between the winter and summer supply reflects power plants going offline for maintenance during months when demand typically is less intense and there’s not as much energy coming from wind and solar sources.
But planning for this winter didn’t imagine temperatures cold enough to freeze natural gas supply lines and stop wind turbines from spinning. By Wednesday, 46,000 megawatts of power were offline statewide — 28,000 from natural gas, coal and nuclear plants and 18,000 from wind and solar, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s power grid.
“Every one of our sources of power supply underperformed,” Daniel Cohan, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University in Houston, tweeted. “Every one of them is vulnerable to extreme weather and climate events in different ways. None of them were adequately weatherized or prepared for a full realm of weather and conditions.”
or this...
"Natural gas is the largest energy source in Texas, accounting for 40 percent of the state’s energy.
But in a region ill-prepared for single-digit temperatures, that power supply got stuck in an unfortunate cycle.
Natural gas producers need electricity to run their compressors, but electric systems were strained by cold weather and a lack of natural gas."
Perhaps if you spent a bit more time analyzing your sources or better yet, looking for sources which did NOT feed your own confirmation biases, you might learn something?
"The wind lobby says Texas should have required thermal (nuclear, gas, coal) plants to be weatherized to withstand single-digit temperatures. Perhaps, but wind still performed the worst during the blackout, generating power at 12% of its capacity compared to 76% for nuclear, 39% for coal, and 38% for gas, according to a data analysis by the Center of the American Experiment."
And you still leave unremarked the fact that the windmills that were supposed to prevent global warming worked so well they froze up.
Again, if you do not winterize your systems... Don't be Surprised when it freezes up...
"He went on to note the shutdown of a nuclear reactor in Bay City because of the cold and finally got to what energy experts say is the biggest culprit, writing, “Low Supply of Natural Gas: ERCOT planned on 67GW from natural gas/coal, but could only get 43GW of it online. We didn’t run out of natural gas, but we ran out of the ability to get natural gas. Pipelines in Texas don’t use cold insulation —so things were freezing.”"
"While wind power skeptics claimed the week’s freeze means wind power can’t be relied upon, wind turbines — like natural gas plants — can be “winterized,” or modified to operate during very low temperatures. Experts say that many of Texas’ power generators have not made those investments necessary to prevent disruptions to equipment since the state does not regularly experience extreme winter storms."
"It’s estimated that of the grid’s total winter capacity, about 80% of it, or 67 gigawatts, could be generated by natural gas, coal and some nuclear power. Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts, was expected to come from various wind power sources across the state."
Apparently they weren't planning for much renewable out put at this time of year and the southern turbines compensated somewhat because the wind was blowing more than usual.
OK, let us say we have two problems. First, the systems weren't prepared for really cold weather, perhaps understandable since everybody is telling them the world is getting hotter. Second, because we have to "fight global warming," we are installing "renewable energy" which is just flat-up unreliable. The wind does NOT blow all the time, even if the windmills were prepared for cold weather. Now you seem to want to put all of the blame on cause number 1, and completely deny cause number 2. Why is that?
Well, as you said... We use solar and wind power as much as is possible because the fuel is free, abundant and less pollution is created...
All the while understanding that darkness, stillness and even sleet storms may limit their availability at times. Therefore a functional robust system would provide alternative robust energy sources at night, when it is still or when a sleet storm hits.
Quite simply the primary power sources in the Texas plan in the winter and at night were natural gas, nuclear, coal, etc... And those sources failed...
And technically we are fighting climate change. Which means that weather is becoming more extreme and variable...
Also, the lack of winterizing and proper investment are the common failure causes across all of the system types. Unfortunately conservatives want to blame the supplemental power sources for political reasons rather than acknowledge that they truly screwed up. :-O
"He went on to note the shutdown of a nuclear reactor in Bay City because of the cold and finally got to what energy experts say is the biggest culprit, writing, “Low Supply of Natural Gas: ERCOT planned on 67GW from natural gas/coal, but could only get 43GW of it online. We didn’t run out of natural gas, but we ran out of the ability to get natural gas. Pipelines in Texas don’t use cold insulation —so things were freezing.”"
"While wind power skeptics claimed the week’s freeze means wind power can’t be relied upon, wind turbines — like natural gas plants — can be “winterized,” or modified to operate during very low temperatures. Experts say that many of Texas’ power generators have not made those investments necessary to prevent disruptions to equipment since the state does not regularly experience extreme winter storms."
It will be interesting if they can find a way to improve their system's robustness while striving to be a stand alone low cost system.
I mean what incentive do power providers have to fix their problems?
Very interesting:
"We use solar and wind power as much as is possible because the fuel is free, abundant and less pollution is created..." Except that the turbines are costly, require huge amounts of mining, manufacturing, transportation, and concrete, all of which create CO2, as well as damage to the environment. Some who have done the math suggest the lifetime CO2 "savings" is essentially zero. And even now disposing of all the toxic metals and UN-recyclable blades has become a problem.
"And technically we are fighting climate change." No, we're not. The ONLY scientific evidence we have is the 1898 Greenhouse Gas Theory, which predicts WARMING. It was carefully renamed to Climate Change only to end the mockingly-named "Gore effect." Not only that, but we are asked to accept all this highly expensive and unreliable "green energy" as a solution, when the amount of warming being avoided is essentially zero. Based on CO2 only, it is perhaps qualitatively correct, but quantitatively a non-solution to what seems to be a non-problem.
"I mean what incentive do power providers have to fix their problems?" EXACTLY!
