Mailing List Archive

On 4/14/21 03:49, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> ERCOT ISO Texas has announced the end of today's emergency energy
> conservation appeal due to a shortage of generation capacity and
> higher than forecasted demand caused by a cold front.
>
> No this is not an old message. Yep, Texas is having power shortages
> again in mild April weather.

So looks like ERCOT have 32,000MW of capacity offline for maintenance
and repairs, which they claim is not unusual for this time of the year
as they gear up for the summer. So generation capacity was only
50,000MW, while demand was 49,000MW. 1,000MW in reserve is right on the
nose. Solar production was also down by 3,000MW due to cloudy skies.

Fundamentally, the outlook for energy production, globally, is not that
great. Operators are going to have a tougher and tougher time meeting
demand as electrification increases, consumer demand increases, and the
pressure to use more renewables increases.

Considering that supply and demand must always be balanced, it's a
little hard for operators to be conscious about their sources of energy
while consumers continue to live as normal. There has been plenty of
talk about IDSM (integrated demand side management) through automation
with smart grids that can control when folk use appliances, remotely.
But practically, most DSM measures will be led by deliberate behavioural
changes, through appeals like the one ERCOT made for folk to conserve
energy. That won't ramp-down demand as fast as operators would like, and
with our habits of flipping switches and expecting the lights to come on
and the kettles to boil, it's not a small problem.

Even as I support renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a
quick and massive decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load
generation is feasible.

I believe the success of renewable generation capacity (coupled with
storage) lies in distributed delivery through community micro grids, and
not grid-scale deployment.

Mark.

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:51 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
>
>
> ERCOT ISO Texas has announced the end of today's emergency energy
> conservation appeal due to a shortage of generation capacity and higher
> than forecasted demand caused by a cold front.
>
> No this is not an old message. Yep, Texas is having power shortages again
> in mild April weather.

a watch that has been cancelled, not an emergency
http://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/opsmessages/2021/04

>
Apr 13 2021 19:22:55 CST
Physical Responsive Capability < 2500 MW: ERCOT has cancelled the
following notice: ERCOT is issuing a Watch due to Physical Responsive
Capability being below 2500 MW.
Watch
Cancelled


there was no supply shortage in day ahead market (not a generation
capacity shortage)
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/20210413_dam_spp

day-ahead forecast peak was ~2800 MW lower than current-day forecast,
as a result actual load exceeded current-day HSL (High Sustained
Limit). The gap peaked 340MW at 4pm
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/loadForecastVsActualPreviousDay.html
https://imgur.com/a/6MW5qU4 (screenshot)

ancillary services (10 minute responsive reserve service, 30 minute
non-spin) were deployed to meet higher than forecast demand and worked
as expected

reserve never dropped under 2300MW which would have triggered an
emergency (EEA-1)

emergency response service (additional generation/load resources
reserved for emergencies) wasn't deployed
http://www.ercot.com/services/programs/load/eils

On 4/14/21 07:44, Yang Yu wrote:

>
> a watch that has been cancelled, not an emergency
> http://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/opsmessages/2021/04
>
> Apr 13 2021 19:22:55 CST
> Physical Responsive Capability < 2500 MW: ERCOT has cancelled the
> following notice: ERCOT is issuing a Watch due to Physical Responsive
> Capability being below 2500 MW.
> Watch
> Cancelled
>
>
> there was no supply shortage in day ahead market (not a generation
> capacity shortage)
> http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/20210413_dam_spp
>
> day-ahead forecast peak was ~2800 MW lower than current-day forecast,
> as a result actual load exceeded current-day HSL (High Sustained
> Limit). The gap peaked 340MW at 4pm
> http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/loadForecastVsActualPreviousDay.html
> https://imgur.com/a/6MW5qU4 (screenshot)
>
> ancillary services (10 minute responsive reserve service, 30 minute
> non-spin) were deployed to meet higher than forecast demand and worked
> as expected
>
> reserve never dropped under 2300MW which would have triggered an
> emergency (EEA-1)
>
> emergency response service (additional generation/load resources
> reserved for emergencies) wasn't deployed
> http://www.ercot.com/services/programs/load/eils

Pity, I can't access ERCOT's web site (I believe others had the same
issue last time). They say I need to show a business reason why access
should be granted. I can't be asked.

There appears to be some discrepancy between what ERCOT are publishing
and what the media are sharing. Wouldn't be the first time.

But considering it's all over the place, no smoke without fire.

Mark.

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.
>

---

Even as I support renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a
quick and massive decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load
generation is feasible.
---


Nuclear is the only way to have a reliable base load generation that doesn't release greenhouse gasses. Thankfully the US drought on new nuclear construction was over a few years ago. Hopefully it continues.



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:54:55 PM
Subject: Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13



On 4/14/21 03:49, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> ERCOT ISO Texas has announced the end of today's emergency energy
> conservation appeal due to a shortage of generation capacity and
> higher than forecasted demand caused by a cold front.
>
> No this is not an old message. Yep, Texas is having power shortages
> again in mild April weather.

