Really seems to me like the GOP/right-wing media complex is playing with fire on this one. I don't live in Texas, but the stories I'm seeing on Reddit and other places about people without power and even running water for literally days are almost unbelievable. The attitude in conservative media of pushing the usual culture war crap in the midst of intense privation on a mass scale strikes me as remarkably blasé under the circumstances. Texas is very close to being an actual battleground state, one that the GOP absolutely cannot afford to lose, and yet folks like Abbott, Cruz, and Tucker are cavorting about like it's 2008 and TX is R+12 or whatever. Do these people realize that, by all accounts, the GOP completely owns the failure to winterize in Texas and thus can easily be portrayed as directly responsible for Texans to having to relieve themselves in buckets in 40-degree homes over a period of days?
Many Canadians rely on natural gas for winter home heating and it’s distributed supply has been very reliable. We’ve had a few electric power outages in downtown Toronto (usually because of local storm damage to overhead wires) but never had a natural gas outage. Natural-gas powered back-up generators are becoming more popular.
Yes, I work at Canadian and a lot of northern plants. Insulation in instrument heaters. Actually, a lot of the most northern plants but there equipment in big hangers.
I have a dual fuel 5000 watt Generator at my house for this purpose.
I think everyone should at least have an inverter for the vehicle. We can use your car or truck has a generator.
Noah isn't referenced failing turbines. The failures are across the gas system, presumably including some power stations too.
As he and Bloomberg quoted ERCOT: "Frozen instruments at natural gas, coal and even nuclear facilities, as well as limited supplies of natural gas, he said. “Natural gas pressure” in particular is one reason power is coming back slower than expected Tuesday, added Woodfin."
Per TX Tribune, it sounds like some of the biggest failures are in extraction and distribution of gas: "“Gathering lines freeze, and the wells get so cold that they can’t produce,” said Parker Fawcett, a natural gas analyst for S&P Global Platts. “And pumps use electricity, so they’re not even able to lift that gas and liquid, because there’s no power to produce.”"
I think for the most part, this a pretty fair summary. But there are a couple of things about "winterization" that both you and Jenkins are glossing over the details on. For wind turbines, the Forbes article brings up these mysterious "cold weather kits" that can be added to turbines but then goes on to describe heating for the gearbox, pitch motors and battery. Deicing is described as adding heaters and a coating to the rotor blades. While I'm sure adding heaters inside the nacelle is pretty trivial, there is no indication that was the problem. The icing issue, which has been indicated as a problem, with deeper investigation is not a simple modification, it requires a specially equipped turbine. The two most common turbine manufacturers used in Texas, GE and Vestas, didn't even start talking about deicing until 2013, long after most turbines in Texas were installed. Making this change would require replacing entire turbines, hardly trivial. As for natural gas lines freezing, the only mitigation technique mentioned my Jenkins is burying the lines deeper. But what has been reported is that the lines were freezing at the wellhead. You can't bury a wellhead, so what is the fix for that? I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm sure they have technology they use in the Brakken Shale fields, but if you're going to critique what happened in Texas, why not give a concrete example? It is hard to understand whether there is a feasible solution if no one can provide a solution.
People don't just "politicize energy" by accident. The fossil fuel industry (led by the Kochs) feeds such ready-made propaganda to the right wing politicians to disseminate because they can protect themselves with this as a cultural/political issue.
You mention the “cost advantage of solar and wind” however, I’d like to point out some key information that was left out. Firstly, the graph you use showing the Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is extremely misleading. It does not exclude the benefit of government subsidies (paid by the American Tax payer) and it doesn’t capture other costs of renewables, such as storage costs (I.g. Large battery installations that use rare earth minerals destructively mined). I also believe that other economic benefits are missed when talking about oil and gas. For example, those who own the mineral rights are paid a huge revenue (in the case of New Mexico, around 1/3 of the states entire budget comes from O&G revenue) all of these other benefits are not realized with renewable energy. This would be a huge deficit to NM (and to a smaller degree to Texas) for these revenues to be lost.
And even with rare earths being needed, fossil fuel extraction is far more destructive to the environment. I also don’t see why state governments can’t get funded via other methods. If a state gets a big chunk of its budget from cigarette taxes, we shouldn’t say “let’s have everybody smoke more!” instead of working out a new tax regime.
I think the author of this article was astutely highlighting some of the major downfalls of the O&G mindset in oil rich states such as Texas. However, as part of a educated discussion, I feel that it is important to look at all sides of the equation. Once major issue in these discussions is the lack of an easy metric by which we can truly compare energy sources. The taxation and subsidy portion of this discussion can not be swept aside in an effort to make one energy source look better than another.
