In response to the post on the causes of the Winter 2021 energy debacle in Texas, reader Corev confidently asserts:
Solar can never supply the power needed during peak demand. Peak demand occurs as the Sun diminishes.
Always useful to look at actual data. Here is a picture of peak load use in Texas on June 13th, 2022:
Source: Fox7Austin.
Peak use was at 6pm CST.
Sunset in Houston on June 13th was 8:23pm CST.
Of course, the entire point of the post was how renewables (including wind) were mitigating, not exacerbating, the difficulties Texas was encountering in meeting demand. Renewables includes wind, and wind accounts the great bulk of renewables energy production in Texas.
This is not to say that there are no problems with reliance on renewables; as pointed out in the Dallas Fed article, greater ability to transmit electricity (i.e., making the electricity generation more tradable, in essence) and greater battery storage capacity (which is coming) are going to be essential to meeting greater and more variable demand as climate change continues.
In the meantime, keep a watch out for utter failures of fact peddled by purveyors of disinformation.
“Peak use was at 6pm CST. Sunset in Houston on June 13th was 8:23pm CST.”
Anyone reading CoRev’s rants might ask if he really thinks the sun sets around 4PM. Maybe on Dec. 21 but not today.
here is a techie view:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18871
Anonymous, now why did you go and show that ole 6PM almost ZERO output? Don’t you know that these economic wizards know that solar panel output is a square wave, sunrise to sunset?
“Anonymous, now why did you go and show that ole 6PM almost ZERO output?”
A question premised by a lie. Unless you think 50% = 0. This is the problem little CoRev – you monopolize the comment section with one lie after another.
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk, I’ve asked several times that you stop digging as I am tired of fielding the apology calls from your mother and grade school teachers. Why do they aplogize? Because, they failed you such you can not read and comprehend.
Example, I said: “Anonymous, now why did you go and show that ole 6PM almost ZERO output?” and you claimed I said: “A question premised by a lie. Unless you think 50% = 0. ” You are lying even again while showing my quote.
The strangest part of this lie is you recognized that on some days, you example was Dec 21, sunset would be at ~4PM, well before peak demand at ~6PM. That’s two important data points. A decent analyst would be able to put together to understand the importance of changing sunset times to solar being able to fulfill peak demand.
Quite an example of your analytical skills. They match your support of the failing energy, environment, and war on fossil fuel policies.
Barking Bierka -the Disgusting NYC Jerk, how do you even get this: “Anyone reading CoRev’s rants might ask if he really thinks the sun sets around 4PM. Maybe on Dec. 21 but not today.”
from this: “Solar can never supply the power needed during peak demand. Peak demand occurs as the Sun diminishes.” Diminishes is not sunset.
This is all you got? Damn – I bet the neighborhood is getting tired of watching you chase your own tail.
Actually, I think it was 6pm CDT and 8:23pm CDT. But that’s picking nits. The main point still stands.
2slugs, he’s actually got a point. How does solar electricity meet peak demand when sunset is well before its needed at peak? You too can go to your econometric tool bag to explain mathematically.
The main point still stands. “Solar can never supply the power needed during peak demand. Peak demand occurs as the Sun diminishes.”
“How does solar electricity meet peak demand when sunset is well before its needed at peak?”
Another lie. We should call you butter as you on a roll.
Barking Bierka -the Disgusting NYC Jerk, your own example of Dec 21 and 4PM sunset is where I apply logic. Regrettably you do not. For some reason you seem to think that Menzie’s example shows solar meeting demand. Am I wrong? Or are you so ignorant to fail to understand that Menzie’s, single day example, doesn’t even come close to meeting peak demand? You are scary ignorant.
Some recently said this: “Another lie. We should call you butter as you on a roll.” Maybe you understand what it means. you clearly don’t understand your own changing sunset time examples.
Agree, and the 24 hour kinks are easy to iron out. Just put a little “molten sodium solar thermal plant” here and a battery there – and you don’t have to worry about any discordance between the daily production cycle and demand cycle. Add a little economic incentive for people to wash their clothes/dishes and charge EV’s at peak production times and you don’t even have to invest that much in “cycle alignment”. Smart meters and apps can be used to stagger the cheep electricity periods so the demand increases are staggered as needed. This is a lot easier than some people seem to want it to be.
Ivan, and all your suggestions add costs to the existing grid. A grid that was mostly reliable until renewables were added.
Additionally, all your suggestions are appropriate in adding efficiency for any & all sources, but as you imply is almost mandatory for renewables.
Mostly reliable? You tell that to the dead Texans – at least they won’t laugh at you (not because they agree, but because they are dead).
Sure you could add storage to any sources – but why would you? Let’s add it to those of the future not those that are slowly being phased out because modern approaches are getting less costly and are less destructive.
the ercot grid failed in previous years, before renewables were part of the deal. this is not a recent phenomena.
“Add a little economic incentive for people to wash their clothes/dishes and charge EV’s at peak production times”
you can already join electric plans in texas that do exactly that. prices are arranged based on peak production and low demand. you can get plans that provide night and weekend electricity for free. if you have a EV and power wall, it is VERY cost effective. some people are simply resistant to change. agree one hundred percent, spend money on the new technologies and let the old ones phase out. it is foolish to continue to invest in the fossil fuel infrastructure. it has very little future.
Ivan claims: ” Let’s add it to those of the future not those that are slowly being phased out because modern approaches are getting less costly and are less destructive.” Tell that to the dead Texans.
Maybe you can answer the question how solar fulfills peak demand using Barking Bierka -the Disgusting NYC Jerk’s example when sunset is at 4PM. Your others attempt was a terrible failure.
I’ll wait.
“Maybe you can answer the question how solar fulfills peak demand using Barking Bierka -the Disgusting NYC Jerk’s example when sunset is at 4PM. ”
when sunset is at 4pm, you are in the winter. demand is much lower. we don’t use air conditioning in the winter. we are not working off of a 100% renewable grid, yet, so that is not a problem. when we are on a 100% renewable grid, there will be energy storage solutions. so again, that is not a problem.
corev, your arguments are simply silly. peak demand in the summer is much different from peak demand in the winter. at least in texas.
Baffled, frequency of record peaks doesn’t really matter, except for why ERCOT focused on Summer and less so on Winter. That’s a management failure.
this is not true: ” Winter peaks are not the problem. Feb 2021 was not really a peak problem. It was a base load failure problem,…” ERCOT defines baseload as including 50% of average renewables generation. I showed this in the other thread. Renewables did not achieve 50% for significant portions of URI and actually approached zero on several occasions. It’s in the ERCOT data.
So if you want to compare baseload source failures renewables failure percentage was higher than gas. Renewables approached 100% while gas stayed considerable higher.
No, you should not consider average outputs when trying to fulfill stress periods when grids fail. That’s just crazy talk.
