Texas Power Crisis Highlights Fragility of Growing Dependency on ‘Unreliable’ Sources of Energy: Exp

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I know that many Texas Nat Gas pipelines declared "force majeure" on their delivery contracts this week.  The pressure drop was too great.  Plenty of pressure to feed most (not all) low pressure delivery systems but not enough pressure to deliver ~1000 psi required for the rated output at most power plants.

I've helped design those connections in the past.  A typical large Nat Gas Generation stations would have several individual generators.  The flow through the distributing system at 500 psi would not give enough pressure at all the units to run, likely only half or so.

If it is a pressure issue, seems the installation of some compressors tapped into the line to boost it up for usage of the power plant is a solution here?  (Sorry if you already covered this elsewhere).

Thanks for the insight on this.  I believe your qualifications, but maybe not your inclination, could be very useful as a replacement for the lawyers and politicians making decisions on our power grid systems.

[thackney]

If it is a pressure issue, seems the installation of some compressors tapped into the line to boost it up for usage of the power plant is a solution here?  (Sorry if you already covered this elsewhere).

Thanks for the insight on this.  I believe your qualifications, but maybe not your inclination, could be very useful as a replacement for the lawyers and politicians making decisions on our power grid systems.

The pressure problem was created because more was being drawn out of the pipelines at power plants and city heating, than was going in from the gas plants.

Compressors on pipelines overcome flow problems, to much resistance due to high velocities, pushing gases long distances, etc.

Secondly, several compressor stations had freezing problems as well and also shut down.

[Cyber Liberty]

I've been watching this discussion....

Consider the Opportunity Costs involved.  What's been wasted on expensive windmills and solar cells could have been used to build and stock coal-fired plants.  Gas is excellent, but it having to be delivered by a pipeline has it's drawbacks, as evidenced these past few days.

[roamer_1]

I've been watching this discussion....

Consider the Opportunity Costs involved.  What's been wasted on expensive windmills and solar cells could have been used to build and stock coal-fired plants.  Gas is excellent, but it having to be delivered by a pipeline has it's drawbacks, as evidenced these past few days.

CERTAINLY hybrid plants that mainly use gas, but keep the coal idling and ready to kick in would be a reasonable solution... Also generation by drawing down dams (which is the only real 'battery' that works)...

And nuke plants - I do not favor them... But the big three are still the big three. Hydro, coal, and nuke.

[thackney]

CERTAINLY hybrid plants that mainly use gas, but keep the coal idling and ready to kick in would be a reasonable solution... Also generation by drawing down dams (which is the only real 'battery' that works)...

And nuke plants - I do not favor them... But the big three are still the big three. Hydro, coal, and nuke.

What you describe is much less efficient and more expensive than a Nat Gas Combined Cycle unit.  While you can point at this week and say it is needed, the company that would build it could not compete on the market with the others.

[roamer_1]

What you describe is much less efficient and more expensive than a Nat Gas Combined Cycle unit.  While you can point at this week and say it is needed, the company that would build it could not compete on the market with the others.

At some point, if one wants reliability, profit quits being the only factor. The problem with coal in an emergency is the time it takes to fire it up, so you can't just take coal plants out of mothballs for a minute. Same with nukes. They need to be online if they are going to help.

And I DO realize that it's only for a couple weeks. I get that. But these couple weeks and things like it are when the rubber meets the road. It is where a diversified and distributed system stretches its legs and becomes readily apparent.

Kinda like burning wood for heat - It's a mess, a lot of work, and one can rightly argue it is more expensive. Why not rely on NG like everyone else? Because of THIS, right here. The easy way is not necessarily the right way.

[thackney]

At some point, if one wants reliability, profit quits being the only factor. The problem with coal in an emergency is the time it takes to fire it up, so you can't just take coal plants out of mothballs for a minute. Same with nukes. They need to be online if they are going to help.

Yes.  Coal typically needs ~9 hours come from startup to making power.  Hours later before making much power, several later to get close to nameplate.  Nuke almost always needs to be running or it cannot be afforded.

