Strangest climate I have seen (Dallas, Corpus Christi: credit score, earthquake, train)

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I only lost power for 3 hours so I wouldn't call anything a total failure, just for the record. And I'm not unusual, though this severely cold weather for days on end HAS been very unusual.

Pete Delkus on Ch 8 Said these 5-6 days below freezing would be our 5th longest below freezing. I'm native and the longest I can recall and mentioned was the 12 days we had just like this back in 1983. Freezing pipes was a concern back then but not power outages. Back then TX had half the population and demand.

That was the one time the large Lakes like Lewisville / Grapevine actually started to freeze over. Funny thing it was only a few years after the famous summer of 1980 which is still one of the hottest on records with temps in the 107-113 range almost all summer.

[serger]

Originally Posted by NP78

Yeah, the biggest story is not really tied to the energy sources, but to reserve, plant maintenance, grid issues, etc.

It probably would have helped to have Big Brown and Monticello still on-line but there really isn’t any reason the current split between wind/natural gas/coal/nuclear couldn’t be configured to handle this event and our overall needs.

I see a lot of political opportunism here from both sides of the aisle, but this is fundamentally a lack of execution and investment in risk mitigation.

Meanwhile in TX, in areas NOT served by the state grid:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/in...b-f8fc639c0889

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by Rakin

Pete Delkus on Ch 8 Said these 5-6 days below freezing would be our 5th longest below freezing. I'm native and the longest I can recall and mentioned was the 12 days we had just like this back in 1983. Freezing pipes was a concern back then but not power outages. Back then TX had half the population and demand.

That was the one time the large Lakes like Lewisville / Grapevine actually started to freeze over. Funny thing it was only a few years after the famous summer of 1980 which is still one of the hottest on records with temps in the 107-113 range almost all summer.

Yikes!

I moved here in 1993, so I missed the fun of 1980 and a few years later. I do recall some cold temps - like really cold - around 2011 but I don't think it lasted this long. It just keeps going on and on and I DO NOT LIKE IT.

I'm sitting here in my house and though the heat is running, I'm still chilly. But at least it's no longer snowing so that's good! The end is in sight!

[riffle]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1. What inaccurate info. have I posted?

2. You and several others are glossing over or maybe just missed...........the proportion of wind offline is much greater than the proportion of thermal offline.

3. I'm not blaming anyone. Emotion and finding scapegoats isn't helpful.

Re: #2... I assume by "offline" you mean forced offline, not just not generating? How did you calculate this? And for what time period?

Re: #3... What do you conclude from your point #2 that would help inform future reforms?

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by riffle

Re: #2... I assume by "offline" you mean forced offline, not just not generating? How did you calculate this? And for what time period?

Re: #3... What do you conclude from your point #2 that would help inform future reforms?

Tagged. Great questions. I've got to haul my daughter to DFW, I'll reply afterwards. That said I gleaned the percentage change per modality numbers from a DMN piece that used ERCOT data within a graphical illustration. I can probably find it and FWIIW it was time stamped, "Wednesday Morning" but was probably somewhat backward looking.

[loves2read]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1. What inaccurate info. have I posted?

2. You and several others are glossing over or maybe just missed...........the proportion of wind offline is much greater than the proportion of thermal offline.

3. I'm not blaming anyone. Emotion and finding scapegoats isn't helpful.

Misleading info is a cloaked lie

Which is greater over all
Say 80% of 12
Or 60% of 80?
That is the overall loss to the power grid

And performing wind turbines are producing MORE energy because of the higher than normal winds
So they offset the stopped ones’ loss

On the other hand coal and gas fired power plants are not (apparently) able to over-produce electricity to supplement extra power into the grid

False equivalency in your reasoning means NO accurate comparison

[Pilsn3r]

Originally Posted by jiping

You think you are getting omniscient fact-checked absolute truth, but it could be just brain-washing sound-bite headlines, such as
"the majority of power loss is from frozen natural gas issues"

That literally means nothing, because
The majority of power generation is also from natural gas. Proportionally those frozen wind turbine have higher failure rate and thermal plants prove to be much more reliable.
The majority of power loss from natural gas is due to, well, supply shortages of natural gas. This is exacerbated by the fail of wind plants - the reserve burns faster than expected. It's not entirely fair to say they all fail at the end.


Why shouldn't he? Wind power becomes popular not because people love green energy, but because there are enormous fund and tax credits coming from federal. PTC, ITC and soon the New Green Deal. Coal plants wouldn't have been phased out that quickly without Obama pushing for renewable energy and disrupting the free market.

Please cite your omniscient fact-checked absolute truths on your statements.

I have one on numerous news (not opinion/editorials) that writes to the effect of:
"And the loss of power to the grid caused by shutdowns of thermal power plants, primarily those relying on natural gas, dwarfed the dent caused by frozen wind turbines, by a factor of five or six."

Here's another fact: The TEXAS (not Obama or US) Renewable Portfolio Standard was signed by Bush in 1999 (fact: elected by the majority of voting TEXANS) and REQUIRED an increase in production of renewable energy sources. Obama was not president in 1999 (that is also a fact). Follow up bills up to 2005 in TEXAS (not US/Obama) increased the REQUIREMENT to produce more renewable energy sources in TEXAS (so TEXANS, not Obama -who was not president in 2005 - required the increase in renewable energy like wind and solar).

After 2011, why didn't Rick Perry (up to 2015) and Abbott (since 2015) require the winterization of the Texas power systems (gas, oil, wind, etc)? Was this Obama's fault too?

[Pilsn3r]

Originally Posted by NP78

Yeah, the biggest story is not really tied to the energy sources, but to reserve, plant maintenance, grid issues, etc.

It probably would have helped to have Big Brown and Monticello still on-line but there really isn’t any reason the current split between wind/natural gas/coal/nuclear couldn’t be configured to handle this event and our overall needs.

I see a lot of political opportunism here from both sides of the aisle, but this is fundamentally a lack of execution and investment in risk mitigation.

^^^This! Texas has multiple sources of energy which is great and unique - a diversified portfolio of sources that make other grids envious. This situation was easily avoidable if the governors, PUC, ERCOT, and even Texas residents would have pushed for risk mitigation. Unfortunately, Perry Abbott and Tucker, and their followers, want to blame wind turbines and/or Obama. I don't blame Bush or Perry for the bills they signed to increase renewable energy, it helped diversify energy sources for the benefit of Texas. The lack of winterization and reserves are causes.

[GoldenHair]

About 10 to 12 years ago, a coal fired electric plant on North Lake Dallas just south of Coppell was demolished. To my eyes it looked to be of decent size. I'm sure it could have helped prevent some (not all) of the blackouts here in the DFW area.

[jiping]

Germany is still 35-40% coal. Texas had similar numbers but is now at 13% coal. You know something is off when Texas is so much greener than Germany.