Clearly, electricity generators and natural gas providers were the problem in reduced supply during the winter crisis of 2021, according to the FERC/NERC report.
The majority of the problems experienced by the many generators that tripped, suffered derates, or failed to start during the event were attributable, either directly or indirectly, to the cold weather itself. For the Southwest as a whole, 67 percent of the generator failures (by MWh) were due directly to weather-related causes, including frozen sensing lines, frozen equipment, frozen water lines, frozen valves, blade icing, low temperature cutoff limits, and the like. At least another 12 percent were indirectly attributable to the weather (occasioned by natural gas curtailments to gas-fired generators and difficulties in fuel switching).
…
Problems on the natural gas side largely resulted from production declines in the five basins serving the Southwest. For the period February 1 through February 5, an estimated 14.8 Bcf of production was lost. These declines propagated downstream through the rest of the gas delivery chain, ultimately resulting in natural gas curtailments to more than 50,000 customers in New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.
The production losses stemmed principally from three things: freeze-offs, icy roads, and rolling electric blackouts or customer curtailments. Freeze-offs occurred when the small amount of water produced alongside the natural gas crystallized or froze, completely blocking off the gas flow and shutting down the well. Freeze-offs routinely occur in very cold weather, and affected at least some of these basins in all of the six recent cold weather events in the Southwest with the possible exception of 1983, for which adequate records are not available.
During the February event, icy roads prevented maintenance personnel and equipment from reaching the wells and hauling off produced water which, if left in holding tanks at the wellhead, causes the wells to shut down automatically. The ERCOT blackouts or customer curtailments affected primarily the Permian and Fort Worth Basins and caused or contributed to 29 percent (Permian) and 27 percent (Fort Worth) of the production outages, principally as a result of shutting down electric pumping units or compressors on gathering lines.
What about renewables? For wind power, footnote 89:
Wind resources, which are forecasted on an hourly basis, are also not included in the calculation of available resources for purposes of meeting the responsive reserve requirement. One of the most significant differences between the NERC Winter Assessment and ERCOT operations is how wind power is handled. The NERC Winter Assessment assigns a fixed average output of 8.7 percent of nameplate rating as “existing-certain” generation capacity. For the 9317 MW of installed wind capacity (aggregate nameplate rating) in ERCOT, this amounts to 811 MW. Operations, on the other hand, utilizes wind power forecasts derived from highly localized wind speed forecasts, which provide wind power output values for each of the upcoming 48 hours. The forecasts are re-run hourly and the results updated accordingly, yielding a “rolling” 48 hour look-ahead. ERCOT’s Current Operating Plan (COP) for wind power uses a conservative estimate which has an 80 percent chance of being met or exceeded, and already takes into account any equipment outages, either scheduled or forced. On the morning of February 2, the aggregate COP for wind power peaked at about 5200 MW at 3:00 AM and decreased steadily each hour down to 3500 MW at 8:00 AM. The actual wind power output followed the same downward trend, but fell short off the COP numbers anywhere from 400 MW to 1000 MW, depending on the specific hour. (This snapshot picture exhibits the variability of wind power.)
So while there is variability in wind power generation, this is understood, and built into the assessment of risks (perhaps not optimally by ERCOT). In the event of 2021 winter crisis, one can see the shortfall in renewables generation was dwarfed by the the shortall in non-renewables power generation, as shown in the figure below, reproduced from Busby et al. “Cascading risks: Understanding the 2021 winter blackout in Texas,” Energy Research & Social Science Volume 77, July 2021, 102106.
Source: Busby et al. (2021).
Now, it is possible FERC/NERC have been taken over by lizard people as part of the plan for total conquest of the human race, that started long ago with the arrival of “Ancient Aliens” TM. If you believe that, and are still taking hydroxychloriquine for Covid prevention, then skip the foregoing. However, if you think that FERC/NERC at the staff level is peopled by qualified and knowledgeable individuals, then I think the report is worth a read.
“You two came along and you taught me not to hide from it, but to have the guts to shine a light directly into the darkest corners”
— Walter Skinner
” In the event of 2021 winter crisis, one can see the shortfall in renewables generation was dwarfed by the shortfall in non-renewables power generation, as shown in the figure below,”
A point clearly made in your previous post. A point totally misrepresented in his comments to this post. OK time to sit back and watch CoRev misrepresent this post too. That is all this clown knows how to do.
