Re: FERC releases final report on Texas power outages (2021)

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

More specifics:

Centerpoint is charging Minnesota natgas customers a surcharge specific to
the Feb 2021 event. It is a line item listed as the 'Feb 2021 Weather
Event' on the October and November bills with a per-therm surcharge. The
surcharge rate was different between Oct and Nov.
https://www.centerpointenergy.com/en-us/Documents/211022-01_RateCase_FactSheet.pdf

Xcel Energy has also recently added a "February 2021 Weather Event -
Pricing Event Surcharge" to their MN natgas rate book:
https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/Company/Rates%20&%20Regulations/Regulatory%20Filings/Mg_Section_5.pdf


Much electric generation depends on natgas.

Xcel Energy is charging at least one wholesale electric customer in
Colorado a highly increased 'fuel cost adjustment' (FCA). As this wholesale
customer is an electric co-op, they will pass this on to their own retail
customers.
https://www.gvp.org/FCA

Xcel also has FCAs on their retail electric customer bills; it would not
surprise me to see those also be moved upwards, even if they don't itemize
out the reason for increase as being the Feb 2021 event. Increases in these
FCAs may be constrained by state level PUCs, but the utility workaround is
the duration.

Other utilities also have added surcharges:
Gas surcharge:
https://www.minnesotaenergyresources.com/company/tariffs/swcr.pdf

Gas and electric surcharges in Cedar Falls, IA due to the price spike from
the same event.
https://www.cfu.net/utilities/rates-service-policies/february-2021-energy-costs

It is possible that some US utilities may not add surcharges, or if they do
add them, they may disguise them under existing fuel cost adjustment
charges rather than as highly visible line items. A large jump in
surcharges may be an indicator this is happening.

Although the cold weather event was not limited to the Texas area, the
problems of frozen-out natgas supply infrastructure and electric
infrastructure (which are interdependent) were concentrated on equipment
operated by entities in Texas. Surely the weather event increased demand to
some degree; at the same time a sudden loss of natgas supply compounded the
demand pressure on the remaining supply, and both factors combined to drive
a market price spike. The severe weather event itself was unavoidable* but
survivable; the frozen infrastructure issues were clearly preventable.

*Unavoidable, if one ignores the possibility the event may have been a side
effect of human-activity-induced climate chaos.



On Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 11:28 Tom Beecher  wrote:

> Yeah, some additional specifics about this would be helpful.
>
> I see no new charges on my nat gas gas bills in my state (NY) going back 4
> months that I still had laying around.
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:32 AM Haudy Kazemi via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> Yet, in spite of claims of TX being an island, customers all over the
>> country are now being forced to pay energy surcharges specifically tied to
>> the Feb 2021 TX event. It was a line item on my last bill.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 21:03 Sean Donelan  wrote:
>>
>>> "Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It."
>>>
>>>
>>> However, Texas maintains its electric grid as an isolated island, and
>>> hasn't followed past recommendations to avoid electric grid outages.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Federal-report-warns-Texas-power-outages-16628257.php
>>>
>>>

Re: FERC releases final report on Texas power outages (2021)

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

Yet, in spite of claims of TX being an island, customers all over the
country are now being forced to pay energy surcharges specifically tied to
the Feb 2021 TX event. It was a line item on my last bill.


On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 21:03 Sean Donelan  wrote:

> "Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It."
>
>
> However, Texas maintains its electric grid as an isolated island, and
> hasn't followed past recommendations to avoid electric grid outages.
>
>
> https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Federal-report-warns-Texas-power-outages-16628257.php
>
>

Re: Walkie-Talkie Apps on cell phones still require working Internet access

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

One exception:

The Serval mesh project is specifically meant to address the situation of
no Internet or cell access. Caveat: it hasn't been updated recently and the
Google app store no longer has it. It is still available via F-Droid. It
looks like it may be useful if one has a working network that is not
connected to the Internet (or has a very poor connection).

https://servalproject.org

https://servalpaul.blogspot.com/2018/11/serval-chat-ios-port-finally-emerges.html

https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.servalproject/



On Thu, Sep 2, 2021, 11:07 Sean Donelan  wrote:

