On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?) Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what. Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business. Mark.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right? On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
Tom, You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
Brian- I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point. On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
Tom,
You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely relevant to your response. For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer “green” methods. Just pointing out facts.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Brian-
I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us <mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us>> wrote: Tom,
You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa <mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
Brian: The idea that because ERCOT is a non-profit somehow means they would never do anything to save money, or management is not granted bonuses or salary increases based on savings, or have no financial incentive is ridiculous. E.g. Salaries for the top ERCOT executives increased 50% from 2012 to 2019. “Just pointing out facts.” Also, green vs. traditional has little to do with why ERCOT had problems. It is undisputed that ERCOT failed in 2011, was handed a report by the feds showing why they failed and how to fix it, yet ERCOT did not require suppliers to enact those fixes. Those actions had a direct, operational effect on the Internet. And as such, seem perfectly on-topic for NANOG. Why that happened may still be on topic. For instance, you state correctly that ERCOT is a non-profit (although you and I disagree on precisely how that affects things). But the suppliers are not. Are we 1000000% certain the CEO’s salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had nothing to do with protecting the suppliers’ profits? I am not. However, that question is only tenuously operational. Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan for it not being up? Simply saying “green power is unreliable” is not an answer when many RFPs at least ask what percentage of your power is green, or flat out require at least some of your production be green. Making a blanket statement that “XXX is a non-profit” does not absolve them from poor business practices, which at least saves the non-profit money and frequently results in profits outside that entity. Etc. -- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:00, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely relevant to your response.
For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer “green” methods.
Just pointing out facts.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Brian-
I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote: Tom,
You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
On 4/14/21 17:12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan for it not being up?
I think "planning for the grid not being up" is more within our control than the former :-). Data centres serving base power load from solar PV, for example, can be one place to start if they have the land (or rooftop space), in economies where they are not only allowed to do grid feed-in, but are also able to draw those credits from the grid in the evenings and/or on cloud days. Of course, if the grid allows this but is unreliable, then this doesn't work very well. But if it does, low-hanging fruit. I think data centres are already good at performing demand side management with how they use energy, given that they are now classified by how much electrical energy that they can deliver vs. how much space they have to sell. So while these activities help alleviate pressure on the national grid, they probably have a more meaningful impact that gives the data centre the opportunity to operate its own mini grid that would survive a national grid outage, while minimizing its carbon footprint. But this requires even more deliberate, multi-faceted initiatives from the data centre operator, which costs money. National grid prices are only going in one direction, the world over. Couple that with an expected reduction in generation capacity (reliable or otherwise) due to the rising levels of electrification, one would not be entirely off-base if they approached the problem from a "How do we stay up, regardless of the grid's condition" vs. "How do we go green", because I believe the answer to both those questions innately calls for renewable generation, operated at a very small scale to the rest of the nation. Think about this: there are more mobile phones in Africa than there are people with electricity. At its most basic, those phones need to be charged. The same can be said for most of the developing world. Care to imagine what shambles the power companies will be in when those people finally get on to the grid? It's not like they don't need their Facebook, Google or Instagram :-)... Mark.
--- one would not be entirely off-base if they approached the problem from a "How do we stay up, regardless of the grid's condition" vs. "How do we go green", --- Not those whose jobs are to ensure the operation of the facility, but others in management\corporate making this big picture decisions are more concerned with the optics than they are of the uptime. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:32:25 AM Subject: Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13 On 4/14/21 17:12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan for it not being up?
I think "planning for the grid not being up" is more within our control than the former :-). Data centres serving base power load from solar PV, for example, can be one place to start if they have the land (or rooftop space), in economies where they are not only allowed to do grid feed-in, but are also able to draw those credits from the grid in the evenings and/or on cloud days. Of course, if the grid allows this but is unreliable, then this doesn't work very well. But if it does, low-hanging fruit. I think data centres are already good at performing demand side management with how they use energy, given that they are now classified by how much electrical energy that they can deliver vs. how much space they have to sell. So while these activities help alleviate pressure on the national grid, they probably have a more meaningful impact that gives the data centre the opportunity to operate its own mini grid that would survive a national grid outage, while minimizing its carbon footprint. But this requires even more deliberate, multi-faceted initiatives from the data centre operator, which costs money. National grid prices are only going in one direction, the world over. Couple that with an expected reduction in generation capacity (reliable or otherwise) due to the rising levels of electrification, one would not be entirely off-base if they approached the problem from a "How do we stay up, regardless of the grid's condition" vs. "How do we go green", because I believe the answer to both those questions innately calls for renewable generation, operated at a very small scale to the rest of the nation. Think about this: there are more mobile phones in Africa than there are people with electricity. At its most basic, those phones need to be charged. The same can be said for most of the developing world. Care to imagine what shambles the power companies will be in when those people finally get on to the grid? It's not like they don't need their Facebook, Google or Instagram :-)... Mark.
Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not an effective strategy to actually having power available. I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house where the tornado hit.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
Brian:
The idea that because ERCOT is a non-profit somehow means they would never do anything to save money, or management is not granted bonuses or salary increases based on savings, or have no financial incentive is ridiculous. E.g. Salaries for the top ERCOT executives increased 50% from 2012 to 2019. “Just pointing out facts.”
Also, green vs. traditional has little to do with why ERCOT had problems. It is undisputed that ERCOT failed in 2011, was handed a report by the feds showing why they failed and how to fix it, yet ERCOT did not require suppliers to enact those fixes. Those actions had a direct, operational effect on the Internet. And as such, seem perfectly on-topic for NANOG.
Why that happened may still be on topic. For instance, you state correctly that ERCOT is a non-profit (although you and I disagree on precisely how that affects things). But the suppliers are not. Are we 1000000% certain the CEO’s salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had nothing to do with protecting the suppliers’ profits? I am not. However, that question is only tenuously operational.
Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan for it not being up? Simply saying “green power is unreliable” is not an answer when many RFPs at least ask what percentage of your power is green, or flat out require at least some of your production be green. Making a blanket statement that “XXX is a non-profit” does not absolve them from poor business practices, which at least saves the non-profit money and frequently results in profits outside that entity. Etc.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:00, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely relevant to your response.
For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer “green” methods.
Just pointing out facts.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Brian-
I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us <mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us>> wrote: Tom,
You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa <mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
The issue was not only perfectly foreseeable, ERCOT has a ten year old document explaining PRECISELY how to avoid such an occurrence happening. Did you miss the second paragraph below? -- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not an effective strategy to actually having power available.
I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house where the tornado hit.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net <mailto:patrick@ianai.net>> wrote:
Brian:
The idea that because ERCOT is a non-profit somehow means they would never do anything to save money, or management is not granted bonuses or salary increases based on savings, or have no financial incentive is ridiculous. E.g. Salaries for the top ERCOT executives increased 50% from 2012 to 2019. “Just pointing out facts.”
Also, green vs. traditional has little to do with why ERCOT had problems. It is undisputed that ERCOT failed in 2011, was handed a report by the feds showing why they failed and how to fix it, yet ERCOT did not require suppliers to enact those fixes. Those actions had a direct, operational effect on the Internet. And as such, seem perfectly on-topic for NANOG.
Why that happened may still be on topic. For instance, you state correctly that ERCOT is a non-profit (although you and I disagree on precisely how that affects things). But the suppliers are not. Are we 1000000% certain the CEO’s salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had nothing to do with protecting the suppliers’ profits? I am not. However, that question is only tenuously operational.
Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan for it not being up? Simply saying “green power is unreliable” is not an answer when many RFPs at least ask what percentage of your power is green, or flat out require at least some of your production be green. Making a blanket statement that “XXX is a non-profit” does not absolve them from poor business practices, which at least saves the non-profit money and frequently results in profits outside that entity. Etc.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:00, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us <mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us>> wrote:
There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely relevant to your response.
For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer “green” methods.
Just pointing out facts.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Brian-
I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us <mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us>> wrote: Tom,
You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa <mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
Patrick - I hope that your determination of failure isn't dictated by the federal government telling you so. 😳 Again, green-energy solves none of these issues. In fact, it is likely less green, and more expensive than the traditional solutions. Much resect for you and I really appreciate your views on these topics.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
The issue was not only perfectly foreseeable, ERCOT has a ten year old document explaining PRECISELY how to avoid such an occurrence happening.
Did you miss the second paragraph below?
-- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us <mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us>> wrote:
Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not an effective strategy to actually having power available.
I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house where the tornado hit.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net <mailto:patrick@ianai.net>> wrote:
Brian:
The idea that because ERCOT is a non-profit somehow means they would never do anything to save money, or management is not granted bonuses or salary increases based on savings, or have no financial incentive is ridiculous. E.g. Salaries for the top ERCOT executives increased 50% from 2012 to 2019. “Just pointing out facts.”
