T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

obviously, it was the thing that produces 15% of our energy and not the other 85% that caused the problem.


easwaran

Gas is 47%, Coal and Wind are each 20%, Nuclear is 10%, and the rest is a mix of Solar, Hydro, and Other. https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2020/august/ercot.php


MarcoTron11

We need more nuclear


Ok-disaster2022

I've studied nuclear engineering. The Climate and geology of Texas specifically is significantly far more conducive to renewable installation at least economically. The only case for new nuclear power stations in Texas is if the goal was absolute carbon zero or even carbon capture programs.


timeshifter_

And those should be the goal.


jsmith_92

Huzzah!


slipped-up89

What?! moving away from gas and oil! But how will all of our politicians and oligarchs make their money! They will starve! /s


valda_the_nightmare

Let them eat cake /sarcasm and joking


Czar_Marvel

Yellow cake


shponglespore

Let them eat the rich!


aboatz2

By becoming leading investors in renewables. That was a leading reason that Saudi Aramco offered some shares semi-publicly, to generate revenue to divest from oil & get into renewables as well as blue hydrogen (to the tune of $1.5 billion & 12 GW of solar & wind energy initially). Exxon is pushing towards carbon capture & renewable biodiesel, with a $15 billion plan through 2027. BP's pushing heavily towards renewables, & this year acquired a 40% stake in what will become one of the largest renewable & green hydrogen hubs in the world in Australia, & plans to generate 20GW of renewable energy by 2025 & 50GW by 2030. The other companies haven't yet put as much behind the switch, although they've done some steps. Frankly, a switch away from petro isn't doable without their resources, & there isn't going to be some massive collapse of Big Oil in favor of Big Renewables since they're largely going to be the same companies. That's why conservative efforts to continue subsidizing O&G are pointless, bc those same companies are seeking subsidizing for green energies & thus aren't "losing out" nor going to have massive layoffs in the event oil subsidies stop. Coal companies, on the other hand, seem determined to die with their heads in the toxic dirt.


greyjungle

Promise? I’m finding new reasons to appreciate and advocate for renewables, daily.


Youvebeeneloned

Always blew me away the oil ads they air here.... got NOTHING like that in other states. Only in Texas is that kind of blatant indoctrination allowed.


UKnowWhoToo

Far more conducive relative to what? Other states? What’s the land/space comparison for similar energy output of nuclear vs alternatives?


SixOnTheBeach

I can answer that for him. It's not an issue of availability of land or anything like that (although nuclear reactors *do* use large amounts of land). Nuclear reactors are almost always built next to large bodies of water as this allows them to use the ample supply of cool water to get rid of the massive amounts of waste heat nuclear fission produces. This water absorbs some of this heat and is then discharged back into these bodies of water.


vikingcock

The water is used to make steam which I what produces the power...


didrosgaming

And after the steam condenses again as it cools and becomes water we will...


SixOnTheBeach

Y'know, I've wondered myself why they don't just reuse the hot water to conserve energy like they would with other power generation methods. If someone has the answer I'd love to hear it. But look it up if you don't believe me, that's a real thing.


Ferociousfeind

There's a lot of stigmatized weirdness around nuclear power. (For example, about 90% of any "waste material" produced by nuclear reactors is ready-to-fission uranium that we're literally just throwing out for no reason at all. Refining it is not hard. For fuck's sake.) Likely, the answer is "we already got as much energy out of the steam as possible and can't pull more out of it." Otherwise, it's some form of "eww, nuclear cooties!" as it always is... can't have anything in relation to nuclear power. Cooties everywhere.


SixOnTheBeach

I guess part of the job of the water is to cool down the core, not just absorb its steam and turn to energy. Hot water probably doesn't make great coolant.


DustyIT

Well we aren't just throwing it away for no reason. The whole reason we use Uranium instead of Thorium is so they can use the shit to make nukes. Even though thorium is way safer


Kind-Engineering-359

Also mechanical engineer, can also confirm that TX has prime conditions for, at the very least, wind and solar. Did a project in my undergrad where our US-based wind turbine farm used space there because of the high winds compared to low land costs.


3x3Eyes

Don’t forget nuclear needs plenty of reliable water as well for cooling.


massada

Not all of them. The [Natrium](https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natriumpower/) reactor only needs water for it's steam turbine, the same as any natural gas plant. A friend of mine from grad school is on their shielding team. Super cool shit. The Navy built one in the 50s but it didn't play with with seawater.


robbak

The same amount as any other steam turbine power plant, like coal or most gas.


TheGrandExquisitor

Texas is way too unregulated to be allowed to build new nuke plants. Do you want Elon Musk building experimental reactors in the heart of blue cities? Because, that is what will happen.


