What lying leftists aren't telling you about the "Texas" power outages

Wind-chill warnings extended from Canada into Mexico as the dangerous winter storm overwhelmed power grids in several states.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/millions-endure-record-cold-without-power-death-toll-rises-tuesday/507-e7b98255-603a-4cfe-9903-18352e45b992
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you're mistaken.......the premise of this thread is obviously that the leftists are lying about Texas.......
Click to expand...

And you're a moron. If that's the premise of the thread, it's wrong. How do you people consistently turn every apolitical topic into some sort of tin foil hat conspiracy? It's so sad to watch.
 
when did the snowstorm in Texas become apolitical?.......the second someone accused a lib'rul instead of a conservative?......I think you had better count the threads about it and reconsider.....
 
Just so there is no confusion about the historic severity of the weather — century-old records were being broken in Texas for the “lowest” high and low temperatures.

No one in Texas ever lived through a cold snap like that before.

This raises the rhetorical question of whether the state should have planned ahead for something that had never happened before.

More at link:

Texas has a mix of power sources to produce electricity to meet consumer needs — a mix that has come to rely on an ever-increasing amount of alternative energy sources such as solar energy and wind farms. But it also relies on coal and natural gas-fired power generation facilities and two nuclear reactor facilities to generate electricity.

These types of facilities run on a 24/7 basis for most of the year, but they do need to be taken offline for periodic maintenance to replace parts that wear out under such operations. To schedule a generation plant to go offline for maintenance, the generation company files a request to do so with ERCOT. ERCOT does an analysis of projected electricity needs during the time frame of the request, looks at other similar requests from other generator companies, and then creates a schedule by which such maintenance is to be done.

When you tear apart a steam turbine to replace worn parts, you can’t just put the thing back together and run all the necessary safety checks in a couple of days in order to meet a sudden unexpected demand for electricity. Had that been possible, all the generation companies would have done so because, under the variable pricing system, the price per kilowatt-hour they would have received was the highest for the entire year. It was a great opportunity to realize significant revenue in order to keep Texans warm during the deep freeze. The generation companies were as unhappy missing out on the opportunity as were the consumers sitting in their dark homes as the temperature inside dropped.

Historically, the busiest time of the year for such maintenance to be done is — you guessed it — from February to April when generation needs for the Texas power grid are at their lowest.

The reason for this — based on what I’ve read — is that in many parts of Texas (not including urban areas), residential heating is done by natural gas and propane where the consumer has a tank on their property that runs a gas-powered heating system for their house. Because such customers do not draw off the electricity grid to keep their houses warm in the winter, electrical generation needs in cold weather generally do not go up in the same way that they go up in the summer to run air conditioners that operate solely on electricity.

As has been reported, the giant wind turbines froze during the arctic blast and quit turning, taking a significant amount of generating capacity from wind offline too.

“How could that happen?” some have asked, pointing to the use of wind turbines in cold climates in North America and Canada without similar kinds of problems.

The simple answer seems to be that wind turbines in Toronto — for example — are manufactured with de-icing devices built into them — the power generated by the turbine itself runs the devices — so they have an intrinsic mechanism to prevent happening to them what happened in Texas.

But such an internal safeguard adds to the cost of the construction and maintenance of the wind turbine. What is the “cost-benefit” analysis of incurring the expense of such an internal safeguard for a wind turbine that is to be used in West Texas where frigid conditions that might trigger the mechanism happen once a century?

On Valentine’s Day, when the heaviest snow fell and temperatures dropped into the single digits — conditions never before experienced — safety sensors began to shut down some of the generation facilities that were online and running at maximum capacity because of icing problems. Fossil fuel and nuclear power generation plants all boil water to create steam and the pressurized steam spins turbines that generate electricity. They all have piping mechanisms to move water — and natural gas in plants that burn natural gas to boil water.

The historic low temperatures caused the water to freeze in the pipes — no water => no steam => turbines quit spinning.

But the same issue arises with regard to preventative measures dealing with the pipelines as with the wind turbines — what is the cost-benefit analysis of incurring the expense to prevent failure in the system from the occurrence of an event that had never occurred before?


https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/02/20/some-interesting-aspects-of-the-once-in-a-century-texas-deep-freeze-and-the-problems-of-the-electricity-grid-n328824
 
Legion said:
Just so there is no confusion about the historic severity of the weather — century-old records were being broken in Texas for the “lowest” high and low temperatures.

No one in Texas ever lived through a cold snap like that before.

This raises the rhetorical question of whether the state should have planned ahead for something that had never happened before.

