TEXAS..an exercise in the failure of conservatism

Korben wrote:

Korben wrote:
Wind generated two thirds of all renewable electricity output in Scotland that is what i would consider significant 20% not so much

i would suspect the lubricant was a major factor in them freezing and while that is easily rectified  by replacing it with a lubricant better formulated to operate in low temperatures. in Texas i am not sure if that is an option as these ultra low temps are uncommon in Texas (at the moment) and doing so would mean you would have the opposite effect causing over heating

Korben wrote:Ad i would add Gas is the major source of heating in Texas to my knowledge(perhaps Md can confirm this) not electricity as its expensive Dumping on wind is just a tactic climate deniers use to push the blame away from oil gas and coal its so ....predictable

Original Quill wrote:

Korben wrote:
i would suspect the lubricant was a major factor in them freezing and while that is easily rectified  by replacing it with a lubricant better formulated to operate in low temperatures. in Texas i am not sure if that is an option as these ultra low temps are uncommon in Texas (at the moment) and doing so would mean you would have the opposite effect causing over heating

Like the Challenger disaster: they launched in sub-freezing temperatures >> froze the lubricant >> and the seals wouldn't seat = gasses blow-out in the joints, and voila: a major malfunction.

Austerity still caused the failure in Texas.  Yes, it was progressive of them to buy into wind energy.  But, owing to the need to lower costs, except if it's profit, they didn't insulate the generators, nor did they purchase de-icing blades...all of which caused them to fail.  They don't have this problem in Kansas or Alaska...why is that??

Again, it’s the deregulation mentality >> degrading the effort = failure...same as Deep Water Horizon, same as eliminating the Pandemic Response Team, and cutting back on the CDC/NIH by the Republicans.  Always remember that regulations = public protections!  It’s axiomatic: doing without protection, increases the risk.  Texans were not well protected by Republicans.

Good lesson to learn: austerity >> deregulation >> cheapening the product >> inevitable failure.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Yea i cant be doing with it Syl. even the link he supplied disputes his own premise 23% that of all energy in MWH comes from wind in Texas even if you add in the 2% solar that's still not a 3rd that's a quarter.when i went to school a quarter is smaller than a third  
his link from the "BBC" a sight he claims to hate points out "on average, renewable energy sources - mostly wind - account for about 20% of its electricity supply." in fact the very company Ercot  says  it expects only 7% to be provided by wind energy in a extreme winter weather event.

his opening point was "Texas relies heavily on wind turbines for their electricity power generation and the turbines" And that is simply not true His own link makes that point the second graphic i posted confirms and illustrates that  Although renewable energy sources did partially fail, they only contributed to 13 percent of the power outages,One of the major causes for the energy shortage has been the impact on natural gas, coal, and nuclear facilities.extreme cold is and increasing energy demand at the same time the energy generation.
Maddog was absolutely correct every form of energy failed to some degree, although i disagree with him on 20% being significant

significant means to me at least, sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy. noticeably or measurably large amount

obviously his only motive on this forum is to berate and abuse people especially the LW he disagrees with ,him and other like him are the reason people left this forum in the first place.
His very first post to me was an attack on my intelligence when i dared to point out an inaccurate statement and that has continued

Texas current emergency is a result of bad management by the republican government and as MD says under investment  coupled with the fact they decided to have  a stand-alone power grid that's deregulated  is why Texas is suffering Nothing to do with wind power Nothing at all

We've been stand alone almost 100 years.  Until this week, it performed at least as good as other regions and better than many that have far less erratic weather.  

We need to lower the threshold for temps about 10 degrees and make sure we have the ability to keep up with massive influxes of new residents. All of our infrastructure is being tested when utilities have to be provided to thousands of new residents daily.

Maybe we should ban folks from California for awhile.  

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:Ad i would add Gas is the major source of heating in Texas to my knowledge(perhaps Md can confirm this) not electricity as its expensive Dumping on wind is just a tactic climate deniers use to push the blame away from oil gas and coal its so ....predictable

Gas drives power plants. Most of our homes are electric which is sorta weird. However, there was time before fracking that we were worried about gas shortages so we stopped running it to homes.  

Now we can't hardly give the stuff away. .