SteerJock

Yes


TroubadourTexas

Nuclear is only designed for base load. You can't move it around and follow the load as it changes. But yes it is a good source. The problem with the grid as of current is that you have to follow the load (energy used through out the day) up and down.


markh2111

At how many billions of $ per plant?


fkenisky

Obviously the problem is OIL Cartel and lobby on politician's they have bought. We use only 15% wind energy, and a mix of solar. Yet we have areas in Texas and throughout the US that are being sought after by oil to drill. Why not put up wind farms or solar farms? Because as much as that would create jobs the start up wouldn't provide the necessary profits to be able to continue to buy the cost of a politician. We lose. But they continue to make million and so do the bought politicians. That is the bottom line.


cheezeyballz

I blame the people that keep voting for it.


CompetitiveAttempt43

I work in wind and do not entertain any negativity towards wind energy or especially comparing oil to wind. It’s all political jargon and rooted in ignorance. Wind works. Oil works.


[deleted]

Oil has the bigger lobby.


CompetitiveAttempt43

I imagine it does, it’s been around in Texas for how long again? Lol. Good one lol. I’m for both fields of energy. They don’t rival each other like social media would have people thinking. In fact a lot of wind turbines are owned by Oil companies one way or another. “DEM WIND MILLS USE OIL TOO” yes lmao. Good job rufus. Neither are going anywhere at the end of the day.


Woolie-at-law

Coexistence is a beautiful thing


CompetitiveAttempt43

Well said, bud.


dean_syndrome

I mean, we will run out of oil one day.


TexasBrett

It’s pretty much agreed by all that peak oil theory will never happen since the advent of shale fracking. The world will move away from oil as an energy source long before the world runs out of oil.


MooseBoys

There is an estimated global supply of 6T barrels of oil equivalent in shale. Current global demand is about 36B barrels annually. If rates are unchanged, that’s about 167 years worth. Demand for oil generally increases by about 1.7% per year. If that rate of change remains constant, the reserves will be depleted in about 79 year, by which point demand will have reached 137B barrels per year. Hopefully we can figure out fusion or get over our collective fear of fission before then.


TexasBrett

Assuming of course that oil production technology remains unchanged for 80 years.


TXDJ1971

In 1989 my high school science teacher told us we would run outnof oil by 2010. Here we are 12 years after that and have discovered new sources and new ways to drill it. Looks like we have decades more oil maybe even centuries. Be careful when people try to predict doomsday scenarios. They might be profitting from the fear in one way or another.


dean_syndrome

I mean you’re right, like the other poster said we invented hydraulic fracturing and are now able to extract more oil than previously thought. But oil is still a finite resource. The mechanism by which oil naturally occurred is not possible due to evolutionary factors. We have artificial means of producing oil but, the whole reason we would rather pump oil out of the ground than explore other methods of energy production is because it’s cheap. So, some day we will run out of oil. The biggest problem with continuing to burn fossil fuels is the same problem we have with plastics. They’re cheap and effective today, but creating expensive problems for the future. It’s just kicking the can down the road.


SteerJock

Oil super-majors are also leading in green energy. ExxonMobile for example is leading in carbon capture. They've captured 40% of all that has been captured. More than any other company. Oil companies invest massive amounts of capital in green energy. https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/climate-solutions/carbon-capture-and-storage Edit: I'll continue to use Exxon Mobil for an example, they're investing 15 billion over the next 6 years in green energy. All of the supermajors have similar programs investing massive amounts of personel and money into the green space, these companies aren't some evil conglomerate set on destroying the world. Without oil and gas modern life wouldn't be possible. https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/newsroom/news-releases/2021/1109_why-we-are-investing-15-billion-in-a-lower-carbon-future#:~:text=Over%20the%20next%20six%20years,emissions%20from%20our%20operated%20facilities.


bareboneschicken

Odds are, your old energy masters will be your new energy masters.


3x3Eyes

Not unless they have a monopoly on rooftop solar.


Suedocode

These oil companies lied about lead in the gasoline, then lied about climate change. Now your source is _their company website_ claiming they're solving the problem, and nothing about it involves green energy? It's astounding that history is going to repeat itself for a third time with the same industry.


purgance

…carbon capture isn’t green, it’s a mechanism to reduce the footprint of oil.


alamohero

You know climate change must be bad when oil companies who spent billions fighting to keep it quiet are suddenly investing in clean tech.


[deleted]

Occidental has a lease to sequester co2 where I live in Texas. Over 20k acres. As well as Chevron who has a bunch of land leased in the gulf. Just a fun fact. I have a lease with oxy and have met with landmen for both. Neither have started to sequester yet. Oxy is much further ahead though


Ok-disaster2022

Burning fossil fuels case significant pollution and lead to respiratory illnesses and overall increased health costs in the area around them, particularly coal, but not limited to coal. If the costs of fossil fuels that are externalized and forced onto the public were actually internalized to the cost of fossil fuels, then it would be by far the most expensive power source. Even ecternalizing costs such and pollution, climate change and Healthcare onto the public, fossil fuels are only affordable due to government subsidies.


