Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Michael Thomas]

On 4/14/21 7:00 AM, Brian Johnson wrote:
There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely 
relevant to your response.



This is patently absurd. It's an industry group/organization. It's 
raison d'etre is to serve its industry which definitely has a profit 
motive. That and even non-profits have a profit motive to stay afloat. 
See the NRA for one that has gone terribly wrong.


Mike

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 20:25, Stan Barber wrote:
I would say that under normal circumstances, 45 days might work 
(Personally, I would prefer 90 days).


However, I suggest we are not dealing with a normal circumstance 
because of the fall out from the winter incident.


Agreed.

Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Stan Barber]

I would say that under normal circumstances, 45 days might work
(Personally, I would prefer 90 days).

However, I suggest we are not dealing with a normal circumstance because of
the fall out from the winter incident.

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:35 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 4/14/21 18:03, Stan Barber wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 45 days of planned notice, is what I read. And can be rejected if that
> notification window is shorter than that.
>
> Is that sufficient?
>
> Mark.
>

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mike Hammett]

--- 

one would not 
be entirely off-base if they approached the problem from a "How do we 
stay up, regardless of the grid's condition" vs. "How do we go green", 
--- 

Not those whose jobs are to ensure the operation of the facility, but others in 
management\corporate making this big picture decisions are more concerned with 
the optics than they are of the uptime. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:32:25 AM 
Subject: Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13 



On 4/14/21 17:12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: 

> Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or 
> plan for it not being up? 

I think "planning for the grid not being up" is more within our control 
than the former :-). 

Data centres serving base power load from solar PV, for example, can be 
one place to start if they have the land (or rooftop space), in 
economies where they are not only allowed to do grid feed-in, but are 
also able to draw those credits from the grid in the evenings and/or on 
cloud days. Of course, if the grid allows this but is unreliable, then 
this doesn't work very well. But if it does, low-hanging fruit. 

I think data centres are already good at performing demand side 
management with how they use energy, given that they are now classified 
by how much electrical energy that they can deliver vs. how much space 
they have to sell. So while these activities help alleviate pressure on 
the national grid, they probably have a more meaningful impact that 
gives the data centre the opportunity to operate its own mini grid that 
would survive a national grid outage, while minimizing its carbon 
footprint. But this requires even more deliberate, multi-faceted 
initiatives from the data centre operator, which costs money. 

National grid prices are only going in one direction, the world over. 
Couple that with an expected reduction in generation capacity (reliable 
or otherwise) due to the rising levels of electrification, one would not 
be entirely off-base if they approached the problem from a "How do we 
stay up, regardless of the grid's condition" vs. "How do we go green", 
because I believe the answer to both those questions innately calls for 
renewable generation, operated at a very small scale to the rest of the 
nation. 

Think about this: there are more mobile phones in Africa than there are 
people with electricity. At its most basic, those phones need to be 
charged. The same can be said for most of the developing world. Care to 
imagine what shambles the power companies will be in when those people 
finally get on to the grid? It's not like they don't need their 
Facebook, Google or Instagram :-)... 

Mark. 

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[John Levine]

It appears that Stan Barber  said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>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.

Exactly. It's all about risk shifting. Ercot is run by free market
fundamentalists who believe, in spite of considerable evidence to the
contrary, that the market alone will always provide all the power
people need. This has the effect of shifting the risk of failure onto
users who often don't realize that until it's too late. They've known
since 2011 that much of the Texas grid fails when it's below freezing
but they don't have any inclination, or even the authority, to tell
power generators to spend money on weatherproofing and other risk
management.

They allow the wholesale price of power which is usually about 4c/kwh
to spike as high as $9, in the absurd belief that super high prices
will magically cause power to appear. This had the effect of dumping
giant power bills on users who couldn't pay them, and the costs and
defaults are now making lawyers rich. 

Meanwhile, the politicans are involved in an extensive effort to pin
the blame on anyone but themselves, which is where the nonsense about
green power comes from. Texas' windmills aren't weatherproofed any
better than rest of the system but nontheless were providing slightly
more power than Ercot expected while the grid collapsed.

