Texas power issues. Wind farms getting iced up (Part II)... 38

[dik]

new(s)

"Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s office knew of looming natural gas shortages on February 10, days before a deep freeze plunged much of the state into blackouts, according to documents obtained by E&E News and reviewed by Ars.

Abbott’s office first learned of the likely shortfall in a phone call from then-chair of the Public Utility Commission of Texas DeAnne Walker. In the days leading up to the power outages that began on February 15, Walker and the governor’s office spoke 31 more times.

Walker also spoke with regulators, politicians, and utilities dozens of times about the gas curtailments that threatened the state’s electrical grid. The PUC chair’s diary for the days before the outage shows her schedule dominated by concerns over gas curtailments and the impact they would have on electricity generation. Before and during the disaster, she was on more than 100 phone calls with various agencies and utilities regarding gas shortages."

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Seems Nordstream 2 has been resolved. Well not resolved, just apart from blowing it up they realised it was going to be finished like it or not and Germany wasn't going to budge.

https://www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-2-us-to-waive-sanctions-against-leading-company/a-57577345

 

[1503-44]

Thanks for that post.

Thats good news for everyone except Ted Cruz and his sidekick Cornyn. It was obviously not worth souring relations with Germany just to please those guys. The gas consumers in the US and EU will both have advantage of free market prices for gas, which were rising in the US of late, sustained by purchases made for the export market and the EU retains its rights to decide its own energy security policy. For once, sanity has prevailed. It was a ridiculous move from the very beginning. Texas can't even handle their own energy problems, so they don't need to be holding the keys to Europe's. A bill to prohibit TX public entities from making renewable energy investments was just signed by Gov Abbott. A move which will leave them illy prepared for the future and inevitably dig into the people's pockets who will be paying federal taxes so all that renewable power can be built elsewhere.

Statements above are the result of works performed solely by my AI providers.
I take no responsibility for any damages or injuries of any kind that may result.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

They have other moves afoot currently according to the solar groups.

They want to be able to bill infrastructure to all electricity consumers including off grid. So if you are off grid you will need a meter what you make/use and then they will bill for the grid maint.

Grid tied they want everything produce to go through a separate meter into the grid and then another meter recording what you use. They also want the ability to kill the feed in if grid stability requires it so even if you can cover your own requirements you will have to buy off the grid anyway.

 

[1503-44]

With that logic, Texans will soon pay for the air they breath. Hopefully the CO2 content will still let them.


Statements above are the result of works performed solely by my AI providers.
I take no responsibility for any damages or injuries of any kind that may result.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

They are not the first to implement this model. And won't be the last.

Like it or not having a major percentage of your population opting out of infrastructure payments is a major problem especially if your only up to 1/3rd of your way through a capital plan.

But then again you should get something for what you pay and it shouldn't go into shareholders pocket's.

I am expecting something similar to come in in Europe in the next 15 years.

 

[1503-44]

They tried it in Spain. It was eliminated a couple of years ago. The "Sun Tax" solar panel licensing fees. Paying for something you don't use does not fit into the Spanish mindset. They will hardly go on vacation if they have to pay to park their car for a month without using it.

Statements above are the result of works performed solely by my AI providers.
I take no responsibility for any damages or injuries of any kind that may result.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It will be another EU shafting so no choice in the matter

 

[CWB1]

Much of the public infrastructure billing debate revolves around who the question of actually owns the infrastructure. As we have been deregulating (or as I prefer to think of it - breaking monopolies) stateside, the argument could be made that the distribution infrastructure needs to be publicly owned and therefore costs shared by all for its maintenance. Currently, I have my choice of several companies each for power, natural gas, telephone, and cable, obviously am interested in paying as little as possible for each, yet need to cover the infrastructure through either taxes or some form of private billing capable of covering the cost no matter who I choose to pay this month.

The other interesting yet absurd discussion going on stateside currently is the push to monopolize internet services by making them a public utility. Comically enough, its popular among IT folks.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Cwb1 it's exactly the same problem this side of the pond.

Where I am you end up getting 3 bills for your electricity.

To be honest I feel that the grid should be publicly owned and maintained. It's not the sort of thing you want to run the risk of getting run into the ground through short term accountants bonuses drives.

 

[1503-44]

It kind of makes sense not having 20 companies all stringing the same stuff throughout the city as well. How many cell towers can you see from your office?

Statements above are the result of works performed solely by my AI providers.
I take no responsibility for any damages or injuries of any kind that may result.

