11 minutes ago, toolg said:

People like you like to freeze, I am guessing.

People like me arent emotional fearful children

3 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

moron, the earth is flat and the sun revolves around us. jellybean head.

the entire universe revolves around our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

People like me arent emotional fearful children

Or sleeping in your running car with the garage door closed.

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

the entire universe revolves around our Lord and Savior Joseph Biden.  

FYP

 

2 minutes ago, rambo said:

FYP

4 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

People like me arent emotional fearful children

Ok Frosty. Are you going to contribute something to this thread?

 

 

1 hour ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Some people don’t buy insurance and choose to pay out of pocket when an unlikely disaster comes.  In some cases the amount you pay out of pocket is less than the sum of the premiums you would have paid to buy the insurance.

How do we know already that on balance it would have been more costly to build these cold weather protections in Texas’ power grid than it will be to ride out this weeks storm?

The dollars and cents are part of it, but it goes beyond the cost to the power companies. And that's the issue.

So much is dependent on reliable power supply that extended widespread outages for places like Texas represent HUGE costs. There are office buildings, apartment complexes, and individual homes that may need to be demolished and rebuilt because they cannot access power - and the reasons they cannot access power is because ERCOT made decisions that were out of the hands of "we the people". 

And I highly doubt ERCOT is going to be helping pony up the dollars needed for these rebuilds. 

It's foolish to get too involved in playing the blame game, but it's also foolish to think we can't better manage our way through these sorts of events. I have no idea what the costs of winterizing at least enough of the power grid to withstand a 100 year storm would be, but we should find out what that cost is and contrast it with the billions that are going to be spent rebuilding. Even if reduced capacity meant rolling blackouts during the freeze, that may be the difference between a condemned apartment block and an uncomfortable day for the residents. 

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

Yeah, and I remember all those smart politicians who brought up the risk in the TX power grid from a once in a century cold snap. They just kept bringing it up and those greedy companies just ignored them while making billions (despite filing for bankruptcy multiple times...). 

Give it a rest. There is no viable reason to make capital investments for something that hasn't happened in a century. None. If the government wants to mandate the upgrades, then they need to mandate them. No responsible steward of capital is going to invest billions for something this rare. 

I mean, in 2011 they had rolling blackouts because of severe cold temps. Federal energy officials recommended they take steps to help prevent a worse storm from knocking out power. They didn't. 

55 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Put down the hammer. This isnt a nail.

 

53 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

You dont design to the outlier events

you manage through them and try to not fall into the trap of making those steps permanent. 
 

which we always fall into that trap

these two statements are kind of funny stacked on each other.

in general, yeah you don't design to the outliers. that's the common case - nail, and hammer.

this isn't one of those cases, because the risk of failure is catastrophic.

we design vehicles with crumple zones, seat belts, and airbags for the outlier event that the vehicle will end up in a collision. by your logic, we shouldn't care because only once or twice every 100k miles do we end up in a head-on collission.

when homes and livelihoods - and in some cases lives - are dependent on a reliable and stable supply of electricity, you damn well do design to the outlier event.

For the Tweets that didn't age well file:

 

29 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The dollars and cents are part of it, but it goes beyond the cost to the power companies. And that's the issue.

So much is dependent on reliable power supply that extended widespread outages for places like Texas represent HUGE costs. There are office buildings, apartment complexes, and individual homes that may need to be demolished and rebuilt because they cannot access power - and the reasons they cannot access power is because ERCOT made decisions that were out of the hands of "we the people". 

And I highly doubt ERCOT is going to be helping pony up the dollars needed for these rebuilds. 

It's foolish to get too involved in playing the blame game, but it's also foolish to think we can't better manage our way through these sorts of events. I have no idea what the costs of winterizing at least enough of the power grid to withstand a 100 year storm would be, but we should find out what that cost is and contrast it with the billions that are going to be spent rebuilding. Even if reduced capacity meant rolling blackouts during the freeze, that may be the difference between a condemned apartment block and an uncomfortable day for the residents. 

