Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar • Hacker News Board

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#61

Post by megaman821 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #18

aseerdbnarng wrote: post #3

I understand that natural gas plants were just as impacted by the storm as renewables ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... ) so it is not clear this bill is being passed in good faith

Yeah, the big problem is the death of coal power. Coal power plants can stockpile enough fuel to run for a good while no matter the weather. Natural gas power plants cannot; they rely on a continuous supply of gas, and it turns out that every part of the Texas natural gas supply chain is vulnerable to cold weather and power outages. Fixing this will be slow, incredibly expensive, probably increase CO2 emissions and d…

I am pretty sure natural gas power plants can carry liquid fuel reserves but most don't carry much.

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#62

Post by megaman821 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:33 PM UTC

electronWizard wrote: post #27

aseerdbnarng wrote: post #3

I understand that natural gas plants were just as impacted by the storm as renewables ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... ) so it is not clear this bill is being passed in good faith

This article from Mises actually goes into the numbers, demand was up 24% compared to normal and natural gas made up most of the short fall. https://mises.org/wire/wind-power-disaster-texas-no-matter-w... The author compares the day of the Texas Energy Crisis to the same day of the previous year, but I'm taking his word that this is a fair representation of an average mid-February day for the Texas power grid. There…

The natural gas plants are built to pick up the slack. The energy operators know that during the winter there will be several cold, windless weeks, so they don't count on wind power providing very much to the grid. When wind and solar are good, the gas plants can be shut down since the power from natural gas is more expensive than the renewables.

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#63

Post by verall » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #40

aseerdbnarng wrote: post #3

I understand that natural gas plants were just as impacted by the storm as renewables ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... ) so it is not clear this bill is being passed in good faith

According to this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-56085733 about 30GW of coal and gas was taken offline and about 16GW of renewables. Peak demand was 69GW. So, gas and coal affected represented about 43+% of the total demand for energy. Coal piles froze and reduced capacity (shoveling wet coal frozen solid is hard). Gas pipes froze because of humidity in the pipes (removing water from gas takes energy). Both…

I agree with most of this, but

> who got some outrageous bills after the storm to pay for the mistakes by their own representatives

This was only for people on market-rate plans, who were paying a flat $5-$10 connection fee and then market rate for electricity. They regularly would pay about $15/mo for 2-3kwh; I pay about $85/mo for that much on a fixed rate in Austin, which is a regulated monopoly (you cannot purchase a market rate plan).

The constituents of townships that allow variable and market rate plans _love_ spending 1/5 of the energy cost, and have been doing so for years. It's hard to sympathize with people who were actively told to disconnect and stop using power during the highest demand, chose to continue, and now have fat bills to show for it.

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#64

Post by Tarragon » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

chasd00 wrote: post #52

coldcode wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly this is a Texas only problem, given it works in much colder countries and States. Texas did not want to pay to winterize to maximize profits. Risk reward, a few hundred dead people once in a while vs. profits every year.

This is not even close to fair. Everyone is forgetting how exceptional the storm really was. If Miami were hit by a magnitude 7 earthquake would you all be whining about Miami’s building codes?

Considering that this exact thing also happened ten years ago. How exceptional is this kind of storm?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/18/state-...

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#65

Post by jjk166 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

delfinom wrote: post #54

VBprogrammer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the grid frequency is not stable enough (i.e. demand outstrips supply) any type of power plant will trip off line when the protection circuitry kicks in. Anything else risks damage to transformers and industrial machinery downstream.

No you don't understand, the plant didn't trip. The nuclear plant's turbines were literally on the "roof" of the reactor complex completely in the open. Nuclear regulations only require the reactor itself to be enclosed and protected. No shit the turbines froze over. They ignored reports advising them to fully enclose the plant for years.

The turbines have superheated steam flowing into them directly from a source of practically unlimited heat. The only way for them to freeze over would be for the plant to have already shut down.

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#66

Post by briffle » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #40

aseerdbnarng wrote: post #3

I understand that natural gas plants were just as impacted by the storm as renewables ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... ) so it is not clear this bill is being passed in good faith

According to this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-56085733 about 30GW of coal and gas was taken offline and about 16GW of renewables. Peak demand was 69GW. So, gas and coal affected represented about 43+% of the total demand for energy. Coal piles froze and reduced capacity (shoveling wet coal frozen solid is hard). Gas pipes froze because of humidity in the pipes (removing water from gas takes energy). Both…

> Wind turbines were also affected. That too would have been preventable: weather proofed turbines exist and operate in both polar regions, Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, etc. and other places

The biggest wind producing state is Iowa, where it regularly hits sub-zero temperatures. Sometimes for weeks. I would argue winterizing is more the 'standard' that Texas companies didn't follow to save a few bucks.

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#67

Post by chasd00 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

Tarragon wrote: post #64

chasd00 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not even close to fair. Everyone is forgetting how exceptional the storm really was. If Miami were hit by a magnitude 7 earthquake would you all be whining about Miami’s building codes?

Considering that this exact thing also happened ten years ago. How exceptional is this kind of storm? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/18/state-...

i was here for both, what happened then wasn't anywhere near as severe or prolonged.

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#68

Post by babesh » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #24

babesh wrote: post #10

The nonpartisan approach would be a carbon tax along with paying higher prices for energy that provides guarantees that it won’t be interrupted during a cold spell. Then the research should center on how high the carbon tax should be and how much higher prices Texas is willing to pay for frost hardened energy. Unfortunately both sides are playing partisan politics and try to tilt the playing field.

"Paying higher prices for energy that provides guarantees that it won’t be interrupted during a cold spell" is effectively a subsidy for fossil fuel power plants and coal in particular - and a real subsidy too that actually gives it a financial advantage over renewable power, not the inflated fake "subsidies" that articles like this quote which usually turn out to be things that are available equally to all power sou…

If coal has that effect, then it is a plus for coal. But there are other sources of power that do have that effect: any form of stored energy, nuclear, geothermal, etc... Also note that you can pair energy storage with renewables. It may even spur technological development in these areas.

Also the carbon tax taxes unclean energy. Dirty coal would have to pay that tax.

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#69

Post by adamcstephens » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

willis936 wrote: post #50

adamcstephens wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republicans control most of the statehouses, while the Democrats barely hold together a weak majority in Congress. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say the right has a weak political position.

Semantics. My point is that it costs political capital to be responsible for an easily avoidable disaster.

They’re not semantics, my comment is about power and who is willing to wield it.

Republicans will still vote for Republicans even when avoidable disasters happen. There are two choices, and they’re not going to give a shit that Democrats were slightly less bad on the subject.

Re: Texas Senate passes bill aiming to counter federal subsidies for wind and solar

#70

Post by willis936 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

adamcstephens wrote: post #69

willis936 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Semantics. My point is that it costs political capital to be responsible for an easily avoidable disaster.

They’re not semantics, my comment is about power and who is willing to wield it. Republicans will still vote for Republicans even when avoidable disasters happen. There are two choices, and they’re not going to give a shit that Democrats were slightly less bad on the subject.

So you’re saying it does not cost political capital to be responsible for policies that caused a disaster? Where’s the good faith in this discussion or the people who suffered the disaster?