https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...839803394.html
Printable View
Because human being suck at risk assessment. Given that companies are run by those things, that becomes a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
By granting permission to power plant operator to raise prices, ERCOT is allowing the operators effectively to "print money" like a US Mint, "because they can".Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
We'll if Tx govt cancels the price gouging, violating their free market, laissez-faire perfect solution of man-made restricted supply raising prices to (desperately high) demand.
(laissez-faire means "let extractive suppliers fuck over demanders")
Thanks. I guess I meant technically, how does it work, how are the payments structured?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
How do they *do it*?
Bit of a misuse of the term. You aren't creating new money, just saying that an asset was suddenly worth more money than it was before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I'm not sure that's true. The average person sucks at risk assessment but the ones that do this for a living at the highest level are incredibly intelligent and have the tools to be fairly accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
This last event was probably a 1/100 situation (at least). Lots of plants offline, frozen windmills, frozen natural gas facilities, etc.
You can't plan for everything.
You can plan for weather that happens in over half the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
This happened in Texas ten years ago and the risk assessment people said to prepare for its happening again.
The producers did not.
This is over my pay grade.. But I'm sure it's all about money and is it worth it to upgrade facilities to offset for a 1 in 100 event. Every year, I turn down letters from my insurance company to add on accidental death because I assess that it's pretty unlikely. And that's probably more likely than the weather event we just had.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
It's a one in ten years event.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
Because they weren’t required to as they should have been, imo. Considering the public and private cost of this disaster, not to mention the loss of life, I wonder what the ROI on winterizing the grid would have been had we done it as was recommended as early as 1989.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I'm going out on a limb to say the cost of winterizing was less than $50,000,000,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
You'll need to give me your data for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Negative degrees across that much of the state at the same time seems < than 1/10.
No. This happened in 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
Low temperatures knocked production offline and caused blackouts.
There were federal reports and recommendations about it.
It's a 1/10 event.
There's a huge difference in preparing for the 2011 temperatures than what just happened. The amount of power needed had to be significantly higher this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Capacity went offline because of the cold just like 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
Cold enough to knock production offline is cold enough to knock production offline.
That seems like a pretty naive take.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Tell me how it's wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
You can say it's a matter of degree but Texas did not address the causes of the events that actually happened in 1989 and 2011 so there's no way the grid could handle similar events they knew would happen because they did in fact happen.
This wasn't a similar event. This was a historic deep freeze. If you don't think there's a significant difference between negative temperature and 15 degrees, than I don't know what to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Power plants across the country function perfectly well in these conditions. If you don't think they do, then I don't know what to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
Chump is correct. This shit has happened before. The PUC is a joke. 2011 blacked out 3.2 million people
The other side of the coin is that if production goes offline, places like Beaumont, Amarillo and El Paso can get energy from other states to avoid long blackouts. All ERCOT can do is cut people off for days while they wait for its internal production to hopefully ramp back up.
Family up in Canyon had nine inches of snow but a total of 45 minutes of power interruption all week.
This is neither reliable nor is it sustainable. ERCOT needs to end for the sake of the Texas economy if not, you know, its people.
Sorry...I can't really believe anything you say since your comment about cows not farting.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
As I have told your ignorant ass multiple times, 95% of bovine methane comes from belches, not farts. Probably the closest your ignorant ass has ever been to a cow was between buns at whataburger.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
Except this isn't a one in 1/100 situation. Happens about once every ten years.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
Last time it happened they did a study about how to prevent outages. It was ignored.
Profit motive, and resiliency were in conflict, and profit motive won.
The people involved are aware of the risks, and care about risks, just not these ones. They are worried about the risks to their bottom line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
https://news.yahoo.com/texas-power-g...065217364.htmlQuote:
After a 2011 winter storm knocked out power to about 3 million Texans, a federal report warned Texas the same grid debacle would happen again if it didn't adequately weatherize its power infrastructure and increase fuel reserves — and reminded Texas that "many of those same warnings were issued after similar blackouts 22 years earlier and had gone unheeded," The Associated Press reports.
REPORT ON: OUTAGES AND CURTAILMENTS DURING THE SOUTHWEST COLD WEATHER EVENT OF FEBRUARY 1-5, 2011
(PDF)
https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/f...-11-report.pdf