Daily Kos

Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency

Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:44:25 PM PDT

From Reuters

Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind
generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an
electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service
to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind
energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening
electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the
state.

The grid operator went directly to the second stage of an emergency
plan at 6:41 PM CST (0041 GMT), ERCOT said in a statement.

System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave
1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said. Interruptible
customers are generally large industrial customers who are paid to
reduce power use when emergencies occur.  

No other customers lost power during the emergency, ERCOT said.
Interruptible customers were restored in about 90 minutes and the
emergency was over in three hours.

ERCOT said the grid's frequency dropped suddenly when wind production
fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when
the emergency was declared.

In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount
of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with
the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving
power to the west from North Texas.

ERCOT declares a stage 1 emergency when power reserves fall below
2,300 MW. A stage 2 emergency is called when reserves fall below 1,750
MW.

At the time of the emergency, ERCOT demand increased from 31,200 MW to
a peak of 35,612 MW, about half the total generating capacity in the
region, according to the agency's Web site.

Is this the future for boutique wind power? Clearly this is exactly what those of us here on the DK have been warning about: wind cannot substitute for BASE LOAD power. Period.

I should of added this to my Energy Rant from yesterday but...oh well.

Wind is 'boutique power' because it fills a very small niche of the generation demand because it is, uhmmm "unreliable". See above. It can function to lower the 'burn rate' of fossil so long as that fossil is available to raise load when the wind...uhmm...the wind stops blowing like it did...uhmm...today in the windpower capital of the world, the Lonestar State.

We've been saying that it's not always there when we need it and this shows that this is the case. And, it's expensive. But...interestingly, Texas actually doesn't have that much...5% or so of the load. So clearly, who whoever at ERCOT thought that the early part of that days load could handle a 5,000 MW incease based on a reserve capacity of...wind...ought to get taken out side and spanked.

Fortunatly, nuclear energy is on an upswing in Texas with about 1/4 of all the plants announced to be in that state...which don't have to wait until the wind picks up.

For wind to work in the situations above, ERCOT, and any ISO, has to be able to have on demand back up spinning reserve available for ALL the wind "capacity" that is "available". Ironic quotes are added here because "capacity" in the case of wind is a very hit and miss concept and "availability" is used by wind advocates as when the turbine is "available" even if the wind isn't blowing...which in my mind means when...there is no power available TO the ISO for dispatch. At any rate, wind can be integrated into an ISO's jusridiction, so long as no one actually depends on it when it's needed.

David

Tags: wind, nuclear, nuclear energy, boutique power (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 201 comments

    •  What's your point, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JeffW

      that you'd rather not have the windmills in Texas, in which case there would be more rolling blackouts?

      If there's an argument against wind, it's that it will slow down thermal wind flows between the tropics and the arctic, possibly causing further temperature extremes.  But this argument here isn't it.

      Besides, bright,sunny,dry Texas should be supplementing their wind farms with solar farms.

      •  Oh stopppppp!!!! (5+ / 0-)

        "it's that it will slow down thermal wind flows between the tropics and the arctic"...you are kidding right?

        Those of us who are pro nuclear on the DS have to say that it's the science and not fads thar are important. I mentioned the TWO arguments against wind already: relibility and cost.

        My point about "wind power" is not to be against it or for it, but to undersand it, which means understanding that you can't depend on it. Clearly the idiot at the Texas ISO (you can be sure it was ONE system dispatcher that screwed up) relied on the wind to continue to give 1700 MWs. This was stupid.

        What I think they should do is build about 20 more nukes in Texas and then let wind fill in when it feels like it, which is what it does not.

        DAvid

        •  And what will you folks do (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          byoungbl, KenBee, cjallen, The Totalizer

          when the uranium runs out?

          It's just another non-renewable energy resource.

          Not a solution, just a temporary fix with long term consequences.

        •  Perhaps a good place to start would ... (13+ / 0-)

          ...be to have Texans consuming per capita electricity at the rate Californians do (160 million BTUs vs. 60 million).

          I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

          by Meteor Blades on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:15:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  dingdingding (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            by foot, cjallen, FishOutofWater

            negawatts make the slack you need.

            surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

            by wu ming on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  With nuclear power plants (0+ / 0-)

            we can produce limitless amounts of energy using the same forces that take place upon the Sun.  It's clean, safe and will probably be too cheap to meter, if you know what I mean (wink).

            For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

            by The Totalizer on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:41:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ouch! (0+ / 0-)

            Always good point. But things are always bigger in Texas, don't ya' know?

            David

            •  Seriously. Where is the water for the (5+ / 0-)

              proposed nuclear power plants coming from?

              Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.

              Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn’t result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region’s utilities could be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies.

              Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.

              For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

              by The Totalizer on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:47:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, the water question. (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                C Barr, FishOutofWater

                Always a good one. This is why the media often plays a bad role. Lets us examine the issue here.

                Fist, if the AP writer was honest...and they were not because they were confronted on this bias and REFUSED to correct it.

                About 60 to 70% of the power in this area is from COAL and gas. What effecs nuclear with regards to water effects ALL thermal plants, including coal and much of the gas plants. The turbine (which is why you need the water) is the SAME on a nuclear plant, a gas thermal plant or combined cycle plant, and coal plants. So, in fact, the article purposely singled out nuclear even though 70% of ALL the power is effected. This is called "bias".

                But it effects these plants because they were engineered for once through cooling with river water. They didn't even always build reservoirs which would of allievated this situation. Plants can be retrofitted with cooling towers or air cooled condensers.

                The largest nuclear plant in the US, the Palos Verde plant, is built in the middle of the desert and was engineered to not use massive amounts of water...it uses waste water from the city of Phoenix, to it's north. Where does Atlanta's waste water go? Down the drain.

                Keep those questions coming in!
                David

                •  Don't duck the question (0+ / 0-)

                  Where is the water for your 20 power plants in Texas coming from?  Rivers? Reservoirs? Rainwater? Groundwater? Gulf water?  Without a reliable source of cool water, the plants will be producing cost prohibitive electricity.

                  For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

                  by The Totalizer on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:20:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not ducking the question...in fact (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    KenBee, C Barr, FishOutofWater

                    every plant as part of their Construction and Operating License has to have a water cooling plan. In Texas, the South State plants will be Gulf water cooled. Hows' that for you? Does this fit your bill? Unlimited once-through cooling. The other proposals all have cooling towers OR air cooled condensers.

                    David

                    •  Any impacts on the Gulf water expected? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                      For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

                      by The Totalizer on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:52:34 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Gulf Coast nukes (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      The Totalizer

                      Cat 4 and Cat 5 hurricane safe? (don't forget the Galveston storm surge that erased the city...) Environmental impact of heat dumped into the Gulf?

                      We need not think alike to love alike -- Ferenc Dávid

                      by ogre on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:23:42 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How warm is Gulf water already? (0+ / 0-)

                        If it is too warm then it poses challenges for use in cooling systems.

                        For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

                        by The Totalizer on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:27:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, engineers design the system based on average (0+ / 0-)

                          temperature for the inlet. They just don't stick a pump in the water and pray it's cool enough. The only danger to any power plant is storm surge. Probalby the safest place in a Cat 5 is IN a nuclear power plant. The plants are desinged to shutdown during such events. New plants are built with huge dyking surrounding the plants and the plants can be built up higher.

                          David

                      •  Nuclear plants are tough (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        A Siegel

                        The Davis-Besse plant took a direct hit from a F2 category tornado.

                        Let's see a wind turbine survive that.

                        Nuclear plants in Florida have already weathered Cat 4 (possibly Cat 5) hurricanes.  There was some structural damage, as would be expected, but the plants were just fine.

                        Oh ... and if you think that the (relatively) small amount of heat produced by a nuclear plant has any effect on a thermal body as large as the Gulf of Mexico, then you have no sense of proportion.

                        The answer: there would be no impact from thermal energy dumped into the gulf.

                        Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.
                        -- George Eliot

                        by bryfry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:22:02 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Reminds me (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          Mulkum

                          of the idea that the human population can have on the climate is absurd.

                          In short, you're asserting as fact something that you don't know.

                          You're also distorting the question from effect on the Gulf to effect on the entire Gulf.

                          That much heat WILL affect things.  The whole Gulf?  Not one reactor.  But the assertion that what we want to do can't possibly affect the ecology is Exxonesque.

                          Sure, a wind turbine isn't going to survive a hit that a containment dome will.  But then... it doesn't have to.  The damage from a downed turbine is modest and quite limited in time and scope.  The damage from a breached reactor would be an entirely different thing--which is why there's a legitimate question.

                          "No impact"

                          Idiotic response.