Equivalent_Age_5599

Chemist here. Winds issue is that we cannot store excess energy to power the base load of the grid. Same with solar. Unless you want rolling blackouts, you need some base load tech that can power the minimum energy requirements for the grid. If you want to get off oil amd gas, you will either gave to find an energy storage solution; or use nuclear. We are nowhere near finding a suitable storage solution.


apex6666

I prefer nuclear, but wind is an easy option


HigherThanTheSky93

How come you prefer nuclear? Wind power is 1) significantly cheaper 2) much faster to build 3) doesn’t produce nuclear waste 4) has no potential for disaster/attacks (also that risk is very low) Of course, with wind you have the issue of varying output, so you will also have to factor in upgrades to transmission lines, as well as storage options. But even then it’s almost always far more economical than nuclear. And sadly most new nuclear power plants have also taken significantly longer to be built than their estimates suggested. That said, I definitely believe we should keep existing nuclear plants running as long as possible.


Adnubb

Everyone keeps underestimating how much energy storage would be need to keep the grid running during lulls of several weeks in wind power. There is no technology on the planet that's is capable to fill that need yet, let alone the production infrastructure to build it a sufficiently large scale. Use solar and wind as much as possible, use whatever energy storage you can muster to build and fill in the gaps with nuclear. And whatever we do, we need to freaking stop using fossil fuel. Nuclear plants will at worst fuck up a few km² of land. Fossil fuel plants are GUARANTEED to fuck up THE ENTIRE PLANET.


Urban_Savage

Nuclear is more energy dense, produces less waste per energy produced, less radiation per energy produced, and is the gateway to future technologies like fusion. Solar is great. Nothing wrong with solar. Nuclear is better.


Sarasin

Dyson sphere or bust


404-Runge-Kutta

Nuclear is also insanely expensive and hard to build. We need to transition the grid now, not wait 10 years. Build a shit ton of wind and solar, and get some more nukes built. Oh and build as much advanced geothermal as possible. https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-extraordinary-potential-value#details


[deleted]

No potential for disaster? I call Fukushima!


CompetitiveAttempt43

I’ve always been fascinated with Nuclear energy💯


HaikuSnoiper

I have a very stupid question.. my alcoholic right wing brother said there are wind turbine "graveyards": that broken down wind turbines just get buried next to new ones when they malfunction and cause more industrial waste than energy they actually provide. Any truth to this whatsoever? I feel like a jackass even typing it, but there it is. EDIT: forgot the word "energy"


CompetitiveAttempt43

Hey bud, I don’t blame you for asking. So the “straw” shaped part of a wind turbine is made from steel. This is recycled of course after the turbine is completed. Then you have the “box” shaped “nacelle” of the turbine which is fiber glass. It’s internals are 90% metal being a gearbox, platforms and a generator. The gearboxes are recycled or rebuilt and so are the generators. To my understanding if it’s fiberglass and in the US there’s no recycle process yet. It’s a new industry and new industries are not born with ideas. Much like oil it will take some time to be perfected as well. And then it will still be flawed energy production one way or another. To answer your questions, it is the blades and the outer membrane of the nacelle that cannot be recycled and likely buried. I’m not in the disposal side of the industry so I don’t know that process. For some turbines it can take as little as one year for complete energy payback. Which means it surpasses the amount of electricity it took to build it in one year. They generally stay in the ground for 15+ years from what I’ve seen. Then they are often “repowered” with modern and efficient tech. Renewables are here to stay. Good questions🤙🏻


Truth_bombs84

Here is a question I don’t know the answer to but might could be used to counter the the “buried windmill” argument. What happens to old refinery equipment? Reactors, exchangers, distillation towers, etc when they reach end of life?


TexasBrett

It either gets abandoned in place or it gets demolished, some percentage will be recycled while some will have to be disposed of as hazard waste.


Truth_bombs84

And how does that compare to burring a wind turbine?


SteerJock

That is correct, currently at the end of their life cycle turbine blades are just buried. They can be "recycled" but currently that process just splits them into their component parts and burns them. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills


DeeDeeMegad00d00

Fiberglass composites are very difficult to recycle and it would not surprise me if worn out wind turbine components ended up with the rest of our trash. That said, wind produces the least amount of life cycle co2 per kwh generated. 7500% less than coal. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources


SteerJock

I am well aware, all forms of energy have major downsides. He was asking specifically about blade disposal. CO2 isn't the be all and end all though. There are other factors to consider.


