Re: Climate models are wrong.

On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 08:34:17 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 3/1/2025 9:00 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 3/1/2025 10:24 PM, William Hyde wrote:

Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 3/1/2025 2:01 PM, William Hyde wrote:
...

BTW, Texas, the King of the so-called renewables, will not allow
more than 30% of the so-called renewables in the electric
generation mix for ERCOT.  Above 30% is the loss of control region
for ERCOT.

>
Well, in the first place the expertise of Texas power regulators is
open to question.
>
But even if the upper limit for them is in fact 30%, that's a lot.
Throw in some nuclear power and the greenhouse emissions from
electrical generation are dramatically reduced.
>
I live in a promise where on any given day at most 10% of the
generation comes from fossil fuels, the rest being Hydro, Nuclear,
and to a much lesser extent wind and solar.
>
William Hyde

>
Right now at this moment, Texas is using electric power from:
1. Solar:       23,469 MW
2. Wind:         2,272 MW
3. Hydro:            0 MW
4. Batteries:      237 MW
5. Other:            0 MW
6. Natural Gas: 11,480 MW
7. Coal:         5,278 MW
8. Nuclear:      5,107 MW
========================>>>> Total:          47,843 MW
>
I think that I was wrong about the max of the so-called renewables.
The max of 30% may just apply to wind power since the wind power ebbs
and flows with the wind.  When cold fronts come through Texas, the
wind turbines will actually go to zero power as they rotate the wind
turbines to face the wind, not a very quick process.

>
That sounds more reasonable, and directly contradicts Christy.
>
I know that LBJ was first elected to congress so that he could obtain
legal permissions to carry on with a flood control/hydro power dam
that had been begun illegally.  I guess that if it's still around,
that dam is not contributing 0.5%.
>
By the way, I live in a province, not a promise.  Maybe it's a
promising province.  So they have been saying my entire life, anyway.
>
William Hyde

 
Most of the hydroelectric dams in Texas run less than 20% capacity
factor per year.  We do not get enough rain in Texas to keep them
running at full power for very long.  The biggest dam in Texas that I
know of is the dam north of Sherman, Texas on the Red River, two 40 MW
turbines.
 

I remember that the Hoover Dam in the US considers water users, mostly
farmers, as their "customers".  Generating electricity is just a little
bonus.

Interestingly, I read an article about cutbacks to Hoover Dam and the
(potential) effects on a lot of electrical grids (and not just in
Seattle -- certainly in Eastern Washington and, as an "Inter-Mountain"
company was mentioned, probably in Idaho and other bastions of
Republican voters as well) if a massive failure occurs and the people
needed to recover have been ... DOGEd.

It also asserted that the sales of electricity actually paid the
salaries of those employees. Since it seems more likely that the
gummint pays the salaries and adds the income to the General Fund (or
whatever it is called), this article may have been a wee bit
hysterical. Lot's of articles are hysterical these days, but that
should die down as the "shock" fades into "normalcy". There never was
any "awe", of course.

Fortunately, the massive wind storm didn't do enough damage for the
cuts to matter. This time.

And the Forest Service has apparently been authorized to hire and
train its temporary fire fighters so the summer fire season should be
much like any other this year.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"