We've been enduring a typical Texas summer heatwave over the past couple of weeks, with temperatures routinely well above 100° Fahrenheit. There have been warnings from electrical utilities to conserve power, or risk cascading power failures; but as far as I know, there haven't actually been any of the latter. The reason, according to Oilprice.com, may surprise you.
Peak energy demand has reached an all-time high in Texas, where temperatures have been hotter than 99% of the world over the last few weeks. The prolonged heat wave is shattering records now but is likely just the beginning of what scientists predict will be a pattern of increasing and increasingly extreme weather events associated with climate change.
In Texas, the expectation that summer heat waves as well as winter storms will continue to get more and more intense has been of particular concern, due to the fragility and isolated nature of the state’s power grid. That fragility was made infamous in 2021, when the grid collapsed under the strain of increased heating demand during the disastrous Winter Storm Uri. Tragically, at least 246 people died from the storm and the related grid failure, with stated causes of death ranging from hypothermia to carbon monoxide poisoning according to the state’s official death toll. However, a BuzzFeed News analysis says that the official count is far lower than the real death toll, which they calculate to be around 700 lives lost.
. . .
The New York Times has called the Texas grid “the nation’s most extensive experiment in electrical deregulation,” and experts have been nervous that that experiment could go terribly wrong all over again under the strain of an extreme weather event such as the one Texas is experiencing now. But so far, the grid has held up, even with peak energy demand reaching a record-breaking 81,000 megawatts (MW), a significant uptick from the 69,000 MW peak demand that left the grid in ruins during Winter Storm Uri.
How is this possible? The Lone Star state has quietly been building out its renewable energy industry at a breakneck clip. “It’s all thanks to the rapid additions of solar, wind, and grid-scale battery storage in the last two years,” reports Forbes. The state has added almost 3,000 MW of wind since 2021 and 10,000 MW of solar since 2020, with utility-scale solar doubling every year since then. Its solar energy installment rate has surpassed that of California, and its new grid battery installations are a very close second to the Golden State. “During this historic heat wave, it’s been all these new, low-cost wind, solar and batteries that have kept the grid afloat and Texans cool – in many cases saving lives,” Forbes writes.
All of this added renewable energy production capacity has made the Texas energy grif much more resilient. Not only does it give the grid a greater diversity of energy sources to fall back on in case of disaster, it’s also easing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels for energy security. Past grid failures in Texas have shown that coal and gas plants are much more vulnerable than renewable ones to extreme weather events in both hot and cold conditions. In fact, when the state lost 9,600 MW of electricity capacity last week due to the failure of several natural gas and coal plants, solar and wind provided that lost energy and then some, generating a record 31,500 MW on Wednesday.
There's more at the link.
I've always regarded increased dependence on so-called "renewable" energy sources - solar, wind, etc. - as a potential weakness, a likely point of failure. I'm honestly surprised to read that they've actually relieved the pressure on traditional electricity generating plants during a peak consumption period like this. I can understand solar energy being more than usually efficient during such heatwaves, but the winds have often been less than usual as a hot blanket has dampened normal weather patterns, so I'd discounted it as a major contributor.
Are these reports trustworthy, or are they just hype on behalf of the renewable energy industry? I don't know, but Oilprice is normally a reasonably trustworthy source. Can knowledgeable readers chime in with their input? I'm sure we'd all like to know more.
Peter
35 comments:
Hype.
TX has reduced its 'conventional' power sources to match anticipated peak demand. Thus, any 'green' source WILL 'rescue' TX.
Here's a crude analogy. Let's say you need exactly 100 HP to pull your trailer down the road at 50MPH under 'normal' circumstances, so you've reduced your truck's HP to 100 by disconnecting cylinders. Unfortunately for you, a 50MPH headwind comes up, and your truck cannot meet its goal of 50MPH, so you now activate your battery-powered motor to help the truck.
Did the electric motor "rescue" your journey? Or were you .....ahhh........foolish.....to leave ZERO room for contingencies?