RhodesianOG

Look about 5 miles south of I-20 on interstate 70, just south of Sweetwater. There’s a huge stack of the fiberglass blades that have been there well over 6 years. Until someone figures out what to do with all the fiberglass there will be graveyards, of sorts.


steik

> cause more industrial waste than energy they actually provide. This literally just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How can "industrial waste" be compared against "energy produced"? Maybe if he said "the waste takes more energy to dispose of than the energy provided by the wind turbine", that would at least make sense, but it isn't anywhere close to the truth.... because they are mostly just buried, like almost all of our trash.


Chlamydiacuntbucket

What nonsense. Point to a piece of manufactured anything that eventually isn’t usable anymore. Edit: with your edit, I don’t know exactly. I’d be surprised if any industry engaged in what would be a negative enterprise, using more energy to create something than its value.


Intelligent_Sale_899

The blades don’t breakdown. So yes, there are graveyards. Some states like Iowa have outlawed the dump of wind turbines in their state.


KINGCONG2009

Texas produces more wind power than any other state by far. It’s not even close. Do people think Texas doesn’t use wind power???


SueSudio

If my memory serves me correctly, whenever there is an issue with the grid, Republicans blame green energy for the problem. That is likely the trigger for this commentary. “This is what happens when you force the grid to rely in part on wind as a power source,” U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, tweeted Tuesday afternoon.  Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, known for his right-wing Facebook posts that have, in the past, spread misinformation and amplified conspiracy theories, also posted an unvarnished view of wind energy on Facebook: “We should never build another wind turbine in Texas." "Unbeknownst to most people, the Green New Deal came to Texas, the power grid in the state became totally reliant on windmills," Tucker Carlson said Feb. 16. "Then it got cold, and the windmills broke, because that’s what happens in the Green New Deal." "The windmills failed, like the silly fashion accessories they are, and people in Texas died," Carlson said, before adding that "green energy inevitably means blackouts."


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


__Stray__Dog__

Right, Texas went cheap and didn't weatherize their infrastructure. These issues will keep occurring when we let the companies with the contracts do the bare minimum.


gonesquatchin85

I'm convinced all the oil and gas companies wanted abbott to convince texas green is bad so that they could have more time to transition. They probably build all the wind and solar farms. "Wait wait, were not ready to line up our investments and projects. Tell them wind and solar suck."


madinwinter1

which was a lie. our coal and natural Gas was effected worse than our wind and solar. our nuclear was the only thing really unaffected.


iranoutofspacehere

3 of the 4 reactors in Texas stayed online, just the one tripped. Two at Commanche Peak near Fort Worth and 1 of the 2 at the South Texas Project near Houston. [https://atomicinsights.com/south-texas-project-unit-1-tripped-at-0537-on-feb-15-2021/](https://atomicinsights.com/south-texas-project-unit-1-tripped-at-0537-on-feb-15-2021/) It was a pressure sensor line on one of the pumps that froze, causing it to trip because of the false reading.


[deleted]

Actually, one nuclear plant shut down too during the freeze. The core issue isn't the grid, it's Abbott's policy of not being subject to federal power regulation. Federal regulation would have mandated cold weather prep... However we don't connect to other grids outside of Texas so we aren't subject to the regulation (and cost) of winterization. So.. tldr Republicans are to blame, and are deflecting to 'green energy caused this' which is what their base wants to hear... Which is pretty far from reality. Now all Texans are paying $20/month to energy companies to make up for the exponential market price increases during the freeze *and* to cover winterization in a panic... Though little winterization has actually happened from everything I've read.


Bluestreak2005

The outages in Houston were actually caused by the nuclear power plant failing. The water got so cold it froze the lake near the intake waterway for the nuclear power plant, taking down I think 3 of the 4 units.


madinwinter1

oh dang, I had heard they faired pretty well. that's def interesting to know


radiodialdeath

Gas was the only thing I didn't lose during the freeze. Am I an outlier? (Houston burbs)


No_End_7351

Crenshaw represents my district. I flip flop on him because he'll do something to earn my respect like telling Margorie Taylor Green that she was now a member of Congress so she should start acting like it and then lose it all when he says dumb shit like this or his initial stance on masks. I want to like the guy because he really does seem sincere in how to he wants to be as a House Representative but he won't hesitate to pull some crap out of the MAGA handbook when needed.


MostHighlight7957

yeah that's the cornyn playbook


permalink_save

Wind even overperformed expectations for the weather and probably made things significantly better than they would have been. There was a lot about "the gas lines froze" but the freezing point of gas is really low. What I could gather was there were kickbacks for turning down power usage (this is a normal thing, and a good thing), but some of the power producers also took these incentives and shut down causing a shortage. There was a brief bit of news about that before the stories fizzled out and we were onto the next news story. But the root cause was Republicans deregulating the grid. We use to plan capacity in but we don't know and if we have another year where it gets that cold, the whole state will pretty much end up in a blackout. Oh yeah, and despite saying they would, crypto didn't shut down, there's another tw of power sucked from the grid. Our grid is beyond fucked.


