[HN Gopher] Energy Mess in Texas
___________________________________________________________________
Energy Mess in Texas
Author : undefined1
Score : 27 points
Date : 2021-02-20 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wimflyc.blogspot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (wimflyc.blogspot.com)
| pydry wrote:
| >A capacity market in Texas would have made wind significantly
| more expensive, and was thus politically untenable.
|
| A rather surprising claim, given the apparent tenability of wind
| in the rest of the world.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I've heard basically two arguments for wind/solar: it's
| cheaper, and it's greener.
|
| In a place like Texas, you get support on the "it's cheaper"
| argument. Wind and sunlight are free after all.
|
| In many other places, you get support on the "it's greener"
| argument. Doesn't matter if it's more expensive, less reliable,
| etc. because it's saving the environment.
| [deleted]
| addicted wrote:
| Maybe in the aughts.
|
| But since the 2010s wind has been built solely for the
| economics.
| gumby wrote:
| That hasn't been widely true in a decade. LCoE of solar and
| especially wind has been lower in several markets for quite a
| while.
|
| The "green" argument works at the retail end, but at the
| production side the cost structure (including the need for
| source diversity) drives it.
|
| LCoE calculations are quite situationally specific of course;
| thus in the US coal-fired electricity production is dying
| (independent of any government action) while in China and, to
| a lesser extent India, it's still on the rise.
| ipsocannibal wrote:
| Summary: Texas's energy market does not incentivise capacity
| planning as common in other utility markets instead pricing only
| energy delivered. When demand increased and capacity dropped the
| grid failed. The post claims this market structure is designed to
| make renewable a more attractive investiment which partly dropped
| capacity due to lack of wind velocity but then sides steps the
| question of winterization of the non wind generation sources as
| the primary cause of the drop in capacity. In short, Texas
| cheaped out on long term grid protection to make short term gains
| in energy delivery prices. The bet pays off most of the time, but
| when it doesn't the failures are catastrophic.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| When I have read about this Texas situation I found that I did
| not really understand what a "capacity market" for energy was.
| I assumed it was some sort of futures market, and it sort of
| is. This maybe clarifies how an energy capacity market works.
|
| https://energynews.us/2013/06/17/midwest/explainer-how-capac...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| To a large degree, simple price signals can incentivize
| capacity. A plant doesn't have to operate many hours in the
| year to be profitable at $9000/MWhr.
| asmithmd1 wrote:
| Sure, sure, $9,000/MWhr is a sweet reward that was being
| offered way back on Wednesday. Do you know what the clearing
| price is right now? -$31.65 Yes, they are CHARGING power
| plant operators who rushed to bring capacity online:
| http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/20210220_real_time_spp
|
| Maybe markets are not the best solution for every situation.
| autoditype wrote:
| > Yes, they are CHARGING power plant operators who rushed
| to bring capacity online.
|
| A negative cost incentivizes the operators to turn it off,
| no? I imagine those power plant operators can easily turn
| it off in an hour? 9000/31=290.3, so there is plenty of
| margin to break even.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Those are both snapshots. Over the years/decades that
| energy generation infrastructure operates, there's an
| average.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| The problem is that it isn't good enough if the grid only
| works "on average". It needs higher uptime than pure
| market incentives would give.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-20 23:02 UTC)