Get Rich in Commodities Superboom, thanx environmentalists

[athlonmank8]

That shows that 32 GW of wind was operating at a capacity factor of 16% which converts to 5.35 GW operating at 100% capacity factor. If you looked up the expected winter capacity factor for wind in ERCOT you would see it was 19.4% which translates to 6.2 GW at 100% capacity factor (Winter summary tab of the Capacity, Demand and Reserves Report December 2020 at Resource Adequacy (ercot.com). That means that on the day you listed, wind was contributing 6.2-5.35=.85 GW less than expected under ERCOT's resource adequacy planning, or 13% less than it was planned to contribute. This is the fundamental concept you are either willfully or just ignorantly failing to grasp, wind never plans or claims to produce anything near it's nameplate, therefore comparing wind nameplate to thermal nameplate in a resource adequacy discussion is pure idiocy!

On the other hand, thermal power was expected to be able to provide 67.5 GW of capacity. It actually provided a peak of roughly 49.5 GW on Feb 15th (2-Day Real Time Gen and Load Data Report backing out non-thermal resources), which is 67.5-57.2=18 GW less, or 26% less than it was planned to contribute.

So the actual data shows that while all resources underperformed their planned capacity under ERCOT's capacity reserve margin calculation on the day you picked, thermal plants underperformed by literally twice as much. And more importantly, since thermal plants make up a much bigger part of the grid, their shortfall impacted the grid by a factor of 21X more than the wind shortfall (.85 GW shortfall from wind versus 18 GW shortfall from thermal)!

So no, the numbers you produced don't support your assertions in the least, they actually support exactly the opposite to a stunning degree. They do demonstrate your gross ignorance of how nameplate capacity is adjusted by capacity factors in resource planning, not to mention your general ignorance of anything related to resource planning.

Most folks would take the opportunity to learn from someone who clearly knows a bunch about something and was willing to take the time to explain it. The only question is if you're someone who values intellectual growth, or lives in a cult of ignorance?

Perfect. So wind will always need a backup due to unfavorable environmental factors? With all that wind capability why can't we get more out of it? I mean the expectations are always quite low. For people bitching about fossil fuels they sure seem to lean on them quite a bit.

 

[athlonmank8]

. I get it if you're an ignorant redneck whose worldview consists of Fox and now OAN and Newsmax. But you're none of those things. It's like you had some kind of trauma in this area as a kid and it makes you irrationally angry and just plain irrational, but just about this one narrow thing. Any other subject I may not agree with you but I have no doubt that you're being intelligent, thoughtful, and well meaning. The juxtaposition is just strange.

I love the way you talk about things that don't fit your political perspective. So open minded.

 

[athlonmank8]

The only question is if you're someone who values intellectual growth, or lives in a cult of ignorance?

No thats you. Every time someone is critical of your beloved wind energy you have to quick run to it's defense like an emotional little girl. Someone could be dead on the money but your bias is so fuckin skewed you'd never know it.

 

[Sig]

No thats you. Every time someone is critical of your beloved wind energy you have to quick run to it's defense like an emotional little girl. Someone could be dead on the money but your bias is so fuckin skewed you'd never know it.

Actually I showed that you were the opposite of dead on the money, you were dead wrong. And although I don't know why you feel the need to bring little girls into this discussion, pretty odd at best, I don't know what anyone could possibly construe as "emotional" about a list of numbers and math? Is this really what you're left with, sophomoric comebacks? Take a look in the mirror my friend, you just did an outstanding job of describing yourself. Very sad.

 

[Sig]

Perfect. So wind will always need a backup due to unfavorable environmental factors? With all that wind capability why can't we get more out of it? I mean the expectations are always quite low. For people bitching about fossil fuels they sure seem to lean on them quite a bit.

Anyone who knows the first thing about wind energy knows their expected capacity factors. The only "expectations" that are in error are your own which you arrived at from a point of profound ignorance. That's your problem, own it instead of whining about it. Wind is an intermittent resource, no one in the industry ever claimed otherwise. Even with today's technology you can use inexpensive and relatively clean gas peaked plants along with demand response to integrate wind and solar penetrations well in excess of 50% of the grid, and create a significant portion of your MWH (vice MW capacity) out of wind or solar which at today's renewables prices is cheaper and has always been significantly cleaner. We're now reaching renewables and storage prices where that is winning arm's length unsubsidized power procurements, which means when fully deployed the gas plants will seldom if ever need to run. We're already well beyond the point where any coal plants need to be part of the mix over anything but the near term transition.