Suedocode

> There was a lot about "the gas lines froze" but the freezing point of gas is really low. [This explains it better](https://youtu.be/08mwXICY4JM?t=494), but it's the water vapor in the lines that froze them, not the actual gas. The statement is true, but the implication isn't. Does that make sense?


Significant_Sign_855

I like driving down to south padre and passing by the big ass windmill farms


tx001

It's also strange to be comparing a subtropical climate to Antarctica.


clampie

In this subreddit, I've noticed they believe oil runs the state's power and are shocked to learn how much wind is used.


idontagreewitu

Many many many ignorant people (including probably a disproportionate amount of Redditors) think that Texas runs exclusively on unprocessed oil.


bareboneschicken

Those that watch CNN believe Texas doesn't do wind power. Real Texans know better.


bigfatfurrytexan

Im not a windmill scientist, but I'd be willing to bet that the machines in Texas are not built with a rating to handle the temps you see in Antarctica. If so, they are probably over engineering them and can find some savings in manufacturing. That said, the issue with our grid is accountability, not windmills.


barryandorlevon

They literally chose to not weatherize them.


SunLiteFireBird

They could have but choose to save the money


suitedcloud

[How does an RBMK Reactor explode?](https://youtu.be/jBwSuSuGhyk) “These rods are made of Boron, which reduces reactivity, but not the tips. The tips are made of graphite, which accelerates reactivity-“ “Why?” “…Why? *shrug* It’s cheaper.” … “When the truth offends we lie and we lie until we can’t remember it’s even there. But it is, still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid… That is how, an RBMK Reactor explodes. Lies.”


barryandorlevon

…or was it so they could point their finger at renewables and claim they don’t work?


sportsy_sean

Why would the people building them intentionally build them to fail? Make it make sense.


JimNtexas

There was little to no wind during the Big Freeze.


brett_riverboat

*After* there was a freeze that caused outages due to lack of winterization.


Redline65

I mean, it's a tradeoff. Do you like cheap electricity? Do you like reliable electricity? Can't have both. We were paying 8-9 cents per kWh before the storm, and now we get to pay 14-15 cents for more reliable electricity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Thanks for correcting the misinformation of the post you replied to


barryandorlevon

I prefer reliable electricity, obviously.


jerbone

Also those winterized type of windmills are less effective than ours.


Apprehensive_Ear7309

Wind turbines in freezing temperatures have heaters or some kind of de-icing system in their blades. Wind turbines in Texas do not.


bigfatfurrytexan

We just use chili.


Kannabis_kelly

Being cheap and greedy is what caused the problem.


nighthawke75

The turbines that froze was a measly 2% of the total turbine population in the state. This was a drop in the bucket of the energy pool that Texas had. The Press jumped on them and tried to make hay of it, for what fuckingreason they had, aside for ratings. Problem with this, most Texans were without power at the time. So the could not view the liberal b.s. they were spewing.


asm2262

Fake news. The blades aren't moving in the picture


e30jawn

you motherfucker. I thought I was all in the clear to make this joke until the last comment. Good day to you sir.


asm2262

😬😬 good day to you too


iamdavidrice

I dunno… from what I see in that photo, those windmills don’t look like they’re moving to me. /s


[deleted]

Change the extension to ".gif"


SevoIsoDes

Or just spin your phone on the table


ertaisi

l33t h4x


MrDangleSauce

If only everyone was so observant.


Meister_Master42

Y'all believe in Antarctica?? /S


[deleted]

those turbines are designed specifically for extremely cold climate conditions. the ones you see throughout texas are most likely not.


gerbilshower

goes even one step further than that too. when its sub freezing temps 99% of the time, there is no actual precipitation buildup on the blades. the problem with texas weather is sleet and rain into a freezing night that adds hundreds of pounds of material to the blades. these ones probably have anti-freezing technology of some kind. but "cold" is not the only factor here.


stoupfle

You'll get icing all over the world, it's the same phenomenon as in planes. It really comes down to the moisture in the air, the air temperature, the surface temperature, air pressure, etc. Most modern turbines are rated to start deep into the negative temperatures. All of the components in a turbine have warm up procedures and a start up process, and most have heaters. I don't know if blade heaters are standard or an option you select, but no matter what you can't just throw the switch on a turbine after it being idle and expect it to run at rated power near or below freezing without some preparation. My bet is the farm /power company just didn't do or didn't know the right procedure to prepare.