Menzie and Ole Bark, bark/b>, until thermals renewables REQUIRE those thermal backups. Thermal sources DO NO REQUIRE renewables, unless they are allowed wither away through closures without like replacement. It is your goal to replace all thermal sources with renewables. The cost be d$mned!
ERCOT and WINTER Storm Uri gave some insight into what those costs will be. Renewables provided less than 2MW of that needed 70MW peak/weather spike. Market prices for ERCOT supplied electricity rose to ~$1,800MW during Uri. That is (70MW/2MW=35) and/or ($1,800/$50 Avg price pre-Uri= 36), so 35 times the current investment in renewables and/or 36 times the pre-Uri average price will be needed to reach your 100% fossil fuel replacement goal.
Is it deep denial that there has not been 1 acknowledgement or comment re: these easily calculated numbers needed to achieve your replacement goal? Instead you persist and repeatedly note that it was those very same thermals that caused the blackouts, even when your own chart shows otherwise. Renewables were diminished for days: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/ERCOT_generation_2021_power_crisis_US_Energy_Information_Administration.jpg/800px-ERCOT_generation_2021_power_crisis_US_Energy_Information_Administration.jpg Note the success of wind performance on 2/8/2021 while on 2/24/2021 and during most of Uri.
You also ignore the fact that ERCOT initiated blackout just before thermals reported outages while blaming them while the FERC after Uri Report cited the blackout as causing 12% and 27% of those gas interruptions. That’s due to ERCOT management decisions. They have a long history of grid management that is threatened by weather events, yet have not adjusted,
ERCOT has mis-managed this grid for decades. Yet you blame a single set of sources for the outages?
The denying and simple math ignoring liberal mind is an amazement.
Rather than put your gibberish in BOLD – try writing whatever nonsense you wish to peddle in clear English. No one has a damn clue WTF you are saying because YOU have no clue what you said there.
Grid planning for peak load:
-have a good load forecast
-outages vs planned outages matter
-related: can resources handle extreme weather
-what dispatchable resources are available
-variability in renewable resources makes them largely unreliable for peak planning rendering them as a side note for political talking points during peak events
-encourage advances in battery technology
econned, that list is nothing that has not already been discussed on this blog. in addition,
running a small, isolated electric grid increases the fragility of the system since you no longer have access to diverse energy sources.
dispatchable resources should include energy storage systems like batteries and water/gravity systems.
smart grids with local demand control. no more running the AC with electric stove and electric dryer at the same time during energy conservation periods.
this is an engineering problem, not a science problem. it is solvable. easily.
“this is an engineering problem, not a science problem. it is solvable. easily.”
Exactly. Regardless of what the source of energy production is, you can always engineer a resilient and reliable grid. Even the intermittent production of energy from solar and wind are easy to predict over long time periods – and, therefore, can be planned for and mitigated by energy storage systems (batteries, gravity, green hydrogen, etc.). You can easily engineer the grid to a certain level of reliability and either suck up the cost or lower the expectations. That can either happen at the individual customer or the grid level. Big Carbon has been trying to sell us on the idea that renewables are somehow fundamentally different and unattainable as he main (or elusive) source of energy – and a few low information people have been sucked in by their self-serving message. Fact is that the fundamental issues are the same, but with a slightly different engineering.
Ivan opines: “…a resilient and reliable grid. Even the intermittent production of energy from solar and wind are easy to predict over long time periods – and, therefore, can be planned for and mitigated by energy storage systems (batteries, gravity, green hydrogen, etc.). ”
and
“and either suck up the cost or lower the expectations. ”
Why is it liberal solutions always add significant costs? Batteries, gravity, green hydrogen, etc are all NEW additions to the grid to solve the intermittency problems of the the major new addition, renewables.
Even ERCOT with Winter Storm Uri shows us that renewables will not provide peak demand unless they are expanded by a factor of 35 to 38 times their installed amount in 2021. So sucking up that amount of added cost will be a hard sell to the rational user. It already is to the business users in many countries. Germany and UK are examples, where businesses are leaving.