I'm definitely not an expert, but I can see solar & wind being particularly useful during peak summer demand (air conditioning). The claims in that article may be correct for this time of year, while still being problematic during a winter storm.
As I recall, a big part of the problem in winter 2021 was that the gas lines were DEPENDENT on outside electricity to keep the pumps running, and when the electricity went out, so did the state's gas supply. If that bottleneck hasn't been addressed then the ability to keep up with peak summer demand has only solved about half of the problem, even if overall winter demand is lower. Can wind dependably make up for the reduced solar power during seasonal weather conditions? Texas is in the process of finding that out.
Long story short: the article author and blog author may both be right!
(Long-time lurker, don't know that I've commented here before. I appreciate your work, Peter!)
I work Texas power plants.
In fact I'm at one now by Victoria.
That article is pure propaganda, and the author is a propagandist.
-rightwingterrorist
If it isn't pure hype, it is certainly an exaggeration of the contribution of renewables. It may be that the stars are aligned just right at this time for the renewables to be contributing so much to the grid. But, they are also betting on people have a short memory and forgetting about how poorly the renewables contributed during the extreme cold a couple of years ago.
They are a weakness.
Typically if you have Solar at full power you have no wind - if wind is blowing it's mostly overcast ans solar is weak. In winter both sucks.
How bad do they suck? You were just quoting an article praising the high solar energy output during a time of the year with high solar energy output :D
It's like an article praising a coal plant because it does its job and does not burn down.
---
I'm writing from Germany. IYKYK
If the increased load is caused by the heat generated by strong sunlight and the wind turbines are not degraded by iced blades, then the renewables would provide relief to the combustion plants.
OTOH, if the increased load is caused by cold, and the solar panels are compromised by overcast, ice, or snow, the renewables won't contribute.
The winter storm with rolling blackouts had nearly all wind and solar offline w/ windmills iced up and solar panels covered with ice and snow as well as seasonal lower productivity. And they also pose all sorts of challenges related to turning on and off fossil fuel plants for such times of low productivity -- and you have to have enough fossil fuel or nuclear power in to support such times of low productivity. That's why Warren Buffett was looking into building such fossil fuel plants and charging super high prices in such scenarios...
And don't forget that due to the electric vehicle push we need to double the nation's electrical generation and transmission grid capacity... As it stands, "green" energy is barely replacing older fossil fuel plants that are being shut down and scrapped.
My 2 cents:
"solar energy being more than usually efficient during such heatwaves" I dunno if this is applicable, but, cold PV panels are more efficient than hot ones. I bought several panels recently and eagerly measured the current and voltage output into an ideal load. Fell significantly short of claimed performance. I look forward to repeating the measurements when it is winter and 80 degrees cooler.
Modern nukes are the way to go IMHO. A constant source of power independent of sunshine or wind seems like a good idea.
We'll see how good they are this winter...
This article is garbage. Coal and natural gas plants fail more often in cold and hot weather than wind and solar? If that were true, Texas would have been the blackout capitol of the nation before "renewables" came around. You might note that "renewables" only came about because they were legislated into existence.
The key to successful grid operations is to have dispatchable units, units that can be called upon when needed to meet the demand for power. For example a 500MW gas or coal unit does not output that much power until it is needed, then it can be ramped up by providing more fuel when it is needed. You cannot dispatch more wind or sun. The only reason more renewables are being built is because taxpayers are underwriting a lot of the cost. That makes it an attractive investment. A gas or coal unit requires a lot of capital to bring online and if the grid operator does not call on your unit as you expect, it will not be profitable. Any guarantees by the grid operator are now unenforceable since the Texas Supreme Court has just deemed that the grid operator enjoys sovereign immunity - you cannot sue them. Good Luck Texas.
Well, that is almost a total lie. Renewables are not reliable above 105 F or below 25 F. The wind does not blow above 105 F in Texas. And the wind turbines freeze up below 25 F and trip offline due to uneven ice loading on the causing extreme vibration. Most of the wind turbines in Texas do not have heating systems in the blades. And, the solar panels are usually covered with ice and snow below 25 F and do not produce power. And the solar panels stop generating power at 6 pm to 8 pm, right at the end of the power usage peak (called the Duck Curve) when people are getting home and turn on their stoves and a/c units.
