Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

[Stan Barber <sob () academ com>]

I would suggest that the regulation paradigm in Texas does not allow
coordinated maintenance scheduling to adapt to supply and load issues
(especially in the face of a disaster like the Winter event earlier this
year). That would mean a stronger regulatory framework and that smacks of
government interference in the eyes of some.

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:54 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us>
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 <patrick () ianai net>
> wrote:
>
> The issue was not only perfectly foreseeable, ERCOT has a ten year old
> document explaining PRECISELY how to avoid such an occurrence happening.
>
> Did you miss the second paragraph below?
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us>
> wrote:
>
> Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not
> an effective strategy to actually having power available.
>
> I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was
> the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the
> perfect reverse 20/20 vision. 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 <patrick () ianai net>
> wrote:
>
> Brian:
>
> The idea that because ERCOT is a non-profit somehow means they would never
> do anything to save money, or management is not granted bonuses or salary
> increases based on savings, or have no financial incentive is ridiculous.
> E.g. Salaries for the top ERCOT executives increased 50% from 2012 to 2019. “Just
> pointing out facts.”
>
> Also, green vs. traditional has little to do with why ERCOT had problems.
> It is undisputed that ERCOT failed in 2011, was handed a report by the feds
> showing why they failed and how to fix it, yet ERCOT did not require
> suppliers to enact those fixes. Those actions had a direct, operational
> effect on the Internet. And as such, seem perfectly on-topic for NANOG.
>
> Why that happened may still be on topic. For instance, you state correctly
> that ERCOT is a non-profit (although you and I disagree on precisely how
> that affects things). But the suppliers are not. Are we 1000000% certain
> the CEO’s salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had
> nothing to do with protecting the suppliers’ profits? I am not. However,
> that question is only tenuously operational.
>
> Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan
> for it not being up? Simply saying “green power is unreliable” is not an
> answer when many RFPs at least ask what percentage of your power is green,
> or flat out require at least some of your production be green. Making a
> blanket statement that “XXX is a non-profit” does not absolve them from
> poor business practices, which at least saves the non-profit money and
> frequently results in profits outside that entity. Etc.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:00, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us> wrote:
>
> There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely
> relevant to your response.
>
> For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and
> maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power
> system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your
> assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are
> subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer
> “green” methods.
>
> Just pointing out facts.
>
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
>
> Brian-
>
> I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point.
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us>
> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
> >
> > On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
> >
> > > Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid
> > > unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and
> > > perishable fuel.  Dare I say it's not been worth it?
> >
> > Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power
> > generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons
> > learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with
> > profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
> >
> > > On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy
> > > > on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep
> > > > their system online in 2021.
> > >
> > > It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular
> > > belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their
> > > customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing
> > > up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone
> > > remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
> > >
> > > Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more
> > > electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when
> > > the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So
> > > between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely
> > > less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their
> > > personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially
> > > independent of the traditional grid.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid
> > > > unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and
> > > > perishable fuel.  Dare I say it's not been worth it?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that
> > > regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that
> > > of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met
> > > the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense,
> > > more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must
> > > turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to
> > > embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a
> > > basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular
> > > folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the
> > > season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the
> > > benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not
> > > balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to
> > > either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair,
> > > practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure,
> > > caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the
> > > economic development curve you are sitting.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and
> > > > ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some
> > > kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand,
> > > (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk
> > > are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday
> > > night.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Now is the time to speak the message.  Write your elected
> > > > representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy.
> > > > Change minds.
> > >
> > > There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need
> > > to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone
> > > else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
> > >
> > > Mark.