Here is my energy cost in real time and few references
Thank goodness I'm not reliant on them and have proof of having 100% solar electric power. Voters beware don't believe the lip service but rather watch the person actions past present future🤷
The graph referenced above only includes renewable sources, and it is unclear if it includes storage costs.
As I replied above, the ability to truly establish a metric to fairly measure the “cost” of a particular energy source is very difficult, if not impossible. But by not addressing these concerns in a very impartial way, we will only serve to further polarize the energy discussion. For example, the author correctly points out that both “sides” have completely dismissed nuclear energy. Why? It is one of the safest and cleanest sources we have at our disposal. Look into Bill Gates’ new nuclear fission project. The irony is that both the republicans and the Democrats have publicly ridiculed his project. Why? I can only assume politics has clouded the discussion.
The one in my reply includes coal and nuclear. If storage costs aren't included (they might already be), nuclear would still be more expensive.
Nuclear energy has environmental benefits, but the downfall is that it's (currently) very expensive. The "free market" won't ditch natural gas for nuclear on it's own -- at least not yet. For that to happen, the government would need to massively invest in nuclear plants
Speaking of leaving things out ... You neglect to mention the biggest omission that big oil has received for decades. And please keep in mind that OUR government is supposed to provide services and support for the good of all, not just mega corps and the oil oligarchs.
Now add back in the $trillions (yes, with a "T") of tax subsidies to fossil fuel extractors, refiners and dealers as well as environmental damage we will all be paying for over the next century (if we're lucky). Your "American Tax payer" has been raked by the fossil fuel industry for over 100 years and it needs to end now.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the American tax payer being raked by the fossil fuel industry. I wound argue that access to cheap energy is a primary driving factor of transition into a first world economy. You might find error with OPEC’s manipulation of the oil market, but then, many conservationists might applaud higher oil prices since it would spur innovation into alternative energy at a faster pace.
The cost of O&G subsidies reflected in the article you referenced is very conflated. They are trying to include the societal “cost” of carbon emissions. A far less biased depiction of Energy subsidies can be found in this report:
Difficult to sympathize with voters who elect bad leaders for stupid reasons. Voters get the leaders and outcomes they choose. If Texans consistently choose right-wing leaders who pander to ignorance, prejudice and malice, the outcomes will correlate.
Stop politicizing energy! This is a great concept. I will point out that current renewables (wind and solar) exist only because energy choices have been politicized for the last couple of decades. Without government subsidies in the US and other countries, and without mandated generation from renewables, these sources would be used only for a few niche applications. The Lazard analysis states that it includes effects of US subsidies, which amount to about $15 per MWh for wind and $5 per MWh for solar PV.
Further, the assumptions used to calculate the LCOE appear highly questionable. For example, they assume 55% capacity factor for onshore wind (recent projects achieve 42% at best) and 34-36% capacity factor for solar PV (actual capacity factor in the US is 25%). If future projects have historical capacity factors instead of Lazard's assumptions, they will generate a lot less power and hence have much higher LCOE. Wind would increase by 30% and solar by 40% due to this factor alone.
Making energy choices based on technical factors alone (I assume economic factors would count too) is a worthy objective, but not likely to be achieved. It is disingenuous to assume, as Mr. Smith does, that there is a clear national priority to implement renewables based only on technical factors.
In Australia we hooked up most of the country into a unified market for electricity. It has definite downsides - it costs a fortune and if you have to move the electricity very far a lot goes missing. But for a country like the US, with almost ten times Australia's population density, it wouldn't be that bad and as long as you can keep the network up it would be great for emergencies like this. If Texas has no electricity, pipe it in from Colorado or Tennessee.
"Have you ever noticed that the mainstream media and liberal politicians almost always say the exact same thing when something goes wrong with their narrative that only progressivism can save America?
Leaving aside for another time how they coordinate so well, they are at it again when it comes to trying to absolve renewable energy from the blame for last week’s Texas blackouts."
Please keep bashing your former home state. Hopefully some of the influx of liberals will head back out to California. Just curious. When is that bullet train gonna be ready to ride? It's going to be awesome. Also, you should remind folks that rental prices in San Fran are down and now you too can live in this great city! YOU should put you name in to run for governor! I think they need you.
One question I have about wind power is that it is shown to be cheaper in the aggregate as you show in the article, but when it comes to residential options I pay more for 100% wind than I would do if I didn’t care how electricity is produced. Why does the end consumer pay more if it is cheaper?