Ok Mr "We the People”

let’s say you’re in church one year ago today and they’re passing around the collection plate.  They say everything you put in goes toward building a power grid that can weather a big snow storm.

Give me a number, how much do you personally put in the plate?  Let’s make it easier and assume everyone else will match you

I don't know that the "weather not seen in a century" stuff is applicable to all areas of the state. North Texas apparently gets snow every few years I guess. Even sweltering cities like Houston (my sister lives here) gets accumulated snow about once every decade or two.

Quote

 

There are usually a few days of freezing (≤32 °F (0 °C)) temperatures each year, though the average low in January, the coldest month, is still only 43 °F (6 °C) or 24 °F (−4 °C).

Snow falls infrequently in the Magnolia City. When it does occur, it usually melts immediately on the ground with light accumulation on roofs and raised surfaces. Only very uncommonly does it accumulate on the ground. Since 1895, it has snowed 39 times in Houston at an average of about once every 3 years, though some decades have several instances of recorded snowfall while others have only one each (e.g., the 1930s and 1950s) and one decade where there wasn't any snowfall (1990s). The last recorded snowfall in Houston was on February 15, 2021.^[31] There were more incidences of snow in the 1980s on average than any other decade recorded, but the 2000s also witnessed more frequent and record-breaking snows.

• February 14–February 15, 1895: 20 inches (51 cm) of snow, its largest snowfall from one storm on record.^[32]
• February 12, 1960: 4.4 inches (11 cm) of snow.^[33]
• January 11, 1973: 2.0 inches (5.1 cm) of snow.
• December 22, 1989: 1.7 inches (4.3 cm) of snow with a record low of 7 °F (−14 °C) on December 23.^[34]
• December 10, 2008: Tied the earliest accumulating snowfall record.^[35]
• December 4, 2009: Broke the earliest accumulating snowfall record.^[36]
• December 7, 2017: 0.7 inches (2 cm) of snow.
• November 13, 2018 Broke Earliest Snowfall Record ^[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Houston#cite_note-37

 

9 minutes ago, Kz! said:

For the Tweets that didn't age well file

Yeah. Don't trust any weather forecast more than 3-5 days out. Beyond that timeframe, the models and variables are practically infinite.

24 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, it's not that complicated. It's not the Green New Deal -- sorry conservatives. And it's not de-regulation -- sorry liberals. 

It's because it's really friggin cold, and the grid, generation and transmission systems weren't set up to operate in these temperatures. Why? Because it makes no sense from an ROIC perspective since it has never been this cold in Texas before. 

Sometimes things happen. Stop looking for someone to blame for everything. 

It would be like if an earthquake hit NYC and people wanted to cry that NYC buildings didn't have the same safeguards as LA buildings. Why the hell would they?

I know it was just an example but NYC sky scrapers are made to withstand an earthquake even though they are nowhere near a fault line.

You are right, it is not deregulation or the GND. It is just them being cheap and not paying for something because they never expected it. Sometimes though you should be prepared for all scenarios.

 

4 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

I know it was just an example but NYC sky scrapers are made to withstand an earthquake even though they are nowhere near a fault line.

You are right, it is not deregulation or the GND. It is just them being cheap and not paying for something because they never expected it. Sometimes though you should be prepared for all scenarios.

 

To some degree, this is true. In engineering terms, the severity can be counter-balanced by the frequency of occurrence. A failure mode that's very unlikely to occur should still be accounted for in the design if the severity is high enough. A bit ironic in having this conversation after months of so many of us complaining for how ill-prepared we were for covid.

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

To some degree, this is true. In engineering terms, the severity can be counter-balanced by the frequency of occurrence. A failure mode that's very unlikely to occur should still be accounted for in the design if the severity is high enough. A bit ironic in having this conversation after months of so many of us complaining for how ill-prepared we were for covid.

The problem is that consumers would need to pay for it, through a fee/assessment/rate increase. And of course the politicians won't allow that. So...stupidity reigns.

