Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not an effective strategy to actually having power available.
I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house where the tornado hit. > On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: > > Brian: > > The idea that because ERCOT is a non-profit somehow means they would never do > anything to save money, or management is not granted bonuses or salary > increases based on savings, or have no financial incentive is ridiculous. > E.g. Salaries for the top ERCOT executives increased 50% from 2012 to 2019. > “Just pointing out facts.” > > Also, green vs. traditional has little to do with why ERCOT had problems. It > is undisputed that ERCOT failed in 2011, was handed a report by the feds > showing why they failed and how to fix it, yet ERCOT did not require > suppliers to enact those fixes. Those actions had a direct, operational > effect on the Internet. And as such, seem perfectly on-topic for NANOG. > > Why that happened may still be on topic. For instance, you state correctly > that ERCOT is a non-profit (although you and I disagree on precisely how that > affects things). But the suppliers are not. Are we 1000000% certain the CEO’s > salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had nothing to do > with protecting the suppliers’ profits? I am not. However, that question is > only tenuously operational. > > Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan > for it not being up? Simply saying “green power is unreliable” is not an > answer when many RFPs at least ask what percentage of your power is green, or > flat out require at least some of your production be green. Making a blanket > statement that “XXX is a non-profit” does not absolve them from poor business > practices, which at least saves the non-profit money and frequently results > in profits outside that entity. Etc. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > >> On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:00, Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> wrote: >> >> There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely >> relevant to your response. >> >> For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and >> maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power >> system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your >> assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are >> subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer >> “green” methods. >> >> Just pointing out facts. >> >>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc >>> <mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote: >>> >>> Brian- >>> >>> I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us >>> <mailto:brian.john...@netgeek.us>> wrote: >>> Tom, >>> >>> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization…. >>> >>>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc >>>> <mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid >>>> > unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and >>>> > perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it? >>>> >>>> Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power >>>> generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons >>>> learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with >>>> profit being the most important thing ever. Right? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa >>>> <mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote: >>>> >>>> > Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy >>>> > on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep >>>> > their system online in 2021. >>>> >>>> It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular >>>> belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their >>>> customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing >>>> up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone >>>> remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?) >>>> >>>> Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more >>>> electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when >>>> the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So >>>> between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely >>>> less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their >>>> personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially >>>> independent of the traditional grid. >>>> >>>> >>>> > Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid >>>> > unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and >>>> > perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it? >>>> >>>> I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that >>>> regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that >>>> of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met >>>> the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, >>>> more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must >>>> turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to >>>> embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a >>>> basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular >>>> folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the >>>> season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the >>>> benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not >>>> balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to >>>> either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, >>>> practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, >>>> caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the >>>> economic development curve you are sitting. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and >>>> > ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well. >>>> >>>> Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some >>>> kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, >>>> (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk >>>> are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday >>>> night. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected >>>> > representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. >>>> > Change minds. >>>> >>>> There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need >>>> to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone >>>> else, because we are just citizens minding our own business. >>>> >>>> Mark. >>> >>