China already is the big winner of this crazy economic, engineering and technological brain fart.
“Why is it liberal solutions always add significant costs?”
Your boyfriend JohnH declared solar costs less than coal. OK – he’s a moron who cannot be bothered to present reliable comparisons. You? You are even dumber as you present comparisons that are nothing more than lies.
Econned, Menzie ignores the ERCOT management issues associated with Winter Storm Uri: ” Freeze-offs routinely occur in very cold weather, and affected at least some of these basins in all of the six recent cold weather events in the Southwest ” and ERCOT blackouts caused: “The ERCOT blackouts or customer curtailments affected primarily the Permian and Fort Worth Basins and caused or contributed to 29 percent (Permian) and 27 percent (Fort Worth) of the production outages, principally as a result of shutting down electric pumping units or compressors on gathering lines.”
And as you note: “variability in renewable resources makes them largely unreliable for peak planning rendering them as a side note for political talking points during peak events” The focus on adding renewables to a grid destabilizes it, and focusing on renewables without also considering their need for nearly 100% backup weakens those thermal backup sources.
The failures were from management decisions. ERCOT blackouts actually exacerbated the situation.
You are appealing to another worthless troll? Oh that’s right – no one else gives a damn about your incessant BS.
“The focus on adding renewables to a grid destabilizes it, and focusing on renewables without also considering their need for nearly 100% backup weakens those thermal backup sources.”
Such utter BS. What you write has no basis in fact and is contrary to what those who get this issue and are not serial liars (like you are) have sensibly said. Or did you blame your umbrella for all that rain the Northeast got yesterday?
Let’s see. Whose expertise should I go with here: FERC, NERC, or the Fool?
the fool, the fool, the fool!
Econbrowser “Comedy Award of the Week” Hahahahahahah!!!
I love you guys!!!!
Is this how you propose to write your first submission to a real journal? Bullet points? Damn – can you be more incompetent?
Surprisingly enough, not everyone agrees with you:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10072023/texas-power-grid-transmission-lines-renewable-energy/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/07/congested-transmission-lines-cause-renewable-power-to-go-to-waste-in-texas/
Quote from the latter: “Renewable’s contribution to the Texas grid reached an all-time high on June 28, when 41.6 percent of the electricity on the grid was coming from wind and solar power during peak hours.” Hardly a side note…
Ithaqua,
Like many, you’re confused and misunderstanding the issue.
1) You’re taking a fact – that renewables can make major contributions to the peak – and suggesting it’s a rule to plan the grid around (which was what my comment was about). But it isn’t an and it shouldn’t be.
2) You’re taking my side note quip about grid planning for the peak day and applying it to an actual peak day. I understand how this may seem like the correct thing to do, and in particular cases it is, but not here. You need to look at the actual plans for the peak day and you’ll reference renewables are, in fact, a side note to grid planning.
3) it’s great that renewables provided a large portion of generation during the peak hour. But if it didn’t due to the well-known intermittently issues, and the grid was planned around reliance of 41% (which it isn’t planned that way b/c planners aren’t absolute dolts) then THAT would be truly news worthy.
Gee – you finally learned to write in sentences. Progress I guess.
Ithaqua, and then we have the actual performance numbers associated with Winter Storm Uri, where renewables performance went close to ZERO, but was clearly BELOW the ERCOT planned minimums.
If your goal is to replace the fossil fueled thermal plants then the ERCOT grid MUST overbuild renewables by a factor of ~35 to 38 times 2021’s built size. ERCOT’s own data show us: (70MW demand / ~2MW planned minimum output = 35 times more output needed). But these data from during the storm show that renewables performed well below the planned minimum, and these estimates do not include any potential growth in demand, addition of the electrification of transportation, home heating/cooling, home cooking, inclusion of alternative non-thermal backups and the other targets of the insane ?Climate Change? zealotry. Some of these zealots are within FERC/NERC and ERCOT, and don’t want to accept the fact renewables add to the unreliability of a grid.
It is an amazement to watch the liberal minds ignore these simple calculations and impacts from adding renewables to the ERCOT grid. It is another amazement to see the liberals ignore the article graphs showing ERCOT initiated the blackouts before the thermal plants failed but while renewables performance was on a fast downward slide.