And I DO realize that it's only for a couple weeks. I get that. But these couple weeks and things like it are when the rubber meets the road. It is where a diversified and distributed system stretches its legs and becomes readily apparent.

5 days actually, not even a full week.  I believe it has been many decades since a below freezing lasted a full week.

Kinda like burning wood for heat - It's a mess, a lot of work, and one can rightly argue it is more expensive. Why not rely on NG like everyone else? Because of THIS, right here. The easy way is not necessarily the right way.

But electric power is a competitive business it Texas.  If you build it, it must be competitive, or funded by others.

[roamer_1]

But electric power is a competitive business it Texas.  If you build it, it must be competitive, or funded by others.

That's a thing. If y'all import coal, I guess it ain't as cheap there as it is here. Two yards of stoker coal is around 100, maybe 125, and will keep a 40x60 shop warm all winter. Up in here, NG can't even compete. Shoot, it even beats wood, even FREE wood by some. Good larch up here costs 150 a cord and it will take 4 cord, maybe 6, to heat that same shop. NG would be in the neighborhood of 125/mo base winter average and could go well over 200 in a cold month.

So perhaps that is coloring my view. Everywhere I know, coal is cheaper than dirt. But I guess if you have to get it from the Utah fields or Kentucky, the cost of the bringing must make it unpalatable, when your NG is in the ground right there.

[thackney]

That's a thing. If y'all import coal, I guess it ain't as cheap there as it is here. Two yards of stoker coal is around 100, maybe 125, and will keep a 40x60 shop warm all winter. Up in here, NG can't even compete. Shoot, it even beats wood, even FREE wood by some. Good larch up here costs 150 a cord and it will take 4 cord, maybe 6, to heat that same shop. NG would be in the neighborhood of 125/mo base winter average and could go well over 200 in a cold month.

So perhaps that is coloring my view. Everywhere I know, coal is cheaper than dirt. But I guess if you have to get it from the Utah fields or Kentucky, the cost of the bringing must make it unpalatable, when your NG is in the ground right there.

The largest power plant in Texas is W.A. Parish, 3,565 MW.  Burns ~36,000 tons of coal a day, low-sulfur, sub-bituminous coal from Wyoming.  But that was built quite a while ago.  They tried to use it for Carbon Capture, CO2 inject for enhanced oil product but that ended last year.

About 20 miles from my home.  My driveway is bottom ash from there.  I bought another load last week.

http://www.texas-flyer.com/Fly-In-EngineOut/powerplant.htm

[roamer_1]

But electric power is a competitive business it Texas.  If you build it, it must be competitive, or funded by others.

What I am getting at is system resiliency. Theoretically that means a battery of a sort. Stored capacity.

Nuke is not that - You just turn up the knob and jamb the throttles to the wood.

But everything else... Electricity is notoriously hard to store systematically. There is no reliable and inexpensive way to buffer electricity itself, or solar and wind might be more attractive. So the 'battery' as it were, is only made real in stored resources prior to conversion. Stored water makes hydro a battery... A mountain of coal is a battery...

So maybe I should ask you, how do YOU see bringing resiliency and recovery to an NG driven system?

Can you store in distributed tanks as an instance, like gasoline and diesel? Would that buffer such an event?

[libertybele]

I heard on Beck this morning that TX failed to 'winterize' their energy sources. 

[Idiot]

I heard on Beck this morning that TX failed to 'winterize' their energy sources.

I heard something similar about the windmills.  The grease and oil they use evidently wasn't made for extremely cold weather.   I'm sure this will be remedied in the future.

The windmills are quite interesting.  The 35,000 acre ranch on which we drill has 72 of them.  They have a 30 year lease for the acreage on which they are placed.  They pay the ranch around $3,000,000 a year in royalties.  I found them interesting when they were being constructed, but after seeing other windmills in the area in flames at times....I have no use for them.  Plus they are hideous....

[roamer_1]

I heard on Beck this morning that TX failed to 'winterize' their energy sources.

Some of that has to be true, and reasonable against a certain normalcy... Sleeping at the wheel till a big ol 130 year old problem rises once again and smacks you upside the head.

