I would suggest that the regulation paradigm in Texas does not allow coordinated maintenance scheduling to adapt to supply and load issues (especially in the face of a disaster like the Winter event earlier this year). That would mean a stronger regulatory framework and that smacks of government interference in the eyes of some.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:54 AM Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> wrote: > Patrick - I hope that your determination of failure isn't dictated by the > federal government telling you so. š³ > > Again, green-energy solves none of these issues. In fact, it is likely > less green, and more expensive than the traditional solutions. > > Much resect for you and I really appreciate your views on these topics. > > On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> > wrote: > > The issue was not only perfectly foreseeable, ERCOT has a ten year old > document explaining PRECISELY how to avoid such an occurrence happening. > > Did you miss the second paragraph below? > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> > wrote: > > 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. Itās like saying that I shouldnāt 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. > āJust > pointing out facts.ā > > 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 CEOās salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had > nothing to do with protecting the suppliersā 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 āgreen power is unreliableā 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 āXXX is a non-profitā 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: > > ļ»æThere is no profit motive for a non-profit company. Itās 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 > āgreenā methods. > > Just pointing out facts. > > On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <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> > wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organizationā¦. >> >> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <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> 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. >>> >> >> > > > >