” It is another amazement to see the liberals ignore the article graphs showing ERCOT initiated the blackouts before the thermal plants failed but while renewables performance was on a fast downward slide.”
of course ercot issued blackouts before thermal plants completely failed. they already had notice that those plants were going offline soon. they knew the plants were headed offline-it was not an unknown at that time. ercot had to issue blackouts preemptively to keep the grid from a catastrophic failure. if ercot had waited for the thermal plants to all fail before acting, the grid would have collapsed and been down for months. again, covid, stop with the misinformation. you may be stooopid, but even you know this to be the case.
Baffled, I know it’s psychologically dangerous to admit your favorite policy is a failure and potential economic and life threatening disaster, but that’s what ERCOT and Winter Storm Uri tells us.
No! “ercot issued blackouts before thermal plants completely failed.” Completely? The chart shows us that they hadn’t even started. 1:25AM, when ERCOT started the blackouts, is usually a low demand period as the chart shows us demand going down. But what we do know is that ERCOT does frequent output forecasts of renewables, but not thermals.
Why are you ignoring that ole need for 35-38 times 2021 renewables installation levels to meet peak demand?
Did Dr. Yellen’s trip to China give you an option to buy a Chinese made car at a more reasonable price?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/are-chinese-built-cars-coming-u-s-treasury-secretary-s-china-trip/ar-AA1dDPnj?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=283a4aecf3a04dc7a626144920d157e3&ei=9
The United States Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is in China right now. She’s there to help shore up relations between the U.S. and China from a business and sales perspective. One thing that’s certain is a discussion of the large tariffs on Chinese cars entering the U.S. market. The U.S. imposes a 27.5% tariff on Chinese cars, which is one of the reasons you don’t see any here. But elsewhere, especially in Europe and Australia, Chinese cars are coming on strong for several reasons. The first is a combination of price and quality.
A 27.5% tariff is cheap. But I bet Navarro is going to be going off on this movement towards free trade.
“A 27.5% tariff is cheap.” pgl has turned into a comedian!
Remember how free trade fundamentalists like Krugman and Frankel used to howl about Trump’s tariffs on washing machines?
But where are they know? I guess the political winds have shifted…expediency and politics trump principle for prominent economists?
Hey Jonny Know Nothing. This tariff was part of Trump’s stupid trade war. Yea – we can always count on you for the dumbest comment of the day.
Steep not cheap.
Anybody who have an interest in understanding this have already done so – but this is a nice summary from credible and knowledgeable sources.
The willfully ignorant will ignore the information and repeat their mantra – “renewables are bad, renewables are bad” ….. Trying to discuss with CoRev is like talking to a door or a cult member; it can have some entertainment value but will not leave neither of you better informed.
this report is for another winter failure, during February 2011. again, freezing of natural gas plants and distribution systems was a primary culprit. since wind was not a big player in 2011, it cannot be the source of a similar grid blackout to 2021. in fact, the texas grid has had numerous problems with winter failures through the years. if you rely on natural gas, but the natural gas distribution systems are not winterized, then you will have a reliability problem in cold weather. we saw it in 2011. we saw it again in 2021. ercot could not fix their deficiency over the course of a decade?
Baffles stumbles on a truth: ” in fact, the texas grid has had numerous problems with winter failures through the years. if you rely on natural gas, but the natural gas distribution systems are not winterized, then you will have a reliability problem in cold weather. we saw it in 2011. we saw it again in 2021. ercot could not fix their deficiency over the course of a decade?” No they did not! Nor did the fix the equivalent Summer heat stressor periods. Y’ano like this article: https://econbrowser.com/archives/2023/07/wind-solar-help-texas-meet-record-power-demand-during-heat-wave where the ERCOT got lucky then the Wind and Solar outputs remained high in spite of the norm when wind fails/drops during these heat dome periods. Just another WHEW event, unlike Winter Storm Uri where ERCOT customers paid in cash and their lives.
You can ignore these facts, but they did occur, and dodging the renewables output failures won’t change them.
The ideologically driven liberal mind is an amazement.
again, just an incoherent comment by covid. please stop ranting like a fool and say something truthful and constructive.