Baffled, so you can not answer the question. Peak time changes little, while magnitude changes some. AC in Summer and heat in Winter in Texas is supplied by electricity. There may be less need in Winter (heat and lights may not totally offset AC), but that’s the magnitude issue.
Before it was batteries was the solution, and now that we have a battery Article with enough questioning from even left renewables leaning commenters, they don’t look quite so good?
care to quantify the magnitude, corev? the average peak demands in summer versus winter are quite different.
Baffled asks a reasonable question: “care to quantify the magnitude, corev? ”
During URI the peak was “…69,150 Megawatts between 6 and 7 p.m.) https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/texas-power-grid-set-a-new-winter-peak-demand-record-sunday-evening/
While recent Summer time peaks were: “Peak demand hit 77,460 megawatts Tuesday afternoon, an all-time high. In May, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the grid, predicted in its annual seasonal assessment that the net peak this summer would come in at 77,317 megawatts on Aug. 10.” https://www.statesman.com/business/
I deliberately chose peak records s they are usually associated with the grid issues. Averages hide those peaks and issues. So we can see ~10-11% difference.
The summer peak occurs for many days out of the year. The winter peak you chose occurs every few years. The typical winter peak is much lower. You should be interested in the average peak values, not the one is several year values. You build contingency plans for the outlier days. Winter peaks are not the problem. Feb 2021 was not really a peak problem. It was a base load failure problem, that led to even more freezing of the base load. The failure occurred because half the base load became inoperable. Rolling blackouts could not even be implemented.
“keep a watch out for utter failures of fact peddled by purveyors of disinformation”.
Good advice and the best description of CoRev’s rants to date!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/retail-sales-rose-more-than-expected-in-june-as-consumers-remain-resilient-despite-inflation/ar-AAZBRhc?fromMaestro=true
Retail sales in June came in higher than expected. I guess Princeton Steve’s triumphant forecast that 2022QII was a period of recession isn’t working out the way he had hoped.
msn observes ‘not adjusted for price differences.’ as does census.
1% adjusted is for 1.3% m om (9.1 y on y) is a lot less “growth”
the gas sales plus will be less next print
Yeah, but May was sharply revised upwards, something that has been happening in the bigger inflation months. I suspect it will be up around 1.5% by the end. I prefer mean trimmed CPI to exgas, not seeing the recession. Just a flattening back to the pre-covid trend.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/u-s-senate-to-vote-as-soon-as-tuesday-on-china-chip-competition-bill-source/ar-AAZA7Df?ocid=anaheim-ntp-feeds&pc=U531&cvid=591fde796dbb4959a68eaf9873e2b84e
‘Voting in the Senate on a bill that would provide funding for the U.S. semiconductor industry as part of efforts to improve competitiveness with China could begin as early as Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has been telling lawmakers, a source familiar with the issue said on Thursday. The source said the bill, in addition to $52 billion in chip subsidies, would include, at a minimum, an investment tax credit from the “Facilitating American-Built Semiconductors (FABS) Act,” legislation intended to provide incentives for construction, expansion or modernization of semiconductor fabrication plants in the United States.’
Calling McConnell on his bluff!
‘The planned legislation is a smaller version of a bill the Senate passed in June 2021 that included the $52 billion for chip subsidies and authorized another $200 billion to boost U.S. scientific and technological innovation to compete with China. The House of Representatives never took up that bill, instead passing its own version in February that is similar to the Senate measure but also includes a number of trade proposals.’
Could we get this to the President’s desk this time?!
pelosi and i hold stocks to benefit from this!
Maybe you have not noticed but everyone is ignoring your stupid trolling.
If you are worried about peak time shortfalls, then battery type backups are quite effective. Support for a 2 hour shortfall is much cheaper than dealing with a week long fossil fuel plant shutdown. Those basing their argument on peak demand hours are not on solid footing. That issue is very solvable and economical. It is jot nearly the issue some would like to make it out to be. And as the population increases the installation of power walls and electric vehicles (which can act as power walls), the problem simply goes away.
When has CoRev EVER worried about being on solid footing? After all – the Koch Brothers are not paying him to be honest.
pgl,
I doubt they are paying him. He is too incompetent for them.
Baffled, remember adding renewables to the grid always add cost. Who pays for those ubiquitous batteries?
You also claim: ” Those basing their argument on peak demand hours are not on solid footing.” URI electricity failure was because dispatchable load inadequate to meet peak, and at that time most of the source was from fossil fuels, because renewable out put had fallen close to zero.
“Baffled, remember adding renewables to the grid always add cost.”
Cost defined in terms of only private costs. I guess you never got the point of negative externalities, which is the key issue in these discussions.
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk, just laughing at your moronic responses. Where are negative externalities in either the LCOE or FCOE cost estimates?
“Where are negative externalities in either the LCOE or FCOE cost estimates?”
If you are saying their estimates do not include some measure of the cost of externalities – then you are making my point. Even though you remain too stupid to get it. DUH!
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk, I’m still laughing. Saying: “If you are saying their estimates do not include some measure of the cost of externalities..” indicates a clear misunderstanding of the impacts of the War on Fossil Fuels. Externalities(some) are clearly in the FCOE, but since you are being cutesy by not defining externalities.
So, make two lists one for fossil and another for renewables and we’ll see how they are included in the cost estimates. Then we can compare how they are included.
Incorrect. Adding renewables to the grid does not add cost. Where do you come up with such garbage.
Everywhere from grid managers and engineers. I repeat: Who pays for those ubiquitous batteries? or the windmills, solar farms/panels,trunk lines, maintenance, etc.
The issue is why pay for another unreliable intermittent electricity source which requires stable backup? Wind and solar needs gas. Gas does not need wind and solar. Why is it that nearly every article about natural gas failing winds up revealing a wind failure?
Who pays for the damage from negative externalities? Oh I’m sorry – you have no clue what I am asking.
And you are still in denial. The feb 2022 texas blackout was the result of natural gas systems freezing and failing to produce electricity. You cannot admit the truth corev.
Barking Bierka – the NYC Jerk, just doesn’t get it. He was close with his observation that on some (many) days, sunset is well before peak electricity demand occurs. Having made that point he was clueless that he had just confirmed mine.
You can lead some liberals to a fact, but you can not make them understand its meaning. In the case of Barking Bierka – the NYC Jerk, we can see repetition without seeing a glimmer of any realization that he’s supporting the argument with which he objects.
Please, please Barking Bierka – the NYC Jerk, stop commenting. You are embarrassing the whole liberal community.
Baffled again shows how badly confused they are. “And you are still in denial. The feb 2022 texas blackout was the result of natural gas systems freezing and failing to produce electricity.”
