We had rolling blackouts throughout NC and the usual suspects responded
with “this is what happens when you rely on flaky green energy.”
Will we hear from them again now that we know the cause was actually unreliable fossil fuel energy?
“The company’s acknowledgment of lower-than-expected generation corresponds
with federal data showing a dip in natural gas and coal energy production
on Saturday morning. The data, recorded hourly, is reported by individual utilities and collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”
From: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article270559742.html
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:26:35 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
We had rolling blackouts throughout NC and the usual suspects responded
with “this is what happens when you rely on flaky green energy.”
Will we hear from them again now that we know the cause was actually
unreliable fossil fuel energy?
“The company’s acknowledgment of lower-than-expected generation corresponds
with federal data showing a dip in natural gas and coal energy production
on Saturday morning. The data, recorded hourly, is reported by individual
utilities and collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”
From:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article270559742.html
There is no debate, 'green energy' is less efficient and less dependable
than gas and coal.
Untangling what government policy did to alter the
output of Duke is probably impossible
but energy providers are hardly allowed a free market in which to choose their energy
production sources.
Recent events in Texas and Europe should be all the proof needed.
-TE
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:26:35 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
We had rolling blackouts throughout NC and the usual suspects responded
with “this is what happens when you rely on flaky green energy.”
Will we hear from them again now that we know the cause was actually
unreliable fossil fuel energy?
“The company’s acknowledgment of lower-than-expected generation corresponds
with federal data showing a dip in natural gas and coal energy production
on Saturday morning. The data, recorded hourly, is reported by individual
utilities and collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”
From:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article270559742.html
There is no debate, 'green energy' is less efficient and less dependable than gas and coal.
Untangling what government policy did to alter the output of Duke is probably impossible
but energy providers are hardly allowed a free market in which to choose their energy
production sources.
Recent events in Texas and Europe should be all the proof needed.
-TE
The EU is different. They, possibly foolishly, were relying on Russian
oil and gas. Then Putin invaded Ukraine. Maybe they learned a lesson.
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:54:03 AM UTC-6, RoddyMcCorley wrote:
The EU is different. They, possibly foolishly, were relying on Russian
oil and gas. Then Putin invaded Ukraine. Maybe they learned a lesson.
Trump laughed at for suggesting as much
https://youtu.be/FfJv9QYrlwg
Corky <corkstrew@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:54:03 AM UTC-6, RoddyMcCorley wrote:
The EU is different. They, possibly foolishly, were relying on Russian
oil and gas. Then Putin invaded Ukraine. Maybe they learned a lesson.
Trump laughed at for suggesting as much
https://youtu.be/FfJv9QYrlwg
That’s definitely one where he got the last laugh.
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:54:03 AM UTC-6, RoddyMcCorley wrote:
The EU is different. They, possibly foolishly, were relying on Russian
oil and gas. Then Putin invaded Ukraine. Maybe they learned a lesson.
Trump laughed at for suggesting as much
https://youtu.be/FfJv9QYrlwg
On 12/30/2022 1:06 PM, TE wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:26:35 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
We had rolling blackouts throughout NC and the usual suspects responded >> with “this is what happens when you rely on flaky green energy.”
Will we hear from them again now that we know the cause was actually
unreliable fossil fuel energy?
“The company’s acknowledgment of lower-than-expected generation corresponds
with federal data showing a dip in natural gas and coal energy production >> on Saturday morning. The data, recorded hourly, is reported by individual >> utilities and collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.” >>
From:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article270559742.html
There is no debate, 'green energy' is less efficient and less dependable than gas and coal.
Untangling what government policy did to alter the output of Duke is probably impossible
but energy providers are hardly allowed a free market in which to choose their energy
production sources.
Recent events in Texas and Europe should be all the proof needed.
-TENot really.
Each utility and each reliability area (a collection of utilities) is responsible for providing or contracting for energy supplies (generating capacity) to meet forecasted demand and allow for a sufficient reserve margin to address uncertainties, such as equipment failures and weather extremes. Sometimes shit happens, such as losing a key transmission line
or a generator or a combination of upsets that result in outages or
voltage reductions. Each generator is assigned a reliability factor and those are factored into reliability planning. I don't know what those numbers are, but I would expect wind and solar to be on the low end of
the scale and nuclear and fossil to be on the high end of the scale.
Why build wind and solar? They effectively have no fuel costs and are inexpensive to operate.
Texas is a bad example because it is not reliably interconnected with surrounding power supply areas and they did a poor job in planning for adverse weather.
The EU is different. They, possibly foolishly, were relying on Russian
oil and gas. Then Putin invaded Ukraine. Maybe they learned a lesson.
We had rolling blackouts throughout NC and the usual suspects responded
with “this is what happens when you rely on flaky green energy.”