>
> Another reminder
>
> Walkie-talkie apps on smartphones, like Zello, still require working
> Internet access.  They don't work without cell or wifi service and
> internet access.  Zello keeps reminding people, it REQUIRES internet
> access; but people don't get it.
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/factCheckNew/idUSL1N2Q31SN
>
>
> Only about 5% of households have a NOAA/Weather radio with battery backup
> (slightly higher in tornado alley).
>

Re: Carbon Monoxide warnings - keep generators outside 20ft away from doors and windows

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

Several articles have mentioned 8 transmission lines were lost to the
hurricane (a single big event event). A casual reader might think 8 lines
would offer an 8-way level of redundancy.

My WAG is the reality of load vs capacity is more like a N-1 or N-2
redundancy, but that's really just a WAG. It is unclear to me if all 8
lines were damaged by the storm, or if some failed/tripped when loads
shifted onto the remaining lines after the first failure occurred
(cascading failure).

Does anyone know, or has anyone seen, details?



On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 16:12 Sean Donelan  wrote:

> One person has died and at least 27 people are being treated for carbon
> monoxide poisoning from portable generators.
>
> Officials are reminding people to operate portable generators only
> outside, 20 feet away from homes, doors and windows.  Not in carports,
> garages, basements.
>
> To restore power, Entergy has "islanded" (disconnected) the City of New
> Orleans from the regional grid and started a local power plant. The
> transmission lines were toppled during the storm, but the cables were
> still connected to the terminals. Islanding the city makes sense, but I
> don't remember a power company islanding large parts of the grid before.
> Public officials are now saying it may be 30+ days to fully restore power.
>
> Entergy has implemented restoration priority, which means hospitals,
> public safety and critical infrastructure will be restored first. Along
> with some incidental customers on the same circuits.
>
>
> Customers out of service
>
> Louisiana - 987,588
> Mississippi - 31,516
> Florida - 21,867
> California - 21,339
> Pennsylvania - 10,415
>
> Reminder, Puerto Rico still has not fully recovered from hurricanes in
> 2017.  Puerto Rico still has rolling blackouts.  And yes, Puerto Rico is
> an island, so its electric grid is naturally an island.
>
> The major wireless providers have activated their open roaming agreements,
> allowing customers to roam on any working infrastructure from other
> service providers.  They are also waiving overages and many other feeds in
> the affected region.  Check your service provider's website for details.
>
> AT says 82 percent of its network in service in Louisiana.
>
> First responders say the AT FIRSTNET failed (again) during the
> hurricane.
>
> T-Mobile says 70 percent of its network in service in Louisiana.
>
> Verizon says it has "gaps in coverage" but its network remains resilient.
> I don't know what that means.
>
> I haven't found reports from cable companies in the region.
>

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

Some TVs may also try to rescale the inputs, or enhance/process the image
in ways that can improve perceived video quality. Things like increasing
frame rates of sources that are lower frame rates (thus the 120 Hz and 240
Hz TVs that attempt to make 24, 30, and 60 FPS sources look better), or
deinterlacing 1080i ATSC sources.

Some of this image processing may not work well in specific monitor use
cases.

I have had generally good results with using a TV as an HTPC monitor.  Only
issues I've run into over the years are

1.) a 1080p Sony TV with a VGA input that could not handle 1920x1080 (using
HDMI worked)
and
2.) a 720p Toshiba that could not show the BIOS screen of the attached
computer (I think this was either an unsupported resolution issue, or a
timing issue where the TV couldn't wake up fast enough from the 'signal
lost' message to display a brand new signal input).

YMMV.


VPNs: there is a race going on between streaming services who want to block
VPNs, and VPN services who have customers who want to be able to watch
streams (whether in or out of their regions). Some VPN customers buy VPN
services because they do not trust their ISP to not do stuff like selling
browsing histories.