Getting the year correct is critical to making a cogent point. BTW, I have admitted on several occasions that gas failed during URI. That has not meant that renewables also were responsible. You cannot admit the truth Baffled.
“sunset is well before peak electricity demand occurs.”
More lies? Dude the topic is about what recently happened and last I checked it was still summer.
“BTW, I have admitted on several occasions that gas failed during URI. ”
you have not done so in the past. but finally, corev admits the natural gas was the failure. good for you., ghostbuster.
“or the windmills, solar farms/panels,trunk lines, maintenance, etc.”
and you think new natural gas power plants are built for free, with no maintenance and other costs? what a foolish argument you are making.
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-fulton-county-da-sends-target-letters-to-trump-allies-in-georgia-investigation-152517469.html
ATLANTA — In the latest sign that she is moving rapidly in her investigation into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has sent so-called “target” letters to prominent Georgia Republicans informing them they could be indicted for their role in a scheme to appoint alternate electors pledged to the former president despite Joe Biden’s victory in the state, according to legal sources familiar with the matter.
The move by Willis, a Democrat, could have major political implications in a crucial battleground state with high-profile races for governor and the U.S. Senate this fall. Among the recipients of the target letters, the sources said, are GOP state Sen. Burt Jones, Gov. Brian Kemp’s running mate for lieutenant governor, David Shafer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, and state Sen. Brandon Beach.
Jones and Shafer were among those who participated in a closed-door meeting at the state Capitol on Dec. 14, 2020, in which 16 Georgia Republicans selected themselves as the electors for the state, although they had no legal basis for doing so. Shafer, according to a source who was present, presided over the meeting, conducting it as though it was an official proceeding, in which those present voted themselves as the bona fide electors in Georgia — and then signed their names to a declaration to that effect that was sent to the National Archives.
i find it fascinating that even when prof. chinn demonstrates the utter idiocy of comments from corev, the fool still comes back with denial statements. even econned has to admit the signaling out of a commentor like corev is not political, but simply demonstrating there truly are evil people in this world intent on using misinformation to further a political agenda.
He recently told me that I was wrong to say he complained about “solar”. Seriously? And Donald Trump never cheated on Ivana.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-07-15/Chinese-mainland-records-113-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1bGfg2LMeBy/index.html
July 15, 2022
Chinese mainland records 113 new confirmed COVID-19 cases
The Chinese mainland recorded 113 confirmed COVID-19 cases on Thursday, with 64 attributed to local transmissions and 49 from overseas, data from the National Health Commission showed on Friday.
A total of 420 asymptomatic cases were also recorded on Thursday, and 3,336 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation.
The cumulative number of confirmed cases on the Chinese mainland is 227,143, with the death toll from COVID-19 standing at 5,226.
Chinese mainland new locally transmitted cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-07-15/Chinese-mainland-records-113-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1bGfg2LMeBy/img/73796d8758794a48b675678ce0d354c6/73796d8758794a48b675678ce0d354c6.jpeg
Chinese mainland new imported cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-07-15/Chinese-mainland-records-113-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1bGfg2LMeBy/img/2e51f74911f64788bb835d74b6e5d667/2e51f74911f64788bb835d74b6e5d667.jpeg
Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-07-15/Chinese-mainland-records-113-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1bGfg2LMeBy/img/de49404f736f4bfea7a58de87e0eda46/de49404f736f4bfea7a58de87e0eda46.jpeg
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
July 14, 2022
Coronavirus
United States
Cases ( 91,060,225)
Deaths ( 1,048,232)
Deaths per million ( 3,153)
China
Cases ( 227,030)
Deaths ( 5,226)
Deaths per million ( 4)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/health/cdc-drug-resistant-infections.html
July 13, 2022
Drug-Resistant Infections in Hospitals Soared During the Pandemic, C.D.C. Says
A new report says the havoc wrought by the coronavirus reversed gains made by health care facilities to combat deadly pathogens.
By Andrew Jacobs
The spread of drug-resistant infections surged during the coronavirus pandemic, killing nearly 30,000 people in 2020 and upending much of the recent progress made in containing the spread of so-called superbugs, according to an analysis * by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention….
* https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/covid19.html
While it’s true that the Texas Feb 2021 blackouts were almost exclusively due to outages in thermal production (as shown in the Busby et al. work referenced in the prior post), that isn’t entirely the case earlier this week. For its tightest hour, ERCOT’s day ahead forecast was for 2.7GW and 4.3 GW of wind for 7/11 and 7/13 respectively. ERCOT’s seasonal resource adequacy report forecasts 9.4GW of wind as its baseline expected capacity for summer peak. It also includes scenarios of low wind output ranging from 2.9 GW to nearly zero. Actual wind production during peak hours was consistently below the baseline projections but mostly above low wind scenarios. This brings us back to thermal where it is important to mention the role played by thermal outages occurring this week. These are definitely not negligible and play a larger role than the shortfall from wind production but to suggest, as the author has, that renewables did not exacerbate ERCOT’s issues this week looks to be disinformation.
It seems the author confuses stocks and flows in these blog posts (an example is Chart 1 of annual GWh in the prior post – this is an almost entirely useless representation when discussing concerns serving peak) and they also haven’t bothered to consider assessing forecasts used in grid planning to serve peak much less any comparison to day-ahead projections and/or actual generation during peak.
Texas has a ton of real issues with its grid and unfortunately much of the media, blogs, and politicians aren’t doing a proper job in being completely honest about these issues.
Gig-a-What: Understood difference between flows (per month output is a flow, in my book) and capacity. Key point is thermal outages were larger than that from renewables (e.g., wind) – but typically ERCOT statements seem to focus on renewables. But suppose you have outages constituting 5% for thermal, and 1% renewables out of total capacity, and you demand exceeded capacity by 1%. Would you say “renewables” are to blame, or thermal…?
To the first sentence, hourly peak generation is the issue here – not annual kWh.
To the second sentence, I thought the entire point of the post was how renewables (including wind) were mitigating, not exacerbating, the difficulties Texas was encountering in meeting demand.
To the third sentence, the amount of outages relative to “total capacity” (also depends on exactly what “total capacity” is referenced) aren’t as relevant as you think. It’s the outages by resource relative to that same resource’s forecasted outages for grid planning purposes that matter when discussing the resources.
To the fourth sentence, I get the sense the goalposts have shifted. Maybe demand is to blame. Maybe thermal. Maybe renewables. See above. In any case, how can you say renewables performing below forecast isn’t evidence that renewables exacerbated the issues?
Corev was arguing that reliance on grids with renewables was problematic. The renewables were used to help accommodate the peak demand. Thermal supply was not sufficient to meet demand. And when thermal units unexpectedly go offline, the problem can get worse. This summer has revealed that short term battery backup is extremely valuable with renewable grids. You dont need days of backup. A few spare hours will satisfy demand adequately.