So, yeah, if you're in Texas, better make your own arrangments because
the state is paralyzed.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 18:31, Brian Johnson wrote:

Not going to get into this, but this is simply not true on multiple 
fronts.


On a large scale, I agree that numbers can look odd. But on a smaller, 
community scale, it does look good.


Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 18:07, Niels Bakker wrote:



The relevant virtue that's signaled with green energy is that its MWh 
prices are WAY lower than traditional fossil fuel-based generators.


Particularly when you factor in close to no maintenance costs for things 
like PV, and a nominal 1% drop in efficiency per year on 20-year-old 
design plans.


Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 18:03, Stan Barber wrote:

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.


45 days of planned notice, is what I read. And can be rejected if that 
notification window is shorter than that.


Is that sufficient?

Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Brian Johnson]

> On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:07 AM, Niels Bakker  wrote:
> 
> * brian.john...@netgeek.us (Brian Johnson) [Wed 14 Apr 2021, 17:37 CEST]:
>> Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not 
>> an effective strategy to actually having power available.
> 
> The relevant virtue that's signaled with green energy is that its MWh prices 
> are WAY lower than traditional fossil fuel-based generators.

Not going to get into this, but this is simply not true on multiple fronts.

> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I've not done exhaustive research of the situation in Texas (although I am a 
> stakeholder, being a customer in several datacentres there) but I'd be 
> surprised if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture had nothing to 
> do with it.

So you want to do what about regulation. Deregulate so this can’t happen (HA), 
or regulate more so that this gets fixed (HA HA... and running away). 

If your point is that the ERCOT is acting in bad faith, I’d suggest you work 
with the Texas PUC to resolve that issue. Everything else is just politics.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Niels Bakker]

* brian.john...@netgeek.us (Brian Johnson) [Wed 14 Apr 2021, 17:37 CEST]:
Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy 
is not an effective strategy to actually having power available.


The relevant virtue that's signaled with green energy is that its 
MWh prices are WAY lower than traditional fossil fuel-based generators.



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.


I've not done exhaustive research of the situation in Texas (although 
I am a stakeholder, being a customer in several datacentres there) but 
I'd be surprised if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture 
had nothing to do with it.



-- Niels.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Stan Barber]

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 
wrote:

> Patrick - I hope that your determination of failure isn't dictated by the
> federal government telling you so. 
>
> 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 
> 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 
> 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. 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 
> 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 100% 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  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  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 
> wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher  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  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 

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Brian Johnson]

Patrick - I hope that your determination of failure isn't dictated by the 
federal government telling you so. 

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  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 > > 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. 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 >> > 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 100% 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 >>> > 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  > 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  > wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
> 
>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher > > 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 > > 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 

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 17:35, Brian Johnson wrote:

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.


My reading of the reason ERCOT were concerned is that it was due to some 
generation plants being taken offline for maintenance/repairs, as prep 
work for the upcoming summer, when they came close to running out of juice.


I did not get the impression - from what I've read in the news anyway - 
that they were caught off-guard, apart from, perhaps, underestimating 
the forecast.


Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

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  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. 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 > > 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 100% 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 >> > 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 >>> > 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 >>> > wrote:
 Tom,
 
 You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
 
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher  > 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  > 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 

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Brian Johnson]

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  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 100% 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  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 >> > 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 >> > wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>> 
>>> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
>>> 
 On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher >>> > 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 >>> > 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 

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 17:12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or 
plan for it not being up?


I think "planning for the grid not being up" is more within our control 
than the former :-).


Data centres serving base power load from solar PV, for example, can be 
one place to start if they have the land (or rooftop space), in 
economies where they are not only allowed to do grid feed-in, but are 
also able to draw those credits from the grid in the evenings and/or on 
cloud days. Of course, if the grid allows this but is unreliable, then 
this doesn't work very well. But if it does, low-hanging fruit.