During Winter Storm Uri in Feb 2021, the solar panels and wind turbines produced a grand total of 3,000 MW per hour to ERCOT from Sunday night until Thursday night. BTW, ERCOT caught a falling knife on Sunday night when they lost 400+ (SWAG) power generating units over two hours, managing to catch the demand at 45,000 MW day and night for four days. I am still amazed that they did not drop or separate the grid into its various regions. The last time ERCOT was down was in the middle 1950s. So long ago that ERCOT is not sure exactly how to rebuild the grid, they have a plan though and they are resourceful. The other grids in the USA do not even come close to that record.
I worked as a power plant engineer, a field engineer, and in one year dispatch for TXU back in the 1980s for eight years. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M University in 1982. I am a registered Professional Engineer with The Great State of Texas since 1989. I am now the President of a small engineering software company in south Texas since 1995 writing and selling chemical process simulation software to chemical, mechanical, petroleum and other engineers in USA and 75 other countries.
The problem with the Texas grid (ERCOT) is that the number of users has been growing at approximately 5% per year for the last 40 years. ERCOT covers almost 90% of Texas and is run with dual conflicting goals: reliability and economy. You have probably noticed that we have some of the lowest electric rates in the USA for a state with almost no hydroelectric power plants, just 600 MW out of 154,378 MW. That is because ERCOT takes their economic goal very seriously. They watch the generation mix every five minutes and reallocate the economics using a Dutch Auction based on prices submitted by the power generators. ERCOT is very good at this.
However, reliability is a totally different animal than economics. Reliability is a long term goal, not a short term goal. And, reliability means different things to different people. To me, reliability means that a power generation unit is ready to produce power 24x7 hours a week unless a maintenance outage has been declared. That means no sneaky outages in the middle of the night. That means that plans have been written and followed to make power in the extremes of summer. That means plans have been written and followed for the extremes of winter. I have seen 113 F and -4 F in Dallas in the last 40 years. I have seen 113 F and 6 F in Houston in the last 40 years. That means that fuel is ready for the power plant to convert into electricity and is on site. That means that operators are onsite during the agreed upon times and ready to start any or all the units required for generation by ERCOT dispatch.
ERCOT has added quite a bit of new power generators in the last ten years. They have also shut down 7,000 MW (SWAG) of coal power generation and 10,000 MW (SWAG) of natural gas / fuel oil power generation due to economics and age. They have added 10,000 MW (SWAG) of new gas turbine power generation that can be online in 6 to 20 minutes. They have added 10,000 MW (SWAG) of solar panels that usually stop generating right at the peak of the day (this is called the Duck Curve). They have added 20,000 MW (SWAG) of wind turbines that generate 80% (SWAG) of their power in the middle of the night when it is not needed.
BTW, SWAG is Scientific Wild Assed Guess.
Not really credible. Obama did a change on base load and required all new base load power to be renewables. Thus we had the wind farm boom. Which is great as long as renewables respond to new load requirements like a coal plant. Which they maybe do when conditions are perfect. This executive action will change electrical reliability for the foreseeable future. But no one talks about TXU wanting to build 12 super reliable coal plants 15 so years ago. TXU was acquired by investors blackrock I think. And then suddenly TXU goes wind. Now Texas has an island grid… a grid that would be just fine with coal but is base load powered by wind mostly. Without fed interference electricity would be cheaper and reliable in Texas…. Which is one reason Texas is NOT an interstate grid to prevent fed interference… but an Obama admin fixed that for Texas . The consequence was a meltdown during a hard freeze a few years ago. Baseload power plant requirements used to not be messed with BECAUSE you wanted a certain amount of power super reliable. Incompetent feds changed that now they claim a victory lap because wind is so far reliable… so far
Basically, I think that if you want to sell power to the Texas grid, you should make power during the bad times as well as the good times. Some of the power plant operators reputedly shut down and went home during the Winter Storm Uri freeze in Feb 2021. I have no idea who they are but the rumor has floated around. That should not have been allowed to happen nor should it have gone unpunished.