I think ISPs are getting caught in the middle, maybe when they have IP
ranges near or in the middle of ranges that are suspected by IP reputation
companies as being used by VPN services. I'd guess the problem is more
likely to affect smaller ISPs, and not the
Comcast/Cox/Charter/Spectrum/CenturyLinks of the world. There are also
'distributed VPN' services that let people share their connections with
others.

We are also seeing fragmentation in the cable/streaming service space,
similar to what happened in the cable/Dish Network/DirecTV wars. Add it all
up, some customers may throw up their hands in annoyance at the various
platforms and then revert to other means of obtaining the content they seek.



On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 15:13 Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:

>
>
> > On Sep 1, 2021, at 11:25 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> > people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that
> > the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> > that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> > was tiring on the eyes.
>
> That was definitely true of 480 TVs and older 1080p units, but modern sets
> are almost designed to be monitors first and everything else second.
>
> > Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> > text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> > some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> > this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> > much?
>
> There are some tradeoffs… For example, sitting normal computer monitor
> distance from a 44” 4K screen, you can damn near see the individual pixels
> and that can make text look fuzzy, especially if your GPU or OS are stupid
> enough to use a technique called anti-aliasing on text (which is the most
> probable source of the fuzziness in your originally quoted complaint).
>
> Older TVs would try to smooth some aspects of the analog signal they were
> using through anti-aliasing pixels that occurred on the edge of a change in
> the color signal to “smooth” the image. (The extent of this action was what
> was controlled by the “Sharpness” knob back in the analog days).
>
> Turning off this capability (Sharpness to the left most or lowest setting)
> would
> often improve things greatly.
>
> > Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
> > manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.
>
> Possible, but unlikely.
>
> Owen
>
> >
> > On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG)
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>  On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I
> ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K
> monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended
> up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p,
> but I digress).
> >>>
> >>> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a
> "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39"
> model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size
> and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it).
> What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed
> to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors
> (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that
> 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too
> small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and 

Re: Reminder: Never connect a generator to home wiring without transfer switch

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

It's the specific combination of current and voltage that is hazardous.

Too much current, through/across the heart, is the main, potentially fatal,
hazard. This is why 120v GFCIs trip near 5 milliamps (mA). (20-30 mA in the
wrong place is too much.)

A voltage pushes a current through a resistance, be that insulation or skin
or soil.

A 12 volt car battery can produce several hundred amps current, enough to
weld, if the terminals are shorted together, but a 12 volt battery doesn't
have a high enough voltage to push that current through dry skin. It isn't
dangerous to touch a single battery with dry hands.

Static electricity can be thousands of volts, but at extremely low current.
We feel it as the voltage is high enough, but it isn't actually dangerous
(to people; electronic equipment is another matter).

Holding the current constant at the danger threshold (20 mA), we can also
look at the power levels for various voltages.

20mA at 120v = 2.4 watts. On the other side of the transformer, 20 mA at
7200v = 144 watts. Conclusion: a single small 150 watt inverter is powerful
enough to be create a hazard for linemen working on an islanded section of
7200v powerline.

There are several categories of electrical hazards, as delineated by
voltage. Under 50v is generally considered to not be a shock hazard. More
details on voltage categories:
https://eecoonline.com/determining-safe-distances-from-electrical-hazards/

More details on GFCIs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual-current_device



On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 13:16 Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <
l...@6by7.net> wrote:

> So the issue here is even a small 120vac current becomes a very fatal
> event at 7.2 or 11 or 14.4kV.  It’s a safety issue for linepersons doing
> emergency restoration work.
>
>
>
> Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
> CEO
> l...@6by7.net
> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in
> the world.”
>
> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>
> Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.
>
> > On Aug 25, 2021, at 7:24 AM, Ethan O'Toole  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >>
> >>> How would this not load the generator or inverter into oblivion?
> >> Not sure I understand your question. Say again, please.
> >
> > If you hook 100KW of neighbors up to your 5KW/20% THD garden generator
> it would probably trip the breaker, or stall.
> >
> > I suppose it could be an issue if it was a single house on a branch
> where the break being serviced was just that branch (rural customers.)
> >
> > Was just curious why it wouldn't overload the generator trying to power
> all the neighbors houses if connected to the grid.
> >
> >- Ethan
> >
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling.