I think data centres are already good at performing demand side 
management with how they use energy, given that they are now classified 
by how much electrical energy that they can deliver vs. how much space 
they have to sell. So while these activities help alleviate pressure on 
the national grid, they probably have a more meaningful impact that 
gives the data centre the opportunity to operate its own mini grid that 
would survive a national grid outage, while minimizing its carbon 
footprint. But this requires even more deliberate, multi-faceted 
initiatives from the data centre operator, which costs money.


National grid prices are only going in one direction, the world over. 
Couple that with an expected reduction in generation capacity (reliable 
or otherwise) due to the rising levels of electrification, one would not 
be entirely off-base if they approached the problem from a "How do we 
stay up, regardless of the grid's condition" vs. "How do we go green", 
because I believe the answer to both those questions innately calls for 
renewable generation, operated at a very small scale to the rest of the 
nation.


Think about this: there are more mobile phones in Africa than there are 
people with electricity. At its most basic, those phones need to be 
charged. The same can be said for most of the developing world. Care to 
imagine what shambles the power companies will be in when those people 
finally get on to the grid? It's not like they don't need their 
Facebook, Google or Instagram :-)...


Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

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 100% 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  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  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  
>>> wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>> 
>>> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
>>> 
 On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher  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  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 

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Brian Johnson]

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  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  > wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
> 
>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher > > 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 > > 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.
> 

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[John Levine]

It appears that Mark Tinka  said:
>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.

If you're in Texas, yes, and for other reasons if you're in
California. In other parts of the country with less broken
regulation, not so much.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 15:34, Mike Bolitho wrote:

Can we keep this mailing list free of politics please? Being for or 
against renewable energy has nothing to do with network operations.




Not necessarily as all those large data centres popping up in my 
neighborhood means better Internet for me and my customers, but also 
places pressure on the grid, which it needs to deliver that better Internet.


Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 15:04, Mike Hammett wrote:

---
Even as I support renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a
quick and massive decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load
generation is feasible.
---

Nuclear is the only way to have a reliable base load generation that 
doesn't release greenhouse gasses. Thankfully the US drought on new 
nuclear construction was over a few years ago. Hopefully it continues.


And the good news is that spent nuclear fuel can be recycled (over 90% 
of it). I know the French are doing it, seeing as they have one of the 
world's largest nuclear power plant fleet.


The only problem with nuclear power plants is the cost and time required 
to build them, as a function of the amount of electricity they can 
generate. Take the UK's Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant build, which 
will cost about £23 billion, will only start operating in 2025 (if all 
goes to plan), but will only generate 3,260MW.


This is compared to just under 40,000MW of daily demand from UK 
citizens, more than half of which is delivered by fossil fuels (mainly 
CCGT and to a much smaller degree, coal).


One would need to dot quite a few nuclear power plants around the 
country to make up the difference. And many places don't have enough 
water to make hydro a base load provider.


Noting, of course, that the UK have some 85,000MW of installed capacity, 
which is interesting when you consider that over the past decade, demand 
for electricity on the island has been dropping, even though the 
population has grown quite substantially in the same time.


Lockdown didn't help (any country, for that matter), but I'd expect 
demand to rise over next decade, putting even more pressure on a 
balanced energy source compliment.


Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mike Bolitho]

Can we keep this mailing list free of politics please? Being for or against
renewable energy has nothing to do with network operations.

- Mike Bolitho

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021, 6:31 AM Izaac  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 06:54:55AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > So looks like ERCOT have 32,000MW of capacity offline for maintenance and
> > repairs, which they claim is not unusual for this time of the year as
> they
> > gear up for the summer. So generation capacity was only 50,000MW, while
> > demand was 49,000MW. 1,000MW in reserve is right on the nose. Solar
> > production was also down by 3,000MW due to cloudy skies.
>
> Sorry guys, I bought 1210MW for impulse delivery, which very briefly ate
> that reserve.  I can assure you that the next four days of sunny skies
> will regenerate it, though.
>
> In unrelated news, the Rangers got me on an 88MPH speeding ticket.
> Anyone know a decent traffic attorney that accepts payment in lotto
> tickets?
>
> --
> . ___ ___  .   .  ___
> .  \/  |\  |\ \
> .  _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
>