                          Hell, I live within the potential evacuation area for San Onofre, and I KNOW that the heat dump from that reactor has an effect.  For that matter, so does the heat dump from a standard hydrocarbon burning plant.

                          Shill.

                          We need not think alike to love alike -- Ferenc Dávid

                          by ogre on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:32:06 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  They fish at night now (0+ / 0-)

                            Since the fish glow in the dark.

                            NOW is time to uphold the Constitution and protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

                            by Mulkum on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:55:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not a difficult calculation (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a simple matter of heat capacity. If you have taken physics or engineering or even chemistry, you should be able to do it on the back of an envelope.

                            Let me summarize: 3000 MW of waste heat energy -> large heat reservoir provided by the Gulf of Mexico = negligible increase in water temperature.

                            This is something that is easily known, easily calculated, and thus I present it as fact.

                            A downed turbine is a turbine that will need to be replaced, to the tune of over $1 million each. A large hurricane taking out an entire wind farm means that the entire wind farm would need to be replaced.

                            Meanwhile, breaching a containment dome would release an insignificantly tiny amount of radioactivity, since the majority of the radioisotopes would still be contained inside the reactor vessel and primary loop. To cause anything significant, several layers of protection would have to be compromised, and this has been studied over and over ad nauseum.

                            The true realistic "worst-case" scenario would be when some of the secondary systems or auxiliary systems are damaged, in which case the plant would have to be taken down while repairs were made. (For example, the tornado that hit Davis-Besse wrecked havoc in the switchyard.) That is not cheap, but the entire nuclear plant would not have to be replaced.

                            Idiot.

                            Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.
                            -- George Eliot

                            by bryfry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:10:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  Oh for god's sake... (0+ / 0-)

                              the same hypersimplistic "calculation" can be done when looking at the pollutants that dump into the Gulf from the Mississippi.

                              It will no doubt shock and amaze you to find that they don't smoothly and evenly just mix into the waters of the entire Gulf... and that there is a dead zone that results.

                              I grew up within a family of engineers and dad's a mechanical engineer and rocket scientist.  I'm more than capable of smelling the difference between a perfectly smooth, hairless pachyderm whose weight is negligible and an actual elephant.

                              The San Onofre reactors--by your analysis--should have absolutely NO effect on the ecology, because they can't possibly generate enough heat to alter the thermal balance of the entire Pacific Ocean.

                              I withdraw "idiot."  You don't appear to meet that low standard.

                              We need not think alike to love alike -- Ferenc Dávid

                              by ogre on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:47:17 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

                                but if you can't distinguish between something that is a health hazard when its encountered in concentrations on the order of several parts per million and the thermal mixing of two fluids (a small one and a large one) and the resulting transition to thermal equilibrium, then I cannot help you. You are obviously ill-equipped to have any kind of technical discussion about this issue.

                                I don't care how many fathers, mothers, sisters, cousins, etc., you have who are engineers -- you still don't know what you're talking about. I suggest that you go ask them how heat transfer and mixing works. Maybe they can enlighten you, but I'll do what I can in the meantime.

                                There are some very limited, localized effects near a plant's thermal outlet, sure, but there is very little to be concerned about. Although thousands of megawatts of heat energy are dumped by a large nuclear reactor, the temperature of the outlet flow is actually quite low (which is why it is very difficult to do anything practical with this "waste" heat). This low temperature limits the localized effects.

                                In a relatively small thermal reservoir, such as a river or lake, the amount of heat that is dumped can have noticeable effects, and this is why these bodies of water are carefully monitored and strict regulatory limits are put in place to insure that the effects do not harm the ecosystem.

                                When the heat sink is an ocean or a gulf, the concerns become trivial, which is why your worries about the "environmental impact of heat dumped into the Gulf" are just silly. Next time, rather than just speculating and assuming the worst, try investigating what you're talking about. Here, your entire argument relies on ignorance as its only talking point.

                                Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.
                                -- George Eliot

                                by bryfry on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmm ... (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  pattyp

                  The reporters get it wrong on nuclear power but are wonderful and should be trumpeted re wind (when they mislead in the discussion)?

                  Look, the anti-anything but nuclear power rants are not, I would suggest helpful nor accurate.

                  With a smart(er) grid, with demand-side management and a decent HVDC grid to move power between region, there can be much higher penetration of intermittent power sources.  Storage systems (from large-scale to small), with some smart grid facilitation, with enable this penetration.

                  A single, Silver Bullet, solution to the world's problems might be a nice fantasy but it remains, basically, that.

