"Who is responsible for providing adequate capacity in Texas during extreme conditions? The short answer is no one."
"[ERCOT doesn't] ensure that the resources can deliver power under adverse conditions, they don’t require that generators have secured firm fuel supplies, and they don’t make sure the resources will be ready and available to operate."
"Unlike all other US energy markets, Texas does not even have a capacity market. By design they rely solely upon the energy market. This means that entities....do not see any profit from having stand by capacity ready to help out in emergencies."
"There is no significant long term motivation for entities to ensure extra capacity just in case it may be needed during extreme conditions. Entities that might make that gamble theoretically can profit when markets skyrocket, but such approaches require tremendous patience..."
"Andrew Barlow, Head of the PUC in Texas... is quoted as follows, 'Legislators have shown strong support for the energy-only market that has fueled the diversification of the state’s electricity generation fleet...making Texas the national leader in installed wind generation.'"
"Traditional fossil fuel generation has...inherent capacity value. That means such resources generally can be operated with a high degree of reliability and dependability. With incentives they can be operated so that they will likely be there when needed."
"Wind and solar are intermittent resources, working only under good conditions for wind and sun, and as such do not have capacity value unless they are paired with costly battery systems."
"If you want to achieve a higher level of penetration from renewables, dollars will have to be funneled away from traditional resources towards renewables....Rewarding resources for offering capacity advantages effectively penalizes renewables."
"Texas has stacked the deck to make wind and solar more competitive than they could be in a system that better recognizes the value of dependable resources which can supply capacity benefits."
"An energy only market helps accomplish the goal of making wind and solar more competitive. Except capacity value is a real value. Ignoring that, as Texas did, comes with real perils."
"In TX now we are seeing the extreme shortages and market price spikes that can result from devaluing capacity....having more intermittent resources which do not provide capacity...owners and potential owners of resources which could provide capacity are not incentivized to..."
"Having a strong technical knowledge of the power system along with some expertise in finance, rates and costs can help one see the folly of a variety of policies adopted to support many of today’s wind and solar projects. Very few policy makers possess anything close..."
"A simpler approach to understanding the ineffectiveness of unbridled advocacy for wind and solar is to look at those areas which have heavily invested in these intermittent resources and achieved higher penetration levels of such resources."
"Typically electric users see significant overall increases in the cost of energy delivered to consumers. Additionally reliability problems tend to emerge in these systems. Texas, a leader in wind, once again is added to the experience gained in California, Germany and the UK..."
"Anyone can look at Texas and observe that fossil fuel resources could have performed better in the cold. If those who owned the plants had secured guaranteed fuel, Texas would have been better off. More emergency peaking units would be a great thing to have on hand."
"The incentive for gas generation to do the right thing was taken away by Texas’s deliberate energy only market strategy. The purpose of which was to aid the profitability of intermittent wind and solar resources and increase their penetration levels."
Thanks to the anonymous (and brilliant) engineer who wrote this explanation. Make sure to read the whole explanation, "Assigning Blame for the Blackouts in Texas," on Dr. @curryja's excellent website--which has a lot of other excellent content.
Q: Is the solution to TX's reliability problems to join the national grid and be regulated by the Federal government?
A: No, because the Federal government is pursuing policies that are even more anti-reliability than TX's. The solution is pro-reliability policies in TX.
THREAD
Many say the problem causing the massive TX blackouts is TX's insistence on being an independent grid, depriving it of ample power from local states as well as wise regulation from the Federal government. But joining today's Federal grid would make TX's problems far worse.
Texas is perfectly capable of having an ultra-reliable grid on its own. It is the size of a fairly-large country. Any weather challenges it has faced or will face have been easily dealt with by grids around the world using reliable and resilient nuclear, coal, and gas plants.
The head of the main oil/gas regulator in TX has released a statement confirming my analysis that "the root cause of the TX blackouts is a national and state policy that has prioritized the adoption of unreliable wind/solar energy over reliable energy."
"ERCOT was notified over a decade ago that TX power plants had failed to adequately weatherize....Instead of spending our resources making our grid more resilient, policy and spending has focused on mandating or subsidizing wind and solar to expand their presence on the grid.
"
Many people have asked me what I think of Twitter-promoted @JesseJenkins' account of the TX situation. Turns out he preemptively blocked me, but looking at his thread from another account I believe it's deliberately superficial, evading root causes that damn his favored policies.
Let's start with the simple truth: *the only real reason reliability has suddenly become an issue, everywhere*, is that policy now rewards unreliability and punishes reliability.
For much more on this read @MeredithAngwin's excellent "Shorting the Grid."
The primary goal of policies that reward reliability and punish reliability is to reduce CO2 emissions by the bizarre method of promoting unreliable solar and wind at the expense of reliable nuclear, as well as all other reliable power sources.
There is a lot of conflicting "information" about the TX blackouts. Here's the bottom line: the root cause of the TX blackouts is a national and state policy that has prioritized the adoption of unreliable wind/solar energy over reliable energy.
THREAD
For the last decade+ policy in TX and in the US has been focused on mandating or subsidizing as much wind and solar as possible. TX has bragged about being the biggest wind generator in the US.
The TX focus on wind has come above all at the expense of coal, which has the resiliency advantage (along with nuclear) of being able to store large quantities of fuel onsite; gas mostly requires "just in time" delivery from pipelines.
The widely-publicized claim that fossil fuels cause 1 in 5 deaths is the worst kind of pseudoscience. It ignores fossil fuels' life-extending benefits and wildly overstates their negative side-effects. In reality, fossil fuels lengthen 5 out of 5 lives.
THREAD
A recent study by Harvard and UK universities is being circulated as proof that fossil fuels are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths--over 8 million deaths annually.
And yet the places where fossil fuel use has grown most in recent decades have had skyrocketing life expectancies.
Since 1980, India's fossil fuel use has increased by 700% and China's has increased by 600%. Did this lead to many more premature deaths given "fossil fuels cause 1 in 5 deaths"? No, India's life expectancy increased by almost 16 years and China's increased by almost 10!