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We've been stand alone almost 100 years.  Until this week, it performed at least as good as other regions and better than many that have far less erratic weather.  

We need to lower the threshold for temps about 10 degrees and make sure we have the ability to keep up with massive influxes of new residents. All of our infrastructure is being tested when utilities have to be provided to thousands of new residents daily.

Maybe we should ban folks from California for awhile.  

I cant speak to the historical effectiveness with out further research Md so i am happy to take your word on this

Scotland is 0.11 times as big as Texas you have better weather for solar generation and lots of wide open space that could be used for wind generation Scotland generates 2/3rds of its power from wind, but like you said it lacks investment. i think you could beat us Hands down in this technology and create thousands of jobs in the process from production,installation and maintenance of the equipment But as long as republicans are paid by the lobbying company's to use oil,coal you are stuck with a substandard network prone to failure in extreme weather  

Maddog wrote:https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/ed-hirs-predicting-blackouts/


Here's a pretty good summation of the perfect storm, how we got here and how we get out of it.  

Its really not that complicated.  We need to pay slightly higher electric bills to keep the power on 1000 days out of a 1000 instead of 999 days out of a thousand.  

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Like the Challenger disaster: they launched in sub-freezing temperatures >> froze the lubricant >> and the seals wouldn't seat = gasses blow-out in the joints, and voila: a major malfunction.

Austerity still caused the failure in Texas.  Yes, it was progressive of them to buy into wind energy.  But, owing to the need to lower costs, except if it's profit, they didn't insulate the generators, nor did they purchase de-icing blades...all of which caused them to fail.  They don't have this problem in Kansas or Alaska...why is that??

Again, it’s the deregulation mentality >> degrading the effort = failure...same as Deep Water Horizon, same as eliminating the Pandemic Response Team, and cutting back on the CDC/NIH by the Republicans.  Always remember that regulations = public protections!  It’s axiomatic: doing without protection, increases the risk.  Texans were not well protected by Republicans.

Good lesson to learn: austerity >> deregulation >> cheapening the product >> inevitable failure.

It's a cost benefit analysis. Most entities dont spend money on things that they feel they will almost never use.  Its why millions of people in the North don't have air conditioning and I don't own a pair of snowshoes or cross country skis.  

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
I cant speak to the historical effectiveness with out further research Md so i am happy to take your word on this

Scotland is 0.11 times as big as Texas you have better weather for solar generation and lots of wide open space that could be used for wind generation Scotland generates 2/3rds of its power from wind, but like you said it lacks investment. i think you could beat us Hands down in this technology and create thousands of jobs in the process from production,installation and maintenance of the equipment But as long as republicans are paid by the lobbying company's to use oil,coal you are stuck with a substandard network prone to failure in extreme weather  

Almost anything can be accomplished, if you can get people to pay for it.  

There are people that live off of the grid here. But the cost is prohibitive.  

We have a lot of folks with solar panels on their roofs. That right there is 20 grand or so after the taxpayer subsidies it.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
I cant speak to the historical effectiveness with out further research Md so i am happy to take your word on this

Scotland is 0.11 times as big as Texas you have better weather for solar generation and lots of wide open space that could be used for wind generation Scotland generates 2/3rds of its power from wind, but like you said it lacks investment. i think you could beat us Hands down in this technology and create thousands of jobs in the process from production,installation and maintenance of the equipment But as long as republicans are paid by the lobbying company's to use oil,coal you are stuck with a substandard network prone to failure in extreme weather  

Almost anything can be accomplished, if you can get people to pay for it.  

There are people that live off of the grid here. But the cost is prohibitive.  

We have a lot of folks with solar panels on their roofs. That right there is 20 grand or so after the taxpayer subsidies it.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Almost anything can be accomplished, if you can get people to pay for it.  

There are people that live off of the grid here. But the cost is prohibitive.  

We have a lot of folks with solar panels on their roofs. That right there is 20 grand or so after the taxpayer subsidies it.

Pay for it now ,or pay more later  with higher insurance ,deaths ect
i always believed its better to have it and not need it .Than need it and not have it

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Almost anything can be accomplished, if you can get people to pay for it.  

There are people that live off of the grid here. But the cost is prohibitive.  