Baffling… The author’s entire point of the post was how renewables (including wind) were mitigating, not exacerbating, the difficulties Texas was encountering in meeting demand. This disinformation is what I was responding to.
Additionally, you have it backwards, thermal is typically what’s used to help accommodate the peak demand. This is because, all else equal, thermal isn’t intermittent like renewables are. You need support for intermittency during peak hours. Many of these thermal resources are literally refered to as “peakers” because they are dispatchable during moments when renewables aren’t performing up to expectation.
Yes, batteries are important but not relevant to the arguments made by the author of these posts.
gig, renewables today are not expected to operate 24/7, but they also are not treated as peak. they provide the bulk of power needed beyond what is available from thermal in a predictable manner. power produced from natural gas “peakers” is expensive.
baffling…
I agree that renewables today are not expected to operate 24/7,
I don’t know what you mean by saying renewables are not treated as peak. Peak is demand. However, renewables are absolutely used in planning for peak demand. Maybe my using the term peakers confused you but I clearly stated thermal dispatchable resources are peakers – aka not renewables.
You are wrong that during recent peak loads renewables provided the bulk of power needed in ERCOT’s jurisdiction. Again – this discussion is about peak and not annual generation.
The hour(s) when peak is needed to be met, the price is irrelevant. Again – this discussion is about peak and not annual generation.
gig, i meant renewables are not treated as dispatchable. meaning they are not turned off or on immediately. ercot has about a 10 minute window with some of those dispatchables.
“You are wrong that during recent peak loads renewables provided the bulk of power needed in ERCOT’s jurisdiction. ”
that is not what i stated.
Baffled claims: “Corev was arguing that reliance on grids with renewables was problematic. ” NO, NO, NO! I was quoted in this article and that is not what i said. Please quit lying about what I was arguing.
Your comments are why we must keep a watch out for utter failures of fact peddled by purveyors of disinformation.
“Corev was arguing that reliance on grids with renewables was problematic. ”
so now your position is reliance on grids with renewables is not problematic? seriously, take a position here corev. you are confusing yourself.
Baffled showing off your reading skills again? Menzie was talking about renewables. He quoted me about solar. BTW you and everyone else commenting have not refuted my comment yet.
how can you say renewables performing below forecast isn’t evidence that renewables exacerbated the issues?
This seems like an abuse of the English language. The fact that the performance of renewables disappointed ERCOT’s expectation is not quite the same thing as saying that it exacerbated the problem. Imagine that I’m a general commanding an army that is losing the battle, so I call for a reinforcing brigade but only two battalions show up. Did the fact that I didn’t get a full brigade “exacerbate” my impending defeat? I think most people would say that those two battalions mitigated the extent of my defeat but did not exacerbate it. The Cambridge Dictionary defines exacerbate as “to make something that is already bad even worse.” ERCOT’s use of renewables did not make the situation worse than it would have been absent those renewables.
2slugbaits… your reply is an abuse of logic and debate.
ERCOT performs very in-depth and detailed planning for purposes of serving its peak. These studies provide specifics of generation by resource and the grid is planned around these studies in an attempt to provide energy to customers when it is needed the most. Your war hypothetical isn’t relevant at all.
Also, the claim is not (necessarily) that ERCOT’s use of renewables made the situation worse than it would have been absent those renewables. That isn’t the claim or the focus of discussion. The claim is that underperformance by wind (along with thermal which I noted but you ignored) exacerbated ERCOT’s ability to meet peak demand. There’s no denying this.
2slugs regales us with even more gibberish. Why the need to use a metaphor when the subject is clear? It usually means the writer is clueless about the subject, which is evident.
Baffled made this point: ” The renewables were used to help accommodate the peak demand. Thermal supply was not sufficient to meet demand. And when thermal units unexpectedly go offline, the problem can get worse. ” As I already showed the ERCOT plan is reliant on ~use of 50%of renewable output. So when ” Thermal supply was not (recognized/planned to be in)sufficient to meet demand. And when thermal (or renewable) units unexpectedly go offline, the problem can get worse.” But renewables believers always blame thermal suppliers.
Worse, they think that is a sound position. Let’s add more intermittent and unreliable renewables to the grid to stabilize it. (Paraphrase of Baffled)
In simple terms, ercot relied on renewables and the grid did not fail this summer. Yet. On the other hand, in feb 2021 ercot relied on natural gas and it did not come through. It failed miserably.
Baffled claims: “In simple terms, ercot relied on renewables and the grid did not fail this summer. Yet.”
In reality ERCOT relies on renewables to consistently provide about 1/2 of their average outputs to meet demand. When they do not they then fall back upon “Peakers”, typically gas turbines. But these gas turbines are so sized that they do not actually meet EXTREME demands like storm URI.
During URI when renewables failed to meet their planned 1/2 average output the failure to meet demand was inevitable even with valiant efforts. But the renewables believers can only illogically blame the “Peakers”.
There’s something wrong with this logic, and it results in article like this one. It’s these logical failures and belief in similar bad policies that have given us this economy. Us voters know this.
Baffling… wrong. ERCOT relied on conservation and the grid did not fail this summer. They had to rely on conservation because demand was very high and generation from both wind and thermal did not produce up to plan.
gig, I think your emphasis on conservation is overblown. energy companies asked that you increase your thermostat by 1 degree, and avoid using large appliances until after 7pm. and it was a request, not mandatory. they sent it to me in an email in the afternoon. the grid did not fail.
on the other hand, in feb 2021 the grid did fail. natural gas, which was expected to power the grid, failed in dramatic fashion. and the grid collapsed.
Menzie the issue is not so much per month output in kWh but peak demand in kW at a specific part of a very high demand day. Capacity is important here, but you also have to look at utilization. Wind and solar have much lower capacity factors due to their reliance on environmental conditions (wind, sun). Any generation into the grid is surely helping, but natural gas generators are used to meet peak demand due to the ability to quickly bring them on and offline. Renewables are simply not capable of this. The spectacular failure last winter is less of a “thermals” vs renewable and more of a poor maintenance program and shitty design of the system for environmental conditions. Other states operate nat gas generators in worse weather without issue every year.
Kirk: My first RA job was researching electricity generating capacity and the debate between US DoE and CRS on how likely we were to hit a constraint (high energy prices induced sufficient conservation that we didn’t need to go on a wholesale binge building new plants). My second interaction with electricity was attending meetings of the energy policy task force (i.e., Cheney committee) staff level meetings, where worries about energy generation were making people suggest mass nuke building plans. My third interaction was monitoring and assessing the California debacle with partially deregulated electricity markets, as part of my tasks at the CEA. So I’m aware of the distinction between the quantity of power generation and maximum level of power generation per type. The ability to bring online gas turbines is surely a positive in the face of hitting maximum capacity. However, if I recall correctly, costs of power generation from such ready-to-go gas turbines is high. So, the point is that renewables aren’t a panacea. However, with great grid reliability and storage capacity (i.e., batteries), renewables won’t be an exacerbating factor in crises as in this summer, but rather something that can take the strain off of thermals overall, and even in times of peak load usage.