 

[CWB1]

We receive one bill, just the private provider of that service. I assume however that there is a process behind the scenes to determine whose power/gas/data flowed through whose wire/plumbing, and that various companies charge others' for the use of infrastructure accordingly. I honestly haven't chosen a side on this issue of infrastructure ownership. My parents are part of a small township-owned rural electric cooperative that both generates hydropower and distributes across ~30 mi^2. There is no competition in their area due to the PoCo being municipally owned, however the reliability is excellent despite minimal manpower (6 employees?) and the rates dirt cheap, $0.025/kwh. Govt stateside very rarely does anything well so I do not really trust that model but in their case it works. OTOH, I am also not a fan of private utility monopolies bc the reliability suffers and the products become expensive. When house-hunting I have always looked for homes with natural gas availability and deregulated utilites allowing competition.

I honestly dont notice cell towers in cities stateside and imagine that infrastructure is mostly atop larger buildings. Out in the countryside where light pollution is nonexistent, a blinking red light in the distance IME is usually either a wind turbine or cell tower but in/near a city its often just a building or tall billboard.

 

[RedSnake]

Well it might be annoying to have 3 bills but I think it in one way makes sense.

Here Svenska Kraftnät (SVK) is a state-owned enterprise that was formed in 1992.
The operations are financed through fees.
The fees are paid by the regional network owners and large electricity producers in order for them to be able to use the main grid.

But then you pay lokal grid provider as well, I mean you want them close if you have a problem.

To be able to choose from who you want to buy your power from, also sets a bit of pressure on the companies to keep the cost down and deliver power to a resonable price.
Here I could change the power provider every month if I like, it's just a couple of clicks away on the computer and it's done.

Off course no one dose it, that often, most people are lazy and just want it to work and don't ruin them.

I think it's a better strategi to give people a better deal/benefits when installing solarcells and such then to force them off the grid, no one benefits from that.

I suppose with a solarcell home solution you are sometime a costumer and pay for grid cost when using power and sometime a provider and pays to be able to deliver to others.

Best Regards A




“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[cranky108]

So if they want to tax solar energy used off the grid, that will be interesting to see meters on all those solar lights they sell at Walmart, as well as adding $50 to the price of a $1 light.

That won't last long, but the debate will go more distance.

Actually there are some cities in the US where the city does electric, gas, water, and wastewater, and the customers get only one bill for all of it.

Though not where I live.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It's not just solar per say.

It's quite interesting watching the various mentality's of the various people involved. Well from the outside anyway.

Both sides have some absolutely nut cases putting forward totally unrealistic extreme view points.

 

[dik]

The minds at work are simply frightening at times.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Fischstabchen]

Some of you don't understand that someone has to foot the bill for intermittent or undispatchable service. That is just reality. I saw this same thing 10 years ago when a municipal was arguing for projects to enhance their reliability but at the same time whenever summer peak occured, electrical prices were high so they had their diesel generators up and running and in the summer peak models. It always showed them as having no load because of that. So, basically they wanted all the reliability of having firm load without paying for peak load service. It pissed off everyone else who got wrapped into paying for their upgrades, which normally would be covered by MW per Mile transmission fees if they had normal service instead of gaming the system.

 

[1503-44]

Don't understand? Fisch, What makes electric companies so special that they think they should get to charge anyone for what they don't sell them? Where else does that happen? Gas companies are not eating at that trough. Toll roads dont charge all the other cars taking alternate routes. I dont pay Amazon to not watch their movies; I have Netflix. I dont pay McDonald's to eat at KFC, nor NY Port Authority to not cross their bridges. Try telling somebody 17.5 miles off the grid he's gotta pay for your hot standby. Then run fast.

IF electrics need money for hot standby, they can charge their customers for it. If they need wires, charge their customers for the wires. Gas companies manage without billing non-customers.

Statements above are the result of works performed solely by my AI providers.
I take no responsibility for any damages or injuries of any kind that may result.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Just more ns2 news

https://splash247.com/us-blacklists-13-ships-working-on-nord-stream-2-pipeline-project/

 

[Fischstabchen]

1503,

Hardly, anyone is detached from the grid so let's not talk about that. People who have solar panels still require system services and occasionally export power onto the grid. The energy is not being stored at people's houses. There is Tesla battery wall but near no one has such things. Traditionally, expenses for the transmission and distribution of power was built into your electrical bill when you consumed electrical power. Now, people are exporting power and only needing full service at night or when it is cloudy. Needed system upgrades won't pay for themselves. You might not agree with how they do capture money for system upgrades but that is moot point. A transmission or distribution charge will show up on your bill even if you made little use of the grid. How they do that can be argued about but that is what will happen.