Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency

[rushmc 23]

This is so dam relevant it is scary.

Yes, I do work for a company that puts CO2 in the air kallend, and you polute every time you speak as do all of us if CO2 is called a pollutant as the enviros want to do. We all just need to understand the ramifications of ceratin actions now don't we

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.

The grid operator went directly to the second stage of an emergency plan at 6:41 PM CST (0041 GMT), ERCOT said in a statement.

System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave 1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers are generally large industrial customers who are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur.

No other customers lost power during the emergency, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers were restored in about 90 minutes and the emergency was over in three hours.

ERCOT said the grid's frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared.

In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the west from North Texas.

ERCOT declares a stage 1 emergency when power reserves fall below 2,300 MW. A stage 2 emergency is called when reserves fall below 1,750 MW.

At the time of the emergency, ERCOT demand increased from 31,200 MW to a peak of 35,612 MW, about half the total generating capacity in the region, according to the agency's Web site.

Texas produces the most wind power of any state and the number of wind farms is expected to increase dramatically as new transmission lines are built to transfer power from the western half of the state to more populated areas in the north.

Earlier on Tuesday, grid problems led to a blackout in Florida that cut power to about 1 million electric customers across that state for as much as four hours.

(Reporting by Eileen O'Grady; editing by Carol Bishopric)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[headoverheels 333]

All of the wind was diverted to the Democrat debates.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

All of the wind was diverted to the Democrat debates.

Of all the reply's I thought might be coming, I did not see this one

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

Yep. Although it is much easier to deal with a wind shortage than an oil shortage; the wind always comes back.

In the future, as the power network becomes more strained, smart loads will start to be a bigger factor. Smart loads can shed themselves when the power demand exceeds available supply, thus preserving more critical loads. Loads shed can include water heaters, industrial refrigeration, entertainment lighting (think Vegas signs) noncritical lighting, pool pumps, fountains etc.

Note that this is basically what happened here, although at a less automatic level. The power company asked industrial customers to curtail their demand, and they did, resulting in no blackouts.

We have a form of that here at my company. When power is cheap (at night) we run off the grid. When power is in high demand, we start two gas turbines that generate our power; the turbine's exhaust also provides cooling to our buildings via an evaporation chiller. Helps the utility because it lowers their peak demand, and it helps us because we go off-grid right when power costs are highest.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Yep. Although it is much easier to deal with a wind shortage than an oil shortage; the wind always comes back.

In the future, as the power network becomes more strained, smart loads will start to be a bigger factor. Smart loads can shed themselves when the power demand exceeds available supply, thus preserving more critical loads. Loads shed can include water heaters, industrial refrigeration, entertainment lighting (think Vegas signs) noncritical lighting, pool pumps, fountains etc.

Note that this is basically what happened here, although at a less automatic level. The power company asked industrial customers to curtail their demand, and they did, resulting in no blackouts.

We have a form of that here at my company. When power is cheap (at night) we run off the grid. When power is in high demand, we start two gas turbines that generate our power; the turbine's exhaust also provides cooling to our buildings via an evaporation chiller. Helps the utility because it lowers their peak demand, and it helps us because we go off-grid right when power costs are highest.

None of what you post here will lower demad below base load needs.

And who is talking about oil? I am not

Oh, and your load leveling pratices are not as effeicent as base load plants. Effectivly increasing CO2 output........although that really does not matter

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

All of the wind was diverted to the Democrat debates.

That was fucking beautiful man!!!!!!!!!!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[billvon 3,008]

>None of what you post here will lower demad below base load needs.

What I described REDUCES base load needs by allowing interruption of non-critical base loads.

>And who is talking about oil? I am not

OK, natural gas.

>Oh, and your load leveling pratices are not as effeicent as base load plants.

Reducing load is 100% efficient, by definition. How much loss do you get when you send zero megawatts to a customer's load that has been shed?