I doubt that southern equipment is hardened against cold like northern equipment HAS to be. Some of that HAS to be true.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

What you describe is much less efficient and more expensive than a Nat Gas Combined Cycle unit.  While you can point at this week and say it is needed, the company that would build it could not compete on the market with the others.

Are you talking about operational efficiency(MW produced per BTU burnt) or economic efficiency(lowest cost)?

Most certainly coal's price makes it very efficient economically to burn for electricity.  As I understand how the operational costs of a power plant works for natural gas and for coal, the raw feed costs are the largest component of the expenses.

I know all the power plants from coal to natural gas to nuclear to wind were all impacted by the freeze, but am skeptical if they were hit similarly.  In my mind, I would rank the dependability in this type of situation ranking wind the worst and coal and nuclear the best for keeping the lights on, while natural gas is in between.

[thackney]

Are you talking about operational efficiency(MW produced per BTU burnt) or economic efficiency(lowest cost)?

Both.  Combined Cycle Nat Gas efficiency MW/BTU are running now 60% and up.  This means more dollars to operate for just boilers that can be feed with coal or gas.  Dual Fuel System is likely even going add up to more dollars to build, but so far out of the norm no real data to look at.

Most certainly coal's price makes it very efficient economically to burn for electricity.  As I understand how the operational costs of a power plant works for natural gas and for coal, the raw feed costs are the largest component of the expenses.

Coals problem is the modern emission requirements.  Scrubbers can consume 1/3 of the total plant output before the electrons cross the fence.

I know all the power plants from coal to natural gas to nuclear to wind were all impacted by the freeze, but am skeptical if they were hit similarly.  In my mind, I would rank the dependability in this type of situation ranking wind the worst and coal and nuclear the best for keeping the lights on, while natural gas is in between.

Wind was never much of the plan, as I pointed out before.  It is not dispatchable or dependable.  That is why the Ercot 2020~2021 winter plan had little dependence on it.  Wind was producing at the planed rate.  Nat Gas, along with some problems from coal and nuke, was down nearly 6 times the expected worse case.  A couple more MW of problems with demand higher than believed would hit max.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Both.  Combined Cycle Nat Gas efficiency MW/BTU are running now 60% and up.  This means more dollars to operate for just boilers that can be feed with coal or gas.  Dual Fuel System is likely even going add up to more dollars to build, but so far out of the norm no real data to look at.

Coals problem is the modern emission requirements.  Scrubbers can consume 1/3 of the total plant output before the electrons cross the fence.

Wind was never much of the plan, as I pointed out before.  It is not dispatchable or dependable.  That is why the Ercot 2020~2021 winter plan had little dependence on it.  Wind was producing at the planed rate.  Nat Gas, along with some problems from coal and nuke, was down nearly 6 times the expected worse case.  A couple more MW of problems with demand higher than believed would hit max.

Guess I still believe that, although combined cycle gas might be the most operationally efficient, coal could still be the lower cost MW producer, even with the scrubbing.  Is that incorrect?

And I know about the problems with all the different power plants freezing up.

What I was curious about was the % of generated power per type that was actually down.

Wind we know was 50% of output.

Natural Gas seems to be pretty high downtime as well due to freezing.

Nuclear % down is dependent upon that one Bay City reactor that might have been down for awhile

Coal am unsure about.

The point is during the past week when things went haywire, seems a larger % of all natural gas generation MW had problems than experience by coal and nuclear generation, maybe even for longer periods of time.

Am still attempting to focus on the reliability factor rather than a simple statement "They all had problems".

For example(and hypothetically), if all the generated MW power produced by coal had a one hour episode of downtime in only one of the 20 plants producing power, then that sure seems nothing much at all compared to all the generated MW power produced by natural gas having a 3 day event downtime episode at 25% of all the plants.

[Sled Dog]

It is not just those.  Our Natural Gas is impacted as well as priority goes to heating.  75% of the states generation sources have been impacted.  Many of the cooling systems for generators cannot handle this cold as well.

The word you're searching for is "affected".

Something is "impacted" when it physically comes into contact with something else.  Impacted teeth, meteorite impacts, bullets impacted on the target...

We really can't recover our society if we refuse to use our language correctly.