We have a lot of folks with solar panels on their roofs. That right there is 20 grand or so after the taxpayer subsidies it.

20 grand for solar panels  after the taxpayer subsidies wow
i have solar panels on my roof
they cost me nothing and where installed by the housing association on all houses in my street they the get the feed in and generation tariffs i get the free electricity  The price of a typical solar panel system is about £4,800 .in london some councils are installing them for free to combat fuel poverty

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
20 grand for solar panels  after the taxpayer subsidies wow
i have solar panels on my roof
they cost me nothing and where installed by the housing association on all houses in my street they the get the feed in and generation tariffs i get the free electricity  The price of a typical solar panel system is about £4,800 .in london some councils are installing them for free to combat fuel poverty

You are paying for them.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Pay for it now ,or pay more later  with higher insurance ,deaths ect
i always believed its better to have it and not need it .Than need it and not have it

That's true to a degree. Do you have air conditioning to get you through 100 degree temps?

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's true to a degree. Do you have air conditioning to get you through 100 degree temps?

No  air conditioning  is not really a thing in the uk

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
No  air conditioning  is not really a thing in the uk

And snow isn't really a thing in Houston Texas.  

At least it didn't used to be.  

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And snow isn't really a thing in Houston Texas.  

At least it didn't used to be.  

LOL we say in Scotland. if you dont like the weather ...wait 5 mins snow, rain, sleet, heat, wind  we can see that in one day here wee had two feet of snow last week and bitterly cold ,today not a flake to be seen where i live ,wet and .10.7c today

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
LOL we say in Scotland. if you dont like the weather ...wait 5 mins snow, rain, sleet, heat, wind  we can see that in one day here wee had two feet of snow last week and bitterly cold ,today not a flake to be seen where i live ,wet and .10.7c today

We say that here too.  We can have snow in parts of Texas and 100 degree days a few weeks later.  

Plus we have a lot if different weather at the same time across the state. 70 degree differences are not that uncommon. It can be snowing in Amarillo while folks are laying on the beach in Brownsville.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We say that here too.  We can have snow in parts of Texas and 100 degree days a few weeks later.  

Plus we have a lot if different weather at the same time across the state. 70 degree differences are not that uncommon. It can be snowing in Amarillo while folks are laying on the beach in Brownsville.

Big state crosses lots of lines of Latitude

Korben wrote:Why wind turbines thrive in Antarctica and places way colder than Texas

seemingly not lubricant freezing

https://mashable.com/article/wind-turbines-texas/?europe=true&fbclid=IwAR1sOfpb6Gqjg1zpcIGPUtb8ueTzEsrLlVZA6HXDuh4Ml_UCZzZGZhO3GOk

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:Why wind turbines thrive in Antarctica and places way colder than Texas

seemingly not lubricant freezing

https://mashable.com/article/wind-turbines-texas/?europe=true&fbclid=IwAR1sOfpb6Gqjg1zpcIGPUtb8ueTzEsrLlVZA6HXDuh4Ml_UCZzZGZhO3GOk

Yes, we have a confluence of moist gulf air with frigid polar air. We also have problems with ice on trees and power lines, which leads to power lines coming down.  

We have what folks call a damp cold. If you have been here and say Colorado at 30° you can feel the difference.  

The big problem with turbines is that you can't store their energy yet. They are fine as a compliment to the grid, but if they become to big of a component you have issues under a heavy load.  You can't crank them up for more power like you can a gas powered plant (assuming it has gas).  This means energy producers have to have more capacity, sitting around, that will almost never be used.  Someone has to pay for that.

Someone has to pay for the snow shoes in Houston or the air conditioning in Glasgow for that one day out of a 1000 they are needed.  

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, we have a confluence of moist gulf air with frigid polar air. We also have problems with ice on trees and power lines, which leads to power lines coming down.  

We have what folks call a damp cold. If you have been here and say Colorado at 30° you can feel the difference.  

The big problem with turbines is that you can't store their energy yet. They are fine as a compliment to the grid, but if they become to big of a component you have issues under a heavy load.  You can't crank them up for more power like you can a gas powered plant (assuming it has gas).  This means energy producers have to have more capacity, sitting around, that will almost never be used.  Someone has to pay for that.