Include: Typical downstream bandwidth, typical upstream bandwidth, median
latency and packet loss rates (both measured from CPE in advertised ZIP
code to the top 10 websites), data cap info, and bottom line price
including all unavoidable fees.

ISP-provided WiFi routers would only be included in the bottom line price
if the ISP requires said WiFi routers as mandatory CPE.

---
Also, all this talk about higher minimum downstream and upstream bandwidth
is moot if simple data caps remain in place. Scrap simple data caps,
especially those that do not recognize that bandwidth availability varies
throughout the day.

An alternative to simple data caps is to apply destination-agnostic
bandwidth shaping during peak usage periods on the ISP's network, with the
heaviest generators of on-peak traffic being deprioritized. This still
allows for an ISP to offer various tiers of service that have different
data bucket sizes. These might range from a discount tier of 'always
deprioritized during peaks' to a default tier of 'deprioritized after 1 TB
of monthly data transfer during peaks' to a premium tier of 'never
deprioritized during peaks'.

---
Grants: hold recipients of USF or other build-out grant money accountable.
That could mean incentives for build outs that are future-proof on the
scale of decades. An incentive that pays per foot, for conduit and fiber
installed in previously unserved areas, if that conduit actually serves the
properties along the route.

Empty conduit is incredibly future proof. I have seen fiber installs being
placed in orange plastic tubing, which means even if some new form of fiber
is needed later, exchanging the fiber in the conduit will be possible
without requiring more trenching or drilling.

---
On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be applied
that uses broadly available national peak service speeds as the basis for a
formula. An example might be...the basic service tier speed available to
80% of the population is the definition of broadband. When 80% of the
population has access to 100/100 Mbps home service, then 100/100 becomes
the benchmark. When 80% of the population has access to 1/1 Gbps home
service, then 1/1 becomes the benchmark. Areas that don't have service that
meets the benchmark would be eligible for future-proof build-out
incentives, with incentives exponentially increasing as the area falls
further and further behind the benchmark. With 100/100 Mbps as the
benchmark, areas that currently are stuck with unreliable 1.5 Mbps/384k DSL
should be receiving upgrade priority. And even higher priority if the
benchmark has shifted to 1 Gbps.

There also needs to be a way for properties to report 'I am not being
served'. This combined with clawbacks is a way to assure claimed build-out
funds don't leave service gaps in places build-out funds were spent.


On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 20:28 Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:48 PM Valdis Klētnieks 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:10:17 -, scott said:
>> > $10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years.
>>
>> > On the high side: 14 years.
>>
>> Plus ongoing monthly costs that drags out the break-even.
>>
>> The big question is how to get a CFO to buy into stuff with a long
>> break-even
>> schedule when short-term profits get emphasized.  Telcos strung a lot of
>> copper
>> when they were assured of multiple decades of returns - and even *then*
>> getting
>> it out to rural areas required providing more incentive
>>
>
> (going to be pretty us-centric, sorry 'not use folks', also this isn't
> about valdis's message directly)
> There's a bunch of discussion which seems to sideline 'most of the
> population' and then
> the conversation ratholes on talk about folk that are not grouped
> together closely (living in cities/towns).
> I think this is a good example of: "Perfect is the enemy of the good" in
> that there are a whole
> bunch, 82% or so[1], of folk live 'in cities' (or near enough) as of 2019.
> If the 'new' standard is 100/100, that'd be perfectly servicable and
> deployable to
> 82% of the population.
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to either:
>   1) not offer subsidies to city-centric deployments (or pro-rate those)
>   2) get return on the longer-haul 'not city' deployments via slightly
> higher costs elsewhere?
>(or shift the subisidies to cover the rural deployments more
> completely?)
>
> Yes 'telco' folk will have to play ball, but also they get to keep their
> 'we do broadband' marketting..
> Holding back ~80% of the population because you can't sort the other 20%
> out (or a large portion of that 20%)
> in a sane manner sure seems shortsighted. I get that trenching fiber down
> 'state-route-foobar' is hard, and costly,
> but throwing up your hand and declaring that 'no one needs XXX mbps' is
> more than just a little obstructionist.
>
>
>
> 1:
> 

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

Griddy's model makes sense for customers who have the ability to
automatically shed load and switch remaining critical load to backup
generation when wholesale prices spike above the cost of using the backup
generation. Might also make sense if the minimum load after load shedding
is small enough that $9/kWh is not going to break the budget. A 10 watt,
1000 lumen LED can run for 100 hours on 1 kWh.