If CoRev were to ever tell the truth – my fear is that the world would just stop functioning.
conservatives in texas had a decade to fix a known problem, and they did not. perhaps we need some knew leadership at ercot, a board that is appointed by the texas governor. who is a conservative republican.
CoRev actually thinks the Governor of Texas is a left wing socialist.
Menzie, it is this FERC point, why I point out the start date and time, 1:25AM on 2/15, for their managed blackouts: “Operations, on the other hand, utilizes wind power forecasts derived from highly localized wind speed forecasts, which provide wind power output values for each of the upcoming 48 hours. The forecasts are re-run hourly and the results updated accordingly, yielding a “rolling” 48 hour look-ahead. ERCOT’s Current Operating Plan (COP) for wind power uses a conservative estimate which has an 80 percent chance of being met or exceeded, and already takes into account any equipment outages, either scheduled or forced. ” ERCOT had already observed wined&Solar falling for hours and had forecasts. They then started their managed blackouts, before the thermal plants started failing. Moreover those blackouts added to the thermal plant failures. Cause and effect?!
I refer you to this ERCOT chart: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/ERCOT_generation_2021_power_crisis_US_Energy_Information_Administration.jpg/800px-ERCOT_generation_2021_power_crisis_US_Energy_Information_Administration.jpg
Pay special attention to wind out put 2/14 thru 2/17the period of Winter Storm Uri.
Hourly forecasts for wind, but not for thermal outputs? Wind forecasts are needed due to their intermittency, but not for thermals.
When ideology trumps logic and data makes the liberal mind an amazement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/climate/heat-waves-europe-deaths.html
July 10, 2023
Summer Heat Waves Killed 61,000 in Europe Last Year, Study Says
Researchers suggest that strategies to cope with higher temperatures aren’t keeping pace with global warming.
By Delger Erdenesanaa
More than 61,000 people died because of last year’s brutal summer heat waves across Europe, according to a study * published on Monday in the journal Nature Medicine.
The findings suggest that two decades of efforts in Europe to adapt to a hotter world have failed to keep up with the pace of global warming.
“In an ideal society, nobody should die because of heat,” said Joan Ballester, a research professor at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health and the study’s lead author.
This summer is likely to be even worse: On top of climate change, the Earth has entered a natural El Niño weather pattern during summer for the first time in four years, bringing about conditions that will turn up the heat in many parts of the world. The season is already shattering various global temperature records.
The researchers who studied last year’s heat waves used data collected by the European Union from 35 countries, including some nonmember states.
Most of the people who died were women, especially those older than 80. Among younger people, men died at higher rates. Mediterranean countries, where temperatures were highest at the time, suffered most: Italy, Spain and Portugal had the highest heat-related mortality rates….
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02419-z
NYTimes Editorial Board: “The Flawed Moral Logic of Sending Cluster Munitions to Ukraine…providing weapons that much of the world justifiably condemns is wrong. The United States had wisely started to move away from the use of cluster munitions. To now disregard the long-term consequences of these weapons would undermine one of the fundamental reasons to support Ukraine — to defend the norms that secure peace and stability in Europe, norms that Russia violated so blatantly. Encouraging the use and proliferation of these weapons could weaken the support of allies who until this point have rallied behind American leadership.
The rain of bomblets may give Ukraine a military advantage in the short term, but it would not be decisive, and it would not outweigh the damage in suffering to civilians in Ukraine, now and likely for generations to come.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/opinion/cluster-munitions-ukraine-biden.html
But pgl, the faux humanitarian, supports sending weapons which most of the world condemns. He probably thinks that the NY Times must now be Putin’s pocket! And he’ll probably make some silly claim…something like I didn’t read the whole editorial because I didn’t paste it all in!
YOU’RE calling someone a “faux humanitarian”? The self styled anti war icon who approved the Russian invasion, who never mentioned Russia’s earlier use of similar weapons, or the children and other civilians murdered by those weapons, the guy who SAYS he finds war “unconscionable “ and quickly follows with that declaration with but”…..
You get more clueless with every post, your eternally forked tongue gets even more, uh, forked, and your Putin pimpery continues unabated.
