I’m a Dem here in Texas. Our wind turbines froze.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I guess the delay is that the Texas officials don't want the federal handout?

[Anonymous]

You know this is rare but not out of the norm for Texas in terms of temperatures. There was a similar event in 2011. The feds and state of Texas did an after action review. There were recommendations made to avoid this. So yes if fact you can plan for something like this.

It is rare and out of the norm for practically the entire state to experience these conditions at the same exact time. That’s what turned this from a within norm ten year event into something that was basically unprecedented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s the point! Nobody has a system with 100% backup. What you have is reserve margin which acts as what you’re calling backup. The storm knocked out the reserve margin. There isn’t a system in the US is built to withstand a 4 standard deviation event. Everybody wants to act like you can just plan to this event, but it doesn’t work that way anywhere in the country.

No. What people are saying is that if the generators, in areas like Dallas, had undertaken standard winterization measures and Texas paid for emergency capacity, like the rest of us do, then they would not have been minutes away from a total grid collapse on Sunday.

What this shows is the inherent problems and limitations of an energy only market. That energy only market is the cause of the problem. It does not handle emeegency situations very well.

+1

There were several states facing the exact same temperatures, and they all fared better. So no matter how many standard deviations the pp wants to imply, it's factually wrong to say that nobody else was prepared. I mean, Louisiana did better. Let that sink in.

No on all counts.

Capacity markets also experience blackouts during extreme weather events (see 2020). Both energy and capacity markets have limitations bc nobody is built to withstand extreme events. The same temps on an objective basis are meaningless in different regions because regional systems are built for regional climates. That Texas could handle 40 straight days over 100F in the summer is meaningless to the fact that the DMV could not handle it bc Texas is built for Texas historical conditions as DMV is built to DMV historical conditions.

[Anonymous]

is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Gee if they had someone like, maybe a Senator, to help. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s the point! Nobody has a system with 100% backup. What you have is reserve margin which acts as what you’re calling backup. The storm knocked out the reserve margin. There isn’t a system in the US is built to withstand a 4 standard deviation event. Everybody wants to act like you can just plan to this event, but it doesn’t work that way anywhere in the country.

No. What people are saying is that if the generators, in areas like Dallas, had undertaken standard winterization measures and Texas paid for emergency capacity, like the rest of us do, then they would not have been minutes away from a total grid collapse on Sunday.

What this shows is the inherent problems and limitations of an energy only market. That energy only market is the cause of the problem. It does not handle emeegency situations very well.

+1

There were several states facing the exact same temperatures, and they all fared better. So no matter how many standard deviations the pp wants to imply, it's factually wrong to say that nobody else was prepared. I mean, Louisiana did better. Let that sink in.

No on all counts.

Capacity markets also experience blackouts during extreme weather events (see 2020). Both energy and capacity markets have limitations bc nobody is built to withstand extreme events. The same temps on an objective basis are meaningless in different regions because regional systems are built for regional climates. That Texas could handle 40 straight days over 100F in the summer is meaningless to the fact that the DMV could not handle it bc Texas is built for Texas historical conditions as DMV is built to DMV historical conditions.

And yet, no mention that Texas has different climates within it, none of which (except for el paso) were prepared, or the differences between capacity and energy systems.

Texas experimented with energy only and gambled that there would never be abnormal events. It failed them mightily TWICE because energy only disincentivizes weatherization and excess capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?

For the power generators it is cheaper to deal with the blackouts. For everyone else it is cheaper to prepare. All those frozen pipes and water/sewer system damage is going to be very expensive to clean up and repair.

[Anonymous]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/texas-womans-power-bill-soars-by-dollar6000-during-winter-freeze/ar-BB1dOkgd?ocid=msedgntp One lady now faces a 6k power bill, and the disaster isn't over yet
Isn't this price-gouging?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?

how much $ for each dead body?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?

First, think of the wasted productivity with millions offline and focused on survival.
Then, think of all of the damage to the infrastructure
Then, think of the damage to private property
Then, think of all the overtime for first responders and DPW types

This is billions of dolllars.

[Anonymous]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/texas...eeze/ar-BB1dOkgd?ocid=msedgntp One lady now faces a 6k power bill, and the disaster isn't over yet
Isn't this price-gouging?

I don't understand this. Aren't utility rates regulated? How does this work in Texas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?

For the power generators it is cheaper to deal with the blackouts. For everyone else it is cheaper to prepare. All those frozen pipes and water/sewer system damage is going to be very expensive to clean up and repair.

Yep. Austinites are talking about the entire city facing water main breaks under miles of street. You think that's going to be cheaper to repair than winterizing it ahead of time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?


First, think of the wasted productivity with millions offline and focused on survival.
Then, think of all of the damage to the infrastructure
Then, think of the damage to private property
Then, think of all the overtime for first responders and DPW types

This is billions of dolllars.

Yes, ask the people of Texas whether they would rather spend a few dollars more every month to prepare or whether they would rather take their chances and go through no heat and boiling water for days on end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/texas...eeze/ar-BB1dOkgd?ocid=msedgntp One lady now faces a 6k power bill, and the disaster isn't over yet
Isn't this price-gouging?

I don't understand this. Aren't utility rates regulated? How does this work in Texas?

Apparently nothing is regulated in Texas. Its the Wild West.