There are several kinds of powerplants out there. Some, like nuclear and large combined cycle thermal plants cannot be throttled rapidly, and are often described as "base load" plants. They are efficient and cheap to operate, and are generally never shut down. They generally provide about 40% of total power generation capacity. Any more and the grid would not be able to use all the power during lulls in demand.

Some, like hydro, are easily throttleable, and are used to provide both base load and peak power. There's no efficiency loss, and indeed you can "store" excess capacity in the reservoir for use later.

Some smaller thermal plants are known as "peakers" and run only when needed to meet peak demand. They are much less efficient, but since they are run rarely, they don't affect overall efficiency that much.

Solar/wind take the place of peakers. You still need the peakers for wind, because wind is asynchronous to load. But when the wind is blowing you don't have to run the peakers as often, thus saving fuel (and money.)

Solar is fairly load-synchronous, in that the heaviest demand (at least in sunny areas) takes place during sunny hot days. This helps meet peak demand in these areas.

[headcase 0]

I read an interesting proposition with regard to the use of electric rechargeable/hybrid cars in that they can also be used as storage for the grid increasing the capacity and acting as a reservoir when the grid is "fat." They can also run on gas or the liquid fuel de jour so when drained they are still able to run. Well take that a step further and if you plug into the grid when the engine is running on fuel then you are adding energy to the grid.


Interesting thought that the implementation of pure electric and hybrid vehicles can be used as a strategic tool to increase the efficiency and actual size of the "electric bank."

Just "fuel for thought" no pun intended.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>None of what you post here will lower demad below base load needs.

What I described REDUCES base load needs by allowing interruption of non-critical base loads.It lowers the need yes. We have the same programs here but, these programs still do not and will not reduce base load needs low enough to allow the US not to build new base load coal plants

>And who is talking about oil? I am not

OK, natural gas.Nope, not natural gas either. See above.

>Oh, and your load leveling pratices are not as effeicent as base load plants.

Reducing load is 100% efficient, by definition. How much loss do you get when you send zero megawatts to a customer's load that has been shed?

There are several kinds of powerplants out there. Some, like nuclear and large combined cycle thermal plants cannot be throttled rapidly, and are often described as "base load" plants. They are efficient and cheap to operate, and are generally never shut down. They generally provide about 40% of total power generation capacity. Any more and the grid would not be able to use all the power during lulls in demand.

Some, like hydro, are easily throttleable, and are used to provide both base load and peak power. There's no efficiency loss, and indeed you can "store" excess capacity in the reservoir for use later.

Some smaller thermal plants are known as "peakers" and run only when needed to meet peak demand. They are much less efficient, but since they are run rarely, they don't affect overall efficiency that much.

Solar/wind take the place of peakers. You still need the peakers for wind, because wind is asynchronous to load. But when the wind is blowing you don't have to run the peakers as often, thus saving fuel (and money.)

Solar is fairly load-synchronous, in that the heaviest demand (at least in sunny areas) takes place during sunny hot days. This helps meet peak demand in these areas.

All of this helps but it still can not reduce demand enough to eliminate the need for new coal fired base load generation. The comany I worked for is permitting a new 630 Meg plant as I type. They have made a commitment (publicly) to close down aprox 60 meg of current generation if and when the new plant is brought on line. Taking those three off line will remove more polution (currently produced) than the new plant will create in total.

Point still is, unles nuclear can be brought back, coal plants will be necessary IF, the US does not want to starve itself for electrical energy

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Not enough wind? Texans need to eat more of that chili.

Then they'd get wind AND natural gas.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not enough wind? Texans need to eat more of that chili.

Then they'd get wind AND natural gas.

This site is just full of solutions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

So the wind in Texas stopped.. that just means the Red states to the north of Texas ( OK NB KS and IOWA) took a break from SUCKING as much as they usually do.

[billvon 3,008]

>We have the same programs here but, these programs still do not and
>will not reduce base load needs low enough to allow the US not to build
>new base load coal plants.

Take a look at the Jan 2008 Scientific American. We could be generating 70% of our electric power (and 35% of our total energy needs) via solar by 2050 if we wanted to - for less than the cost of the Iraq war to date.