More at link:

Texas has a mix of power sources to produce electricity to meet consumer needs — a mix that has come to rely on an ever-increasing amount of alternative energy sources such as solar energy and wind farms. But it also relies on coal and natural gas-fired power generation facilities and two nuclear reactor facilities to generate electricity.

These types of facilities run on a 24/7 basis for most of the year, but they do need to be taken offline for periodic maintenance to replace parts that wear out under such operations. To schedule a generation plant to go offline for maintenance, the generation company files a request to do so with ERCOT. ERCOT does an analysis of projected electricity needs during the time frame of the request, looks at other similar requests from other generator companies, and then creates a schedule by which such maintenance is to be done.

When you tear apart a steam turbine to replace worn parts, you can’t just put the thing back together and run all the necessary safety checks in a couple of days in order to meet a sudden unexpected demand for electricity. Had that been possible, all the generation companies would have done so because, under the variable pricing system, the price per kilowatt-hour they would have received was the highest for the entire year. It was a great opportunity to realize significant revenue in order to keep Texans warm during the deep freeze. The generation companies were as unhappy missing out on the opportunity as were the consumers sitting in their dark homes as the temperature inside dropped.

Historically, the busiest time of the year for such maintenance to be done is — you guessed it — from February to April when generation needs for the Texas power grid are at their lowest.

The reason for this — based on what I’ve read — is that in many parts of Texas (not including urban areas), residential heating is done by natural gas and propane where the consumer has a tank on their property that runs a gas-powered heating system for their house. Because such customers do not draw off the electricity grid to keep their houses warm in the winter, electrical generation needs in cold weather generally do not go up in the same way that they go up in the summer to run air conditioners that operate solely on electricity.

As has been reported, the giant wind turbines froze during the arctic blast and quit turning, taking a significant amount of generating capacity from wind offline too.

“How could that happen?” some have asked, pointing to the use of wind turbines in cold climates in North America and Canada without similar kinds of problems.

The simple answer seems to be that wind turbines in Toronto — for example — are manufactured with de-icing devices built into them — the power generated by the turbine itself runs the devices — so they have an intrinsic mechanism to prevent happening to them what happened in Texas.

But such an internal safeguard adds to the cost of the construction and maintenance of the wind turbine. What is the “cost-benefit” analysis of incurring the expense of such an internal safeguard for a wind turbine that is to be used in West Texas where frigid conditions that might trigger the mechanism happen once a century?

On Valentine’s Day, when the heaviest snow fell and temperatures dropped into the single digits — conditions never before experienced — safety sensors began to shut down some of the generation facilities that were online and running at maximum capacity because of icing problems. Fossil fuel and nuclear power generation plants all boil water to create steam and the pressurized steam spins turbines that generate electricity. They all have piping mechanisms to move water — and natural gas in plants that burn natural gas to boil water.

The historic low temperatures caused the water to freeze in the pipes — no water => no steam => turbines quit spinning.

But the same issue arises with regard to preventative measures dealing with the pipelines as with the wind turbines — what is the cost-benefit analysis of incurring the expense to prevent failure in the system from the occurrence of an event that had never occurred before?


https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/02/20/some-interesting-aspects-of-the-once-in-a-century-texas-deep-freeze-and-the-problems-of-the-electricity-grid-n328824
Click to expand...

These guys would have contingencies for every eventuality. They have wind turbines in Egypt yet none of them are weather proofed against snow and ice. Indeed you be hard pushed to find a snowplough in Cairo. Just for the record, Houston is on latitude 29 deg whilst Cairo is 30 deg.
 
Legion said:
Just so there is no confusion about the historic severity of the weather — century-old records were being broken in Texas for the “lowest” high and low temperatures.

No one in Texas ever lived through a cold snap like that before.

This raises the rhetorical question of whether the state should have planned ahead for something that had never happened before.

More at link:

Texas has a mix of power sources to produce electricity to meet consumer needs — a mix that has come to rely on an ever-increasing amount of alternative energy sources such as solar energy and wind farms. But it also relies on coal and natural gas-fired power generation facilities and two nuclear reactor facilities to generate electricity.

These types of facilities run on a 24/7 basis for most of the year, but they do need to be taken offline for periodic maintenance to replace parts that wear out under such operations. To schedule a generation plant to go offline for maintenance, the generation company files a request to do so with ERCOT. ERCOT does an analysis of projected electricity needs during the time frame of the request, looks at other similar requests from other generator companies, and then creates a schedule by which such maintenance is to be done.

When you tear apart a steam turbine to replace worn parts, you can’t just put the thing back together and run all the necessary safety checks in a couple of days in order to meet a sudden unexpected demand for electricity. Had that been possible, all the generation companies would have done so because, under the variable pricing system, the price per kilowatt-hour they would have received was the highest for the entire year. It was a great opportunity to realize significant revenue in order to keep Texans warm during the deep freeze. The generation companies were as unhappy missing out on the opportunity as were the consumers sitting in their dark homes as the temperature inside dropped.

Historically, the busiest time of the year for such maintenance to be done is — you guessed it — from February to April when generation needs for the Texas power grid are at their lowest.

The reason for this — based on what I’ve read — is that in many parts of Texas (not including urban areas), residential heating is done by natural gas and propane where the consumer has a tank on their property that runs a gas-powered heating system for their house. Because such customers do not draw off the electricity grid to keep their houses warm in the winter, electrical generation needs in cold weather generally do not go up in the same way that they go up in the summer to run air conditioners that operate solely on electricity.

As has been reported, the giant wind turbines froze during the arctic blast and quit turning, taking a significant amount of generating capacity from wind offline too.

“How could that happen?” some have asked, pointing to the use of wind turbines in cold climates in North America and Canada without similar kinds of problems.

The simple answer seems to be that wind turbines in Toronto — for example — are manufactured with de-icing devices built into them — the power generated by the turbine itself runs the devices — so they have an intrinsic mechanism to prevent happening to them what happened in Texas.

But such an internal safeguard adds to the cost of the construction and maintenance of the wind turbine. What is the “cost-benefit” analysis of incurring the expense of such an internal safeguard for a wind turbine that is to be used in West Texas where frigid conditions that might trigger the mechanism happen once a century?

On Valentine’s Day, when the heaviest snow fell and temperatures dropped into the single digits — conditions never before experienced — safety sensors began to shut down some of the generation facilities that were online and running at maximum capacity because of icing problems. Fossil fuel and nuclear power generation plants all boil water to create steam and the pressurized steam spins turbines that generate electricity. They all have piping mechanisms to move water — and natural gas in plants that burn natural gas to boil water.

The historic low temperatures caused the water to freeze in the pipes — no water => no steam => turbines quit spinning.

But the same issue arises with regard to preventative measures dealing with the pipelines as with the wind turbines — what is the cost-benefit analysis of incurring the expense to prevent failure in the system from the occurrence of an event that had never occurred before?


https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/02/20/some-interesting-aspects-of-the-once-in-a-century-texas-deep-freeze-and-the-problems-of-the-electricity-grid-n328824
Click to expand...

They should have protected the power stations against alien attack as well, as you never know!
 
Primavera said:
Bullshit!
Click to expand...

Actually he is right for a change....the weather patterns are becoming unstable....more extreme....this was always the expected and is one of the reasons that if we were not such stupid fucks we would have been spending the last years getting ready to deal with unexpected weather fast.

We are doing almost none of that, instead we are concentrating on strangling civilization by putting it on an extreme energy and food diet.
 
Primavera said:
Bullshit!
Click to expand...

You couldn't make it up – but Greenpeace can!!

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Er9vWZhXEAEaAUe.jpg
    Er9vWZhXEAEaAUe.jpg
    26 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
Actually he is right for a change....the weather patterns are becoming unstable....more extreme....this was always the expected and is one of the reasons that if we were not such stupid fucks we would have been spending the last years getting ready to deal with unexpected weather fast.

We are doing almost none of that, instead we are concentrating on strangling civilization by putting it on an extreme energy and food diet.
Click to expand...

Don't agree, some alarmist scientists say that but it's not really true. Of course then the likes of the BBC, Guardian, NYT, WaPo, CNN and left wing blogs pounce and it then becomes holy writ to the Left. It's the same bollox as those that claim hurricanes are becoming more intense and frequent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...-stronger-and-more-dangerous/?sh=71e1267c4d9e to
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
These guys would have contingencies for every eventuality. They have wind turbines in Egypt yet none of them are weather proofed against snow and ice. Indeed you be hard pushed to find a snowplough in Cairo. Just for the record, Houston is on latitude 29 deg whilst Cairo is 30 deg.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Legion said:
Geography lesson for leftists:

Houston, Texas, and Cairo, Egypt are at roughly the same latitude. (If you're a DEMOCRAT, that means they're both about the same distance from the North Pole).

Neither city has ever had a winter storm like Uri, until Uri hit Houston.

How many deicers, salt trucks and and snowplows does Cairo, Egypt own and maintain "just in case"?

Idiots.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top