Menzie believes: “However, with great grid reliability and storage capacity (i.e., batteries), renewables won’t be an exacerbating factor in crises as in this summer, but rather something that can take the strain off of thermals overall, and even in times of peak load usage.” Where do we get that great grid reliability with a grid with ever increasing use of intermittent renewables? In today’s world it is with online gas turbines.
What may be interesting is that the 7/15/2022 price for gas fired electricity in Houston 158.25 -31.3 112.05 (Spark Price) ($/MWh)
Yes, they were the highest on their Select Spot Prices for Delivery Today https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/prices.php
With that spark price the Houston gas generators were making big profits when they sold. Does that support or not your point ” However, if I recall correctly, costs of power generation from such ready-to-go gas turbines is high.” It is a spot market, so almost surely prices are driven by demand.
This statement could probably be more accurate if phrased differently: “The ability to bring online gas turbines is surely a positive in the face of hitting maximum capacity (demand).” Most grid managers do not look kindly on hitting maximum capacity. Too many bad things can go wrong, as in URI.
Menzie I apologize if I came off as belittling, was not my intention. I agree the renewables can be an effective and economic means to generate power in the right places, that being said their intermittent nature I think requires you to have more peak following capacity to make up for this variability which as you point out is typically inefficient due to its low utilization. I think battery storage is an interesting field but I’m not certain the technology has reached viability at a utility scale, though I would be interested in learning more about current applications.
Battery technology is improving yearly. And would be further along if a certain fossil fuel industry were not so effective at disrupting renewable technology. Actually invest in energy storage, eliminate the distractors, and the problem is solvable. It is now an engineering problem, not a theoretical problem. It has a solution.
Other states operate nat gas generators in worse weather without issue every year.
Well, it’s easy to forget that distributing natural gas to homes during extreme cold is not always reliable either. Utilities frequently have to tell consumers to turn down their thermostats in the depths of winter out of concern over widespread pipeline failures.
2slugs, more gibberish without referential support.
2slugbaits I disagree. lived in North Dakota for 6 years and never had that happen. Everything is winterized there.
Is a Gig-a-What akin to 1 billion questions? Telling a macroeconomist that he does not know the difference between stocks and flows is sort of like telling the judge he does not understand the law.
pgl… One would think so but maybe the macroeconomist doesn’t understand the utility industry? There’s no reason to provide a graph of annual generation (stock) when discussing the difficulties ERCOT is facing in meeting its peak (flow) obligations. Please let me know if you caught something that I may have missed. Macroeconomists, just like judges, are not beyond reproach. Or maybe you’re suggesting that Korematsu was properly decided? Dred Scott? Buck v Bell?
He sounds like econned or rick.
Jesse Watters of Faux News is being rightfully blasted for attacking that 10 year girl who was raped. This pig is always quite the racist:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-foxs-racist-sexist-frat-boy-jesse-watters-will-always-win
Bill O’Reilly’s top lackey stepped in a pile of outrage on Wednesday when his supremely unwatchable man-on-the-street sketch, featuring blatantly racist mockery of Asian people, went viral. For five minutes, Jesse Watters took his smirking dudebro persona to the streets of New York City’s Chinatown to ask Asians—some of whom didn’t speak English—if they do karate, where he can buy some homeopathic herbs for “performance,” or whether he’s “supposed to bow to say hello.” Carl Douglas’s tacky hit song “Kung Fu Fighting,” featuring a quintessential “Oriental” riff, played throughout the pre-taped package.
The right now says us that an abortion is not an abortion:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abortion-child-rape-victim_n_62d040fbe4b0e6251b3a0f79
An Abortion Is Not An Abortion If A 10-Year-Old Gets One, Says Anti-Abortion Leader
Americans United for Life’s CEO told Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) that a child rape victim ending her pregnancy is “not an abortion.” Huh?
In a truly bizarre exchange during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, the leader of a national anti-abortion organization claimed that it “would not be an abortion” if a 10-year-old rape victim got pregnant and … had an abortion. Catherine Glenn Foster, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, was responding to questions from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) about whether she thinks a 10-year “I believe it would probably impact her life, and so, therefore, it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion,” said Foster. “Wait,” replied Swalwell, puzzled. “It would not be an abortion if a 10-year-old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of a rape?” “If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion,” Foster said. “So it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.”-old girl would or should “choose” to have a baby. After some back and forth, during which Foster refused to answer the question, she came up with a response.
Does this woman not get that being pregnant impact the life of the woman carrying the fetus in every case. So I guess all those anti-choice laws are mute.
Menzie says: “In the meantime, keep a watch out for utter failures of fact peddled by purveyors of disinformation.” Then he shows his graph of peak being at ~6PM.
https://econbrowser.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ercot-power-demand_texas_june2022.png
But what was the claim? “Solar can never supply the power needed during peak demand. Peak demand occurs as the Sun diminishes.” Why did he not show the typical solar panel output overlaid on that graph? Here’s why: https://gosolarquotes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/image1.png And this is from a solar sales company who might have been expected to be fluffier on output estimates.
He is absolutely correct: keep a watch out for utter failures of fact peddled by purveyors of disinformation. This the 2nd time in recent articles that the original comment was misrepresented.
This is probably a better source than the one you gave CoRev.
https://jrenewables.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40807-018-0054-3
particularly figure 5
https://jrenewables.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40807-018-0054-3/figures/5
Note the difference between winter and summer months.
Jacob: Thanks very much for this article. Very illuminating.
Menzie, I still would like an explanation of: “Solar can never supply the power needed during peak demand. Peak demand occurs as the Sun diminishes.” using figure 5. Even in these long Summer days shown, at Peak demand ~600PM -800PM, solar output has already dropped to nearly 1/2 its daily midday peaout at the start of the peak demand period and ending at neat zero at the end of the peak demand period.
The Peak demand period doesn’t change. It occurs at the same time nearly every world day. Sunset changes every day. What’s going to happen to solar output on those many, many shorter days, when the solar output period doesn’t come close to overlapping the peak demand period?
You can use any spiffy econometric tool in your tool bag to calculate how to get near zero solar output to fulfill peak demand.
Half-hour average capacity factor for each site, 2007–2013, on June 21 (top)
The top diagram undermines what you have been saying. Learn to read – moron.
“This study measured the complementarity of wind and solar resources sited in various regions of Texas.”
ltr keeps noting having multiple sources of energy are complements. But CoRev keeps insisting on analyzing this as if one had to rely on a single source. Does he not understand complementarity? Maybe he does understand but his entire driving force is disinformation. So thanks for this useful information even if we will have to tolerate how CoRev will cherry pick and misrepresent.