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Izaac]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 06:54:55AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> So looks like ERCOT have 32,000MW of capacity offline for maintenance and
> repairs, which they claim is not unusual for this time of the year as they
> gear up for the summer. So generation capacity was only 50,000MW, while
> demand was 49,000MW. 1,000MW in reserve is right on the nose. Solar
> production was also down by 3,000MW due to cloudy skies.

Sorry guys, I bought 1210MW for impulse delivery, which very briefly ate
that reserve.  I can assure you that the next four days of sunny skies
will regenerate it, though.

In unrelated news, the Rangers got me on an 88MPH speeding ticket.
Anyone know a decent traffic attorney that accepts payment in lotto
tickets?

-- 
. ___ ___  .   .  ___
.  \/  |\  |\ \
.  _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Tom Beecher]

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 
wrote:

> Tom,
>
> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
>
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher  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  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.
>>
>
>

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Brian Johnson]

Tom,

You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….

> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher  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  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.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mike Hammett]

--- 

Even as I support renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a 
quick and massive decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load 
generation is feasible. 
--- 


Nuclear is the only way to have a reliable base load generation that doesn't 
release greenhouse gasses. Thankfully the US drought on new nuclear 
construction was over a few years ago. Hopefully it continues. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:54:55 PM 
Subject: Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13 



On 4/14/21 03:49, Sean Donelan wrote: 
> 
> ERCOT ISO Texas has announced the end of today's emergency energy 
> conservation appeal due to a shortage of generation capacity and 
> higher than forecasted demand caused by a cold front. 
> 
> No this is not an old message. Yep, Texas is having power shortages 
> again in mild April weather. 

So looks like ERCOT have 32,000MW of capacity offline for maintenance 
and repairs, which they claim is not unusual for this time of the year 
as they gear up for the summer. So generation capacity was only 
50,000MW, while demand was 49,000MW. 1,000MW in reserve is right on the 
nose. Solar production was also down by 3,000MW due to cloudy skies. 

Fundamentally, the outlook for energy production, globally, is not that 
great. Operators are going to have a tougher and tougher time meeting 
demand as electrification increases, consumer demand increases, and the 
pressure to use more renewables increases. 

Considering that supply and demand must always be balanced, it's a 
little hard for operators to be conscious about their sources of energy 
while consumers continue to live as normal. There has been plenty of 
talk about IDSM (integrated demand side management) through automation 
with smart grids that can control when folk use appliances, remotely. 
But practically, most DSM measures will be led by deliberate behavioural 
changes, through appeals like the one ERCOT made for folk to conserve 
energy. That won't ramp-down demand as fast as operators would like, and 
with our habits of flipping switches and expecting the lights to come on 
and the kettles to boil, it's not a small problem. 

Even as I support renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a 
quick and massive decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load 
generation is feasible. 

I believe the success of renewable generation capacity (coupled with 
storage) lies in distributed delivery through community micro grids, and 
not grid-scale deployment. 

Mark. 

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Tom Beecher]

> 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  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.
>

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 07:44, Yang Yu wrote:



a watch that has been cancelled, not an emergency
http://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/opsmessages/2021/04

Apr 13 2021 19:22:55 CST
Physical Responsive Capability < 2500 MW: ERCOT has cancelled the
following notice: ERCOT is issuing a Watch due to Physical Responsive
Capability being below 2500 MW.
Watch
Cancelled


there was no supply shortage in day ahead market (not a generation
capacity shortage)
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/20210413_dam_spp

day-ahead forecast peak was ~2800 MW lower than current-day forecast,
as a result actual load exceeded current-day HSL (High Sustained
Limit). The  gap peaked 340MW at 4pm
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/loadForecastVsActualPreviousDay.html
https://imgur.com/a/6MW5qU4 (screenshot)

ancillary services (10 minute responsive reserve service, 30 minute
non-spin) were deployed to meet higher than forecast demand and worked
as expected

reserve never dropped under 2300MW which would have triggered an
emergency (EEA-1)

emergency response service (additional generation/load resources
reserved for emergencies) wasn't deployed
http://www.ercot.com/services/programs/load/eils


Pity, I can't access ERCOT's web site (I believe others had the same 
issue last time). They say I need to show a business reason why access 
should be granted. I can't be asked.


There appears to be some discrepancy between what ERCOT are publishing 
and what the media are sharing. Wouldn't be the first time.


But considering it's all over the place, no smoke without fire.

Mark.

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Yang Yu]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:51 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:
>
>
> ERCOT ISO Texas has announced the end of today's emergency energy
> conservation appeal due to a shortage of generation capacity and higher
> than forecasted demand caused by a cold front.
>
> No this is not an old message. Yep, Texas is having power shortages again
> in mild April weather.

a watch that has been cancelled, not an emergency
http://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/opsmessages/2021/04

>
Apr 13 2021 19:22:55 CST
Physical Responsive Capability < 2500 MW: ERCOT has cancelled the
following notice: ERCOT is issuing a Watch due to Physical Responsive
Capability being below 2500 MW.
Watch
Cancelled


there was no supply shortage in day ahead market (not a generation
capacity shortage)
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/20210413_dam_spp

day-ahead forecast peak was ~2800 MW lower than current-day forecast,
as a result actual load exceeded current-day HSL (High Sustained
Limit). The  gap peaked 340MW at 4pm
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/loadForecastVsActualPreviousDay.html
https://imgur.com/a/6MW5qU4 (screenshot)

ancillary services (10 minute responsive reserve service, 30 minute
non-spin) were deployed to meet higher than forecast demand and worked
as expected

reserve never dropped under 2300MW which would have triggered an
emergency (EEA-1)

emergency response service (additional generation/load resources
reserved for emergencies) wasn't deployed
http://www.ercot.com/services/programs/load/eils

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/14/21 03:49, Sean Donelan wrote:


ERCOT ISO Texas has announced the end of today's emergency energy 
conservation appeal due to a shortage of generation capacity and 
higher than forecasted demand caused by a cold front.


No this is not an old message. Yep, Texas is having power shortages 
again in mild April weather.


So looks like ERCOT have 32,000MW of capacity offline for maintenance 
and repairs, which they claim is not unusual for this time of the year 
as they gear up for the summer. So generation capacity was only 
50,000MW, while demand was 49,000MW. 1,000MW in reserve is right on the 
nose. Solar production was also down by 3,000MW due to cloudy skies.


Fundamentally, the outlook for energy production, globally, is not that 
great. Operators are going to have a tougher and tougher time meeting 
demand as electrification increases, consumer demand increases, and the 
pressure to use more renewables increases.


Considering that supply and demand must always be balanced, it's a 
little hard for operators to be conscious about their sources of energy 
while consumers continue to live as normal. There has been plenty of 
talk about IDSM (integrated demand side management) through automation 
with smart grids that can control when folk use appliances, remotely. 
But practically, most DSM measures will be led by deliberate behavioural 
changes, through appeals like the one ERCOT made for folk to conserve 
energy. That won't ramp-down demand as fast as operators would like, and 
with our habits of flipping switches and expecting the lights to come on 
and the kettles to boil, it's not a small problem.


Even as I support renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a 
quick and massive decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load 
generation is feasible.


I believe the success of renewable generation capacity (coupled with 
storage) lies in distributed delivery through community micro grids, and 
not grid-scale deployment.


Mark.

Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Sean Donelan]

ERCOT ISO Texas has announced the end of today's emergency energy 
conservation appeal due to a shortage of generation capacity and higher 
than forecasted demand caused by a cold front.


No this is not an old message. Yep, Texas is having power shortages again 
in mild April weather.