And it can all be laid at the feet of those politicians putting on pressure to "go green" before they could go green.
I listened to a New Yorker involved in maintaining the power grid up there and he shuttered to think what will happen to New York State should they adopt the same folly of trying to go "to green", "to fast", meaning taking off line oil and gas because you think wind and solar will cover you.
And if your wrong, people die.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
I'm betting there's a thread on this...
But 2-3 years ago, MIN had a similar problem. There was a massive snowstorm and the only thing that saved them were gas fired and nuclear power plants. Wind mills and solar panels were inoperative..
Some people need to lose their jobs.
Originally Posted by gnadfly
Being a chauvinistic Texan, I wouldn't put the blame in our state (gnadfly's and my state) on renewables, but rather on the failure of our baseload sources, in particular the gas fired power plants. And being a hypocrite I'd blame California's woes on renewables.
Here in Texas, wind supplies something like 25% of our annual energy. Renewables in total supply 38%, with solar making up most of the rest. I drove through the "Windmill Corridor" from Abilene to Lubbock on Monday and I'd guess only about 10% of the windmills were turning. Were they frozen or was it because the wind wasn't blowing? Maybe both. In any event, as long as we don't have an economic way to store electricity, wind and solar aren't reliable, year-round sources of energy. They are however great when the weather cooperates. They're not expensive any more. I guess we could debate whether the government subsidies and tax credits to wind and solar were worth it, but at this point the wind and solar industries could stand on their own without government help.
The fixes to our system in Texas aren't expensive. Based on my buddy's inside view (see above) the simplest step is not shutting off electricity to the pipelines, gas plants, and oil field. Maybe more natural gas storage capacity, and make damn sure the equipment, compressors and the like, to get the gas from the storage fields and the power plants will work in cold weather. Winterize compressors. Convert gas fired plants so they can run off fuel oil. Incentivize more antiquated gas fired plants to stay idling and be ready to go on stream when electricity demand goes up. (ERCOT already does this with much higher prices when demand is high, but maybe we should be paying a small amount every month to the plants that are idling, so they'll be available when we have extreme weather events.)
In any event, this is not a huge deal. Texans pay around $.086 per kilowatt hour for electricity. Californians pay almost twice that much. And Texans rely more on natural gas for heating and cooking, which is even cheaper than electricity. So, pulling a number out of the air, say you save $200 a month on your electric bill, by living in Texas, and every 20 years you have an extreme weather event that shuts down your power for a few hours, or a few days, or, like my house, not at all. Is it worth the extra $48,000 you'll pay for electricity over those 20 years? Hell no.
This is a ridiculous argument though, because California's system doesn't have cheap, obvious fixes like Texas' system. It isn't fuckups by people regulating the power grid or industry or whatever. California has a structural problem because they are in the process of eliminating natural gas, nuclear and coal fired plants. They're getting rid of their year-round power plants. I guess with massive expenditures and sky high electric bills they can do this with lots of battery storage. But that's not going to be good for their economy.