Maybe because demand outpaces production in the area where you live? Just guessing here, but even in fairly liberal areas wind is not genenerally going to be where the majority of energy production comes from, just down to unreliability of natural phenomenon. It's great as a supplement and I'd argue for a bigger piece of our typical energy profile, but for the Electric company to guarantee it as the source of all your energy consumptions requires a fairly substantial investment in storage capacity. And its really all on the same grid... it's just an accounting trick. You as a wind customer are paying for the cost of wind production plus the lion's share of the grid's storage capacity plus a mark-up because the power supplier has a sense of how much storage they "need" (read as, less than they actually need to cover a Texas-scale event) and don't intend to build more than that. Meanwhile the fossil customer pays for the cost of fossil production, and gets the benefit of the storage you subsidize in an emergency, even thoughthat probably won't be nearly as big of a factor in the accounting of thermals. (Not an expert, just a casually pessimistic devourer of random information)
Really seems to me like the GOP/right-wing media complex is playing with fire on this one. I don't live in Texas, but the stories I'm seeing on Reddit and other places about people without power and even running water for literally days are almost unbelievable. The attitude in conservative media of pushing the usual culture war crap in the midst of intense privation on a mass scale strikes me as remarkably blasé under the circumstances. Texas is very close to being an actual battleground state, one that the GOP absolutely cannot afford to lose, and yet folks like Abbott, Cruz, and Tucker are cavorting about like it's 2008 and TX is R+12 or whatever. Do these people realize that, by all accounts, the GOP completely owns the failure to winterize in Texas and thus can easily be portrayed as directly responsible for Texans to having to relieve themselves in buckets in 40-degree homes over a period of days?
As someone who inspects and works on Gas Turbines, it’s sort of trips me out this whole thing comes down to insulation.
It is slightly annoying that everyone says that Gas Turbines failed.
It’s like running out of gas, and saying your car broke down.
Real lessons learned.
1. Don’t underestimate worst case scenario’s.
2. Storage has a long way to go.
Bottom line, the situation can’t be blamed on renewables or legacy generation, but comes down to good old human lack of foresight.
Many Canadians rely on natural gas for winter home heating and it’s distributed supply has been very reliable. We’ve had a few electric power outages in downtown Toronto (usually because of local storm damage to overhead wires) but never had a natural gas outage. Natural-gas powered back-up generators are becoming more popular.
Yes, I work at Canadian and a lot of northern plants. Insulation in instrument heaters. Actually, a lot of the most northern plants but there equipment in big hangers.
I have a dual fuel 5000 watt Generator at my house for this purpose.
I think everyone should at least have an inverter for the vehicle. We can use your car or truck has a generator.
Noah isn't referenced failing turbines. The failures are across the gas system, presumably including some power stations too.
As he and Bloomberg quoted ERCOT: "Frozen instruments at natural gas, coal and even nuclear facilities, as well as limited supplies of natural gas, he said. “Natural gas pressure” in particular is one reason power is coming back slower than expected Tuesday, added Woodfin."
Per TX Tribune, it sounds like some of the biggest failures are in extraction and distribution of gas: "“Gathering lines freeze, and the wells get so cold that they can’t produce,” said Parker Fawcett, a natural gas analyst for S&P Global Platts. “And pumps use electricity, so they’re not even able to lift that gas and liquid, because there’s no power to produce.”"
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/
I said everybody, not specifically Noah. I know it’s short hand, but its an important distinction.
for fuck's sake... yes.
> stop politicizing energy.
(ಥ⌣ಥ)
I think for the most part, this a pretty fair summary. But there are a couple of things about "winterization" that both you and Jenkins are glossing over the details on. For wind turbines, the Forbes article brings up these mysterious "cold weather kits" that can be added to turbines but then goes on to describe heating for the gearbox, pitch motors and battery. Deicing is described as adding heaters and a coating to the rotor blades. While I'm sure adding heaters inside the nacelle is pretty trivial, there is no indication that was the problem. The icing issue, which has been indicated as a problem, with deeper investigation is not a simple modification, it requires a specially equipped turbine. The two most common turbine manufacturers used in Texas, GE and Vestas, didn't even start talking about deicing until 2013, long after most turbines in Texas were installed. Making this change would require replacing entire turbines, hardly trivial. As for natural gas lines freezing, the only mitigation technique mentioned my Jenkins is burying the lines deeper. But what has been reported is that the lines were freezing at the wellhead. You can't bury a wellhead, so what is the fix for that? I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm sure they have technology they use in the Brakken Shale fields, but if you're going to critique what happened in Texas, why not give a concrete example? It is hard to understand whether there is a feasible solution if no one can provide a solution.