Will we hear from them again now that we know the cause was actually unreliable fossil fuel energy?
“The company’s acknowledgment of lower-than-expected generation corresponds
with federal data showing a dip in natural gas and coal energy production
on Saturday morning. The data, recorded hourly, is reported by individual utilities and collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”
From: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article270559742.html
Why build wind and solar? They effectively have no fuel costs and are inexpensive to operate.
Texas is a bad example because it is not reliably interconnected with surrounding power supply areas and they did a poor job in planning for adverse weather.
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 9:26:35 AM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
We had rolling blackouts throughout NC and the usual suspects responded
with “this is what happens when you rely on flaky green energy.”
Will we hear from them again now that we know the cause was actually
unreliable fossil fuel energy?
“The company’s acknowledgment of lower-than-expected generation corresponds
with federal data showing a dip in natural gas and coal energy production
on Saturday morning. The data, recorded hourly, is reported by individual
utilities and collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”
From:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article270559742.html >>
Using a reliable technology does not prevent incompetence in deploying it.
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 1:54:03 AM UTC-5, RoddyMcCorley wrote:
On 12/30/2022 1:06 PM, TE wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:26:35 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:Not really.
We had rolling blackouts throughout NC and the usual suspects responded >> >> with “this is what happens when you rely on flaky green energy.”
Will we hear from them again now that we know the cause was actually
unreliable fossil fuel energy?
“The company’s acknowledgment of lower-than-expected generation corresponds
with federal data showing a dip in natural gas and coal energy production >> >> on Saturday morning. The data, recorded hourly, is reported by individual >> >> utilities and collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.” >> >>
From:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article270559742.html
There is no debate, 'green energy' is less efficient and less dependable than gas and coal.
Untangling what government policy did to alter the output of Duke is probably impossible
but energy providers are hardly allowed a free market in which to choose their energy
production sources.
Recent events in Texas and Europe should be all the proof needed.
-TE
Each utility and each reliability area (a collection of utilities) is
responsible for providing or contracting for energy supplies (generating
capacity) to meet forecasted demand and allow for a sufficient reserve
margin to address uncertainties, such as equipment failures and weather
extremes. Sometimes shit happens, such as losing a key transmission line
or a generator or a combination of upsets that result in outages or
voltage reductions. Each generator is assigned a reliability factor and
those are factored into reliability planning. I don't know what those
numbers are, but I would expect wind and solar to be on the low end of
the scale and nuclear and fossil to be on the high end of the scale.
Why build wind and solar? They effectively have no fuel costs and are
inexpensive to operate.
What are the odds of it being cloudy on a day when you are hit
with a snowstorm? 100%? "Solar generation performed as expected,"
IOW, poorly.
https://www.carolinajournal.com/apologies-and-acceptance-from-duke-energy-over-recent-rolling-blackouts/
"He also said that solar generation performed as expected but was not available to meet the peak demand since the peak occurred before
sunrise. This problem is concerning if another outage occurs during
high demand periods that include several cloudy days."
Texas is a bad example because it is not reliably interconnected with
surrounding power supply areas and they did a poor job in planning for
adverse weather.
The EU is different. They, possibly foolishly, were relying on Russian
oil and gas. Then Putin invaded Ukraine. Maybe they learned a lesson.
The foolishness was transitioning to 'green energy' which is unreliable and inefficient, their problems started before the Ukraine invasion.
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:54:03 AM UTC-6, RoddyMcCorley wrote:
Why build wind and solar? They effectively have no fuel costs and are
inexpensive to operate.
You would think that, but then why do they need subsidies?
Texas is a bad example because it is not reliably interconnected with
surrounding power supply areas and they did a poor job in planning for
adverse weather.
Yes and no. Having nearly all of the 20 GW of wind go to zero from
icing certainly did not help. OTOH, when you start rolling blackouts
that shut down pipeline pumps, and thus cut of gas to power
generators does indicate some very poor planning. In that specific
instance (Feb 2020), being interconnected wouldn't have helped
because Texas' neighbors were under very heavy load and didn't have much capacity to help.
On 2023-01-05, Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net> wrote:
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:54:03 AM UTC-6, RoddyMcCorley wrote: >>>
Why build wind and solar? They effectively have no fuel costs and are
inexpensive to operate.
You would think that, but then why do they need subsidies?
Because the hidden costs of storage and backup power make them not inexpensive. And storage is a joke; we are orders of magnitude away
from the amount needed.
Texas is a bad example because it is not reliably interconnected with
surrounding power supply areas and they did a poor job in planning for
adverse weather.
