Wind turbines shut down when needed most..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of our hydro plants were around a penny a kwhr

We took out those and nuclear out to replace with expanded coal, wind, solar all of which cost as much or more .

Our cost per kwhr is over half to pay back decommissioning costs and cost to build new infrastructure that goes underutilized
I think it was 2005 when I had a conversation with one of the founders of Greenpeace. He left the organization bcs. disagreements over hydro. As he was arguing, yes, hydro does destroy the local ecosystem, but it creates another one. The alternative is coal or whatever. Norway relies a lot on mini-hydro dams. And they executed it very well. The key is to execute it so that it does not wreck the ecosystem beyond what is necessary, which happens in many countries that have a cavalier relationship with regulation.
However, the problem is a zero-sum game that today is played by proponents of "all green" or those that argue "nothing-green."
 
We suffered for almost a week during that fiasco due to dumber than dirt Texas blue morons and their idiocy with wind/solar/etc. Forty or fifty years from now those may be ready for prime time. Nuclear is the only currently intelligent and sensible solution.
In TX literally everything is controlled by Republicans. You guys have separate grid that is not controlled by FERC. So, exactly what is the problem? Wind and solar worked during that as expected. Other plants, not so much.
 
So don’t run your dishwasher, dryer, cook in electric over for hours or charge an EV unless necessary.

The grid works with multiple sources decently just need to introduce some sort of incentive during high demand periods to make people reduce instead of asking.

No one died…..
 
We suffered for almost a week during that fiasco due to dumber than dirt Texas blue morons and their idiocy with wind/solar/etc. Forty or fifty years from now those may be ready for prime time. Nuclear is the only currently intelligent and sensible solution.
Actually Texans decided to roll their own grid and it failed miserably because they were not part of national one where surge demand could be supplied cross their state borders. Little to do with wind/solar….
 
We suffered for almost a week during that fiasco due to dumber than dirt Texas blue morons and their idiocy with wind/solar/etc. Forty or fifty years from now those may be ready for prime time. Nuclear is the only currently intelligent and sensible solution.
This had nothing to do with our losing power. This had everything to do with deregulation, privatization, and lack of oversight by the powers that be.
 
No, but it was an ends to a means other than energy.

Germany is the most productive country in Europe. But there resource poor. They tried to take over Europe a couple times, and would have, but there enemies have rich and powerful western friends. So they tried a new way - take over economically - via the Euro Zone.

And it was working splendidly. All they had to do to gain friends in the Euro zone was join the greens. Easy enough - they had no real energy resources themselves. So build some windmills, install some solar. You don't think German engineering realized their futility - they have terrible climates for either. It was diplomacy through windmills.

That left Russia as their only competitor in Europe. What better way to be friendly with Russia than become there biggest customer. So feign green energy and burn Natural Gas from Russia - to the angst of Western powers. You may remember the German's were very neutral on the Ukraine war - until Nordstrom was blown up and they had no realistic chance of fulfilling their needs via Russia.

So they have fired up their Lignite burning coal plants, and stopped their plans to decommission nuclear. We shall see what they do next. But it was never about the cost per kWh.
Oh they decom'd the nuke plants, they shut them down, agenda won. Total nuttery.
You know way more about energy than I do - but don't confuse the California or even Texas Agenda with the German agenda. There very different.
No confusion, I used Germany as an example, but Denmark is the same boat. The 2nd graph does a better job of illustrating the point, being that high levels of VRE haven't resulted in reduced costs anywhere. At least the architects of Energiewende were honest about that up front (despite falling on deaf ears), they knew that it wasn't going to be cheap, and that was never the intention.
 