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk, the subject of Menzie’s article was renewables after quoting me about solar not meeting peak demand. Menzie also made this point: “In the meantime, keep a watch out for utter failures of fact peddled by purveyors of disinformation.”, which may have been his main goal.
No one, especially Menzie, has refuted my point. Nor will you.
As for multiple sources, well DUH, that’s what grid management is all about. That’s why I chided ltr for bringing up the obvious. Your blind acceptance is a measure of your understanding of the subject.
How are you doing on that list of externalities.
Still peddling the notion that sundown is at 4PM we see. BTW – the sun never diminishes even when you are too blind to see it.
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk, stop digging. The Peak demand period doesn’t change. It occurs at the same time nearly every world day. Sunset changes every day. What’s going to happen to solar output on those many, many shorter days, when the solar output period doesn’t come close to overlapping the peak demand period?
Maybe you can help Menzie, or 2slugs, baffled MD nonecon, etc use any spiffy econometric tool in your tool bag to calculate how to get near zero solar output to fulfill peak demand. Especially when sunset if before 600PM.
Why don’t you ever think?
Menzie was talking the most recent event and BTW it is not winter in Houston. Keep moving the goal posts dude.
More BS from Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk. He used my quote, just he used an inappropriate example doesn’t help your cause.
Please, please stop digging. I’m getting tired of taking the calls from your mother and past grade school teachers trying to explain and apologizing for their failures with you.
CoRev
July 16, 2022 at 12:51 pm
Little Covie pooh thinks his I’m rubber your glue.is funny. Of course, the other kiddies are not laughing with him but at him. Yes even 3 year olds get how dishonest and dumb this pathetic troll is.
Solar production drops to about half of its peak by 6pm. Not zero by any means, but even so, this makes it not particularly well suited to meet peek demand needs on its own. I think wind picks up in morning and evening, typically, and that can nicely complement solar in that regard. Safe and efficient storage is something that needs to be solved. Maybe electric cars are part of the answer to that.
https://english.news.cn/20220624/cab61175a57d4964b6ccd149d136d829/c.html
June 24, 2022
Chinese e-vehicle battery enables 1,000-km journey on single charge
FUZHOU — China’s leading automotive lithium-ion battery maker, Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Ltd. (CATL), revealed on Thursday a new battery that provides electric vehicles with a driving range of over 1,000 km on a single charge.
With the third generation of cell-to-pack (CTP) technology, the battery named Qilin, or CTP 3.0 battery, has a volume utilization efficiency of 72 percent and an energy density of up to 255 Wh/kg for ternary battery systems, giving it the highest integration level in the world, according to CATL. The battery is named after a legendary creature named “Qilin” in Chinese mythology.
By directly integrating cells into packs without modules, CTP technology improves system energy density, simplifies manufacturing and helps reduce costs. Besides, the CTP 3.0 battery features improvements in service life, safety, charging speeds and low-temperature performance.
The product’s full-life-cycle reliability and resistance to shock and vibration are improved by the integrated energy unit, which is composed of the cell and a multifunctional elastic interlayer.
The battery boasts thermal stability and safety, and is therefore compatible with materials of higher energy density in product upgrades. In extreme circumstances, the cell can be cooled rapidly, thus preventing abnormal thermal conduction between cells. Meanwhile, charging takes just 10 minutes in fast mode….
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-06-07/China-s-first-desert-highway-achieves-zero-carbon-emissions-1aF8Txs4x56/index.html
June 7, 2022
China’s first desert highway achieves zero carbon emissions
The Tarim Desert Highway, which traverses the Taklimakan Desert in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, has been turned into a zero-carbon one, thanks to a transformation project completed earlier this month for the irrigation system along its shelterbelt.
After the transformation project, shrubs along the highway are now irrigated with the help of solar power-fueled pumps, instead of diesel ones.
The project is estimated to cut diesel consumption by about 1,000 tonnes and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 3,410 tonnes per year, according to PetroChina’s Tarim oilfield branch, which is in charge of the project.
The Tarim Desert Highway was completed in 1995. Cutting through China’s largest desert, it reduced the distance from the regional capital Urumqi to Hotan by 500 km.
However, it was no easy task to build and maintain a highway in the Taklimakan, the world’s second-largest shifting-sand desert. In 2005, a 436-km-long shelterbelt was planted on both sides of the highway to protect it from being swallowed up by sand, and 109 well stations were built for irrigation.
Eighty-six of the well stations were powered by diesel fuel. They were also unable to provide continuous energy.
In January this year, PetroChina’s Tarim oilfield branch launched the transformation project, which sought to alter all the diesel power generators into photovoltaic power-driven ones.
In addition to the diesel consumption and CO2 emissions reduced with the help of the project, CO2 captured by the shelterbelt can surpass 20,000 tonnes each year. It can help neutralize the CO2 emitted by passing vehicles, thus making it a zero-carbon highway, according to the branch.
The solar power generators are also equipped with energy storage facilities, which ensure a stable power supply and provide the maintenance workers with accessible electricity….
Notice that energy storage with reliance on solar facilities is a given, so that energy along the desert highway all through the night is there:
“The solar power generators are also equipped with energy storage facilities, which ensure a stable power supply and provide the maintenance workers with accessible electricity….”
We agree Jacob, although its been my experience that wind usually diminishes near sunset, even on windy days.
Your experience? PLEASE!
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk asks: “Your experience? PLEASE!” I have for decades been out at sunrise and sunset. The experience is real world observation in the wild.
I have for decades been out at sunrise and sunset. The experience is real world observation in the wild.
Nature boy CoRev? No a dumb dog chasing its tail because its master has thrown the poor poodle out of the house.
“Solar production drops to about half of its peak by 6pm. Not zero by any means, but even so, this makes it not particularly well suited to meet peek demand needs on its own. I think wind picks up in morning and evening, typically, and that can nicely complement solar in that regard. Safe and efficient storage is something that needs to be solved. Maybe electric cars are part of the answer to that.”
Well said. Alas CoRev will do his best to cherry pick and misrepresent this too. It is what he does.
Menzie, please respond to the challenge of the veracity of this article. Even in your example, where solar output overlaps with the peak demand period, solar has started well down its output curve and will be near 50% point. “The Peak demand period doesn’t change. It occurs at the same time nearly every world day. Sunset changes every day. What’s going to happen to solar output on those many, many shorter days, when the solar output period doesn’t come close to overlapping the peak demand period? ”
I’ll wait.
Still waiting.
Still waiting. Anyone?