                •  Nuclear uses 20-80%, avg 40% more water (0+ / 0-)

                  than coal-fired generation to produce the same amount of electricity. There are many cooling design variations possible (once-through cooling, ponds, towers) but for the same cooling design at the same site, nuclear requires around 40% more on average. I've seen a report indicating the range is 20-80% more, but 40% seems most common. That is both 40% more water intake (of course this depends greatly on the cooling system with once-through cooling utilizing many times the amount of water that pond or tower cooling uses), and around 40% more water removed from the supply (most as evaporation).

                  The main reason for the difference is that nuclear plants operate with a lower steam temperature. There are exceptions, nuclear designs that can produce higher steam temperatures, like advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs). I remember reading a report on the Hunterston AGR in Scotland, which noted that it had the same steam pressures and temperatures as an equivalent coal-fired station, thus used the same turbines and had the same water reqirements. But AGRs are still uncommon and the new reactor designs seeking licensing in the USA require more water than comparable fossil fuel stations would need.

                  Of course, there is also a greater public perceptio of threat and risk from nuclear generating stations. So they will be singled out in media reports of water shortages for that reason alone. That aside, they do actually use more water.

              •  Not until November that is.... (0+ / 0-)

                Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn’t result in blackouts.

                Can You say 3 mile?

                NOW is time to uphold the Constitution and protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

                by Mulkum on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:34:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  What a stupid remark! (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Agathena

              I'm a Texan and have always advocated for reducing energy needs as everyone should. Bigger is not always better. Humph! ThinkAboutIt!

              You're just one of those crazy nuke junkies, huh? Let it glow, let it glow, let it glow!

              An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind - Mahatma Gandhi

              by TX Scotia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:53:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah...well...better a little 'glow' (0+ / 0-)

                than sitting around in the dark.

                Indeed, I'm all for efficency. We're on 60 whatever units in California and in T-land you are over 160. But the problem, TX, is that your parameters are all wrong. You think energy consumption HAS to be limited, I don't. It is uncenessary when we could have limitless power. It's possible but only under s clean and safe thorium economy.

                david

                •  "uncenessary"? No, I don't think we as humans can (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  pattyp

                  be so arrogant as to think we can kill this little speck on which we live.  Digging holes  to stick our glow in is an impossible scenario. We have to think more effectively not more affectively, ya know?

                  An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind - Mahatma Gandhi

                  by TX Scotia on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:15:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Kill it? (0+ / 0-)

                    You are right.. we cannot kill the planet. We only have the power to make it thermally and genetically unlivable for... us.... and other mammals.

                    There will always be plants, and algae.... and umm.. fungus.. slimemolds..some trees perhaps, but we cannot kill all DNA on the planet.

                    We are talking about changing the conditions under which we evolved JUST ENOUGH to make our own lives.. not alive.

                    Your comment is beyond stupid AND arrogant.

                    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                    by OregonOak on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:19:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Republican talking point from (10+ / 0-)

                  ...all the way back in the Reagan Administration. His comment in 1981 that those promoting renewable energy and conservation wanted everyone to "freeze to death in the dark" was typical of the kind of thinking that got us where we are today.

                  I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

                  by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:00:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Isn't McCain running under a safe and clean (0+ / 0-)

                    thorium economy banner?

                    For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

                    by The Totalizer on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:14:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I wish. I've never heard him utter much (0+ / 0-)

                      on it. The McCain-Lieberman Bill had tons of nuclear stuff in it, nothing about thorium.

                      The old AEC effectively destroyed thorium reseach in this country in the 1970s. It is being carried out in India and Russia, that's it.

                      David

                  •  Yes, except now you have people (0+ / 0-)

                    advocating us using less energy. Lowering your thermastat, etc. It's excactly what many antis advocate...not all but enough. Whenever I hear "use less" it usually means for people who already have enough and can cutback. And none of this "less" is going to bring 2 billion people out of poverty just to get ONE light bulb or refrigerator in their houses. We are going to need a lot MORE energy to do this.

                    David

                •  What a disgusting comment ... (3+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  silence, pattyp, JohnnyRook

                  "Sitting around in the dark" ... How many Californian households don't have lights?  Efficiency is not 'doing without' and fostering that meme is destructive, in the extreme.  

                  I don't care where the power is coming from, but it is simply foolish to be wasteful when efficiency remains such an easily mined resource.