 

 

9 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The problem is that consumers would need to pay for it, through a fee/assessment/rate increase. And of course the politicians won't allow that. So...stupidity reigns.

Unless the govt takes control of it.   Then it would be free!

12 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The problem is that consumers would need to pay for it, through a fee/assessment/rate increase. And of course the politicians won't allow that. So...stupidity reigns.

Absolutely. There's no free lunch. You want robustness? You gotta pay for it. Is there a more efficient way to provide this robustness without a large increase in costs? I have no idea. Is it related to the fact that they operate an isolated grid without the ability to fail over to surrounding grids during high-load events? Is it related to them sourcing components for their plants that aren't rated for these temps/conditions? Is it operating on thin margins without any excess capacity built in? Some combination of all the above? Who knows. But if I lived there and lost power for multiple days, I'd start demanding some answers as to why neighboring states pay less and aren't as crippled during storms like this.

7 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

 

Always found it odd that in some states smoke detectors are required by code, but no CO detectors. 

39 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Ok Mr "We the People”

let’s say you’re in church one year ago today and they’re passing around the collection plate.  They say everything you put in goes toward building a power grid that can weather a big snow storm.

Give me a number, how much do you personally put in the plate?  Let’s make it easier and assume everyone else will match you

that's an absurd premise. I have no idea what the cost would be, so I have no idea what I would have to put in the plate. 

besides the fact that such things are not paid for through contributions, they're built into the costs of selling energy, there's no dollar amount I could state that would satisfy you anyway.

if the general question is: would I pay say 5% more for my electricity if the difference meant I would have reliable access to power during a freak 100 year storm? the answer is, then, yeah. I have power issues here deep in the Philly burbs where we lose it for no apparent reason. I have a handful of APC batteries to protect my sensitive (and expensive) electronic gear because of this. 

is 5% of PECO's revenue enough additional profit (remember this is above what they're currently getting) for them to stabilize my power situation? if it is, honestly, I'd pay it. better than having to buy a new TV or replace a well pump that their power outages and surges caused.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

that's an absurd premise. I have no idea what the cost would be, so I have no idea what I would have to put in the plate. 

besides the fact that such things are not paid for through contributions, they're built into the costs of selling energy, there's no dollar amount I could state that would satisfy you anyway.

if the general question is: would I pay say 5% more for my electricity if the difference meant I would have reliable access to power during a freak 100 year storm? the answer is, then, yeah. I have power issues here deep in the Philly burbs where we lose it for no apparent reason. I have a handful of APC batteries to protect my sensitive (and expensive) electronic gear because of this. 

is 5% of PECO's revenue enough additional profit (remember this is above what they're currently getting) for them to stabilize my power situation? if it is, honestly, I'd pay it. better than having to buy a new TV or replace a well pump that their power outages and surges caused.

Then you admit that if it was 6% it wouldn’t be worth it.  So there is a point where it doesn’t make sense to do it and you don’t know whether the true cost of such a system would exceed that threshold

 

its the same reason I don’t have central Ac in my home here in Maine, even though we may eventually have one summer where it’s 100 degrees out for three straight months

go get an all-house generator and stop looking for handouts you tree huggers  !!

1 minute ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

go get an all-house generator and stop looking for handouts !!

A neighbor had one installed a couple years ago and went through hell trying to get it approved by the HOA and whatever permits were needed. Odd choice too since we rarely lose power here. Maybe once every couple years, and for an hour or so at the most.

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

A neighbor had one installed a couple years ago and went through hell trying to get it approved by the HOA and whatever permits were needed. Odd choice too since we rarely lose power here. Maybe once every couple years, and for an hour or so at the most.

yeah it definitely comes down to your needs. we got a big one after sandy and have used it a handful of times ourselves since and have lent it out to neighbors if their transformer goes and our doesn't. def glad we got one. 

my cousin is outside of austin and is dealing with rolling blackouts. luckily they do a lot of camping and are well prepared for cold weather.