CoRev,
Clearly, even though it has been pointed out by numerous people here, you are too dumb to get it that there does not need to be a perfect coincidence of timing of production of energy by the various renewables, and “renewables” are the subject of this thread, not your goal post moving effort to make it only about solar, then you can wait until your soybeans rot.
Barkley, divide your comment by zero and give us the answer.
Or even better, refute my statement quoted in the article to show just how dumb I am.
If you can not do that then calculate how much “renewables” must increase to meet Texas peak demand. Pick any day, but remember Dec 21 is already proposed as an alternative from which to compare. I anticipate your response.
I’ll continue to wait.
Yes, I’m still waiting.
That statement from Corev is about as absurd as it gets. Take current peak demand divide it with solar production during peak – that is how many fold increases in solar panels it will take to cover peak demand from solar alone. It would not be the rationale or cost- effective thing to do at this time, but it is completely doable.
The reality is that as alternative energy gets cheeper and energy storage gets cheeper, alternative energy will become a larger and larger % of the energy mix. We have the technology it is just not cost-effective – unless we subsidize it more or reduce subsidies for the hydrocarbon industry. Give enough time and even the current imbalance in subsidies will be overcome by market forces alone. We are already at the point where nobody build new coal plants and it will not be long before Wall Street find even natural gas fired plants too risky. France has realized that they need to nationalize to keep nuclear power production alive long term. I seriously doubt that the US will decide to subsidize nuclear to keep it alive.
A decentralized grid with small alternative energy plants, lots of storage capacity and connections to a handful of nearby mini grids, is the only thing that makes sense for society. Unfortunately that is going to take a lot of profit away from a lot of big corporations. So it will be a long hard fight that may have to include a big number of costumers disconnecting from the grid completely in protest.
Ivan there are at least 2 issues just with this claim: “Take current peak demand divide it with solar production during peak – that is how many fold increases in solar panels it will take to cover peak demand from solar alone. It would not be the rationale or cost- effective thing to do at this time, but it is completely doable. ”
1) Division by zero is zero. Many many days of the year solar output is zero or near zero at peak demand. You do know solar panels do not really produce in the dark.
2) Why would any one even consider solar for peak demand, since its neither rational nor cost effective today? Just when do you think it will be? If you lived in that state would you stay or go to ales expensive state following all the businesses?
You also say: “We are already at the point where nobody build new coal plants and it will not be long before Wall Street find even natural gas fired plants too risky. ” Except China, India, Germany and Poland are refurbishing and refiring, building or considering building coal plants. Raising prices and reducing supply does strange things to economies, and planners.
All you proposals add costs to the mostly adequate existing grid without adding value. Unless, of course, you’re trying to solve Barking Bierkas -disgusting NYC Jerk’s externalities issue(s).
Given enough time and money anything can be done. The real issue why would you since neither time and/or money is constrained.
CoRev,
I have stayed away from this discussion because your comments have been so stupid and obnoxious as to largely ignore. But, please, you just really fell off a cliff with this latest. Wikipedia does describe me as a “mathematical economist,” even if my cv. makes no such claim. Heck, my youngest grandson just asked me about two weeks ago if I was a mathematician after I gave him and his brother a serious lecture on number theory. But, no, I as Moses Herzog likes to note, I am just “Barkley Junior,” a mere mathematical economist, not a real mathematician.
As it is was, my late father was a mathematician, a very serious one, who saved the Apollo program (unlike you) and published in 1945 the still-in-print book, The Mathematics of Space Flight. One of the stories I told my grandsons was about him, an old school southern gentleman. Late in his life while giving a public lecture, a young woman asked him if zero is a real number. His reply was, “One of the finest, my dear, one of rhe finest.”
So, here you have gone and made a not only false but completely idiotic claim about that important number, the one that is both real and imaginary. Sorry, CoRev, but “Division by zero is zero” is utterly false and stupid. My late old man would have taken away your nonexistent Apollo awards for you saying such an absymsally incorrect stupidity.
Shame on you. Now STFU with your increasingly stupid lies.
Barkley, then divide by zero and give us your answer.
I also have a story of discussing with my oldest son when he was ~4 YO the meaning of negative numbers and infinity. He is now a degreed practicing meteorologist.
CoRev,
Good heavens, you are asking me to divide by zero and give you an answer? I fear your son would be highly embarrassed at this absurd request on your part. You really do not know when it is time to SRFU, do you?
Oh, and is it your son who is feeding you some of the more crackpot stuff you have been spouting here about meteorology and climatology? That is too bad if is the case. Maybe your explanation of negative numbers and infinity when he was all of four was a bit too early, if it was accurate at all, which, given the zero accuracy of so much of what you have been spouting here is questionable, poor kid.
Agree; if he wants to use some absurdly twisted misrepresentation of someones writings to “prove” they are wrong – at least he should get the grade school math right.
EVERYTHING from CoRev is absurd. He’s a troll. Get used to it.
It’s true that daily peak demand is at about the same time year around, but you are not taking into account the magnitude of daily peak demand varies throughout the year. In Texas it is much higher in the summer (air conditioning) than the rest of the year. So to say that solar only works really well to meet daily peak demand in the summer isn’t a drawback, it’s actually a good fit for the state’s needs. They need generating capacity that is only absolutely needed a few months out of the year (and then only a few hours a day) regardless of source, no?
“Lower wind output, coupled with higher electricity demand in the hottest summer months, requires more expensive units to come online to serve load at these times, elevating summer prices.”
http://www.energyonline.com/reports/2021_ERCOT_Outlook.pdf
Not to say that solar doesn’t work throughout the year and isn’t impacted by swings in commodity prices…
Agree, solar is perfect for hot southern regions because its production peaks fit almost perfectly with demand peaks. All you need is a minor storage capacity to iron out some of the 24 hour variations.
CoRev,
Sorry, but eff you, you lying goal post mover. The discussion of this thread is about “Renewables,” not just solar. Menzie is in charge here, not you. That wind complements solar is completely relevant, not to mention that it is much more important for the Texas electricity grid than solar as well.
Oh, and regarding solar, why is it that you seem to completely fail to get it that while not as well developed as we would like, there is an ability to store solar energy to some extent, so your endless blathering about precise timings of what times of day solar power is being generated relative to peak demand have been from the start a totally irrelevant waste of time and totally ignorant and stupid?
But then, what should we expect from somebody who thinks that if one divides by zero the answer is zero? Actually that is the amount of intelligence and knowledge you have been exhibiting in this entire discussion. Zero.
Oh, and I guess we know you are out in the sunrise and the sunset because you are growing soybeans, right, which made you this great expert on soybean markets, when you weren’t hanging your zero Apollo awards on various walls, right, boy?
Barkley, how disconnected your gibberish is from reality are your? “But then, what should we expect from somebody who thinks that if one divides by zero the answer is zero? Actually that is the amount of intelligence and knowledge you have been exhibiting in this entire discussion. Zero.” If you want a semantical argument go for it. Divide by zero and cite your answer.