      •  Actually... (3+ / 0-)

        ...I'd like to see a mix of wind and nuclear power. Here in Illinois, we've got quite a few reactors, and
        get about 70% of our electricity from them. The wind power rating is "fair", but as far as I'm concerned, we need a lot of that "boutique" pwer, if only to retire the coal and gas burners.

        Oh, and some solar wouldn't hurt here, either...

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight. John McCain = Old Boat Anchor

        by JeffW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:00:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When my husband retired from the Navy... (0+ / 0-)

          he was offered a GM position at one of those plants outside of Chicago.

          I even looked at property online. The winters looked COLD.

          He went with another company but I've always kindof regretted not getting the experience of living outside of Chicago.

          Its the delegates that count

          by Morgan Sandlin on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:36:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I would poise the question this way: (0+ / 0-)

          Why spend the money building unreliable wind turbines when a few nukes would more than make up the difference? Fill your base load with nuclear and as you suggest, use wind as "filler".

          David

      •  His point is we must have nukes (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        KenBee

        even though France, the nuclear paradise, is desperately trucking its nuclear waste to Russia.

        Anyone who thinks that the nuclear waste problem is an urban myth needs to do more research.

        This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

        by Agathena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:17:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some of their "waste" goes to Russia (0+ / 0-)

          for reprocessing into new fuel andl less waste...as opposed to just storing it. It's only waste when you want to throw it away. It's raw stock for more fuel who want to reduce in size. What is your solution Agathena?

          David

          •  There is no solution to nuclear waste. (0+ / 0-)

            This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

            by Agathena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:23:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah ... what an enlightened statement (0+ / 0-)

              and "there is no salvation outside of the church."

              It's amazing how all religious dogma has the same kind of ring to it.

              Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.
              -- George Eliot

              by bryfry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:13:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your comment was so informative! (0+ / 0-)

                Gotta a list of solutions? I'd be glad to learn more.

                This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                by Agathena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Agathena (nice name btw), (0+ / 0-)

                  you have not  been paying attention. I cited a variety of technologies that basically eliminate waste. We can even eliminate DU which is not so much a waste but is used in weaponary.

                  The US in a Clinton-era proposal started the "Megatons to Megawatts" program that burns up, completely, plutonium from Soviet era-missles. The problem for you is that they are burned up in nuclear reactors in the US. I think this is GOOD THING. It's why believe that antis actually don't care about the waste...they'd rather have it around to use against nuclear energy.

                  DAvid

            •  I give you two solutions to radioactive waste: (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              bryfry

              i) Radioactive decay.

              ii) Stop wasting it.

    •  Fission/food (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      maybeeso in michigan, Translator

      Not a good combo.  Just sayin'...

      _______________________________
      Healing the universe is an inside job.

      by spotDawa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:56:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tip (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      pattyp, A Siegel, cjallen

      You posted almost the entire text of a news article, with no link. I doubt that is compatible with the diary guidelines on copyright violation. You may find it useful to read the FAQ.

  •  Maybe Hillary is behind this to help her chances (0+ / 0-)

    on Tuesday

  •  The few, the proud, the nuclear supporters at (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    skohayes, Dr Funkenstein

    dkos!

    Daily Kos used to be worthwhile.

    by andgarden on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:47:21 PM PDT

  •  I completely disagree with your point of view (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    tmo, BachFan, cjallen, netguyct

    but thanks for the diary.

    Spineless. Blue. Slow. Leaves trail of slime. Hit it with something - if it doesn't hit back, it's a Democrat. -- Bucky looking at a slug in "Get Fuzzy"

    by Lurtz on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:49:04 PM PDT

  •  I don't want nuclear power plants (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    BachFan, JeffW, Dr Funkenstein

    but I don't see any alternative. We're in a damned if we do and damned if we don't situation.

    When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

    by rmonroe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:51:11 PM PDT

  •  let me say this. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    After listening to Obama and Clinton, it seems to me they  have terrible advisors on energy. Probably neither of them could look at the situation today in Texas...or for that matter in Florida two days ago, and discern a solution that could solve the problems of a lack of generation...which is what happened at least in Texas.

    The Democrats have no program for energy. They have sound bites. The Republicans at least on this issue have a worked out plant that makes sense, that is farily all encompassing even if one doesn't like their particular solutions (usually nuclear AND coal!).

    We get from Clinton support for the "German Solution" which, as most of us know, mean burning more coal. She's either ignorant of what is going on in Germany or really dumb. I know she's a smart lady, so it her advisors that are the evil trolls that keep her in the dark about the real issues concering electrical energy roduction.