Even wind tycoons have said that, without public subsidies, wind farms make no economic sense. Green energy has been mandated by the states, and regulated public utilities are required to make a profit, so if they spend foolishly building it, they make MORE money. Of course consumers pay the price.
As for winterizing their systems, you can ask the same question. With "the world getting warmer," what is the payback for Texas to winterize their systems? It might take 100s of millions of dollars to do it, for a once-in-a-lifetime (and becoming more rare, according to theory) event.
Yes we are aware that you are a man made climate change denier.
And that is why you deny that the Texas disaster was due to inept planning.
As I said earlier, your confirmation bias is showing.
Let's see. I deny being a climate change denier; the term is meaningless. There is not and simply cannot be any proof of manmade climate change, since the climate changes all the time. It's what climate does. I have never denied that climate changes. What I have denied is that Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming exists. It is not catastrophic, not manmade, not global, and not warming. Other than that... What you are doing is simply denying the science which proves exactly that.
And I want to know why, for a firm believer in global warming, why on earth the Texans are guilty of "poor planning" when YOU and your fellow "warmists" are predicting snow to be a thing of the past? Why should they plan for cold weather when you keep telling them it will never happen? Seems like you would want to call it GOOD planning.
So I was correct...
"you are a man made climate change denier"
I will admit that, only because it's meaningless. You, on the other hand, are a science denier or worse, a reality denier. The reality is Texas froze, and YOUR theory says it can't happen.
Your denial of the latest science is always amazing...
Maybe in 50 or 100 years Texas will not need to plan for cold weather...
Tee-hee. The 3rd NCA is laughable. It's not credible science, but politics. Try again. According to the climate models, it should already be a couple of degrees C. warmer than it is. If Texas relied on those predictions, why would they plan for cold weather? Should they have planned for more tornadoes, and more floods, and more hurricanes, as also predicted but didn't happen?
I am constantly amazed at the arrogant assumption that humans can "prevent" global warming, and blindly accept all the things we are told to do about it. And yet every time we do something, like put up hundreds of ridiculous windmills, nobody EVER tells us exactly how much warming is being avoided.
When you have any real sources, I will be happy to read them.
No, you won't, and if you did read and seriously consider them you would NOT be happy. I've quit trying to convince you with facts and logic and "sources." Unless you get out of your bubble and look it up for yourself you'll never escape your propagandized mind. Here's a thought for you. How about looking up the HADCRUT4 dataset, and point out to me the "catastrophic" warming. Looks to me like about 0.5 Degrees per century.
Then compare that with the average of the models. If you are really ambitious, look up the hundreds of predictions from alarmists that have simply failed to eventuate. But, who are you going to believe, "scientists" like Al Gore and AOC, or real, live scientific data?
Of course I would be happy if man made climate change was not a problem.
HADCRUT4 seems to show the same increase in rate around 1970 as the others...
The Deniers seem to not like the HADCRUT4 data.
Actually I am going to believe the scientists at NOAA, NASA, etc.
Ah, but what is that rate? And we are told that the industrial revolution started in 1850, so why is the overall rate-- about 0.5 degrees/century-- not the relevant metric? The "scientists" define climate as a minimum 30-year period, so if you look at UN-manipulated data starting in 1970, you will see "global cooling," then warming until about 1998, then the "pause," and now we seem to be back on the long-term trend, exactly what you would expect as we come out of the Little Ice Age.
The whole scaremongering scam is a great human conceit, that humans can control the weather. Do the math!
The HADCRUT data has been repeatedly massaged, just not as much as the others.
Because the fossil fuel massive increase did not start until ~1950.
Then there was a lag while the amount of green house gases built up in the atmosphere.
Then the oceans and ice packs were able to absorb a lot of the additional heat energy.
The question is how bad will it get when the ice has melted and the gas concentration is even higher.
Yes, and immediately after that the "scientists" were worrying about the new Ice Age.
You want to talk about lag? How about the ice core data, going back hundreds of thousands of years, showing that CO2 rises AFTER (i.e.) lags temperature? The entire "theory of manmade global warming" is not only wrong, but BACKWARDS. CO2 is doing exactly what we should expect as temperatures increase following the Little Ice Age.
You seem to think Mother Nature cannot regulate Earth's temperature, and you would be wrong. She has done so for millions of years. NASA confirms that much of the "new" CO2 is going into the "greening of the Earth"-- about 10% more-- and that is a good thing. You want absorption of heat energy, lock at those big, black solar panels.
How bad will it get? Again, Mother Nature has managed for millions of years and continues to do so. Just because you built a house on the beach doesn't mean the tide won't come in.
I have faith that Mother Earth will adjust to humans releasing trillions of tons of gas and heat energy into her enclosed system.
The question is how humans and other beings will fare???
"Yes, and immediately after that the "scientists" were worrying about the new Ice Age."
Wrong.
Moose
An interesting piece from NASA
"On occasion, researchers have predicted that coming solar cycles may also exhibit extended periods of minimal activity. The models for such predictions, however, are still not as robust as models for our weather and are not considered conclusive.
But if such a Grand Solar Minimum occurred, how big of an effect might it have? In terms of climate forcing – a factor that could push the climate in a particular direction – solar scientists estimate it would be about -0.1 W/m2, the same impact of about three years of current carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration growth.
Thus, a new Grand Solar Minimum would only serve to offset a few years of warming caused by human activities.
What does this mean? The warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum.
Even if a Grand Solar Minimum were to last a century, global temperatures would continue to warm. The reason for this is because more factors than just variations in the Sun’s output change global temperatures on Earth, the most dominant of those today is the warming coming from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions."
Post a Comment