You also claim: “The discussion of this thread is about “Renewables,” not just solar.” but Menzie quoted me and I did not mention renewables only solar.I am defending my quote, Menzie has yet to refute it. Nor has anyone else. His example is about sunset. He later brings in wind as being complementary to solar. All of this was related to storm URI in Feb 2021, where the data is clear. Both WIND and SOLAR were hugely diminished and at times near zero, during the storm.
In a run on sentence you also claim: “Oh, and regarding solar, why is it that you seem to completely fail to get it that while not as well developed as we would like, there is an ability to store solar energy to some extent, so your endless blathering about precise timings of whatOh, and regarding solar, why is it that you seem to completely fail to get it that while not as well developed as we would like, there is an ability to store solar energy to some extent, so your endless blathering about precise timings of what times of day solar power is being generated relative to peak demand have been from the start a totally irrelevant waste of time and totally ignorant and stupid?ave been from the start a totally irrelevant waste of time and totally ignorant and stupid?” And you call me ignorant and stupid?
Your understanding of the subject is embarrassingly inadequate: “Oh, and regarding solar, why is it that you seem to completely fail to get it that while not as well developed as we would like, there is an ability to store solar energy to some extent, so your endless blathering about precise timings of what times of day solar power is being generated relative to peak demand have been from the start a totally irrelevant waste of time and totally ignorant and stupid?” In what ignorant and stupid world would anyone try to store ~2.5% of generated electricity output, Menzie’s example or ~0% Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk’s example?
You now want to store ZERO OUTPUT and divide peak demand by that stored amount. Maybe like Ivan you think that gives a valid number from which to size future solar installations.
The simplest solution is to calculate how solar fulfills peak demand. Alternatively you could show how renewables does it. Beware, if you take either the discussion will shift to at what cost, and for how long. Anything is possible given enough time and MONEY.
Again, I’ll wait.
CoRev,
Wow, you are seriously worthless, as well as stupid and an out of control goal post mover.
Go look at the title of this thread. The word “renewables” is in it. You have as you so often been trying to hijack the discussion with your effort to move the goal post for it to be all about solar power only and getting all self-righteous when it is pointed out you are wrong.
As for your continuing incoherent comments about dividing by zero, well, this is a good one: set up a goal post at infinity and then complain that people are not reaching it, although you do not even know where you put it.
So, you can wait all you like and some more time you do not like as well, fool.
jd, your ERCOT reference said this right below your selected quote: “… wind units in Texas tend to generate more electricity in the late
evening and early morning hours, rather than during high demand hours…. As can be seen here, lowest average wind output coincides with the peak hours of the high
demand months.”
It doesn’t really matter since the discussion is about solar also NOT meeting annual peak demand periods.
ERCOT with that statement also confirms Ivan’s error /misunderstanding.
Prof. Chinn, I applaud your effort to rectify the misinformation posted by corev. But unless you ban or limit his comments, you can see the misinformation will continue unabated. He willfully misinforms with absolutely no interest in actually learning about a topic. He has a political agenda and unfortunately abuses your blog freedoms to promote those lies. To top it off, the guy actually believes in ghosts! Be careful, or he may slime you.
Baffled, please, please show us all where I have been wrong in this thread.
You night even show us how solar works on those days when sunset occurs before peak demand. Or you could show us how in Menzie’s example how ~2.5% of generated electricity fulfills 100% of demand?
I’ll wait while your doing them, but I’m really interested in the fulfillment calculations.
I’ve spent a lot of time successfully defending my quote in this article. Successfully, because NO ONE has been able to refute it with actual numbers.
Let’s talk about Menzie’s claim: “Of course, the entire point of the post was how renewables (including wind) were mitigating, not exacerbating, the difficulties Texas was encountering in meeting demand. Renewables includes wind, and wind accounts the great bulk of renewables energy production in Texas.” This is absolutely true UNTIL the SUN DOESN’T SHINE and the WIND DOESN’T BLOW. As happened in storm URI.
On an annual basis, Texas peak loading is in the Summer when AC is needed. ERCOT says this: “…Figure 6. As can be seen here, lowest average wind output coincides with the peak hours of the high demand months.” http://www.energyonline.com/reports/2021_ERCOT_Outlook.pdf This data point is exacerbated by another: “…Three-digit temperatures are straining the state’s grid and earlier this month prompted ERCOT, the Lone Star State’s grid operator, to ask Texans to conserve energy. It also severely affected wind power generation.
Bloomberg reported this week that wind turbines in Texas are operating at just 8 percent of their capacity because of low wind speeds.This is really unfortunate because demand for electricity is on a strong rise because of the weather….” https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/Texas-Heatwave-Highlights-A-Major-Problem-With-Wind-Power.html
It is actually normal or at least quite common that wind speed diminishes along with high pressure systems which are common to bringing heat. So on a daily basis wind may complement solar to better meet demand, but on an annual basis it may exacerbate the demand/generation difference.
This difference is compounded by a solar issue, where it is actually some what reduced in hot weather. Solar peak months are April and October. As I already said, this absolutely true. But what value does his statement add? ERCOT’s plan is for a 50% renewables output. When that 50% is not available si when the ERCOT grid management goes off the rails.
Just remember the potential grid fault is because the undersized gas generation sources failed. It is clearly solved by adding more intermittent and unreliable renewable sources to the grid. Time and MONEY are unlimited, right?
I await the crew here to rectify the misinformation. Again I’ll wait. Beware the voters won’t.
time to point something out that is obvious, but overlooked, in the discussion of renewables and the texas grid. the texas electric grid was developed and currently run by conservative republicans, who are openly hostile to renewables and defensive of the fossil fuel industry. you have a grid that operates without the intent to integrate renewables in an efficient manner. and yet renewables are still contributing to the grid, despite this resistance. why? because investors understand in the long run, building out new thermal energy sources is a losing proposition. investors understand, building out renewable energy sources is a much better proposition. once ercot begins to truly embrace the integration of renewable into its grid, the performance will certainly improve. but currently there is a reluctance in doing so. that will change, but it will take time. change always does. so when you see the ercot grid perform suspect, understand you are really looking at a worst case scenario. a well run electric grid does not need to operate the way the ercot grid operates.
Baffled, read the WSJ Oped: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wests-climate-policy-debacle-global-warming-energy-putin-russia-fossil-fuel-power-summer-heat-11658084481
its an oped. written by people no more intelligent than you corev.
Stumbled upon this diy dashboard for ERCOT showing realtime grid conditions ofr Texas, including wind and solar generation.
https://p.datadoghq.com/sb/5c2fc00be-393be929c9c55c3b80b557d08c30787a?from_ts=1658142451910&to_ts=1658747251910&live=true