They're LyInG. After the breakdowns in the power grid due to solar and other greeny crap right after Biden got in, they have built more traditional oil and coal based plants. Can I prove it? No. But evryone acknowledged green cauaed the criais. So now I don't buy that green relieved anything. A turnabout away from green did.
"Not really credible. Obama did a change on base load and required all new base load power to be renewables. Thus we had the wind farm boom. Which is great as long as renewables respond to new load requirements like a coal plant. Which they maybe do when conditions are perfect. This executive action will change electrical reliability for the foreseeable future. But no one talks about TXU wanting to build 12 super reliable coal plants 15 so years ago. TXU was acquired by investors blackrock I think. And then suddenly TXU goes wind."
TXU got forced out of coal (lignite) by sheer economics. The price of the minemouth lignite in Texas has risen to around $2.00/mmbtu due to the overburden increasing from 20 or 30 feet to 200+ feet. The mines were all located at the shallow portions of the lignite seam crossing Texas. And then the coal coming by train out of Wyoming is close to $3/mmbtu now. And the coal (lignite) plants operate at 30% efficiency on a good day.
The natural gas combined cycle units run at 60+ efficiency on $2.50/mmbtu natural gas. There is no way that the coal units can compete with that. And, the maintenance on the coal units is about 4X to 5X of the cost of the natural gas units maintenance.
So TXU built Oak Grove, a pair of 870 MW lignite units that meet modern EPA requirements for SO2, particulates, and mercury in 2007 or so. Then Libra Energy (TXU) shut down Sandow 4 and 5, Big Brown 1 and 2, Monticello 1, 2, and 3, a total of 4,200 MW at the end of 2017 since they could not meet new environmental regulations and compete economically.
I am sure no expert but the guy who said panels are more efficient if they are cold is correct as I understand it, if the ground is covered with snow but the panels are clear you get more energy out of the panels such as spring vs fall. Frost, snow and ice on the panels about shut them down, also serious dust! Off grid solar is small enough to mitigate these factors. As I under stand it the winter storm mentioned in the article iced up wind power as well as covering solar panels. This caused partial grid failure. The natural gas back up failed because the pumps that pressurized the gas lines failed. I understand that was caused by regulatory agencies banning the use of gas powered pumps. I’d still want some sort of heat in winter that was not 100% grid dependent even if I lived in Texas instead of Alaska!
Another challenge with solar is hail. Great way to destroy solar panels.
If you regularly read articles on electric generation you will realize that renewable energy makes the news when it works and conventional energy (coal and natural gas) make the news when they don't work. Also the article is wrong, the Texas grid did not collapse although it came very close. If I would have collapsed the entire grid would have shut down and it would have taken an unknown amount of time (days, weeks ?) to restart it from scratch.
"The natural gas back up failed because the pumps that pressurized the gas lines failed. I understand that was caused by regulatory agencies banning the use of gas powered pumps."
Two failures in that direction:
1. The 50,000 hp pipeline compressor drivers after 1990 were required to be electric motors in the non-attainment regions by the EPA since they were expected to run 90% of the time. ERCOT killed the power to those 50,000 hp electric motors because they had no understanding of the fuel system in Texas.
2. Most of the larger natural gas wells in Texas have antifreeze systems using ethylene glycol recirculation systems. The systems have 100 hp electric pumps on them. ERCOT killed those too since ERCOT did not understand the fuel system in Texas.
ERCOT now understands the fuel systems in Texas and actively asks well owners and pipeline owners to sign up for the “do not kill power to” list. Since ERCOT seems to learn by disaster, I think that ERCOT has more lessons to learn.
Note: There have been over 100 new 48 MW and larger gas turbines installed in the non-attainment areas of Texas in the last five years. 100 more are expected to be installed in the next two years (maybe, the financing is dicey). The EPA has exempted these from current regulations since they are only run during near emergency conditions with annual capacity factor of less than 10%. They are fueled with pipeline natural gas or a week’s worth of diesel on each site.