    Wind...jesus.
    David

    •  They both have energy plans (0+ / 0-)

      although I agree that the plans are not as good as they should be. But they exist. They just don't talk about it in that much detail because it's not what the country wants to hear, unfortunately.

      I take some comfort that Al Gore is SURE to steer energy policy for whichever democrat ends up in the White House.

      I mean, how bad could Senator John McPalpatine possibly be?

      by terra on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:59:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Republicans have a plan? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      You've got to be fucking kidding me.  Their "plan" is to try to drill every last square inch of land in the country, because they don't realize that no matter how much we drill, we're still past peak oil production in the U.S.  

      Their "nuclear" plan is just a half assed "let's build more nukes", without any concept of the pros or cons, and no real intention to do anything to make it happen.

      The Republicans' plan is just to piss around, doing nothing, and arguing that we should do nothing, until the lights all go out.  

      Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

      by Asak on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:08:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Their main motivation is to (0+ / 0-)

        pay back their contributors so they can make more profit. However, in terms of what their plan does, it makes tons more sense than the Democrats plan which doesn't say anything about really increasing generation, and the only way to do this is by building more nukes.

        The Republican plan, as narrow as it is, would result in much better policy on this question than anything the two leading Democrats have stated. They won't even come out AGAINST nuclear...they really are clueless. The DNC needs to get some better advisors.

        David

    •  This is a false and despicable statement (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      pattyp, Snarcalita

      Why don't you read their plans rather than talking about 'evil trolls"?

      Are you serious about thinking that the Republicans have a plan about energy?  Seriously?

  •  Where's Nnadir? (0+ / 0-)

    Bet he'd be saying "Told Ya So!".

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight. John McCain = Old Boat Anchor

    by JeffW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:56:27 PM PDT

    •  I just (0+ / 0-)

      beat him too it, 'tis all.

      Again!!! It's not "for or against wind" it's understanding its limitations. That is what one needs to bring from this situation.

      As for solar...let's see how these new fangled plants they are building for about 4 times the price of a nuclear power plant come along and we'll get back to ya' on that.

      David

      •  Where did you see a cost comparison (0+ / 0-)

        that puts solar power at four times the price of nuclear power plants?

        For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

        by The Totalizer on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:54:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In his rant yesterday ... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          pattyp

          where he focused on cost-to-build (cost-to-buy), using figures from China re nuclear power production to bring that cost back to US (want to talk about labor, environmental impact statements, inspection, etc???) and then calculated cost for the Nevada CSP.

          Couple points:

          * What is cost of solar energy per kilowatt hour?  Oops free ...

          * What is the contracted price for that solar and into what market? It is not 'cheap' power, but it is being sold into peak power markets at a rate lower than the current peak prices at a fixed price for an extended period.

          * The CSP is 'early' in the technology. While nuclear power has development opportunities, the CSP is far earlier in the developmental cycle.

          •  Christ ... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            NNadir

            What is cost of solar energy per kilowatt hour? Oops free ...

            Adam, what are you doing shoveling this tripe? Surely you don't believe this. Normally, I expect better from you, so I'll chalk this one up to being snarky. You can't be serious.

            The CSP is 'early' in the technology. While nuclear power has development opportunities, the CSP is far earlier in the developmental cycle.

            Uh, if you count a technology that had a bunch of plants built back in the 80's -- about a quarter of a century ago --- as still in the "early" stages of development, then ... well, sorry ... that's just dumb.

            That's the problem with solar: it's perpetually in the "early" stages -- with a "breakthrough" just around the corner. Never mind that the first solar PV cell was developed over half a century ago. Never mind that they were building CSP plants in Mojave Desert back in the 80's, plants which turned out to be uneconomical. Let's do it again!

            Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.
            -- George Eliot

            by bryfry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:27:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Portfolio approach ... (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Lurtz, netguyct, The Totalizer

              Yes, there were CSP plants built in the Mojave Desert, believe it was 354 mw faceplate. This was built in 50 mw segments. Take a look at the cost of production curve and how much lower it was in last 50 mw compared to first.

              Now, there are a number of major factors in cost of CSP. One area of significant cost reduction are the IT control systems for having the systems track the sun. Several orders of magnitude less expensive in 2008 compared to 1985.