Also, green vs. traditional has little to do with why ERCOT had problems. It is undisputed that ERCOT failed in 2011, was handed a report by the feds showing why they failed and how to fix it, yet ERCOT did not require suppliers to enact those fixes. Those actions had a direct, operational effect on the Internet. And as such, seem perfectly on-topic for NANOG.
Why that happened may still be on topic. For instance, you state correctly that ERCOT is a non-profit (although you and I disagree on precisely how that affects things). But the suppliers are not. Are we 1000000% certain the CEO’s salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had nothing to do with protecting the suppliers’ profits? I am not. However, that question is only tenuously operational.
Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan for it not being up? Simply saying “green power is unreliable” is not an answer when many RFPs at least ask what percentage of your power is green, or flat out require at least some of your production be green. Making a blanket statement that “XXX is a non-profit” does not absolve them from poor business practices, which at least saves the non-profit money and frequently results in profits outside that entity. Etc.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:00, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us <mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us>> wrote:
There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely relevant to your response.
For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer “green” methods.
Just pointing out facts.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Brian-
I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us <mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us>> wrote: Tom,
You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
> Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid > unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and > perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa <mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
> Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy > on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep > their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
> Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid > unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and > perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
> > Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and > ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
> > Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected > representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. > Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
I would suggest that the regulation paradigm in Texas does not allow coordinated maintenance scheduling to adapt to supply and load issues (especially in the face of a disaster like the Winter event earlier this year). That would mean a stronger regulatory framework and that smacks of government interference in the eyes of some. On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:54 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
Patrick - I hope that your determination of failure isn't dictated by the federal government telling you so. 😳
Again, green-energy solves none of these issues. In fact, it is likely less green, and more expensive than the traditional solutions.
Much resect for you and I really appreciate your views on these topics.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
The issue was not only perfectly foreseeable, ERCOT has a ten year old document explaining PRECISELY how to avoid such an occurrence happening.
Did you miss the second paragraph below?
-- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not an effective strategy to actually having power available.
I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house where the tornado hit.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
Brian:
The idea that because ERCOT is a non-profit somehow means they would never do anything to save money, or management is not granted bonuses or salary increases based on savings, or have no financial incentive is ridiculous. E.g. Salaries for the top ERCOT executives increased 50% from 2012 to 2019. “Just pointing out facts.”
Also, green vs. traditional has little to do with why ERCOT had problems. It is undisputed that ERCOT failed in 2011, was handed a report by the feds showing why they failed and how to fix it, yet ERCOT did not require suppliers to enact those fixes. Those actions had a direct, operational effect on the Internet. And as such, seem perfectly on-topic for NANOG.
Why that happened may still be on topic. For instance, you state correctly that ERCOT is a non-profit (although you and I disagree on precisely how that affects things). But the suppliers are not. Are we 1000000% certain the CEO’s salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had nothing to do with protecting the suppliers’ profits? I am not. However, that question is only tenuously operational.
Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan for it not being up? Simply saying “green power is unreliable” is not an answer when many RFPs at least ask what percentage of your power is green, or flat out require at least some of your production be green. Making a blanket statement that “XXX is a non-profit” does not absolve them from poor business practices, which at least saves the non-profit money and frequently results in profits outside that entity. Etc.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:00, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely relevant to your response.
For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer “green” methods.
Just pointing out facts.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Brian-
I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
Tom,
You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization….
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?)
Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially independent of the traditional grid.
Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it?
I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what.
Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the economic development curve you are sitting.
Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well.
Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday night.
Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. Change minds.
There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone else, because we are just citizens minding our own business.
Mark.
On 4/14/21 18:03, Stan Barber wrote:
I would suggest that the regulation paradigm in Texas does not allow coordinated maintenance scheduling to adapt to supply and load issues (especially in the face of a disaster like the Winter event earlier this year). That would mean a stronger regulatory framework and that smacks of government interference in the eyes of some.
45 days of planned notice, is what I read. And can be rejected if that notification window is shorter than that. Is that sufficient? Mark.
I would say that under normal circumstances, 45 days might work (Personally, I would prefer 90 days). However, I suggest we are not dealing with a normal circumstance because of the fall out from the winter incident. On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:35 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
On 4/14/21 18:03, Stan Barber wrote:
I would suggest that the regulation paradigm in Texas does not allow coordinated maintenance scheduling to adapt to supply and load issues (especially in the face of a disaster like the Winter event earlier this year). That would mean a stronger regulatory framework and that smacks of government interference in the eyes of some.
45 days of planned notice, is what I read. And can be rejected if that notification window is shorter than that.