"Also the article is wrong, the Texas grid did not collapse although it came very close. If I would have collapsed the entire grid would have shut down and it would have taken an unknown amount of time (days, weeks ?) to restart it from scratch."
ERCOT released an article recently that said that they think that they can get the Texas grid back up in three weeks after a complete failure. Since the Texas grid has been up since the middle 1950s, we just don't know. And we don't want to know either.
could have swore i read somewhere that the peak effectiveness of solar is 75-80 degrees...anything over that is a loss...how much you want to bet they wasted all this money on renewables and still haven't done what's needed to winterize the grid...that's why 700+ people died 3 years ago...this last winter was the 3rd in a row of non normal winter temps...i've lived here almost 30 years and have already lived through 4 once in a lifetime winter events in tx...whatever
Semi off topic: I remember summers in the 1970s and 1960s, when skies were typically overcast under a dull grey cloud cover. That was also a time when according to official statistics, "global warming" was paused. Nowadays, of course, we have many more summer days with clear blue skies.
My hunch is that the soot blown out by the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants served as crystallization loci for daytime clouds, increasing the reflection of incoming solar radiation and thereby cooling the ground below. Environmental regulations have massively reduced soot coming from those smokestacks. Might the resumption of "global warming" (most of it, I believe, from natural causes -- we are after all still on the rebound from the previous Ice Age) be tied to changes in this influential factor?
"Are these reports trustworthy, or are they just hype on behalf of the renewable energy industry?"
Well, let's see. Is the source a "mainstream" media outlet, or no? If it is, I think we can all safely assume it's a damnable lie.
Ray-SoCal:
Commercial solar panels seem to be rated by the size of hail that it can withstand. Three inch (3") may be the industry standard. Bigger hail is not that common, so the loss from hail bigger than that may be considered acceptable. The armor thickness probably cuts down on light transmission too much to make heavier worth the overall costs to use them.
Every kind of energy generation has its advantages and disadvantages. Solar is absolutely great in sunny climates - except that it only generates during the day. Wind works well much of the year, but not always - and also needs storage. Coal shouldn't exist any longer, for a variety of reasons. Natural gas is great for power plants that need to react quickly, but not for baseload. Nuclear is good for baseload, but reacts slowly and has political problems. Etc.
People fussing that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine? Clueless dweebs who think that power comes magically out of the plug. Every kind of power generation has its problems, and you've got to balance things out.
tl;dr: Having a mix of power types helps with net reliability. Renewables can and should be part of that mix.
Anonymous of July 8, 2023 at 4:03 AM -
Adding unreliable components to a system seems a quite non-intuitive way to increase overall reliability.
Could you produce any calculations that support the following statement?:
"tl;dr: Having a mix of power types helps with net reliability. Renewables can and should be part of that mix."
Different take on it...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/27/wind-fails-texas-again/
My part of Texas is outside of ERCOT, but we have our own headaches. On one day back in early June, every wind turbine from the Texas Panhandle to central Alberta was offline because there was too little wind. This year, from April through late June, has been unusually cloudy and calm, unless it is a severe thunderstorm. Solar's been blah and no wind energy.
Bring on nuclear power!
TXRed
In very special circumstances, like islands where fuel has to be brought in, utility scale solar makes sense. Otherwise every competent engineer will tell you that wind and solar are a scam, propped up by huge subsidies, and do nothing but detract from grid robustness. I worked for a big multinational oil and gas company and we had a wind division. As soon as the 10 year tax subsidies ran out, we had to look to sell those properties but no one would buy them because the ongoing maintenance and future disposal costs exceeded the value of the power they generated.
