In the Houston area it is estimated that more than 1.4 million people don't have power. (it is estimated that 4 million people in Texas are without power). Now let's assume that those 4 million people each had roughly about 8 hours without any type of power (this is conservative since someone people started losing power beginning last night and in the early hours of the morning today). This would say that ~32 million hours would equal human suffering 3652 years! Remember we are just referring to a lose of power of one day too!
In order to figure out where we currently are we first have to look back in history. Back in 1999 then Texas Governor George W. Bush signed legislation that to enforce a renewable electricity be mandated in Texas. Back in the late 1990's the goal was 2,000 megawatts (MW) be from renewable energy (by 2009). Also during this time according to the Wall-Street Journal only 2% of energy in Texas came from renewables increased to 16% in 2016. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Texas now utilizes 20% renewable energy to serve it's energy needs. A week before the freeze set in wind accounted for 42% of the power. Natural gas power plants power more than 50% of the Texas electricity. Let's remember that 1 megawatt can power 400-900 homes for a whole year. To make matters worse Texas governor Rick Perry then increased the 2,000 MW figure to 10,000 MW (by 2025). In fact if you look at the Powering Texas website they are quite proud of the fact that Texas surpassed the 2015 goal in 2005 and the 2025 goal in 2009.
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) shows (as I write this in the afternoon on February 16, 2021 the current capacity for energy is about 47,000 megawatts (MW). For some perspective during the summertime the peak demand of energy is close to 75,000 megawatts (during the summer months). About half the wind capacity for Texas (10,500 megawatts) was taken offline. In total about 30,000 megawatts of energy were taken offline. The question is why an energy grid that is use to a multiple energy is operating at 62% of it's capacity. Some could argue that Texas did not winterize their natural gas and coal power sources. However, I would point out any money that was forced to be spent on renewable energy could have been in investing in winterization of the reliable sources of energy.
Although fossil fuels are unpopular they produce a vast amount of energy at a relatively affordable price and most importantly are reliable. If Texas had not relied on as much of a wind exposure and utilized more natural gas, coal power, and nuclear power (good luck going through that regulation/permitting process) there may be have been fewer people without power and for a shorter duration. Let's be clear, nuclear and coal are the most reliable forms of energy. One nuclear reactor produces 1 GW (gigawatt) of energy. One nuclear reactor plant would the same amount of energy as 412 wind turbines or 3 million solar panels. To translate this 1 GW of energy could provide enough energy to power between 300,000-750,000 homes. Currently, as I write this about 1.4 million homes in the Houston are without power.
People incorrectly assume that well because the sun is shining and because the wind is usually blowing solar and wind energy. However, the issue is you have to add the cost of fossil fuels to their cost (as wind and solar are unreliable and needs reliable sources of energy as backup power). Also in terms of efficiency there is an upper bound on how efficient wind energy can even be. The Betz limit states that the maximum amount of power is close to 60% (currently this amount is close to 40%). It is also worth noting to that solar energy falls under a similar principal with the Shockley-Queisser limit which states that the maximum conversion rate for solar energy is 34% (currently the best solar technology is around 26%. Said another way there are physical limits as to how efficient wind and solar can be. Also it is worth pointing out that you still need fossil fuels to even produce wind energy.
The history is against the side of people who tout renewables as the "future". Germany for instance has about 46% of their energy comes from "clean" energy (33% of the energy in Germany comes from renewables). The country is trying to become carbon-neutral by 2050. The issue however is when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow (which can be problematic). Also the cost of energy has increased 59,000% in a two year period (no this not a typo). Germans pay 45% more than the European average (half of the fee are just green taxes). By 2023 Germany could face a shortfall of reliable energy (according to estimates they lost an equivalent of 43% of total secure energy). Germany's transmission operators estimate that there will be a shortfall of 5.5 gigawatts of energy of peak power and reliable power. This would translate into 13-14 million people not having electricity. History will show whether or not Germany can have a secure energy future relying upon wind and other clean energy sources.
Another country that has a large allocation to unreliables (renewables) is England. Last year in November the National Grid in the UK issued an "electricity margin notice". The issue was that wind farms were expected to produce 16.9 GW (gigawatts) of energy however could only produce 2.5 GW of electricity (or in other words an 85% decrease). When you look deeper through the 2.5 GW of electricity is what optimal amount and due to system constraints only 1.3 GW of energy could be effectively used. Although England didn't suffer any blackouts they are verging on the risk of putting their citizens at a large risk of blackouts.
It is important to point out that some people often need electricity for live saving medications. If these drugs aren't stored at proper temperatures they can go bad placing the patient at risk for severe side effects. Also electricity allows individuals to perform work (computers/cell phones/other electronic devices) all need energy to run. For instance think of a doctor who doesn't have access to power and therefore can't perform any virtual appointments (due to COVID). When you multiple this by a large factor there is an enormous harm done to many individuals. Also you have the psychological aspect with the power out of not being able to be in contact with co-workers/family/other loved ones (some cells tower did go offline since they to require energy to run). Also living in a home that is 50 degrees (without power) is quite unpleasant. One other thing to keep in mind is when people don't have energy they resort to methods that might lead to death or serious injury. For example as I write this 60 people in the Houston area are hospitalized for carbon monoxide poisonings (example: trying to keep themselves warm by turning their car on with the garage door closed).
For the past few days it has been difficult to even get a hold of how many individuals have access to power/energy. The question that will need to be asked is if Texas didn't move towards wind turbines to generate power what percentage of an outage would there have been? People on both sides (even though I would favor) are making claims that they have no data to backup. My question if wind turbines weren't used and coal and natural gas were used what would have been the effect been? The religion of people who are obsessed with renewables (unreliable) is very risky business and can lead to having people access affordable and reliable power that they need to stay warm and comfortable.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete