TexasCHLforum.com

Our neighborhood has been without power since about 7:00 this morning. It's slowly getting colder.

Crossfire wrote: I wonder when Cowboy Stadium will be taken down?

That was funny

It's Bush's fault, in case anyone was wondering.

I mean....everything else was/is.

flintknapper wrote:It's Bush's fault, in case anyone was wondering.

I mean....everything else was/is.

... and will continue to be, too!

Bart wrote:Thanks for the link VMI77. More than half the planned generation is renewables, probably driven by tax credits and other regulatory policy. Most of the rest is natgas generation which is less capital intensive, so it's lower plant cost but higher operating cost. I can't tell from the document, but it wouldn't surprise me if the planned coal and nuclear are not new plants but increased generation from existing plants.

Some of this information is confidential when it gets specific. Not sure I can elaborate beyond that posted document at this point, but generally speaking, increased generation at a plant means another generator built on an existing site (unless the increase is very small). Whenever a new generator is added to an existing location it is considered new generation. For example, if a 600 MW coal plant adds another 600 MW plant at the same location, it's still new generation. There are very good practical reasons to add new generation at an existing location.

"Planned" is a tricky category, since some generation companies will seek interconnection studies at multiple locations for a single generator. In Texas, a generator can locate anyplace it wants no matter how much it costs to build the required transmission, and the ratepayers pick up the tab. For example, if a given generator is looking at two different locations, and at one the plant will cost $300 million, but the associated transmission only costs $10 million; and at the other, the plant will cost $290 million, but the associated transmission will cost $200 million, the generator will probably build where the plant cost is the lowest, even though the ratepayers in this hypothetical case will have to pay an additional $190 million for the transmission. This is a deliberate PUCT policy designed as an incentive to generators (in other regions the generators would have to pay for part or all of the cost of the transmission).

My guess is that of the prospective generation total, only about 25% to no more than 50% will actually be constructed. However, the report cited above says that there are currently 21,900 MW of generation with a signed interconnection agreement. Essentially, a signed interconnect agreement means a generator has signed a contract to connect their generation to the transmission system and posted securitization in the amount of the required transmission upgrades --upgrades which frequently amount to several million dollars and up. Most of this 21,900 MW will probably be constructed.

As far as renewable's being driven by tax credits ---that's a big understatement: there would be no significant renewable generation in existence without the very high subsidies in place. If the subsides stopped tomorrow all the planned renewable generation would disappear and all of the existing renewable generation would probably be shut down. Renewable generation only exists because of the subsidies.

Oh yeah, BTW, the wind numbers are highly misleading. 1,000 MW of wind capacity translates into an average of something less than 10% of actual energy production. Also, most wind in the state generates off peak. For example, when consumption peaked last summer, 9,000 MW of wind capacity was generating about 400 MW of actual power --or about 4% of capacity. So, wind does not displace thermal generation one-to-one. You still need almost as much thermal generation as you'd need without wind to cover demand when the wind isn't blowing. In reality, renewable generation costs much more than fossil or nuclear generation even though it doesn't consume fuel, because: 1) the capital costs are very high; and 2) it doesn't eliminate the need for thermal generation, and actually makes the thermal generation cost more, since it still has to operate, but with revenues trimmed by off-peak wind generation.

stroo wrote:In the planning stage and built are two different things.

"Planned" is a tricky category, since some generation companies will seek interconnection studies at multiple locations for a single generator. My guess is that of the prospective generation total, only about 25% to no more than 50% will actually be constructed. However, the report cited above says that there are currently 21,900 MW of generation with a signed interconnection agreement. Essentially, a signed interconnect agreement means a generator has signed a contract to connect their generation to the transmission system and posted securitization in the amount of the required transmission upgrades --upgrades which frequently amount to several million dollars and up. Most of this 21,900 MW will probably be constructed.

Today, my company didn't turn on the computer servers this morning because of the power issues. Whether or not that created more havoc than the roving outages, I don't know.

Network news is saying the root cause was that two, coal-fired, electricity generating plants in north-central Texas had frozen/burst water pipes overnight, and David Dewhurst had to order ERCOT to enable the rolling blackouts to prevent a major, prolonged outage. Seems most blackouts stopped after 1:00 p.m. or so, but it is "possible" we could continue seeing rolling blackouts through tomorrow afternoon.

No answer as to why power generating plants couldn't protect their water pipes down to a measley 18 degrees. What do plants in North Dakota do? Tell 'em we had two plants go off-grid because the temperature dropped below 20 degrees, and they'd probably just stare at you in disbelief...

Skiprr wrote:What do plants in North Dakota do? Tell 'em we had two plants go off-grid because the temperature dropped below 20 degrees, and they'd probably just stare at you in disbelief...

More likely they'd

However......typically, generators do maintenance during off-peak periods. Some of the immediate generation shortage is due to a lack of available units due to the number of units on maintenance (many of these units cannot be immediately returned to service because they are basically apart).

That's generally true. Shut them down when the load is normally low. Then, there is the frozen pipes thingy.

ERCOT handles 85% of Texas grid. My son works for ERCOT and helped develop the computer model in use now. He tells people that my house will be the first on the list of rolling blackouts because he doesn't want to be accused of favoritism. He says that there have been rolling blackouts in Texas twice since the late 1980s.

we have been lucky out here
we just have surges or split second its light, no its dark, no its light, no its dark
followed by a resetting of the puters and modems


favorite is right in the middle of an online test at A&M and BAM your logged off

powerboatr wrote:we have been lucky out here
we just have surges or split second its light, no its dark, no its light, no its dark
followed by a resetting of the puters and modems


favorite is right in the middle of an online test at A&M and BAM your logged off

Sounds like a UPS might be in order (Uninterruptible Power Supply)

Skiprr wrote:Network news is saying the root cause was that two, coal-fired, electricity generating plants in north-central Texas had frozen/burst water pipes overnight, and David Dewhurst had to order ERCOT to enable the rolling blackouts to prevent a major, prolonged outage. Seems most blackouts stopped after 1:00 p.m. or so, but it is "possible" we could continue seeing rolling blackouts through tomorrow afternoon.

No answer as to why power generating plants couldn't protect their water pipes down to a measley 18 degrees. What do plants in North Dakota do? Tell 'em we had two plants go off-grid because the temperature dropped below 20 degrees, and they'd probably just stare at you in disbelief...

As I understand it something like 60 plants were unavailable due to not being winterized. The basic reason they're not winterized is because under "deregulation" there are numerous plants that are independently owned and operated strictly for the bottom line --in other words, they're only concerned with maximizing profit, they're not concerned with reliability, and have no obligation to serve, as the companies who owned plants had prior to deregulation. It's a straight up cost analysis: they look at the cost of winterizing and determine 18 degree temps in their part of the state are a 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 year event and decide it's not worth the money, since they have a financial hedge against the risk anyway.

When you get into the details of the current "market" system and deregulation it gets very complicated. Deregulation has become sort of a conservative mantra, so there are a lot of conservatives who seem to automatically assume "deregulation" is good --and real deregulation usually is. But in this case "deregulation" is just a word used to disguise the actual process --it's not what really happened here. What we got is re-regulation, a highly complex system with a rigged "market."

I have worked in a highly regulated industry for over 30 years dealing with regulators directly for most of that time. Generally as a result of that experience I am strongly in favor of deregulation. The two industries I have always had some concerns about however are banking and electric power.

stroo wrote:I have worked in a highly regulated industry for over 30 years dealing with regulators directly for most of that time. Generally as a result of that experience I am strongly in favor of deregulation. The two industries I have always had some concerns about however are banking and electric power.

I might be in favor of deregulation too, but I can tell you the electric utility industry is not being deregulated. In fact, regulations are more complex and onerous now than they've ever been, by an order or magnitude. Generation has been somewhat deregulated, in the sense that it is operated strictly on a financial basis with no obligation to serve. However, the supposed generation "market" system is highly complex and designed to produce "scarcity pricing," and even generators are likely to get hammered by the Feds, regardless of anything simulating deregulation in the state. In fact, the path we're on now is heading us into a Soviet style central planning regime with mandates emanating from Washington, D.C. covering every aspect of operations.