Sadly, you’re beyond embarrassment. And not smart enough to realize how far.
Jonny boy could not be bothered to take to the streets to oppose that 2003 of Iraq so I guess this fool makes up for it by lying about the views of people who did.
“He probably thinks that the NY Times must now be Putin’s pocket!”
Did you even bother to READ your own link? The NYTimes called out Putin’s war crimes. Something you refuse to do.
I don’t expect that aircraft delivered cluster bomd units will be sent or make any difference as the jet would be in grave danger.
dpicm shells for 155mm seem to be the shipment.
these are problems, they are old, and have far higher dud rates than reflected by ‘experts’ quoted in the media. a lot of confusion.
dpicm round is mix bomblets: anti-personnel, and anti soft vehicle. the bomblets are specified to detonate around 30 feet about infantry with light vehicles
fuse is inert leaving the shell body at a set altitude, on a ballistic path. a ribbon deploys on leaving the shell, x spins and the fuse is active, and explodes by clock time, hoped for 30 feet.
a bomblet that hits the ground is ineffective if it goes off, and un exploded ordnance if it does not.
infantry is not safe entering dpicm impact area nor other people
the dud rate is far higher than reflected in media….
how is this deal, John. Russia stops using cluster bombs and withdraws from Ukraine. the usa stops sending cluster bombs to Ukraine for their defense. would you agree to this deal, John. war is stopped and cluster bombs eliminated. a deal, or do you have some excuse for not making such a deal?
You are asking Jonny boy to give up his favorite past time. Watching Russian soldiers torture and murder innocent Ukrainians. If he has to give this up – lord knows how many pathetic troll comments Jonny boy will inflict on us.
looks like Johnny really in not interested in stopping the war or reducing the use of cluster bombs. all he is really interested in doing is criticizing the usa. he had ample opportunity to agree with my solution that does both, but chose not to. what a surprise. tough to criticize putin when you work for a Russian troll farm.
Every single square mile that Ukraine liberate from Russian occupation is smack full of mines. Cleaning out unexploded ordinance from cluster bombs is the least of their problem and the least of threats to civilians coming in later. The good news for the civilians is that in contrast to Russia, who deliberately target their cluster bomb to kill civilians, Ukraine have already demonstrated their willingness to clear areas before civilians are allowed back in.
Following the model of James Hansen and colleagues, we have just passed through the 8 warmest years, singly and collectively, since 1880. We are now in what already appears to be year 9 on the warmest level, and with a new El Nino effect, * possibly this will be the warmest year recorded.
As preparation for this year and last, China is spending $270 billion on water conservancy projects alone. Plantings have been developed for the heat, and have been designed for countries from Madagascar and Ethiopia to Indonesia and the Dominican Republic…. Along with on-going new energy production projects, transmission of electricity on Ultra-High Voltage long distance lines has been emphasized.
* https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/june-2023-enso-update-el-ni%C3%B1o-here
China is also expanding its use of coal at a tremendous pace, adding more coal-burning capacity than the rest of the world combined. Greenwashing can’t cover that up.
https://english.news.cn/20230710/b9cfab87c191409ca595863c22c77a3e/c.html
July 10, 2023
China’s NEV sales surge 25.2 pct in June
BEIJING — Retail sales of new energy vehicles (NEVs) in China jumped 25.2 percent year on year in June, data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) showed on Monday.
About 665,000 NEVs were sold in China last month, according to the CPCA. The figure represents a month-on-month growth rate of 14.7 percent.
Since the beginning of the year, retail sales of NEVs in China rose 37.3 percent year on year to 3.09 million units, the CPCA said.
Retail sales of passenger vehicles totaled 1.89 million units in June, up 8.7 percent from the month prior.
busby, et. al is enlightening.
the ferc/nerc report is great background on grid operations, and challenges resulting from severe weather events.
from busby: wind occasionally supplies 20% of demand, in winter ercot at times gets 6 to 8% of demand,
so ercot had intermittency covered in the feb 2021 ‘event’. it was the planned non renewable….. that muffed up!
gas again!
ercot generation supplies learned little from the 2011 ‘event’
Anonymous, no! ERCOT management who created all the blackouts mufffed up.