Is that sufficient?
Mark.
On 4/14/21 20:25, Stan Barber wrote:
I would say that under normal circumstances, 45 days might work (Personally, I would prefer 90 days).
However, I suggest we are not dealing with a normal circumstance because of the fall out from the winter incident.
Agreed. Mark.
It appears that Stan Barber <sob@academ.com> said:
-=-=-=-=-=-
I would suggest that the regulation paradigm in Texas does not allow coordinated maintenance scheduling to adapt to supply and load issues (especially in the face of a disaster like the Winter event earlier this year). That would mean a stronger regulatory framework and that smacks of government interference in the eyes of some.
Exactly. It's all about risk shifting. Ercot is run by free market fundamentalists who believe, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary, that the market alone will always provide all the power people need. This has the effect of shifting the risk of failure onto users who often don't realize that until it's too late. They've known since 2011 that much of the Texas grid fails when it's below freezing but they don't have any inclination, or even the authority, to tell power generators to spend money on weatherproofing and other risk management. They allow the wholesale price of power which is usually about 4c/kwh to spike as high as $9, in the absurd belief that super high prices will magically cause power to appear. This had the effect of dumping giant power bills on users who couldn't pay them, and the costs and defaults are now making lawyers rich. Meanwhile, the politicans are involved in an extensive effort to pin the blame on anyone but themselves, which is where the nonsense about green power comes from. Texas' windmills aren't weatherproofed any better than rest of the system but nontheless were providing slightly more power than Ercot expected while the grid collapsed. So, yeah, if you're in Texas, better make your own arrangments because the state is paralyzed. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
On 4/14/21 17:35, Brian Johnson wrote:
I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house where the tornado hit.
My reading of the reason ERCOT were concerned is that it was due to some generation plants being taken offline for maintenance/repairs, as prep work for the upcoming summer, when they came close to running out of juice. I did not get the impression - from what I've read in the news anyway - that they were caught off-guard, apart from, perhaps, underestimating the forecast. Mark.
* brian.johnson@netgeek.us (Brian Johnson) [Wed 14 Apr 2021, 17:37 CEST]:
Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not an effective strategy to actually having power available.
The relevant virtue that's signaled with green energy is that its MWh prices are WAY lower than traditional fossil fuel-based generators.
I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house where the tornado hit.
I've not done exhaustive research of the situation in Texas (although I am a stakeholder, being a customer in several datacentres there) but I'd be surprised if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture had nothing to do with it. -- Niels.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:07 AM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> wrote:
* brian.johnson@netgeek.us (Brian Johnson) [Wed 14 Apr 2021, 17:37 CEST]:
Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not an effective strategy to actually having power available.
The relevant virtue that's signaled with green energy is that its MWh prices are WAY lower than traditional fossil fuel-based generators.
Not going to get into this, but this is simply not true on multiple fronts.
I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house where the tornado hit.
I've not done exhaustive research of the situation in Texas (although I am a stakeholder, being a customer in several datacentres there) but I'd be surprised if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture had nothing to do with it.
So you want to do what about regulation. Deregulate so this can’t happen (HA), or regulate more so that this gets fixed (HA HA... and running away). If your point is that the ERCOT is acting in bad faith, I’d suggest you work with the Texas PUC to resolve that issue. Everything else is just politics.
On 4/14/21 18:31, Brian Johnson wrote:
Not going to get into this, but this is simply not true on multiple fronts.
On a large scale, I agree that numbers can look odd. But on a smaller, community scale, it does look good. Mark.
On 4/14/21 18:07, Niels Bakker wrote:
The relevant virtue that's signaled with green energy is that its MWh prices are WAY lower than traditional fossil fuel-based generators.
Particularly when you factor in close to no maintenance costs for things like PV, and a nominal 1% drop in efficiency per year on 20-year-old design plans. Mark.
On 4/14/21 7:00 AM, Brian Johnson wrote:
There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely relevant to your response.
This is patently absurd. It's an industry group/organization. It's raison d'etre is to serve its industry which definitely has a profit motive. That and even non-profits have a profit motive to stay afloat. See the NRA for one that has gone terribly wrong. Mike
It appears that Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> said:
On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote:
Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep their system online in 2021.
If you're in Texas, yes, and for other reasons if you're in California. In other parts of the country with less broken regulation, not so much.
participants (9)
-
Brian Johnson -
John Levine -
Mark Tinka -
Michael Thomas -
Mike Hammett -
Niels Bakker -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Stan Barber -
Tom Beecher