Customers without such load shedding and/or backup are taking the risk of
possibly seeing $9/kWh (current TX cap?), assuming power is available at
all. Do their customers understand the risk?

It also appears Griddy is planning to roll out a 'price protection option'
for customers. I guess that option probably will look similar to variable
rate plans offered by other retail providers.



On Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 12:19 Tim Burke  wrote:

> CYA measure more than anything else, so Griddy can say they warned their
> customers that prices would be high when faced with chargebacks or bad
> press.
>
> Based on past experience, they are just passing through actual electric
> costs and profiting off of a ~$10 membership fee. After the absurd energy
> rates they had to pass through in 2019 (somewhere around $80/kWh), I'm
> amazed anyone still uses them.
>
> V/r
> Tim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 10:26 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts
>
>
>
> On 2/17/21 16:09, Ben Cannon wrote:
>
> > https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2021/02/16/electricity-reta
> > iler-griddys-unusual-plea-to-texas-customers-leave-now-before-you-get-
> > a-big-bill/
> >  > ailer-griddys-unusual-plea-to-texas-customers-leave-now-before-you-get
> > -a-big-bill/>
> >
> >
> > The power market in Texas has utterly failed.
>
> Griddy aren't greedy. Pity about the grid.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

Using the sample bill on the GA power website you linked, I see a bottom
line price of $76.17 for 606 kWh delivered to the customer. That is
effectively 12.57 cents per kWh.

Utilities (both investor owned and coops) have a multitude of ways of
hiding the effective price in a variety of fixed and variable fees not
included in the nominal 'energy' fee. These include mandatory fixed
connection fees and also fuel cost recovery fees that are tied to
consumption.



On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 12:01 Milt Aitken  wrote:

> The numbers below are not correct.
>
> Here in GA, we pay much lower rates than those listed, somewhere around 7
> cents/kwh after taxes.
>
>
> https://www.georgiapower.com/residential/billing-and-rate-plans/pricing-and-rate-plans/residential-service.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+milt=net2atlanta@nanog.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Rod Beck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2021 12:43 PM
> *To:* Sean Donelan
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts
>
>
>
> Using residential pricing for a data center is a bit odd, isn't? Remember,
> European businesses can reclaim VAT and a European data center would access
> much lower tariffs than a European household. And residential pricing
> includes VAT. Germany is an outlier because about 50% of the 30 cents is
> taxes and surcharges.
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Sean Donelan 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2021 4:15 PM
> *To:* Rod Beck 
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org 
> *Subject:* Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts
>
>
>
>
> The price of electricity is a major component of the decision where data
> centers operators choose to build large data centers.
>
>
> Total electric price to end consumer (residential).  Although industrial
> electric prices are usually lower, its easier to compare residential
> prices across countries.
>
> Europe (Residential):
> Lowest Bulgaria: EU 9.97 cents/kWh (USD 12.0 cents/kWh)
> Highest Germany: EU 30.88 cents/kWh (USD 37.33 cents/kWh)
>
> Average: EU 20.5 cents/kWh (USD 25.2 cents/kWh)
>
> USA (Residential):
> Lowest Idaho: USD 9.67 cents/kWh (EU 8.3 cents/kWh)
> Highest Hawaii: USD 28.84 cents/kWh (EU 24.07 cents/kWh)
>
> Average: USD 13.25 cents/kWh (EU 10.79 cents/kWh)
>
>
> Texas is slightly below the US average at
> Texas: USD 12.2 cents/kWh (EU 9.96 cents/kWh)
>