So looks like ERCOT have 32,000MW of capacity offline for maintenance
and repairs, which they claim is not unusual for this time of the year
as they gear up for the summer. So generation capacity was only
50,000MW, while demand was 49,000MW. 1,000MW in reserve is right on the
nose. Solar production was also down by 3,000MW due to cloudy skies.

Fundamentally, the outlook for energy production, globally, is not that
great. Operators are going to have a tougher and tougher time meeting
demand as electrification increases, consumer demand increases, and the
pressure to use more renewables increases.

Considering that supply and demand must always be balanced, it's a
little hard for operators to be conscious about their sources of energy
while consumers continue to live as normal. There has been plenty of
talk about IDSM (integrated demand side management) through automation
with smart grids that can control when folk use appliances, remotely.
But practically, most DSM measures will be led by deliberate behavioural
changes, through appeals like the one ERCOT made for folk to conserve
energy. That won't ramp-down demand as fast as operators would like, and
with our habits of flipping switches and expecting the lights to come on
and the kettles to boil, it's not a small problem.

Even as I support renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a
quick and massive decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load
generation is feasible.

I believe the success of renewable generation capacity (coupled with
storage) lies in distributed delivery through community micro grids, and
not grid-scale deployment.

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.
>>
>
>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 06:54:55AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> So looks like ERCOT have 32,000MW of capacity offline for maintenance and
> repairs, which they claim is not unusual for this time of the year as they
> gear up for the summer. So generation capacity was only 50,000MW, while
> demand was 49,000MW. 1,000MW in reserve is right on the nose. Solar
> production was also down by 3,000MW due to cloudy skies.

Sorry guys, I bought 1210MW for impulse delivery, which very briefly ate
that reserve. I can assure you that the next four days of sunny skies
will regenerate it, though.

In unrelated news, the Rangers got me on an 88MPH speeding ticket.
Anyone know a decent traffic attorney that accepts payment in lotto
tickets?

--
. ___ ___ . . ___
. \ / |\ |\ \
. _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Can we keep this mailing list free of politics please? Being for or against
renewable energy has nothing to do with network operations.

- Mike Bolitho

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021, 6:31 AM Izaac <izaac@setec.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 06:54:55AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > So looks like ERCOT have 32,000MW of capacity offline for maintenance and
> > repairs, which they claim is not unusual for this time of the year as
> they
> > gear up for the summer. So generation capacity was only 50,000MW, while
> > demand was 49,000MW. 1,000MW in reserve is right on the nose. Solar
> > production was also down by 3,000MW due to cloudy skies.
>
> Sorry guys, I bought 1210MW for impulse delivery, which very briefly ate
> that reserve. I can assure you that the next four days of sunny skies
> will regenerate it, though.
>
> In unrelated news, the Rangers got me on an 88MPH speeding ticket.
> Anyone know a decent traffic attorney that accepts payment in lotto
> tickets?
>
> --
> . ___ ___ . . ___
> . \ / |\ |\ \
> . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
>

On 4/14/21 15:04, Mike Hammett wrote:
> ---
> Even as I support renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a
> quick and massive decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load
> generation is feasible.
> ---
>
> Nuclear is the only way to have a reliable base load generation that
> doesn't release greenhouse gasses. Thankfully the US drought on new
> nuclear construction was over a few years ago. Hopefully it continues.

And the good news is that spent nuclear fuel can be recycled (over 90%
of it). I know the French are doing it, seeing as they have one of the
world's largest nuclear power plant fleet.

The only problem with nuclear power plants is the cost and time required
to build them, as a function of the amount of electricity they can
generate. Take the UK's Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant build, which
will cost about £23 billion, will only start operating in 2025 (if all
goes to plan), but will only generate 3,260MW.

This is compared to just under 40,000MW of daily demand from UK
citizens, more than half of which is delivered by fossil fuels (mainly
CCGT and to a much smaller degree, coal).

One would need to dot quite a few nuclear power plants around the
country to make up the difference. And many places don't have enough
water to make hydro a base load provider.

Noting, of course, that the UK have some 85,000MW of installed capacity,
which is interesting when you consider that over the past decade, demand
for electricity on the island has been dropping, even though the
population has grown quite substantially in the same time.

Lockdown didn't help (any country, for that matter), but I'd expect
demand to rise over next decade, putting even more pressure on a
balanced energy source compliment.

Mark.

On 4/14/21 15:34, Mike Bolitho wrote:

> Can we keep this mailing list free of politics please? Being for or
> against renewable energy has nothing to do with network operations.
>

Not necessarily as all those large data centres popping up in my
neighborhood means better Internet for me and my customers, but also
places pressure on the grid, which it needs to deliver that better Internet.

Mark.

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.

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.

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.
>>>>
>>>
>

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.

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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

* 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 18:03, 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.