Get Rich in Commodities Superboom, thanx environmentalists

[Sig]

You have it backwards. Power availability did not increase in Texas, it declined. So let's stick with your widgets analogy. World production is 100 widgets per unit of time. Your company produces 16 of them, or 16%. Then your widget plant burns down, and world production falls from 100 to 84, down 16%, and your widget plant that used to produce 16% of the world supply is responsible for 100% of the shortfall. It has been a pleasure to enlighten you. No thanks necessary.

Actually demand increased and supply decreased, again just facts. The whole state was out of power. The shortfall was significantly greater than the total generated by wind. Since demand increased then wind, since it's a non-dispatched resource that always produced 100% of what it's capable of producing, would mathmatically make up less of the power mix than usual. In which case, wind could never be responsible for more of the shortfall than it was capable of producing in the first place let alone more than a shortfall caused by increased demand. If demand want to 200 then not only could my factory could never be responsible for more than the 16 it was capable of making in the first place but it's now only responsible for 8% of the total even if it drops to 0.

And of course, the power grid isn't a widget factory and in reality in Texas fossils fuel plants and even a nuclear plant contributed significantly more to the outages than wind. As would naturally mathmatically be the case when they produce a significantly higher percentage of the power than wind and make up all of the reserve stack.

 

[Trader200K]

Mathematically, that is entirely possible. Think it through. In fact, it is mathematically possible (although not true in this particular case) that something that generates 20% of the power could be responsible for 100% of the power outages.

Especially when mistakes like rolling blackouts shutting down ‘electric’ powered natural gas compressors pumping to electric generation plants.

Yes, and I do miss the days where people were not so juvenile that problems could be rationally discussed, facts determined and a reasonably reliable path to a solution could be taken for everyone without dehumanizing each other. It is a dangerous turn.

 

[SunTrader]

Wind and Solar power generation are not constant.

You'd think the good folks in Texas, the idiots in charge that is, would remember that the next time. Which always comes. And have a better, more plausible excuse.

Everything but brain capacity is bigger in Texas.

 

[Cuddles]

This is how stupid people are in the world when it comes to green issues.

In the UK they're up in arms about a new coal mine saying it pollutes the enviroment and all that. But in order to build 'green' we need a lot of steel and materials and that needs coal.

So wouldn't it be better to mine the coal in the UK and use that to make the steel/materials? Oh no, the coal is bad!

So the mine doesn't get built. But we still need the steel. So what happens? The coal is mined in China, the steel is made in China and then shipped thousands of miles to the UK.

Which one creates more pollution? Of course it's the China deal. So by being all 'green' and stopping one coal mine, in the name of 'less pollution', you've actually created MORE POLLUTION!

How exactly are EV's needing more steel than conventional automobiles? I get needing more copper and nickle, but you're not making any sense with steel.

 

[SunTrader]

Build the plant my guess.

But that's a one time event.

 

[athlonmank8]

That's simply categorically false. Wind outages were responsible for 13% of the outages according to ERCOT, you know the ISO that runs the Texas power grid (https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...for-texas-electricity-crisis/?sh=516b71f221b3). What is your source, exactly?

Happy to get into a detailed discussion of ISOs and capacity markets vs ECOTs capacity model, but clearly that's far beyond your capabilities since you're unable to even grasp the basic mathmatical impossibility that something that only creates 20% of the power could be responsible for more than 40% of the outages. How do you cross the street without getting hit by a bus, let alone hold down a job or earn a living with that level of stupid?

Oh I hurt your feelings? Windmills were at 10% of capacity during this crisis. Look at the numbers. What a pile of shit. If you didn't have nat gas or coal you would've had NOTHING. ZERO. The grid would've collapsed.

 

[athlonmank8]

Actually demand increased and supply decreased, again just facts. The whole state was out of power. The shortfall was significantly greater than the total generated by wind. Since demand increased then wind, since it's a non-dispatched resource that always produced 100% of what it's capable of producing, would mathmatically make up less of the power mix than usual. In which case, wind could never be responsible for more of the shortfall than it was capable of producing in the first place let alone more than a shortfall caused by increased demand. If demand want to 200 then not only could my factory could never be responsible for more than the 16 it was capable of making in the first place but it's now only responsible for 8% of the total even if it drops to 0.