Actually Texans decided to roll their own grid and it failed miserably because they were not part of national one where surge demand could be supplied cross their state borders. Little to do with wind/solar….
and it’s still that way - I like it - and frankly my dear …
 
In TX literally everything is controlled by Republicans. You guys have separate grid that is not controlled by FERC. So, exactly what is the problem? Wind and solar worked during that as expected. Other plants, not so much.
5 largest counties … are not. STP feeds San Antonio, Austin, and Houston … you know who runs them …
If they want to expand STP - the guys you don’t like are not stopping them anymore than they are stopping any type of energy …
At least you came clean on narrative …
 
The rolling blackouts had nothing to do with STP, and there wasn't a cooling issue at STP, which was your claim. A sensor line for a pump feeding the turbine froze, which caused the turbine to trip offline. There was nothing wrong with the unit or its cooling.

Yes, they were expected to perform poorly, and they did, with wind performing more poorly than anticipated, while solar performed a bit better. Both were minor contributors to the supply mix because they were never expected to make up the bulk, despite the massive installed capacity of wind.

Just because it's expected doesn't mean we get to hand wave away the gravity of this problem however. If you experience an extreme weather event and you require a whole other system to deal with the electrical demands present during the event, that needs to be acknowledged and understood as additional complexity in the system.

Can you specifically spell-out what regulation changes, and their impacts, resulted in the issues?

Yes, it's very easy to characterize it as a non-failure when you temper the expectations so that they specifically exclude the "green" sources from being major contributors to the supply mix under these circumstances, excepting them from being at fault when a failure to meet demand occurs.

The traditional stack of baseload + load following + peaker capacity has inherent reliability baked in because your baseload capacity doesn't cycle and your load following capacity runs regularly. Peakers run intermittently.

When you displace large portions of that stack with an intermittent resource, you increase cycling and fatigue, and this will increase O&M costs as well as frequency of outages, both planned and unplanned. This is why grids like Texas and in particular, Alberta, with relatively large amounts of wind integrated with gas and a massive reduction in baseload coal are having reliability issues during events that they would have likely weathered without issue in the past. It has always been cold in Alberta during the winter, that problem isn't new, so why is it that we are only just in the last 10 years or so, having supply issues? What changed?
^^^ Folks - read the part where renew is expected to be near useless - and what complications that brings. Anyone who thinks if Texas had stayed all fossil fuel + nuke - and with so much NG they turned to LNG exports - that Feb 2021 would have happened - a system where every renew MW needs a crutch - yet the other systems are not handed one ? So, the title about Alberta is not lost on me …
 
I think this is a bit disingenuous since the big spike at the end is the Ukraine war / Nordstrom pipeline blown up. Germany does not have their own fossil fuels, the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow. The only fuel they have of their own is lignite - a really lousy form of coal. There screwed to put it bluntly. If ever there was a use case for Nuclear this was it.

OTOH California is completely self inflicted.
They did but banned horizontal and fracking
 
I think it was 2005 when I had a conversation with one of the founders of Greenpeace. He left the organization bcs. disagreements over hydro. As he was arguing, yes, hydro does destroy the local ecosystem, but it creates another one. The alternative is coal or whatever. Norway relies a lot on mini-hydro dams. And they executed it very well. The key is to execute it so that it does not wreck the ecosystem beyond what is necessary, which happens in many countries that have a cavalier relationship with regulation.
However, the problem is a zero-sum game that today is played by proponents of "all green" or those that argue "nothing-green."
Now enter CCS for turbine support …
 
5 largest counties … are not. STP feeds San Antonio, Austin, and Houston … you know who runs them …
If they want to expand STP - the guys you don’t like are not stopping them anymore than they are stopping any type of energy …
At least you came clean on narrative …
Grid is run on state level. I mean all this chest pumping, and than: well counties…
Please…
 
Exactly, so then what's the common thread, since it's not just having a variety of sources.
What common thread? We don’t have issues regardless of switch to wind and solar. Unlike in TX, during extreme cold, emergency gas plants don’t fail.
I would think Alberta would have emergency gas plants to make up for loss. In TX, well it is TX, they know best how to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top