Noah. A different graphic might be better. Gov. Abbott is in a wheelchair as a result of an accident. Maybe just re-label as Texas.
People don't just "politicize energy" by accident. The fossil fuel industry (led by the Kochs) feeds such ready-made propaganda to the right wing politicians to disseminate because they can protect themselves with this as a cultural/political issue.
You mention the “cost advantage of solar and wind” however, I’d like to point out some key information that was left out. Firstly, the graph you use showing the Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is extremely misleading. It does not exclude the benefit of government subsidies (paid by the American Tax payer) and it doesn’t capture other costs of renewables, such as storage costs (I.g. Large battery installations that use rare earth minerals destructively mined). I also believe that other economic benefits are missed when talking about oil and gas. For example, those who own the mineral rights are paid a huge revenue (in the case of New Mexico, around 1/3 of the states entire budget comes from O&G revenue) all of these other benefits are not realized with renewable energy. This would be a huge deficit to NM (and to a smaller degree to Texas) for these revenues to be lost.
And even with rare earths being needed, fossil fuel extraction is far more destructive to the environment. I also don’t see why state governments can’t get funded via other methods. If a state gets a big chunk of its budget from cigarette taxes, we shouldn’t say “let’s have everybody smoke more!” instead of working out a new tax regime.
Do you have some sort of reference that fossil fuel extraction is “far more destructive” than rare mineral mining? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/26/rare-earth-metals-technology-boom.
I think the author of this article was astutely highlighting some of the major downfalls of the O&G mindset in oil rich states such as Texas. However, as part of a educated discussion, I feel that it is important to look at all sides of the equation. Once major issue in these discussions is the lack of an easy metric by which we can truly compare energy sources. The taxation and subsidy portion of this discussion can not be swept aside in an effort to make one energy source look better than another.
Here is my energy cost in real time and few references
Thank goodness I'm not reliant on them and have proof of having 100% solar electric power. Voters beware don't believe the lip service but rather watch the person actions past present future🤷
https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/news/local/investigates/30-years-of-warnings-to-winterize-texas-power-plants-yet-they-still-froze-will-austin-finally-require-it/287-20540908-dbce-4e17-90a3-19aa4f4f4690
https://www.fema.gov/disasters/how-declared
https://photos.app.goo.gl/d68qd82jiPfAWHPR8
Renewables are getting cheaper, even without accounting for subsidies. See here (and description on top left):
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/11/3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices-1536x1322.png
The graph referenced above only includes renewable sources, and it is unclear if it includes storage costs.
As I replied above, the ability to truly establish a metric to fairly measure the “cost” of a particular energy source is very difficult, if not impossible. But by not addressing these concerns in a very impartial way, we will only serve to further polarize the energy discussion. For example, the author correctly points out that both “sides” have completely dismissed nuclear energy. Why? It is one of the safest and cleanest sources we have at our disposal. Look into Bill Gates’ new nuclear fission project. The irony is that both the republicans and the Democrats have publicly ridiculed his project. Why? I can only assume politics has clouded the discussion.
The one in my reply includes coal and nuclear. If storage costs aren't included (they might already be), nuclear would still be more expensive.
Nuclear energy has environmental benefits, but the downfall is that it's (currently) very expensive. The "free market" won't ditch natural gas for nuclear on it's own -- at least not yet. For that to happen, the government would need to massively invest in nuclear plants
Speaking of leaving things out ... You neglect to mention the biggest omission that big oil has received for decades. And please keep in mind that OUR government is supposed to provide services and support for the good of all, not just mega corps and the oil oligarchs.
Now add back in the $trillions (yes, with a "T") of tax subsidies to fossil fuel extractors, refiners and dealers as well as environmental damage we will all be paying for over the next century (if we're lucky). Your "American Tax payer" has been raked by the fossil fuel industry for over 100 years and it needs to end now.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the American tax payer being raked by the fossil fuel industry. I wound argue that access to cheap energy is a primary driving factor of transition into a first world economy. You might find error with OPEC’s manipulation of the oil market, but then, many conservationists might applaud higher oil prices since it would spur innovation into alternative energy at a faster pace.