The problem is not "we can't do it." The problem is that we don't want to do it.

Fortunately, even without that level of effort, change is in the air. Wind power in the US increased 45% in 2007 and added 9 billion dollars to the US economy. The power generated by these new installations is equivalent to six big coal power plants. Likewise, worldwide production of solar-PV jumped 50% in 2007, and installations in the US increased by 83% over the last year.

>Nope, not natural gas either.

Natural gas power plants supply ~20% of our power currently.

>Point still is, unles nuclear can be brought back, coal plants will be
>necessary IF, the US does not want to starve itself for electrical energy

Nuclear is a good option, and I know of at least one new reactor in the permitting stages. Coal will die out as people start to price power by its real cost.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>We have the same programs here but, these programs still do not and
>will not reduce base load needs low enough to allow the US not to build
>new base load coal plants.

Take a look at the Jan 2008 Scientific American. We could be generating 70% of our electric power (and 35% of our total energy needs) via solar by 2050 if we wanted to - for less than the cost of the Iraq war to date.

The problem is not "we can't do it." The problem is that we don't want to do it.Not true. AE (where I work) has added large amounts of wind generation. A mag can say what ever they want but the fact remains the kind of generation you post here will not cover base load

Fortunately, even without that level of effort, change is in the air. Wind power in the US increased 45% in 2007 and added 9 billion dollars to the US economy. The power generated by these new installations is equivalent to six big coal power plants. Likewise, worldwide production of solar-PV jumped 50% in 2007, and installations in the US increased by 83% over the last year.Change and effiencies are great but one has to be realistic too. Base load generation will need to come from coal or nuclear for years to come

>Nope, not natural gas either.

Natural gas power plants supply ~20% of our power currently.Mostly as peak shavers. These plants are a big reason that NG prices have increased so much. The biggest reason they are used to begin with is because of the envio pushing them. Now they are being shown to produce a real polution that is more of a concern

>Point still is, unles nuclear can be brought back, coal plants will be
>necessary IF, the US does not want to starve itself for electrical energy

Nuclear is a good option, and I know of at least one new reactor in the permitting stages. Coal will die out as people start to price power by its real cost.

Coal will not die out in our lifetime that is for sure. As for nuks, yes one is in the permitting process but 7 others have pulled thier requests or stopped the process because of envio's legal clout. It is a dam shame too.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

>A mag can say what ever they want but the fact remains the kind
>of generation you post here will not cover base load.

Correct. But pumped storage can.

>Mostly as peak shavers. These plants are a big reason that NG prices
>have increased so much. The biggest reason they are used to begin with
>is because of the envio pushing them. Now they are being shown to
>produce a real polution that is more of a concern

Natural gas power plants are the cleanest fossil fuel power plants we have; coal plants are the dirtiest.

>Change and effiencies are great but one has to be realistic too.

Agreed. So under my plan, we'd make more incremental changes.

Here is our approximate power mix today for electric generation:

Coal 48%
Oil 2%
Natural gas 17%
Hydro 14%
Nuclear 18%
Solar/wind/geothermal 2%

Within 15 years we should be move to a balance that looks like:

Coal 10%
Natural gas 20%
Wind/solar/geothermal 20%
Hydro 15%
Nuclear 35%

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>A mag can say what ever they want but the fact remains the kind
>of generation you post here will not cover base load.

Correct. But pumped storage can.

>Mostly as peak shavers. These plants are a big reason that NG prices
>have increased so much. The biggest reason they are used to begin with
>is because of the envio pushing them. Now they are being shown to
>produce a real polution that is more of a concern

Natural gas power plants are the cleanest fossil fuel power plants we have; coal plants are the dirtiest.

>Change and effiencies are great but one has to be realistic too.

Agreed. So under my plan, we'd make more incremental changes.