              Yes, "early", in the sense that it was deployed and then research/such funding fell totally off the cliff and there was minimal development for roughly 15 years.  Take a look at the literature re CSP and see what is going on.

              Finally, do take the step back and remember where I am on this.  I am a big believer in a portfolio approach, which almost certainly should include nuclear power as part of the low/no-carbon power generation portfolio. (Other portfolio arenas include energy efficiency, demand-side management, etc ...)  But, also in the low/no-carbon arena should be solar (PV, CSP, DHW, Space-Based), wind, ocean/water (tidal, wave, current, OTEC), geothermal, biomass ...  There is NO Silver Bullet and we shoot ourselves in the foot by speaking as if there is.

              And, that includes nuclear power.

              In the comments, here, are comments about how there is zero need for energy efficiency due to the ability to build out nuclear power plants.  Politely, WTF!!!  If nothing else, energy efficiency combined with demand-side management (time of day shifts in demand) could flatten out the power curves in a sensible way.  

            •  One item ... (0+ / 0-)

              you were right to call me out on how I typed the point, although I think that you understand what I meant.

              What is cost of solar energy per kilowatt hour? Oops free ...

              This would more accurately be:

              What is the incremental cost of the power source to provide electricity/energy via solar systems?  Oops, free ...  The vast majority of the cost for a solar system is capital construction cost, the "fuel" is free.

              Now, nuclear power falls somewhere between coal/natural gas and renewables in this arena. A very large share of the life-cycle cost (and life-cycle carbon) comes in the capital investment to build the plant, with relatively low costs (compared to coal and natural gas) for fuel and operations once that investment is made.  

              •  That's better (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                A Siegel

                True, solar has very low marginal costs. That is why it would be used whenever available.

                Sorry, I'm a stickler for accuracy -- or rather, I prefer not to make general statements that sound good, but are not true.

                For example, I don't go around saying that nuclear is completely carbon-dioxide-emission free. Construction of the plant alone prevents that (as it does for wind farms).

                Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.
                -- George Eliot

                by bryfry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:47:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It was a reasonable call-out ... (0+ / 0-)

                  as written, it was wrong and did not reflect my thinking.  Even as stickler, however, I would expect that you recognized what my intent was.  

                  Re nuclear power, also mining, operations (think people driving to/from work, back-up emergency power generation), etc contribute to the carbon footprint per kwh.

                  And, by the way, wind/solar/ocean/hydro are also not CO2 emission free due to construction and operations (people driving cars/trucks for maintenance) emisssions.  Only way that they are 'emissions free' is if, somehow, their electricity/power is being used for carbon capture that makes up for these relatively low emissions per kwh.

              •  The whole-of-life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions (0+ / 0-)

                from nuclear power are comparable to hydro, geothermal or wind, and are far, far superior to any fossil fuel.

                The greenhouse gas emissions from solar photovoltaics are also far better than fossil fuels - but they're actually significantly higher than any of the "clean" non fossil fuel energy systems such as wind or nuclear, due to the high energy intensity and technology associated with their manufacturing.

      •  Call me Ishmael or call me (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Plan9, bryfry

        Obama.

        I am now about to plagiarize this little tidbit on another website where I sometimes write.

        In fact I did not see this and the honor for raising the point is all yours.

        I cannot do or see everything, and in fact, I do and see very little.

        On some level the entire energy conversation is now little more than pissing in the wind.    We are, in fact, in stage two of the Kubler Ross terminal illness scenario - "denial."

        Those who have creating this state of affairs have the world on which they insisted.

        Next comes "anger," - I'm a little ahead of the curve here - then "bargaining" ("If you stop flooding my cities and killing my crops and making my food disappear, I'll stop driving my car") and finally depression and acceptance.

        It's somewhat amazing how one can often read comments on the Internets saying "wind power briefly produces 50% of Denmark's energy" and one never sees comments that read, "wind power produces 0% of Denmark's energy" even though each situation has been obtained in recent times.

  •  This article shows how wind can work (7+ / 0-)

    Rather than showing how wind power is unfeasible, this report (link?) shows that even in a near worst case (sudden drop in wind, unexpected underperformance from other power supplies, at a time of peak demand) the grid managed the situation with NO disruption to those that could not tolerate it. All that happened was some industries that contracted as interruptible consumers lost power for 90 minutes. As interruptible consumers, I'd imagine the interruption was tolerable. (Or else they wouldn't contract for power in this way.)