$649 billion in the United States last year paid to subsidize fossil fuels. U.S. is hardly the only offender. Here's a summary. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/?sh=286d496d4473
The cost of O&G subsidies reflected in the article you referenced is very conflated. They are trying to include the societal “cost” of carbon emissions. A far less biased depiction of Energy subsidies can be found in this report:
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-fossil-fuels/
Difficult to sympathize with voters who elect bad leaders for stupid reasons. Voters get the leaders and outcomes they choose. If Texans consistently choose right-wing leaders who pander to ignorance, prejudice and malice, the outcomes will correlate.
Texas Governor George W Bush was an important contributor to Texas's investment in renewable energy – I guess that was pre-culture war
One thing:
- Joe Biden's inaugural address he had a line which I think are fitting for the times, acutely, now more than ever:
"If we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes just for a moment.
Because here is the thing about life: There is no accounting for what fate will deal you.
There are some days when we need a hand.
There are other days when we’re called on to lend one.
That is how we must be with one another."
The rest of the country stands ready to reach out to Texas -- but it has to reach back.
Stop politicizing energy! This is a great concept. I will point out that current renewables (wind and solar) exist only because energy choices have been politicized for the last couple of decades. Without government subsidies in the US and other countries, and without mandated generation from renewables, these sources would be used only for a few niche applications. The Lazard analysis states that it includes effects of US subsidies, which amount to about $15 per MWh for wind and $5 per MWh for solar PV.
Further, the assumptions used to calculate the LCOE appear highly questionable. For example, they assume 55% capacity factor for onshore wind (recent projects achieve 42% at best) and 34-36% capacity factor for solar PV (actual capacity factor in the US is 25%). If future projects have historical capacity factors instead of Lazard's assumptions, they will generate a lot less power and hence have much higher LCOE. Wind would increase by 30% and solar by 40% due to this factor alone.
Making energy choices based on technical factors alone (I assume economic factors would count too) is a worthy objective, but not likely to be achieved. It is disingenuous to assume, as Mr. Smith does, that there is a clear national priority to implement renewables based only on technical factors.
In Australia we hooked up most of the country into a unified market for electricity. It has definite downsides - it costs a fortune and if you have to move the electricity very far a lot goes missing. But for a country like the US, with almost ten times Australia's population density, it wouldn't be that bad and as long as you can keep the network up it would be great for emergencies like this. If Texas has no electricity, pipe it in from Colorado or Tennessee.
"Have you ever noticed that the mainstream media and liberal politicians almost always say the exact same thing when something goes wrong with their narrative that only progressivism can save America?
Leaving aside for another time how they coordinate so well, they are at it again when it comes to trying to absolve renewable energy from the blame for last week’s Texas blackouts."
https://texasscorecard.com/commentary/peacock-progressives-coordinated-cover-up-for-renewables/?fbclid=IwAR1PvOv14QmzlH5ccMVWVScWjsxzweOp_PYQfTLvr0KLLNt0TKKohUVPIBg
Thanks Noah. Everybody's an expert. Here's some history on dereg and perspective from somebody who is one.
https://www.energygps.com/Newsletter/b/Newsletter-How-Much-is-Enough-Reliability-1822269
Dear Mr. Smith,
Please keep bashing your former home state. Hopefully some of the influx of liberals will head back out to California. Just curious. When is that bullet train gonna be ready to ride? It's going to be awesome. Also, you should remind folks that rental prices in San Fran are down and now you too can live in this great city! YOU should put you name in to run for governor! I think they need you.
One question I have about wind power is that it is shown to be cheaper in the aggregate as you show in the article, but when it comes to residential options I pay more for 100% wind than I would do if I didn’t care how electricity is produced. Why does the end consumer pay more if it is cheaper?
Maybe because demand outpaces production in the area where you live? Just guessing here, but even in fairly liberal areas wind is not genenerally going to be where the majority of energy production comes from, just down to unreliability of natural phenomenon. It's great as a supplement and I'd argue for a bigger piece of our typical energy profile, but for the Electric company to guarantee it as the source of all your energy consumptions requires a fairly substantial investment in storage capacity. And its really all on the same grid... it's just an accounting trick. You as a wind customer are paying for the cost of wind production plus the lion's share of the grid's storage capacity plus a mark-up because the power supplier has a sense of how much storage they "need" (read as, less than they actually need to cover a Texas-scale event) and don't intend to build more than that. Meanwhile the fossil customer pays for the cost of fossil production, and gets the benefit of the storage you subsidize in an emergency, even thoughthat probably won't be nearly as big of a factor in the accounting of thermals. (Not an expert, just a casually pessimistic devourer of random information)