Here is our approximate power mix today for electric generation:

Coal 48%
Oil 2%
Natural gas 17%
Hydro 14%
Nuclear 18%
Solar/wind/geothermal 2%

Within 15 years we should be move to a balance that looks like:

Coal 10%
Natural gas 20%
Wind/solar/geothermal 20%
Hydro 15%
Nuclear 35%

Some of the changes may be done. The biggest wild card is nuclear. Coal will not be reduced to that level in 15 years but I will agree (and hope) that its part could be reduced.

New coal plants are much cleaner than the older plants. Just look where I work. By shutting down 30meg of generaion and adding a new 630 meg plant we will reduce our carbon foot print. Even if it is not the cleanest there is, building new plants will reduce polution by allowing closing of older plants

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Within 15 years we should be move to a balance that looks like:

Coal 10%
Natural gas 20%
Wind/solar/geothermal 20%
Hydro 15%
Nuclear 35%

That big a bump for nuclear - if only one new plant is in the planning process, how can this be achieved?

[billvon 3,008]

>if only one new plant is in the planning process, how can this be achieved?

By opening Yucca Mountain, keeping Price-Anderson in effect, and providing utility incentives. Michigan and Kansas are already working on bills to permit and encourage development of nuclear power plants in their states.

[tonyhays 86]

Why do all the trees lean south in Oklahoma???

'Cause Texas SUCKS!!!

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>if only one new plant is in the planning process, how can this be achieved?

By opening Yucca Mountain, keeping Price-Anderson in effect, and providing utility incentives. Michigan and Kansas are already working on bills to permit and encourage development of nuclear power plants in their states.

But how long does it take to bring a nuclear plant online from start to finish? I thought it was an eternity, even without the Greenpeace protests.

Interesting headline today that seems relevant - unsafe levels of mercury are detected in many of the national parks, and the levels appear to correspond with being downwind for coal plants. Mercury poisoning is a growing problem for us, and may be a source of the growth in autism rates among other issues.

[lawrocket 3]

Okay - a serious question here. I've been thinking about this for a while, but never mentioned it. I reckon now's the time to poitn out my own ignorance.

It gets me to wondering what happens if we start doing things like wind power generation on a massive scale. I saw a show a while back that mentioned that "North and South Dakota could supply the nations electricity needs via wind farms." Let's say that the wind WAS harvested in along there.

What would be the weather and climate effects in the rest of the US and Canada? I mean, that wind energy would be transporting weather from one place to another, and the energy would be converted.

Could there be some short or long-term environmental and/or climate damage from harvesting large amounts of wind power?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

What would be the weather and climate effects in the rest of the US and Canada? I mean, that wind energy would be transporting weather from one place to another, and the energy would be converted.

Could there be some short or long-term environmental and/or climate damage from harvesting large amounts of wind power?

I am pretty sure this would be akin to the danger of raising the ocean's temperature by pissing into it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>if only one new plant is in the planning process, how can this be achieved?

By opening Yucca Mountain, keeping Price-Anderson in effect, and providing utility incentives. Michigan and Kansas are already working on bills to permit and encourage development of nuclear power plants in their states.

I really hope you are right bilvon and this happens. Right now it does not look good for anything to happen very fast but, it is a start

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>if only one new plant is in the planning process, how can this be achieved?

By opening Yucca Mountain, keeping Price-Anderson in effect, and providing utility incentives. Michigan and Kansas are already working on bills to permit and encourage development of nuclear power plants in their states.

But how long does it take to bring a nuclear plant online from start to finish? I thought it was an eternity, even without the Greenpeace protests.

Interesting headline today that seems relevant - unsafe levels of mercury are detected in many of the national parks, and the levels appear to correspond with being downwind for coal plants. Mercury poisoning is a growing problem for us, and may be a source of the growth in autism rates among other issues.

Getting a nuk plant on line (including the permitting process is 8 to 12 years. 4 to 6 for a coal fired plant

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

>But how long does it take to bring a nuclear plant online from start to finish?

Depends on the design. Build-in-place (like most plants today) took 4 to 5 years to build in the 70's. Modular reactors (PBMR's, AP600's) would take even less time. Nowadays the time can stretch to 10 years or more for standard plants due primarily to the permitting process.