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021, 17:12 Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 2/16/21 09:49, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >
> > On 2/16/21 8:50 AM, John Von Essen wrote:
> >> I just assumed most people in Texas have heat pumps- AC in the summer
> >> and minimal heating in the winter when needed. When the entire state
> >> gets a deep freeze, everybody is running those heat pumps non-stop,
> >> and the generation capacity simply wasn’t there. i.e. coal or natural
> >> gas plants have some turbines offline, etc.,. in the winter because
> >> historically power use is much much less. The odd thing is its been
> >> days now, those plants should be able to ramp back up to capacity -
> >> but clearly they haven’t. Blaming this on wind turbines is BS. In
> >> fact, if it weren’t for so many people in Texas with grid-tie solar
> >> systems, the situation would be even worse.
> >
> > You'd think that mid-summer Texas chews a lot more peak capacity than
> > the middle of winter. Plus I would think a lot of Texas uses natural gas
> > for heat rather than electricity further mitigating its effect on the
> grid.
> >
>
> The difference is that in extreme cold heat pump systems are likely
> switching on emergency heat (i.e. plain old resistance heaters) when the
> compressor alone can no longer keep up with call for heat demand, which
> requires significantly more power. That's never happening in the summer,
> which is only ever running the compressor.
>


Modern air source heat pumps, including air to water units, do not need to
fallback to resistance until somewhere in the -4 to -22 degrees F range,
depending on ASHP model. That is colder than the lowest lows reported so
far in TX during the current polar vortex. Older units from say 30 years
ago had significantly higher cutover points. I'm guessing the installed
equipment base in TX probably includes a lot of older units.

The difference is while old air source heat pumps were enough to provide
all the HVAC needs in moderate temps, modern units can also provide all the
heating needs in cold climates like found in Minnesota and Wisconsin, all
while maintaining a COP > 1.0, i.e. better than resistance.

Building energy performance also matters. Leaky buildings can expect high
energy requirements as the desired interior temperature diverges from the
exterior temperature. Well built homes can be heated on nothing more than
the output of a regular toaster.

I read that part of the TX issue was a natural gas supply shortfall, where
natgas was prioritized to heating applications, leaving electric power
generation short. MicroCHP and/or district heating tied into available heat
sources (maybe also to datacenter cooling?) would be of great benefit in
keeping the lights on and places warm.

The attempts to place blame on renewables are disingenuous distractions
away from infrastructural design weaknesses that are being exposed by
stressed systems. There are examples of renewables working fine, in colder
regions, with high (up to 100%) fractions of energy coming from renewable
sources. These systems tend to maximize the use of every available BTU or
kWh, and they don't try to solve everything by just throwing more BTUs and
kWh at the problem. For starters, there is a relatively simple geothermal
system, designed by a man in Nebraska, that allows him to grow citrus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD_3_gsgsnk

https://greenhouseinthesnow.com

>

Re: Parler

[Haudy Kazemi via NANOG]

Conclusion:

Companies are not permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a
customer on the basis of the racial or sexual orientation (or a number of
other bases).

Companies are permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a
customer using other criteria. E.g. "No shirt, no shoes, no mask, no
service." Customers who disturb other customers can also get "fired" or
banned by the company if they're deemed not worth the trouble...but the
reason for doing so must not be illegal itself.

Companies who are wary of the law may also be particularly concerned about
serving customers who are using (or enabling others to use) the goods and
services that company offers in ways that may violate the laws of the
jurisdiction the company is under. (In some neighborhoods, Home Depot locks
up all the spray paint cans, and limits sales to customers, as part of
local anti-graffiti measures.)

---

There are parallels in establishing or ending employment...there are
certain reasons that provide a legal basis for hiring or not hiring
someone, as well as reasons that provide a legal basis for firing someone.



On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 10:34 Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> While I don’t like it - at the end of the day a private company can make a
> decision to have or not have a customer (unless somehow it’s racial or
> sexual orientation related apparently).
>
> Nothing is stopping Parler from spinning up their own servers. They
> willingly chose to use AWS.