Live data from Hacker News

Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

reuters.com

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#111
post #75

I'm a bit confused about why this is a serious engineering problem. If a gigawatt class DC suddenly needs to take its sensitive IT loads off grid, it could be designed with load banks on site to stand in for the IT load. These would be exceptional use only, so the specific cooling technology (obviously we want to boil water) is not much of an ecological concern. A gigawatt will vaporize ~100 gallons of water per seco…

>why is[/]this a serious engineering problem[?]

Because the Texian grid-operator (ERCOT) is predominantly isolated from the Eastern & Western US grids [†], serving mostly-just Texans – this is to avoid US Federal regulations, by being an only-intrastate entity (technically, which is: the worst kind of "correct" [∑]). This is a socially-engineered "problem".

This means their needs for maintaining grid inertia (which frequency is a measure-er of) are more difficult, as Texas cannot just purchase any substantial/meaningful electricity – everything must be generated in-house.

Worse, the lack of Federal regulations means ERCOT/Texas can create their own rules/regulations/markets for the management of electrical infrastructure. Texas chose to make (IMHO) the most-purely crony-capitalistic market [for buy/sell of MWhours] in worldwide existance – which leads to decannual winterstorm Disasters (totaling hundreds of BBillion$ in damages / hundreds dead). The losses from wasted silicon-ingot depositions (alone) are staggering $,,,.00 – just another cost of doing business within Texas's jurisdiction [ß].

After 2021's storm, some "free market" customers were left with a week of billing costing more than the year's remainder!.

Abbott will just blame the windmills and not a cost-incentive fee-structure which does not incentivize cold-weather preventative maintainance. In fact, it does the opposite (since electricity can 25X price-increase). "Tell me the incentive and I'll tell you the outcome."

[∑] having grown up and been schooled primarily in Texas, I think the best review I ever agreed with was: "The [L]one Star State" – Texceptionalism will kill us all

[†] small DC-DC grid-ties (altogether a low, single-digit percentage of ERCOT's overall capacity) exist with both grids, as well as another smaller with Mexico

[ß] which is why most hospitals/datacenters have their own diesel/LNG generators, on-site – in Texas these have even less regulations because: "temporary" see (e.g.): Tesla's multiple Texas facilities' backupsystems – enormous point-source pollutors

----

If you want a good breakdown of the 2021 Texas storm's decimation of ERCOT/Texas/electricity, look for the great logs reddit /u/redditmudder did (in realtime) as this disaster was unfolding. I cannot remember exactly how low the frequency got... but I think we were closer to EU [50hz] than US [60hz] – as grid operators REAPED profits* from their failing infrastructure driving electricity orders-of-magnitude higher. This is all public information; it wasn't "windmills."

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#112
post #61
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would demanding that large spikey users of energy like data centers implement some sort of demand ramping/isolation from the grid in the form of a massive capacitor bank or flywheel generator between them and the grid help reduce the risk here?

The data centres aren't inherently spikey, in general use their consumption is reasonably predictable. However, if a DC detects that the _grid_ is wobbly (voltage or frequency deviations) the DC will disconnect without warning, and switch to its batteries and generators. The grid complains because it's suddenly lost hundreds of MW of load. For the DC to have isolation capability, it would need a load-sink which can c…

Minor note: when discussing electricity, abbreviating datacenter as “DC” is confusing

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Newton's First Law didn't change much in the time that has passed. No, but technology has moved on quite a bit. Heavy fly wheels are no longer the state of the art here. A few tens of GW of battery capacity (i.e. a few dozen nuclear plants worth of capacity) that can switch on/off in milliseconds can do a lot for grid stability. That's part of the reason why grid operators are rolling out so much batteries. It's no…

> A few tens of GW of battery capacity (i.e. a few dozen nuclear plants worth of capacity) that can switch on/off in milliseconds can do a lot for grid stability. I think this is a misunderstanding of the problem. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe flywheels are no longer involved but at one point they were for batteries and solar. Not to store energy, but rather to form the output voltage and to give the correct "in…

I would imagine that any single renewable plant could handle that - the the frequency drifts out of sync, it's only the inverter that will blow up.

It's an expensive part to be sure, but not so expensive that a plant couldn't keep a few spares.

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#114

How about an across the board $1/W hook up fee for new customers? Thats about the price of installed capacity per watt. New house with 200 A panel an assumed 30% utilization rate? $3600. New data center with 80% utilization rates at 100MW? $80 million dollars. New 10 GW data center? That'll be $8 billion. It's outrageous that I'm paying an extra fee to export energy to a neighboring state to power a datacenter.

All projects have an interconnection fee. Large projects will have a large load interconnection tariff that’s supposed to shoulder the costs of upgrading the infrastructure to support these new projects. Data center discussions are weird right now because people assume these things don’t exist and propose them as solutions. They already exist. The problem in the article is something different: The sites they’re talki…

Isn't that fundamentally a coordination problem?

When voltage is dropping (or phase is falling out of alignment) don't you want to shed load to stabilize? The issue seems to be more that too much load could shed too quickly causing wild oscillations in grid conditions from an undervolt to an overvolt. Seems like the correct, and not terribly complicated, solution to this is to have a process whereby the grid operator can request large customers to shed load and move to backup power temporarily.