[Sled Dog]

We will all die of the cold if we continue marching down that path of selectively financing those energy needs which are less reliable than what traditionally has powered the Texas economy.

Umm....I live in Los Angeles...and I have a fireplace that takes wood...even if I didn't, I have a lot of blankets.

[thackney]

Guess I still believe that, although combined cycle gas might be the most operationally efficient, coal could still be the lower cost MW producer, even with the scrubbing.  Is that incorrect?

I think NG in Texas would still be less cost.  60% eff versus 40% less a 1/3 brings it to 27.7%.  In Texas, I do not think NG is more than twice coal delivered here.

And I know about the problems with all the different power plants freezing up.

What I was curious about was the % of generated power per type that was actually down.

Wind we know was 50% of output.

Natural Gas seems to be pretty high downtime as well due to freezing.

Nuclear % down is dependent upon that one Bay City reactor that might have been down for awhile

Coal am unsure about.

The point is during the past week when things went haywire, seems a larger % of all natural gas generation MW had problems than experience by coal and nuclear generation, maybe even for longer periods of time.

Am still attempting to focus on the reliability factor rather than a simple statement "They all had problems".

For example(and hypothetically), if all the generated MW power produced by coal had a one hour episode of downtime in only one of the 20 plants producing power, then that sure seems nothing much at all compared to all the generated MW power produced by natural gas having a 3 day event downtime episode at 25% of all the plants.

I don't see any of the coal issues limited to one hour in any reports.  The generation shows the coal that was done, stayed down for days.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Umm....I live in Los Angeles...and I have a fireplace that takes wood...even if I didn't, I have a lot of blankets.

Talking about Texas.

And I lived twice in Corpus Christi, which has every bit as good of weather as Los Angeles.  I recall one winter when I lived on the Bay that I never even wore a sweater.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think NG in Texas would still be less cost.  60% eff versus 40% less a 1/3 brings it to 27.7%.  In Texas, I do not think NG is more than twice coal delivered here.



I don't see any of the coal issues limited to one hour in any reports.  The generation shows the coal that was done, stayed down for days.

very interesting.  It does appear all types of feed suffered equal amounts of issues.

It is also interesting that when wind was working early in graph, there was a direct reduction in coal and gas.

[thackney]

very interesting.  It does appear all types of feed suffered equal amounts of issues.

It is also interesting that when wind was working early in graph, there was a direct reduction in coal and gas.

Much like our homes, our water supply and other stuff.  We don't build stuff down here for weather 30~40 degrees below normal winter for days.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Much like our homes, our water supply and other stuff.  We don't build stuff down here for weather 30~40 degrees below normal winter for days.

With coal and natural gas increasing with wind going down early in the graph, does this mean wind is operationally cheaper to generate power than is either coal or natural gas?

Seems they are a backup to wind, which is odd, as you have mentioned wind is a much less reliable power source.  Unless it is a lot cheaper to operate, then it makes no sense to install wind energy generation, as I would just stick with the reliable generator.

[Bigun]

With coal and natural gas increasing with wind going down early in the graph, does this mean wind is operationally cheaper to generate power than is either coal or natural gas?

Seems they are a backup to wind, which is odd, as you have mentioned wind is a much less reliable power source.  Unless it is a lot cheaper to operate, then it makes no sense to install wind energy generation, as I would just stick with the reliable generator.

The federal government subsidies for wind amount to 2.3 cents per kWh, putting it well below the cost of coal and natural gas. A free market does not exist between these sources of electricity.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,429049.msg2384088.html#msg2384088

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The federal government subsidies for wind amount to 2.3 cents per kWh, putting it well below the cost of coal and natural gas. A free market does not exist between these sources of electricity.http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,429049.msg2384088.html#msg2384088

Am beginning to understand why we have such an emphasis on wind energy.

Wind energy is a disincentive to keeping our electric grid reliable as it keeps natural gas plants from being built. If I were a foreign hostile power trying to cripple us, I would produce wind turbines cheaply so we could use lots of them.  While at the same time I purchase coal from them to run power plants I continue to build.

Sounds familiar to what is now happening?