Someone has to pay for the snow shoes in Houston or the air conditioning in Glasgow for that one day out of a 1000 they are needed.  

"Someone has to pay for that. "

indeed that's why we sell our excess to the national grid
But as i understand with Texas being a independent and separate grid Texas dont/cant do that.it seems pretty dumb

Original Quill wrote:Lowering standards because, incrementally, there is a low probability that disaster will come, is like the dinosaurs failing to take out asteroid insurance...because, how likely is that???  

Catastrophic or incremental, it still ruins your day.

It's still cascading.  No clean water anywhere.  I heard on the news that some folks are getting electric bills of $17,000 for four days worth of power...ah, the wonders of capitalism.  

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:

"Someone has to pay for that. "

indeed that's why we sell our excess to the national grid
But as i understand with Texas being a independent and separate grid Texas dont/cant do that.it seems pretty dumb

I think we can sell it, we just can't buy it but I may be wrong. I also think we have a deal with Mexico, although that can get problematic when both sides are running low. We stop sharing.  

We like our independence around here.

Scots should understand that with their relationship with the English as do Brits with their former relationship with the EU.  There are pros and cons to being in charge of your own affairs.  

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think we can sell it, we just can't buy it but I may be wrong. I also think we have a deal with Mexico, although that can get problematic when both sides are running low. We stop sharing.  

We like our independence around here.

Scots should understand that with their relationship with the English as do Brits with their former relationship with the EU.  There are pros and cons to being in charge of your own affairs.  

The national grid in the Uk is owned by investors rather than the government as far as i know Although there is government regulation

the breakup of the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1990, the ownership and operation of the National Grid in England and Wales passed to National Grid Company plc, later to become National Grid Transco, and now National Grid plc. In Scotland the grid was already split into two separate entities, one for southern and central Scotland and the other for northern Scotland, with interconnectors. The first is owned and maintained by SP Energy Networks, a subsidiary of Scottish Power, and the other by SSE

So our relationship with England is not a factor

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
The national grid in the Uk is owned by investors rather than the government as far as i know Although there is government regulation

the breakup of the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1990, the ownership and operation of the National Grid in England and Wales passed to National Grid Company plc, later to become National Grid Transco, and now National Grid plc. In Scotland the grid was already split into two separate entities, one for southern and central Scotland and the other for northern Scotland, with interconnectors. The first is owned and maintained by SP Energy Networks, a subsidiary of Scottish Power, and the other by SSE

So our relationship with England is not a factor

I'm talking about relationships in general. Once you enter one, you lose independence. Whether its a marriage, membership in the EU or being part of a power grid.  

Texas has chosen independence.  

Maddog wrote:Texas has chosen independence.

Original Quill wrote:I know.  It's the dinosaur theory: asteroids don't come very often.

Original Quill wrote:Five members of the Board of Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), have resigned.  While this is an important step, it's a form of scapegoating...sidestepping the real issue.

ERCOT itself is a reflection of deregulation...trying to conserve shekels, while flying in the face of disaster.  Well, disaster won, and Texas is paying the price for it.  One guy, Scott Willoughby, got a bill for $17,000 for four days’ worth of service.  A quadriplegic Texas man, hit with a $3,000 power bill, said “I don’t know how I’m gonna pay this”.  How's that for your saved shekels?

The company explained wholesale prices shot up because the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) took control of the ERCOT, which operates the state’s power grid, Monday and raised the wholesale price to $9 per kilowatt-hour at least until the grid could manage the demand caused by the winter storm.

So, all in the name of privatization and deregulation, as the song says: the rich get richer while the poor have children!  Oh, the capitalists are doing just fine.  As the fourth (and unnecessary) mouth to be fed, they demand the biggest share...and first bite.

Stay tuned…

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Five members of the Board of Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), have resigned.  While this is an important step, it's a form of scapegoating...sidestepping the real issue.

ERCOT itself is a reflection of deregulation...trying to conserve shekels, while flying in the face of disaster.  Well, disaster won, and Texas is paying the price for it.  One guy, Scott Willoughby, got a bill for $17,000 for four days’ worth of service.  A quadriplegic Texas man, hit with a $3,000 power bill, said “I don’t know how I’m gonna pay this”.  How's that for your saved shekels?