ERCOT management was selected by your boy Greg Abbott. Oh wait – you think he’s a Biden Democrat. Got it.
the percent demand met by any technical source is an accumulation of the sources’ output purchased from various ‘generators’ by the regional or system operator/subsidiary. that purchase is the divided by the total purchases of the r to/iso.
the denominator is sensitive as the citations reflect, demand effects.
the numerator is what has more variability from the natural effects of the source technology.
r to/iso probably have predictors to align sources based on current realities, and buy from available.
renewables are a factor.
will ercot assure the problems of 2021 are fixed?
It’s pretty obvious that Texas learned its lesson in 2021 and has doubled down on wind power. California, in comparison, appear to be fairly regressive in its move to wind power. So, we’ll see how Texas fares when the next rare, massive ice storm hits.
https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-state/
One month’s worth of data? Brucie – come on. But I guess you think being the 7th out of 50 states is regressive. Excuse me?
Makes you wonder why Bruce left Ford doesn’t it?? Ford’s engineers seem to appreciate stupidity, so it seems like a natural fit.
I was told that Ford adopted the Toyota lean production system including Just in Time Inventory management. Of course during the pandemic followed by a recovery hampered by supply chain issues most smart people dropped Just in Time Inventory management. But not little Brucie who kept tell us Just in Time was the only way.
Yea – that kind of stupidity led Ford in shambles some 15 years ago. But Obama had the government bail these clowns out.
“JIT” inventory was a big thing, the accepted trend when I was back in college , roughly, about 1997, if that gives you any idea. i.e 26 years ago. And my guess is, as you well point out, it wasn’t “tailored for” pandemic periods.
Those damn lazy Californians – they were supposed to have become all windy and blow on them blades – or something?
This series of articles and the many comments remind of this: “When economic theory and reality don’t match, it must be reality’s fault.”
CoRev: I dunno. Weren’t you the person denying the usefulness of futures contract prices for prediction of soybean prices, despite theoretical *and* empirical verification. And *never* conceded the point, some five years after first arguing with me on the issue?
Menzie, and now we are starting another sage re: renewables without anyone refuting that ole elephant of 35 to 38 times the 20122 installed base to meet demand.
BTW, that soybean comment was due to the claim that the Trump tariffs was the cause of price drops. And yet 5 years later we have soybeans at nearly wice they were at the time of your claim and the tariffs are still in place. What’s wrong with your President in maintaining them?
@ CoRev
Do you think that the price of soybeans now could possibly have something to do with global demand?? Who initiated the tariffs, and who was paying way more in farm subsidies than President Biden is now?? You have a FOX news habit of cherry-picking data.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/L312041A027NBEA
‘And yet 5 years later we have soybeans at nearly wice’
Wice? Oh you are talking about the price of rice. News flash moron – Ukraine was invaded by Russia.
Government subsidies: Federal: Agricultural
Trump did spend our hard earned dollars to make up for his stupid tariffs. But CoRev isn’t paying for this as he clearly has to be living off the government dole.
‘And yet 5 years later we have soybeans at nearly wice’
Wice? Oh you are talking about the price of rice. News flash moron – Ukraine was invaded by Russia.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2531/soybean-prices-historical-chart-data
Huh Trump’s era had low soybean prices to the bitter end. Biden said he would deliver for all Americans and he has for the soybean farmers big time. Maybe those who care about the American farmer (like you only pretend to) should get rid of those stupid MAGA hats.
As far as the tariffs – maybe you have not noticed that the Chinese are buying soybeans from South America.
A wise man never knows all. Only fools know everything.
we aren’t the ones who believe in ghosts, covid. you have no right to question somebody’s view of reality, ghostbuster.
for those who forgot, covid has noted on this blog that he believes in those supernatural entities.
I see I’m still living in your befuddled and baffled head. 😉
ok ghostbuster.
I guess you have never read Dani Rodrik’s Economist Rules. Dani makes the simple point that we must go beyond simpleton Econ 101 models when the issues and the real world go beyond the basic assumptions of those Econ 101 models. Every decent economist knows this but we forgive you as it does seem your knowledge of basic economics has not gotten you out of your kindergarten class.