What's baffling to me is why you're against a cheaper, cleaner alternative, that by the way also creates far more jobs? You're literally arguing for more expensive power that pollutes more and provides fewer jobs. The question you have to ask yourself is why you're reflexively doing that?

 

[athlonmank8]

Anyone who knows the first thing about wind energy knows their expected capacity factors. The only "expectations" that are in error are your own which you arrived at from a point of profound ignorance. That's your problem, own it instead of whining about it. Wind is an intermittent resource, no one in the industry ever claimed otherwise. Even with today's technology you can use inexpensive and relatively clean gas peaked plants along with demand response to integrate wind and solar penetrations well in excess of 50% of the grid, and create a significant portion of your MWH (vice MW capacity) out of wind or solar which at today's renewables prices is cheaper and has always been significantly cleaner. We're now reaching renewables and storage prices where that is winning arm's length unsubsidized power procurements, which means when fully deployed the gas plants will seldom if ever need to run. We're already well beyond the point where any coal plants need to be part of the mix over anything but the near term transition.

What's baffling to me is why you're against a cheaper, cleaner alternative, that by the way also creates far more jobs? You're literally arguing for more expensive power that pollutes more and provides fewer jobs. The question you have to ask yourself is why you're reflexively doing that?

I see the waste created by this "clean" energy. Do you know how much shit is in landfills because this stuff? PILES. No one takes into consideration the amount of toxins and waste pumped out due all of this alternative energy over decades. I deal with batteries both L-I and lead acid. I love it when people use the word clean when it's anything but. I've worked in R&D for almost 2 decades. It'd make you sick to see all of this shit.

Like I said, I have no problem with renewables. I have a problem with the heads in the media on both sides pushing agendas that theyre unfamiliar with or grossly misinformed. My attacks arent directed at you.

Also, people like AOC who was a bartender but now an expert in everything. People like her give you guys a bad name.

 

[athlonmank8]

Actually I showed that you were the opposite of dead on the money, you were dead wrong. And although I don't know why you feel the need to bring little girls into this discussion, pretty odd at best, I don't know what anyone could possibly construe as "emotional" about a list of numbers and math? Is this really what you're left with, sophomoric comebacks? Take a look in the mirror my friend, you just did an outstanding job of describing yourself. Very sad.

The battery tech is a ways off. This is still a technology in its infancy when you consider what needs to be done to harness and store it. When it's all said and done will it actually be worth it?

 

[maxinger]

Soon the asteroids, moon, and Mars will also be mined.

 

[HeSaidSheSaid]

that wasn't the first time Texas experienced the freezing cold weather, and they didn't have the power shortage or outage problem then. Why now? of all states, being an energy state, you think TX wouldn't have this type of problem. It seems someone created the man-made energy crisis by removing (29,000 megawatts of missing thermal energy) (from the three sources — coal, gas and nuclear) during the freeze.

why in the world anyone would make green energy as one of the main sources of energy provision (basing on the sporadic, inconsistent/young nature of green technologies, especially the wind turbines? then that person is not too smart. Green energy should be seen as complementary source of energy. it's nice to have. it's a way for generating jobs and driving technologies, and innovations, then hopefully, someday, it would be stable enough to be one of the main energy sources.

then the same argument (it takes energy to produce energy) could be applied to oil exploration, oil fields, oil wells, oil generation, oil usage, fracking, oil pipeline, processes of making oil pipes,... they all require energy and produce energy and its by-products, as you can see, many ice packs in the mountains for many major rivers around the world are shrinking. That would impact a lot of people...
US spent 1 trillion dollar in Iraq war for the so-called energy policy. Did we get back our our investment?

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...ble-energy-greg-abbott-fact-check/4500251001/

 

[piezoe]

... The story eventually evolved into how we, somehow, have caused the earth to warm up because of death to the ozone layer Anyone remember that one? *No, that's old news last heard about in the 1980s)*

I'm not criticizing you, as you're not a scientist, and it's easy for the public to get the "ozone thing" confused with the current fracus over CO2. Just for the record, however, so that we don't spread misinformation, the "ozone thing" was real, did not have to do with global warming, and was backed by real science that led to the Nobel Prize (Roland and Molina). By following the science, we did something about the "ozone thing", and it worked! The world's collective response to the ozone crisis (See the Montreal Protocol, 1987/1989) stands as one of the great triumphs of Twentieth Century Science. As a direct result of man's intervention, the ozone layer has largely recovered.

This CO2 business is another matter altogether, and in this matter the science has been hopelessly, it seems, corrupted by involving politics where politics does not belong. There is one particular scientist to blame for this. His name is James Hansen.