Share this page!

JesseJenkins Profile picture
Twitter logo
Feb 15, 2021 • 18 tweets • 6 min read
Confidential info from a market participant in ERCOT: As of ~10 AM Eastern time, the system has ~30 GW of capacity offline, ~26 GW of thermal -- mostly natural gas which cant get fuel deliveries which are being priorities for heating loads -- and ~4 GW of wind due to icing.
That is a HUGE amount of gas capacity offline, about 30% of total ERCOT capacity and ~half of the natural gas fleet, according to Dec 2020 Capacity Demand and Reserves report here: ercot.com/content/wcm/li…

Devastating for reliability.
If we look at Winter planning scenerio ERCOT was using for 2026/27 (table below), they were planning for a peak demand of 67,512 "based on normal weather." Demand last night (in 2021 not 2026/27!) was 69,150

30,000 MW of outages right now = 42% of demand!
If we look closer at the ERCOT Capacity, Demand and Reserves report, it also shows how much wind capacity they count on in winter peaking events (below). They plan on different % of installed capacity to be avialable in each region: 43% for coast, 32% panhandle & 19% for other
In total, that means ERCOT is counting on 1,542 MW of coastal wind output, 1,411 MW of panhandle wind and 3,251 MW of other wind for a total of 6,204 MW of wind from currently operational facilities. 6.2 GW. Use that to track how wind performs during this emergency.
Now if we look at another table, we can see how ERCOT thinks it will get its winter capacity by fuel type. They assume 100% of thermal units are available during winter peaking events. In reality, they lost 26 GW (if my source is correct) = 35% of total 75 GW of total thermal.
You can also see in that table they count on wind for <10% of total winter capacity + thermal for 89%. No matter how wind performs this week -- important for future planning! -- it is the big failure of thermal plants, mostly gas units, that is causing such widespread outages now
As a New Englander until 2019, I know the region has long contended with -- & planned to address -- constraints on natural gas delivery in winter peaking events. They maintain large duel fuel capacity (gas units that switch to oil if needed) w/onsite storage. TX has clearly not.
Texas relies overwhelmingly on natural gas units for winter peaking capacity, 66% of the total or 56.1 GW. If ~26 GW is offline due to inability to procure fuel (as I've been told), that is a devastating indictment of ERCOT winter planning & major cause of rotating outages.
We'll learn a lot more as this winter emergency progresses, and as we get public reporting. That will inform how much of this was due to market design v planning failures. But counting on gas units to all be there there during extreme winter events is a clear recipe for failure.
The primary issues now appear to be lack of fuel delivery to natural gas units, both due to frozen gas lines and to supply prioritization for gas heating demand over electric generators. Some wind generators out due to icing too, but that's second order by far.
I'll end this here as I have to get back to work. I wish everyone in Texas best as they weather this emergency!

For those interested in the source of the data above (also linked above), see ercot.com/news/releases/…. & spreadsheet here ercot.com/content/wcm/li…
Clarification: Info from a confidential market participant/source. Not that the info is confidential! Sorry.
p.s. there's a #climatechange angle in here, as usual. The polar vortex is breaking down due to Arctic warming, which is allowing cold weather to spread down into North America more often, including today's cold snap carbonbrief.org/qa-how-is-arct…
More on frozen gas pipes claimsjournal.com/news/national/…
Update: My source's data is confirmed by public ERCOT reporting available at mis.ercot.com/misapp/GetRepo…

Hat tip @joshdr83
Update:
Update:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with JesseJenkins

JesseJenkins Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JesseJenkins

JesseJenkins Profile picture
May 10
$34 billion and 10 years. The performance of Southern Co. & Westinghouse at Vogtle is utterly unacceptable. If it is best the sector can do, nuclear has no future. I think new small modular reactors can do better, but they have to prove it. No one will believe it until we see it.
For those missing conditional statement above: read it again. IF this is the best they can do. Challenge is to build confidence the sector can do better than this. We have examples that build hope from South Korea, China, the UAE. Yet we've seen repeated failure in the West too.
This was fun but now it's done...
Read 5 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
May 5
Folks. We're going to need nuclear power (fission or even fusion) to decarbonize the global economy. Nations like US, Canada, Australia, China etc blessed with land can drive to net-zero with renewables only IF they so choose. But a Net-zero India? South Korea? Japan? Indonesia?
Even EU officials are admitting Europe will need to import large quantities of green hydrogen from abroad due to constraints on siting sufficient wind and solar within the continent. rechargenews.com/energy-transit…
Perhaps a global trade in green hydrogen or ammonia can supply these land constrained nations. But will they wish to rely on imports? To what degree? Will it be cheaper than domestic nuclear?
Read 7 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Apr 16
#Bitcoin folks touting it as a flexible electricity demand that's going to somehow run only on excess wind and solar energy & help decarbonize the grid: Show me the marginal value of a MWh of electricity turned into #BTC . Then compare said value to $0/MWh. Now please stop.
My math: based on 460,000 Bitcoin mined in 2020 and 80 million MWh electricity consumed that year, that's 0.00575 BTC per MWh. Current BTC value is about $40,000. Implies miners willing to pay up to $230 per MWh. Sources for coins mined and electricity consumed in screenshot ⤵️ Image
At this MWh to BTC conversion rate, BTC price would need to fall an order of magnitude to under $4,000 to be willing to curtail mining at electricity prices > ~$23/MWh, which might plausibly qualify as a truly flexible demand (arguably under $1,800 to curtail mining at ~$10/MWh).
Read 8 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Mar 28
Fuel saving variable renewables. For all the folks out there reminding us about night and clouds and the inconstancy of the wind: this is how wind and solar deliver value. When available wind & solar displace costlier & polluting fuels = $/€/£ saved. Savings > capex = build more
The "fuel savers" mental model is a slight simplification. Variable renewables do have "capacity substitution" value (⬆️ wind & solar = ⬇️ gas/coal plants) but it's far from 1:1 & it falls quicky as penetration rises. So 'at the limit' wind/solar get value from fuel substitution.
The concept of fuel saving also helps explain declining marginal value of more wind + solar. The first MWh of wind or solar in any hour displaces the most expensive fuel first. But more & more wind & solar displaces more and more efficient, lower marginal cost generators...
Read 8 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Mar 25
Time for some real talk about energy security & how to really deliver it for America & our allies.

First, there's 2 kinds of energy security, both on full display during the crisis caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine: physical energy security and economic energy security. 1/
Physical energy security = producing enough energy to be self sufficient if conflict disrupts global trade. US & N. America are net exporters of petroleum liquids, natural gas & coal. We're physically secure. Our EU allies aren't, as evidenced by dependence on Russian imports. 2/
We can see how physical security matters during times of conflict. Putin literally has the EU over a barrel (or a gas pipeline), and Europe is racing right now to eliminate it's reliance on gas, coal, and oil exports from Russia for moral, strategic, and security reasons. 3/
Read 14 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Mar 4
This was presumably Russia's objective. Forcing shutdown of Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station, Ukraine's largest power plant w/6 reactors, 5,700 MW total, responsible for ~20-25 of the country's electricity during peacetime. Presumably this will leave Kyiv without power now.
And here is the weather in Kyiv for the next week. Freezing temps as millions of people across Ukraine are likely now without power. Let's not be mistaken: forcing Ukraine's power plants offline WILL kill civilians.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(