That seems like such a reasonable suggestion that I would be shocked if such a thing does not already exist and is simply just not reactive enough and too manual.

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#115
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in absolute terms? I haven't checked in a while. In terms of fraction of energy from solar Texas is still far behind California.

They have more utility solar than California as of last year in absolute terms, they're second if you include distributed behind the meter solar which California has more of. Texas also lead in absolute amounts of wind, gas and coal. They have a lot of generation.

That makes sense. It's hard to appreciate the scale of these things without understanding that Texas, although the less populous of the two states, uses far more energy, and in particular far more grid electricity, because of their climate, the energy intensity of their economy, their ideological opposition to energy efficiency mandates, and their relative lack of small-scale, distributed, behind-the-meter generation and storage.

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#116

For those who dont know why this is important: The loads are slowing down the generators that are burning a well metered amount of fuel to stay at 60Hz. This is a delicate balance since the phase angle must also be spot on. If a generator and the local line disagree on f, phase or V, you have a short circuit. If you lose a large amount of load, your generator will spin up with the excess fuel until the control system…

Synthetic inertia has come a long way. An inverter knows just as well as a rotating generator what frequency and phase it should be generating, because it can mimic exactly the ideal equations of motion of a rotating generator with programmable inertia.

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#117
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To build on this analogy, tug of war fits a bit better. Nothing dramatic happens if one person let go, but if half of one team just let loose at the same time without communication, bad things happen.

I think an even better example is what happened to the Tacoma Bridge. You have an oscillating frequency and phase that needs to be precisely tuned in order for everything to work well. If something is out of sync wrong, you can end up with higher peaks, lower valleys, or flatter locations which can ultimately cause catastrophic failure. In the Tacoma example, the input frequency continued to add onto the bridges moti…

I interpreted from that EU grid post mortem that individual generators are coordinated using out of band comms channels that aren’t the power grid itself. Am I mistaken that they do this? Is it done there, but absent here?

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#118

For those who dont know why this is important: The loads are slowing down the generators that are burning a well metered amount of fuel to stay at 60Hz. This is a delicate balance since the phase angle must also be spot on. If a generator and the local line disagree on f, phase or V, you have a short circuit. If you lose a large amount of load, your generator will spin up with the excess fuel until the control system…

That's not true. Modern batteries and inverters can be really good at providing synthetic inertia. Proof by example: https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-scotland As the article says, this is difficult and adds significantly to the cost. But it is very possible. (It also adds significantly to the cost of spinning mass generators too. Delivering 250% of nominal current in a short circuit situation requires bee…

Actually large data centers at least if done in a vaguely alirack style architecture, can do this with a decent fraction of their nominal power for very little hardware cost, as reactive power and real power add up via Pythagoras (`apparent=sqrt(real^2 + reactive^2)`) to the apparent power (rms voltage times rms current, which is what the 60Hz electronics and 60Hz transformers care about). The first 10-ish % are nearly free.

And alirack style datacenters have large 3-phase converters between the grid and some 240 (nowadays often 350) V DC bus, with the battery banks directly (with just fuses and sometimes a little bit of balancing/nudging power (think 10% of battery power rating)) on the bus, and then the servers also directly consuming from that bus.

The large converters on the battery bus thus allow synthetically smoothing load transients to the grid using the batteries to smooth that power draw. This has just minor additional wear on the batteries and a small power efficiency impact from hitting through the batteries, both of which are easily paid by anything market-rate of providing that grid service. Because they already need the power electronics and batteries anyways, unlike a utility battery farm that at best can argue day/night load shifting of solar production as the reason for the electronics and batteries to exist.

In that same spirit it's also effective to put batteries on the DC bus (between MPPT and inverters) of large solar farms, because they need the electronics anyways and it's actually reducing the required inverter&transformer capacity of the solar farm by peak-shaving.

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#119
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that is true. https://www.electricchoice.com/historical-electricity-pricin...

I am sorry to be the one to inform you about "inflation". The data you provided shows that rates increased from 2019-2024 at rates slightly below general CPI inflation.

Let's assume we're talking about core inflation (since headline inflation included changes in energy costs and that would hide the signal). Core inflation was us 23% from '19-24, but the energy costs in Texas were up 37%. Actually, headline inflation was up 25%, which is still below that set of price increases.

Please support your assertion that Texas energy costs decreased in that time period.

Re: Texas grid flags risks as data centers, crypto sites fail voltage tests

#120
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry to be the one to inform you about "inflation". The data you provided shows that rates increased from 2019-2024 at rates slightly below general CPI inflation.

Let's assume we're talking about core inflation (since headline inflation included changes in energy costs and that would hide the signal). Core inflation was us 23% from '19-24, but the energy costs in Texas were up 37%. Actually, headline inflation was up 25%, which is still below that set of price increases. Please support your assertion that Texas energy costs decreased in that time period.

According to EIA State Energy Data System, "Average end-use energy price estimates by energy source, annual", electricity in Texas rose from $25.51 per million BTU (yes, I know) in 2019 to $28.95 in 2024, the most recent year available in the database. That's only 13.5%.
Post reply on HN