Yes and no. Having nearly all of the 20 GW of wind go to zero from
icing certainly did not help. OTOH, when you start rolling blackouts
that shut down pipeline pumps, and thus cut of gas to power
generators does indicate some very poor planning. In that specific
instance (Feb 2020), being interconnected wouldn't have helped
because Texas' neighbors were under very heavy load and didn't have much
capacity to help.
IFYPFY.
Having to re-task huge amounts of capacity makes the grid less stable, increasing vulnerability to events.
On 1/6/2023 6:02 AM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
On 2023-01-05, Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net> wrote:
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:54:03 AM UTC-6, RoddyMcCorley wrote: >>>>
Why build wind and solar? They effectively have no fuel costs and are
inexpensive to operate.
You would think that, but then why do they need subsidies?
Because the hidden costs of storage and backup power make them not
inexpensive. And storage is a joke; we are orders of magnitude away
from the amount needed.
Texas is a bad example because it is not reliably interconnected with
surrounding power supply areas and they did a poor job in planning for >>>> adverse weather.
Yes and no. Having nearly all of the 20 GW of wind go to zero from
icing certainly did not help. OTOH, when you start rolling blackouts
that shut down pipeline pumps, and thus cut of gas to power
generators does indicate some very poor planning. In that specific
instance (Feb 2020), being interconnected wouldn't have helped
because Texas' neighbors were under very heavy load and didn't have much >>> capacity to help.
IFYPFY.
Having to re-task huge amounts of capacity makes the grid less stable,
increasing vulnerability to events.
Have you ever looked at a home system?
On 2023-01-06, Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org> wrote:
On 1/6/2023 6:02 AM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
On 2023-01-05, Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net> wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:54:03 AM UTC-6, RoddyMcCorley wrote: >>>>>
Why build wind and solar? They effectively have no fuel costs and are >>>>> inexpensive to operate.
You would think that, but then why do they need subsidies?
Because the hidden costs of storage and backup power make them not
inexpensive. And storage is a joke; we are orders of magnitude away
from the amount needed.
Texas is a bad example because it is not reliably interconnected with >>>>> surrounding power supply areas and they did a poor job in planning for >>>>> adverse weather.
Yes and no. Having nearly all of the 20 GW of wind go to zero from
icing certainly did not help. OTOH, when you start rolling blackouts
that shut down pipeline pumps, and thus cut of gas to power
generators does indicate some very poor planning. In that specific
instance (Feb 2020), being interconnected wouldn't have helped
because Texas' neighbors were under very heavy load and didn't have much >>>> capacity to help.
IFYPFY.
Having to re-task huge amounts of capacity makes the grid less stable,
increasing vulnerability to events.
Have you ever looked at a home system?
Yes. I have looked at wind, solar, and geothermal for the home. Wind I rejected out of hand as never paying back the investment. (Even the
company selling it said it would not right up front.)
In the other two cases, since I didn't think I would be in the home
for the rest of my life (I wasn't) I determined that I would not get
the investment back in the resale price. If I had thought I would be
there for decades, I would have NOT done the solar and WOULD have done
the geothermal. The main reason for not doing the solar was slow
payback because of living in an area that isn't particularly sunny
(Southern Indiana).
On 2023-01-06, Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org> wrote:
On 1/6/2023 6:02 AM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
On 2023-01-05, Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net> wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:54:03 AM UTC-6, RoddyMcCorley wrote: >>>>>
Why build wind and solar? They effectively have no fuel costs and are >>>>> inexpensive to operate.
You would think that, but then why do they need subsidies?
Because the hidden costs of storage and backup power make them not
inexpensive. And storage is a joke; we are orders of magnitude away
from the amount needed.
Texas is a bad example because it is not reliably interconnected with >>>>> surrounding power supply areas and they did a poor job in planning for >>>>> adverse weather.
Yes and no. Having nearly all of the 20 GW of wind go to zero from
icing certainly did not help. OTOH, when you start rolling blackouts
that shut down pipeline pumps, and thus cut of gas to power
generators does indicate some very poor planning. In that specific
instance (Feb 2020), being interconnected wouldn't have helped
because Texas' neighbors were under very heavy load and didn't have much >>>> capacity to help.
IFYPFY.
Having to re-task huge amounts of capacity makes the grid less stable,
increasing vulnerability to events.
Have you ever looked at a home system?
Yes. I have looked at wind, solar, and geothermal for the home. Wind I rejected out of hand as never paying back the investment. (Even the
company selling it said it would not right up front.)
In the other two cases, since I didn't think I would be in the home
for the rest of my life (I wasn't) I determined that I would not get
the investment back in the resale price. If I had thought I would be
there for decades, I would have NOT done the solar and WOULD have done
the geothermal. The main reason for not doing the solar was slow
payback because of living in an area that isn't particularly sunny
(Southern Indiana).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 403 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 42:24:45 |
| Calls: | 8,407 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,171 |
| Messages: | 5,904,944 |