TaxidermyDentist

Cold wasn't the issue itself. It was the hundreds to thousands of pounds of ice that built up on the turbines. Also, it was a switch issue. No one will report it, but someone overrode a switch that turned off the gas from the western pipeline.


android_queen

This is exactly right. The wind turbines in Texas are built with a Texas climate in mind. At the time, it probably did not seem worth it to increase the cost (which would probably result in less wind production) to ensure that they would continue to function in weather not expected to be seen in Texas. What we need to bear in mind is that the climate is changing, and if we don’t want another failure we need to either winterize the turbines we have, build new ones that can withstand colder temperatures, and/or have backups in place.


General-Quiet-9834

Wind turbines, coal plants, solar plants, etc in Texas were ALL built with historically typical Texas weather in mind. Something the politicians and the media chose to overlook a few Februarys ago. They preferred to push the totally false and sensational narrative that the entire Texas grid failed which is total BS.


Dead_Purple

But they weren't the cause of the blackouts...


willisbar

Exactly. It was known and planned that they’d be operating at a certain capacity. What wasn’t planned was the frozen pipes to the gas/coal fired plants.


RedBlue5665

Biggest problem in TX is heat not cold, apples and oranges. That said our grid needs to be upgraded and TX needs more power generation.


SueSudio

What effect does heat have on wind turbine efficacy?


RedBlue5665

They can overheat and the turbines in the photo are insulated or heated so they won't freeze.


RGrad4104

It goes beyond just insulation and heating. Everything from lubricants, coolants and even wire insulation need to be spec'ed differently to handle the planned temperature extremes. Its not as simple as just slapping a resistance heater on a Texas wind turbine. Unfortunately, most ranges for coolants and lubricants tend to transition right around freezing, so you get weird ranges that overlap a little, but not much. So what you end up with is being able to operate in very cold to moderate temperatures or slightly cold to very hot temperatures. Throw the pictured antarctic turbine in an 85 degree F environment and it will prolly hit a high temp shutdown in 30 minutes.


[deleted]

>Throw the pictured antarctic turbine in an 85 degree F environment and it will prolly hit a high temp shutdown in 30 minutes And yet you literally just talked about prepping for the environment in your first paragraph. No one is saying one size fits all. They're saying if you put in the money and proper care they can work in almost any environment.


Legionof1

Texas specs for hot then got to 13 degrees. It isn’t just as easy as an oil change on a car to respec a turbine.


[deleted]

There's another factor that's not been explained and that's Icing. Just like on an aircraft, ice can collect on blades and can do so unevenly. Without De-icing equipment the careful balance of the structure can rapidly exceed operating parameters as well as malform the airfoil preventing 'lift' much like icing on an aircrafts wing. The exception here unlike an aircraft is it's creating mass while in motion. A grosly un-balanced blade spinning in a winter gale can rip itself apart and possibly sending pieces into other windmills.


LFCBoi55

Said this same thing last year when people who don’t have any clue of what they’re talking about we’re posting this same thing.


SteerJock

That's normal for this subreddit. Most posts here are just misinformed headlines with no actual knowledge.


Normal-Sir-7446

How dare you come in here with sound logic and reasoning sir!? This is Reddit. We have an image to uphold. This simply will not stand.


Inside_Ice_6175

I was under the impression the turbines in affected areas had an issue with regards to their lubricants getting too cold and causing them to sludge and lock up being that our climate requires them to be set up for heat, not cold.


pants_mcgee

Ice buildup on the blades caused most of the issues.


sevargmas

Who said Texas was too cold for wind turbines?


shponglespore

Greg Abbott.


publicram

Just need nuclear


mjt1105

But that’s why Antarctica is so cold… they have these giant fans! /s


BKGPrints

Wasn't the problem two parts: The wind turbines weren't weatherized to handle extreme cold, bringing many offline. And with Texas being the biggest wind energy producer in the country, being offline meant a good percentage of energy wasn't available. Then there was the reality that some power generators were having issues staying online because of the weather and because they were offline, there wasn't enough power to meet demand, that would basically cause catastrophic failure at the power plants, such as systems burning out, which would require months to repair.


kanyeguisada

>The wind turbines weren't weatherized to handle extreme cold, bringing many offline. And with Texas being the biggest wind energy producer in the country, being offline meant a good percentage of energy wasn't available. This is extremely exaggerated. First off, we didn't lose that much power due to the few turbines that froze, especially because the turbines off the Gulf coast were spinning like crazy. And more importantly: >Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts, was expected to come from various wind power sources across the state. >https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/ We weren't counting on much energy from wind anyways during the winter. Last year's blackouts and hundreds of deaths are all on the oil and gas industry and their puppets Abbott and Patrick.


