The issue was not only perfectly foreseeable, ERCOT has a ten year old document explaining PRECISELY how to avoid such an occurrence happening.
Did you miss the second paragraph below? -- TTFN, patrick > On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> wrote: > > Not what I was saying. The demand for virtue-signaling green energy is not an > effective strategy to actually having power available. > > I appreciate the nuances, but the need to imply that a profit motive was the > issue is not proven. This issue was NOT foreseeable except with the perfect > reverse 20/20 vision. It’s like saying that I shouldn’t have built the house > where the tornado hit. > >> On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net >> <mailto:patr...@ianai.net>> wrote: >> >> Brian: >> >> The idea that because ERCOT is a non-profit somehow means they would never >> do anything to save money, or management is not granted bonuses or salary >> increases based on savings, or have no financial incentive is ridiculous. >> E.g. Salaries for the top ERCOT executives increased 50% from 2012 to 2019. >> “Just pointing out facts.” >> >> Also, green vs. traditional has little to do with why ERCOT had problems. It >> is undisputed that ERCOT failed in 2011, was handed a report by the feds >> showing why they failed and how to fix it, yet ERCOT did not require >> suppliers to enact those fixes. Those actions had a direct, operational >> effect on the Internet. And as such, seem perfectly on-topic for NANOG. >> >> Why that happened may still be on topic. For instance, you state correctly >> that ERCOT is a non-profit (although you and I disagree on precisely how >> that affects things). But the suppliers are not. Are we 1000000% certain the >> CEO’s salary jumping far far far far far faster than inflation had nothing >> to do with protecting the suppliers’ profits? I am not. However, that >> question is only tenuously operational. >> >> Bringing it back to the topic on hand: How do we keep the grid up? Or plan >> for it not being up? Simply saying “green power is unreliable” is not an >> answer when many RFPs at least ask what percentage of your power is green, >> or flat out require at least some of your production be green. Making a >> blanket statement that “XXX is a non-profit” does not absolve them from poor >> business practices, which at least saves the non-profit money and frequently >> results in profits outside that entity. Etc. >> >> -- >> TTFN, >> patrick >> >> >>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:00, Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us >>> <mailto:brian.john...@netgeek.us>> wrote: >>> >>> There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely >>> relevant to your response. >>> >>> For profit companies have similar issues with power generation and >>> maintenance as the way power is generated requires maintenance. No power >>> system is generating at 100% of capability at any single point. Your >>> assumptions of neglect, poor maintenance and failing to learn are >>> subterfuge. Traditional methods are more reliable (so far) than the newer >>> “green” methods. >>> >>> Just pointing out facts. >>> >>>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc >>>> <mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Brian- >>>> >>>> I am aware. That's also not relevant at all to the point. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:22 AM Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us >>>> <mailto:brian.john...@netgeek.us>> wrote: >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> You do realize that ERCOT is a non-profit organization…. >>>> >>>>> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc >>>>> <mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid >>>>> > unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and >>>>> > perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, desire for renewable power sources is totally the reason that power >>>>> generators neglect proper preventative maintenance and adoption of >>>>> lessons learned during past problem periods. It absolutely has nothing to >>>>> do with profit being the most important thing ever. Right? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa >>>>> <mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/14/21 13:35, Billy Croan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Sounds like we all need to start keeping a few days reserve of energy >>>>> > on hand at home now because the utilities can't be trusted to keep >>>>> > their system online in 2021. >>>>> >>>>> It just makes sense to plan along those lines, really. Despite popular >>>>> belief, power companies are preferring energy conservation from their >>>>> customers more than they do sales, because they just can't keep throwing >>>>> up new coal-fired or nuclear power stations a la the days of old (anyone >>>>> remember the 1973 and 1979 oil crises?) >>>>> >>>>> Most people would assume that power companies want to sell more >>>>> electricity so they can make more money, but they dread the days when >>>>> the network is brought to its knees, even if the revenue will climb. So >>>>> between asking customers to save more on energy + being able to rely >>>>> less on fossil fuels for generation, one needs to consider their >>>>> personal energy security over the long term, fully or partially >>>>> independent of the traditional grid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Funny how this obsession with a green grid has made the grid >>>>> > unreliable, resulting in sales of gas-burning generators and >>>>> > perishable fuel. Dare I say it's not been worth it? >>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't say that the obsession is without merit. It's just that >>>>> regular folk are only seeking the solution from one perspective - that >>>>> of the power generators. If folk (and that includes the gubbermints) met >>>>> the power companies half way, renewables would make a lot more sense, >>>>> more quickly. But as I said before, when we flick the switch, it must >>>>> turn on. End of. And then we revert to demanding power companies to >>>>> embrace the additional revenue, or fulfill their mandate to deliver a >>>>> basic, life-sustaining utility, no matter what. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, there really hasn't been sufficient education to regular >>>>> folk about what it takes to generate electricity reliably, no matter the >>>>> season. And yet, there is far more education out there about the >>>>> benefits of conserving it, and preserving the earth. So the view is not >>>>> balanced, and power companies as well as oil producers will knee-jerk to >>>>> either justify or distance themselves, rather than encourage a fair, >>>>> practical engagement. In the end, he that feels the most pressure, >>>>> caves... and this can go either way depending on which side of the >>>>> economic development curve you are sitting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > Nuclear and hydro were the only reasonable obvious choices and >>>>> > ecological paralysis hamstrings those as well. >>>>> >>>>> Ultimately, no target toward zero emissions is complete without some >>>>> kind of nuclear and/or hydro. Especially as a solution for peak demand, >>>>> (pumped) hydro will continue to be the most efficient option, if folk >>>>> are interested in keeping the lights on at 7:45PM on a wintery Tuesday >>>>> night. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > Now is the time to speak the message. Write your elected >>>>> > representatives. Talk to your families and friends about energy. >>>>> > Change minds. >>>>> >>>>> There is room for co-existence, I think. But the honest discussions need >>>>> to be had, and not the glossy wish list that should be fixed by someone >>>>> else, because we are just citizens minding our own business. >>>>> >>>>> Mark. >>>> >>> >