    •  Also, if the number of wind farms grows... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, pattyp, netguyct

      and they are more spread out over a wide area, wouldn't the variance of their output decrease? If you have fewer wind farms, they are necessarily distributed in a smaller area and fluctuations would be greater relative to their total output.

      Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. -Barack Obama

      by klizard on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:08:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Except that (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      VClib

      what saved the grid was NOT having or RELYING on more wind but having a limited amount. As the article noted it was failure of the wind...it went from 1700 to 300 MWs...that caused disruption. That was an error...not on the "winds part" but on those that relied on it.

      So...if it was, say, 3500 MWs of wind that went from that number to 600 MWs...and no back up...it would of been worse and taken longer, if at all, to get the grid going again.

      David

      •  So there was human error also. (0+ / 0-)

        Having utility scale wind (>1000MW) on grids is pretty new. I think the expertise of dealing with it is something that will develop over the next few years. I met a engineer who was working on synching weather predictions with short term power demand predictions to deal with these very problems. My understanding is that sudden supply losses or spikes in demand are ususally handled with gas or oil fired turbines which can be spun up pretty fast, but which are expensive because of the fuel and because they don't run all the time. In this case, it sounds like the error was not having these ready to go to handle a drop in the wind. In general, I'd rather have the wind as first line, and hydrocarbon burners as the second line when wind fails, than only carbon burners in the mix.

        (I'm also hoping good power storage options develop which allow high wind at low demand to be "banked". Pumped hydro is one used today, but more are needed.)

      •  No, only those who explicitly DIDN'T rely (0+ / 0-)

        lost power.

        Ideally, we'd site the industries most amenable to variable power supplies beside major wind power facilities.

        This is a test of the Emergency Free Speech System.
        This is only a test.
        If this had been an actual emergency, I'd already be locked up.

        by ben masel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:33:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not necessarily. (7+ / 0-)

        Half of Texas' wind power is generated within 30 miles of Abilene.  If Abilene's winds die down, then the Texas wind grid is screwed.  

        At any rate, Abilene is not the best place in Texas to place wind turbines.  The best place is the Northern Panhandle.  West Texas wind energy, 3 = profitable

        Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.

        by Yamaneko2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:52:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And there's the crucial extra tidbit of info (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          kkjohnson, damn furriner

          Thanks.  Relying on a small area to generate significant fractions of your wind power is bound to produce occasional shortages.  Oops.

          Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

          by Phoenix Rising on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:03:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't RELY on (0+ / 0-)

            Wind, dont you guys get it? You rely on that which is reliable. And wind isn't it. You rely on your BASE LOAD. Please, everyone, go to your favorite source and look this up.

            David

            •  Tone down the promo, please (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              pattyp, kkjohnson

              I know you like nuclear, but...

              Wind power is not a total solution, but neither is it "unreliable".  Distributed wind power generation is quite reliable; Texas obviously doesn't have the keyword "distributed" well-covered.

              Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

              by Phoenix Rising on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:16:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Tell that to Florida (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              pattyp

              Two nukes shut down...

              Reliable.

              We need not think alike to love alike -- Ferenc Dávid

              by ogre on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:26:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  By all means. (0+ / 0-)

              In parts of Texas, that's geothermal energy.  Map from US DOE/SMU Geothermal is made more convenient by the abundance of dry oil wells -- I hear Dubya's people drilled quite a few of them.  The best location is in east-central Texas.  

              It's unfair to judge wind power in Texas from Tuesday's failure.  The problem was brought on by the concentration of wind farms near Abilene and by the drop in winds at around 5 pm local time.  The secondary center of wind production near Odessa was becalmed at the time as well -- not an unusual fate for that part of the state.  

              Texas is a large state, and the weather over one part of the state does not apply to the rest of the state.  For example, on the evening of the crisis,
              Laredo maintained winds over 12 mph (Class 3 generation) until 3 am the next morning.  Tyler dropped below viability at 9 pm.  

              It takes no great skill to notice the passage of a strong cold front 18-24 hours after it actually happened.  The front that ERCOT blamed for the cold weather crossed the Rio Grande at McAllen between 1:53 and 2:53 am CST, sixteen hours before the crisis in north Texas.  NWS main site

              ERCOT screwed up.  

              Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.

              by Yamaneko2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  As Jerome pointed out ... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        pattyp

        the increase in demand was far greater than the fall in wind. Wind power production drop was only a part (and the minority) of the equation.  Want to note, anywhere, that the article also points out that other power producers failed to deliver the a