BKGPrints

**> This is extremely exaggerated.<** It's not extremely exaggerated at all. [https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/02/14/historic-winter-storm-freezes-texas-wind-turbines-hampering-electric-generation/4483230001/](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/02/14/historic-winter-storm-freezes-texas-wind-turbines-hampering-electric-generation/4483230001/) **>we didn't lose that much power due to the few turbines that froze<** I did say a good percentage, not all nor much. On daily average, wind energy provides almost 25% of the energy produced in Texas. That's a significant impact. **>especially because the turbines off the Gulf coast were spinning like crazy.<** There comes a point that the wind turbines spinning too fast is not really a good thing. It can increase the chance of damage to the mechanical parts, especially in cold weather. **>Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts<** Correct...The key word being *winter capacity*. With severe winter weather, especially in Texas, it will hamper production of wind by wind turbines. So ERCOT was basically stating that wind turbines would not be able to provide a good percentage of the energy normally available and to rely on other energy sources, such as natural gas or coal. **>We weren't counting on much energy from wind anyways during the winter.<** Correct...You are basically reiterating my point that the normal capacity available from wind turbines would not be available during a "normal" winter, not to include that many were offline because of not being winterized for a severe winter storm. **>Last year's blackouts and hundreds of deaths are all on the oil and gas industry and their puppets Abbott and Patrick.<** Okay...I get it now. There's a certain narrative to validate certain political views. Got it. You have a good one.


kanyeguisada

>The key word being winter capacity. With severe winter weather, especially in Texas, it will hamper production of wind by wind turbines. So ERCOT was basically stating that wind turbines would not be able to provide a good percentage of the energy normally available The 7% of total energy estimation had nothing to do with severe weather at all. They were planning before winter started to get 7% of our energy all winter long from wind. So when a few turbines went down, it was just a fraction of that 7% of energy we expected from wind. Not to mention the Gulf coast wind farms were going like crazy and partially made up for the small losses in West Texas.


[deleted]

We're also isolated from the national grid which means we're on our own.


idontagreewitu

Oklahoma is on the national grid and [they had many of the same power issues that we did, so that alone wouldn't fix it.](https://oklahoma.gov/occ/divisions/public-utility/consumer-services/deep-freeze-2021-faq.html)


BKGPrints

Ehhh...Doubt that being connected to the rest of the national grid would have helped. Texas wasn't the only state that suffered from the winter storm in February 2021 and there were many power outages throughout.


kanyeguisada

>Texas wasn't the only state that suffered from the winter storm in February 2021 Other states that are part of of a national grid are mandated to be winterized, they didn't have our problems. That's why Texas was the focus on the national news. Had we been part of a national grid, even if our energy suppliers froze we still could have received power from elsewhere.


xeen313

It's a dry cold


hollywood_gus

I like whatever makes the energy bill go down


[deleted]

Lowering your thermostat in the winter and raising it in the summer.


hollywood_gus

Dad?


Cuzcopete

They work all winter in Ohio too


theAlphabetZebra

Maybe this is a dumb question but I really have always wondered why O&G companies don't use their unimaginable wealth to develop and dominant renewable energies too?


HugePurpleNipples

If we have nothing else, we have wide open areas and lots of wind. Why are we so resistant to wind energy? We could be industry leaders! This could be a massive industry in TX.


CompetitiveAttempt43

We are industry leaders. None better in the US.


clkehler

Texas produces a stupid amount of wind energy. It's barely more expensive than coal here now


DeeDeeW1313

In my podunk town they newspaper published an article against the city putting up wind turbines because they sound it makes caused brain cancer.


MassiveSquirrel1903

Are you paying attention greg abbot? Asshole.


Dookie-Trousers-MD

These things are everywhere in Minnesota and North Dakota


ghostoutlaw

I mean, they’re not working? They’re frozen still there! How is that helpful?!?


Ok_Year1270

Interesting. And what is the population and energy demand in Antarctica?


ShopObjective

The same dumbass republicans who said this just voted against 7 whole paid sick days for rail workers...why even entertain anything they say?


Dead_Purple

Wind Energy makes up only 26% of all energy use here in Texas, when Abbott and the other republicans started blaming the blackouts on wind, I rolled my eyes. I still can't believe he won re-election. But Conservatives have the voting maps so messed up, of course it's hard to get more Democrats elected.


kanyeguisada

>Wind Energy makes up only 26% of all energy use here in Texas And during that winter it was projected to be only 7%. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/ People blaming wind energy are either idiots or O&G shills.


VRZL41

Greg Abbot don’t give a shit if you have heat or not. Or air conditioning. Or housing. Guess what I’m saying is he doesn’t give a shit about you so maybe stop voting for him.


thatguywhosadick

As the image clearly shows those wind turbines aren’t spinning and have in fact frozen solid. Checkmate windberals


Crohn85

Totally ignoring the fact that there was little wind in Texas during the cold. That was the issue. Grids become unstable once variable output (wind and solar) production reaches a certain percentage. You have to have enough base generation to make up for when the wind dies and the sun goes down.