The company explained wholesale prices shot up because the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) took control of the ERCOT, which operates the state’s power grid, Monday and raised the wholesale price to $9 per kilowatt-hour at least until the grid could manage the demand caused by the winter storm.

So, all in the name of privatization and deregulation, as the song says: the rich get richer while the poor have children!  Oh, the capitalists are doing just fine.  As the fourth (and unnecessary) mouth to be fed, they demand the biggest share...and first bite.

Stay tuned…

Yeah, they don't live here, which is fine be me.  

What.we really need is water mains fixed. Thousands of them froze and broke all over the state.  And the agriculture sector took a huge hit.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, they don't live here, which is fine be me.  

What.we really need is water mains fixed. Thousands of them froze and broke all over the state.  And the agriculture sector took a huge hit.

It's no surprise to me that the ERCOT board members don't live in Texas.  Capitalists rarely live where they crap.  They buy estates in northern Italy, or the Cayman Islands, to take advantage of tax laws, and make sure their own pipes don’t break, etc.  

As far as water mains are concerned, denial is what got Texans into trouble.  The water mains broke because of inferior materials and lack of insulation.  In other words: deregulation >> lower standards >> disaster.

Maddog wrote:Who owns the water mains?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Who owns the water mains?

"Owns" is an ambiguous, perhaps irrelevant concept.  The real question is, Who governs the water mains?  All public and private utilities are governed by regulations, which are public protections set up to provide safety to the public.

Sometimes regulations interfere with profit.  In backward regions, they will forego public protection for profit...to their own peril.  That's what happened in Texas.

That's what happens every time that austerity, or deregulation is given a premium over regulations, or public protections.  What happened in Texas is an excellent case-in-point.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

"Owns" is an ambiguous, perhaps irrelevant concept.  The real question is, Who governs the water mains?  All public and private utilities are governed by regulations, which are public protections set up to provide safety to the public.

Sometimes regulations interfere with profit.  In backward regions, they will forego public protection for profit...to their own peril.  That's what happened in Texas.

That's what happens every time that austerity, or deregulation is given a premium over regulations, or public protections.  What happened in Texas is an excellent case-in-point.

You could have have just said you didn't know.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You could have have just said you didn't know.  

Why give the WRONG answer, when a more thorough answer will do.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why give the WRONG answer, when a more thorough answer will do.

Just answer the question.

Maddog wrote:"Success in question-dodging entails listeners being less likely to recall the question asked of a speaker when the speaker answers a different question than when the speaker answers the actual question ... A dodge is detected, on the other hand, when listeners recall the actual question asked despite the speaker's effort to dodge it by answering a similar question."

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Just answer the question.

Your authoritarianism is noted...as is your attempt to mislead others.  However, it is my answer.

So far, it's a free country.  So my answer will stand.  

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Your authoritarianism is noted...as is your attempt to mislead others.  However, it is my answer.

So far, it's a free country.  So my answer will stand.  

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

is it a "free country" ? because they seem to be some even perhaps a lot of exceptions to that freedom

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

is it a "free country" ? because they seem to be some even perhaps a lot of exceptions to that freedom

Original Quill wrote:

Korben wrote:
is it a "free country" ? because they seem to be some even perhaps a lot of exceptions to that freedom

That is a normative statement, not an empirical one.  In other words, it says: it is supposed to be a free country, and I challenge you to tell us why this particular action is disallowed.  It is used whenever someone gets all authoritarian-like.

One uses the 'free country' response whenever someone starts making up rules, as Red does.  He wants short answers to his questions, but what he is really doing is attempting to censor the answers to his questions.

There are many advantages to asking questions, one of which is the interrogator gets to frame the issue.  If I ask Red, when did you stop beating your wife?, I am doing two things: 1) presuming the frame, that he does beat his wife; and 2) I ask when he stopped.  If the respondent's answer involves pointing out that the question wrongfully assumes that he does beat his wife (reframes the issue), it takes a longer answer to point that out.  Red doesn't want that, so he rails against long answers.

By pretending intolerance of long answers, what Red is really doing is trying to censor out the reframing.  He doesn't like being called out.  Hence, the response is: it's a free country...which says I own my answer, thank you...I'll say what I want.