There is one completely non polluting source that would work, is practical, cheap, but needs a bit of R&D to bring to full fruition - geothermal. It leverages all that tech from oil and gas drilling and existing steam plant generation. Problem is that it isn't something the "greens" can make a ton of money from. And this is all about the money. And isn't it funny that geothermal is the one area the DOE refuses to invest R&D. No matter. Schlumberger and H&P will do it on their own one day, just like we saw a fracking revolution, and we will see clean power for cheap - unless the greens have their way and shut it down.
"could have swore i read somewhere that the peak effectiveness of solar is 75-80 degrees...anything over that is a loss...how much you want to bet they wasted all this money on renewables and still haven't done what's needed to winterize the grid...that's why 700+ people died 3 years ago...this last winter was the 3rd in a row of non normal winter temps...i've lived here almost 30 years and have already lived through 4 once in a lifetime winter events in tx...whatever"
But the ERCOT grid did not fail this last winter. The grid was strong even with the horrendous ice storm that covered all of Austin and the central Texas area. Note that the Oncor distribution area was just fine. But the City of Austin did have major distribution problems due to lack of maintenance (cutting down trees in the power lines). Unfortunately, the Austinites seem run to their favorite judge and stop the tree cutting crews from doing their jobs. There is not much the rest of Texas can do other than make sure that the transmission lines are free and clear, which, they were.
I am 63 years old, born in Texas, and living here since 1970. Tough winter storm show up every 10 years, sometimes back to back. The winters of 1983, 1989, 2002 ?, 2011, 2021, and 2023 were tough. There will be more tough winters in Texas in the future despite the global warming XXXXXX XXXXXX climate change fraud being perpetuated on us. This is one reason out of many why I have a whole house generator and advise others to do the same.
"My part of Texas is outside of ERCOT, but we have our own headaches. On one day back in early June, every wind turbine from the Texas Panhandle to central Alberta was offline because there was too little wind. This year, from April through late June, has been unusually cloudy and calm, unless it is a severe thunderstorm. Solar's been blah and no wind energy."
"Bring on nuclear power!"
The problem with solar power is that it dies when the sun goes down and everyone is getting home, turning the a/c down, turning the stove or over on. Soon they will be plugging their electric cars in too.
That means that every MW of solar and wind power needs to be backed up with a gas turbine MW. Very, very expensive.
BTW, Dow Chemical in Freeport has announced that they are planning to install one of the new nuclear SMR units for steam generation. Dow uses an incredible amount of steam and power in their chlorine, and metal seawater extraction systems. They have about 20 or 40 (SWAG) gas turbines in Freeport.
You made an error above -- "greens" making a ton of money, should be changed to "communist chinese" as they're the biggest beneficiary from this green energy bonanza.
I have yet to go over the comments, but from my "amateur" perspective, it's more complicated than "are they saving/hurting the grid?"
Basically, when your only problem is supply, any new supply helps, so any port in a storm, right?
Texas is lucky the new install base is big enough to paper over the problem, but it's not like the journalists are going to go out of their way to talk about the folks pulling their hair out trying to keep the grid all balanced, or how much more expensive doing just that has become due to all the 'green' projects.
Sooner or later, the piper will get paid. Something something Gods of the Copybook Headings...
"I have yet to go over the comments, but from my "amateur" perspective, it's more complicated than "are they saving/hurting the grid?"
Basically, when your only problem is supply, any new supply helps, so any port in a storm, right?
Texas is lucky the new install base is big enough to paper over the problem, but it's not like the journalists are going to go out of their way to talk about the folks pulling their hair out trying to keep the grid all balanced, or how much more expensive doing just that has become due to all the 'green' projects.
Sooner or later, the piper will get paid. Something something Gods of the Copybook Headings..."
The peak ERCOT demand is 81,000 MW. The installed capacity is quoted as 154,468 MW. The planning capacity for this summer is 96,138 MW. The difference between those two numbers is the limits on transmission lines from west Texas where most of the wind turbines are, the fact that most of the wind turbines don't work during the day, the environmental limits on the coal and natural gas units, and the generators down for the summer. But, over 28,000 MW is due to the wind turbines not working in the day time. And 8,000 MW of the difference is due to the solar not working at all.
https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards
Post a Comment