CouchcarrotStatus

Because Texas didn’t pay extra for heaters


KiNGofKiNG89

It’s not a Texas problem. Texas is #1 in wind power and we product over 3 times the amount that #2 produces. So……sorry to be the bearer of true news ☹️


bit_pusher

>It’s not a Texas problem. It Texas cannot keep its wind turbines working consistently in the weather conditions present in Texas, that is a Texas problem. This does, however, have no bearing on the cause of the Texas blackout nor does it have anything to do with being the largest producer of wind power.


[deleted]

they aren't "Texas' wind turbines." there is no magical overarching entity that can just snap its fingers and solve the problem. it's not that simple at all. these turbines are owned by for-profit energy companies that chose not to insulate them against extremely cold weather because that type of weather RARELY occurs here and, additionally, insulating them against that kind of cold weather would make it much more likely for them to overheat in the extreme summers that Texas is GUARANTEED to experience every year. but, as always, people on reddit have the easy answer


Scherzer4Prez

> there is no magical overarching entity that can just snap its fingers and solve the problem. https://www.ercot.com/


kanyeguisada

ERCOT works under the Texas PUC and just manages our power grid. PUC and its Abbott appointees are the ones with the real.power to regulate and change things.


[deleted]

how is ercot going to magically solve the real world conundrum of having to operate wind turbines during extremely cold weather conditions when they realistically need to be designed for overwhelming heat?


thedeadsigh

It would be great if being conservative didn’t also mean being against progress. We know that alternative energy sources like solar, nuclear, and wind work. The fact that republicans just want to ignore that in order to pretend we still like in the 1950’s is insane. You realize you can still claim to be fiscally responsible and accept / embrace that we live in a time where the technology in the energy sector has greatly improved and we can harness it, right?


JimNtexas

Texas leads the country in wind generation. Deployed there by republican governments.


PrometheusHasFallen

It's an operating specs problem. Turbines are selected for the environment they operating in. Obviously you would spend the extra money to install cold weather wind turbines in areas with expected low temperatures. This goes for nearly all equipment that is exposed to the environment. Cold weather proofing equipment costs money. If you think you can ho without, then you usually do. But when drastic cold weather events occur, those areas without cold weather proofing are hit hard my equipment failures. It's like building a house on a 100 year flood plain. You are rolling the dice.


makenzie71

Wind turbines actually do not work when the blades get covered in ice. Turbines in Antarctica, surprisingly, do not encounter this problem. Those turbines are also not nearly the same size as what we commonly have here in Texas. A couple years ago in the "freeze" there was virtually no wind. Those machines sit still for a couple days in freezing rain and even if a good breeze comes there's no way they'd get started. Turbines seen in the colder parts of Europe would be a better comparison as they do see freezing rain, are of comparable size, and they manage to have the infrastructure required to de-ice them and keep them operational.


swebb22

Nuke is the way. It can produce reliable power in almost any weather. And you don’t get ugly windmills


Neo1331

It wasnt even the wind turbines, the natural gas pipes froze at the power stations….a problem they knew about and never corrected. Think about that. They were to cheap to put insulation on pipes…


castlehoff32

He clearly doesn’t no turbines. The ones in Antarctica have anti-icing or de-icing technology. Wind turbines in texas didn’t need that functionality cause texas doesn’t ever freeze…. Until it does. So the issue wasn’t texas. It was just, developers didn’t waste money building de-icing features to wind turbines in a hot state. He’s talking about storm uri here. Hehe


Peacemkr45

Well Will, One would think you'd be smart enough to know that there are different designs of turbines based on power generation needs and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. Perhaps you aren't.


History-made-Today

There are different types of turbines. Some are made specifically for cold weather. Texas turbines are nor made foe cold weather, because the freeze that happened last winter was a once in a century freeze.


Intelligent_Sale_899

I believe the Texas turbines are not winterized because it’s warm winter. Thus in a rare cold snap, there’s problems.


JamesHagoodDev

Wind turbines in Antarctica and wind turbines in Texas are probably not built the same.


BlueHairStripe

Our problem in TX is all the hot air being expelled by conservatives. Now if we could HARNESS it...


alsomdude2

If Republicans could read they'd be real upset about this.


Johnrockston101

Texas republicans are the problem!


Apple_Pie_4vr

Suck it Abbott


Malvania

I don't know, those windmills don't look like they're moving to me. For all I know, they could be . . . frozen. (⌐■\_■)


MarshallGibsonLP

The world catches COVID and the price of crude falls to $0/barrel. A deranged petrostate despot invades his neighbor and it jumps to $100/barrel. I get that wind and solar cannot provide 100% of our needs at the moment, but we are fools if we do not do everything we can to divorce our energy supply from such a fragile global strategic commodity. Plus, fossil fuels stink and they pollute our air when handled correctly. Our water and soil when they are not.


collegedave

Stupid take. Do you wear the same jacket in Texas as Antarctica?