Patrick - I hope that your determination of failure isn't dictated by the federal government telling you so. š³
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 <patr...@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.john...@netgeek.us >> <mailto:brian.john...@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. Itās like saying that I shouldnāt have built the house >> where the tornado hit. >> >>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net >>> <mailto:patr...@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. >>> āJust pointing out facts.ā >>> >>> 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 CEOās salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had >>> nothing to do with protecting the suppliersā 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 āgreen power is unreliableā 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 āXXX is a non-profitā 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.john...@netgeek.us >>>> <mailto:brian.john...@netgeek.us>> wrote: >>>> >>>> ļ»æThere is no profit motive for a non-profit company. Itās 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 >>>> āgreenā methods. >>>> >>>> Just pointing out facts. >>>> >>>>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc >>>>> <mailto:beec...@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.john...@netgeek.us >>>>> <mailto:brian.john...@netgeek.us>> wrote: >>>>> Tom, >>>>> >>>>> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organizationā¦. >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc >>>>>> <mailto:beec...@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. >>>>> >>>> >> >