And of course, the power grid isn't a widget factory and in reality in Texas fossils fuel plants and even a nuclear plant contributed significantly more to the outages than wind. As would naturally mathmatically be the case when they produce a significantly higher percentage of the power than wind and make up all of the reserve stack.

There was very little wind power being produced. Look @ the ERCOT numbers! That's the part you're missing. I keep reading articles about how wind power saved that day and how fossil fuels were the problem. How stupid are these people.

Demand @ peak: 60,000MW
Wind capability: 31,000 MW
Total wind production @ peak 3,500MW

That is PATHETIC for a state that has almost a quarter of their production in wind. It wasn't there when you needed it most. It's good when it works. But when it doesn't it's a mess. And you're going to need shit tons of batteries to stabilize the grid. Clean energy isn't always "clean"

 

[athlonmank8]

Wind and Solar power generation are not constant.

You'd think the good folks in Texas, the idiots in charge that is, would remember that the next time. Which always comes. And have a better, more plausible excuse.

Everything but brain capacity is bigger in Texas.

They were pressed to install it quickly by left leaning organizations who lobbied for it. https://poweringtexas.com/

They were pressured to shut down 3 coal plants in the past 10 years to less stable energy without an understanding of the environmental factors. You need batteries and lots of them. The tech isn't there yet and may not be for a decade. When it works the left loves it but when it fails they blame fossil fuels lol. The hypocrisy is sickening.

I have no problem with clean energy. I have a problem with lies.

 

[Sig]

Oh I hurt your feelings? Windmills were at 10% of capacity during this crisis. Look at the numbers. What a pile of shit. If you didn't have nat gas or coal you would've had NOTHING. ZERO. The grid would've collapsed.

I asked for your sources and you just continue to fabricate numbers. It doesn't hurt anyone's feelings when you don't grasp the fact that you can't just make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously, it just makes you look foolish. So again, provide a link to your data or you've got nothing.

What you don't seem to grasp even with your made up numbers is that when a resource makes up something like 25% of historical generation then of course it can't be expected to singlehandedly provide 100% of generation even on a normal day let alone during a time of high demand. Of course the ERCOT grid which normally gets 55% of it's power from coal and gas (http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation) would collapse if they went away; it would collapse on a normal day if they went away. In fact they did go away to a large extent and it did collapse to a large extent. What was your point on that again?

 

[Sig]

There was very little wind power being produced. Look @ the ERCOT numbers! That's the part you're missing. I keep reading articles about how wind power saved that day and how fossil fuels were the problem. How stupid are these people.

Demand @ peak: 60,000MW
Wind capability: 31,000 MW
Total wind production @ peak 3,500MW

That is PATHETIC for a state that has almost a quarter of their production in wind. It wasn't there when you needed it most. It's good when it works. But when it doesn't it's a mess. And you're going to need shit tons of batteries to stabilize the grid. Clean energy isn't always "clean"

I'm looking at the ERCOT numbers, and I understand what an ISO is and how it works as well as what capacity factors are and how they work. Which numbers, exactly, are you looking at to come to the conclusions you've reached (links to the actual data please)?

I run a business that does this for a living, what's your experience in electricity markets again? I'm honestly interested in what your thoughts are on ERCOT's capacity reserve margin and how intermittent resources factor into that calculation. You do grasp that a 500 MW nameplate wind farm isn't considered a 500 MW resource for the purposes of calculating reserve margin (or bidding into a capacity market in ISOs that use them)? I mean clearly you don't based on what you just wrote, but do you really grasp how ignorant you are here? You're essentially a random dude showing up at a brain surgeon conference and yelling at them all that they're a bunch of idiots because the cerebellum is the most important part 'cause you heard it on Tucker Carlson. That's really where your understanding of a pretty complex system is at. Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself.