It appears that wind and solar power produced more electricity this week than they were expected to produce, but at this time of year, that’s a relatively small part of the expected statewide generation. Generation from gas and coal plants was far below expectations, causing supply to fall as demand rose. How much of that is bad design — a case where the system should be reworked — and how much was operator error is still to be sorted out.
As someone in the Houston blackout and hearing a bit of the initial blame-game: I’d like to find out what failure modes were gamed out, what likelihood’s were assigned to each and how and what mitigation was chosen with the knowledge that between time, money and people not all failure scenarios can be covered.
For example: water vapor in methane (natural gas) freezes and causes sensor and valve problems which have shut plants down. That seems predictable to a point, something that operators with experience in other climates would know about. On the other hand, the mitigation strategy for that failure may run counter to fixes for hot weather problems.
Well, apparently this was all reviewed in 2011, after a million Texas homes lost power due to a cold snap, so indeed most of the problems today were not only foreseen long ago, they were experienced.
Since then I guess nobody bothered to do anything? Supposedly it's all described in this here document (I can't actually open it, probably because someone in ERCOT is real scared of GDPR): http://www.ercot.com/content/meetings/other/keydocs/2011/201...
> Since then I guess nobody bothered to do anything?
The folks in the El Paso area (which is not regulated/managed by ERCOT) are going just fine it appears:
> El Paso Electric said they always try to prepare for the future and after a winter storm in 2011, the utility company worked towards replacing and upgrading their equipment. Many generators now have antifreeze protection.
The strong arctic front that arrived in North Texas on February 1, 2011 was the most intense cold wave for the majority of the state of Texas since December 1989. The event was so severe that the National Weather Service issued a rare Wind Chill Advisory for much of the state. The arctic front reached deep into Texas and sustained below freezing temperatures as far south as Corpus Christi. Much of North Texas experienced record setting sleet and snow, producing blizzard conditions and temperatures well below freezing for up to 100 hours. Snowfall occurred as far south as San Antonio, with snowfall totaling up to seven inches in North Texas. This winter storm was also accompanied by sustained winds of 30-40 mph with gusts as high as 51 mph.
The icy conditions of this winter storm resulted in the closing of both DFW Airport and Dallas Love Field. In addition, Dallas-Fort Worth area water utilities reported hundreds of water main bursts during the event, compared to expected four to five on an average winter day. ERCOT also reported a new record winter peak of 56,334 megawatts.
The winter weather event of February 1-5, 2011 was determined to be a one in ten year event for some regions of Texas in terms of low temperature extremes and duration. Lows during the period were in the teens for five consecutive mornings and there were many consecutive hours below freezing temperatures throughout Texas. Taking these temperature extremes into account, and coupling them with the sustained winds of this event, it is estimated that the resultant convective heat loss (wind plus ambient temperature) event suffered by many Texas generation facilities approached a one in 25 year severity. (Reference: Weatherbank, Inc.)
Generating unit issues that affected reliability were mostly attributed to frozen instrumentation due to convective heat losses greater than instrumentation design, faulty instrumentation heat tracing or compromised insulation. It is normal practice for the operating units to add incremental protection against these extreme winter weather events. Typical examples are wind breaks and heat sources applied to high risk areas.
In addition, the cold and wind affected the units that were not operating. Units in cold start status are less prone to derates/trips if they are dispatched to minimum stable load (MSL) before the onset of extreme winter weather. Bringing all units to MSL gives ERCOT maximum flexibility in responding to grid emergencies.
HOW IT AFFECTED ERCOT
The high load demand, coupled with generation issues within ERCOT, resulted in actions from ERCOT that triggered an Operating Condition Notice (OCN) issued for cold weather at 08:55 on February 1. The event level escalated to an EEA2A (Energy Emergency Alert) declaration at 05:18 on February 2 to deploy responsive reserves, followed quickly by an EEA3 declaration at 05:58 on February 2 to begin shedding firm load to maintain system frequency at 59.8 Hz or greater. The event continued until ERCOT cancelled the EEA at 09:58 on February 3.
"
I suspect that it wasn't the mitigation was too challenging, just costly. Someone looked at the map and said, "Texas? You'll never need to be handling subzero temperatures over a long time period."
I don't even necessarily believe it was malicious (unless you consider cost cutting to make a profit malicious, which, maybe you'd have an argument there), just potentially lazy.
This is the sort of thing we should have some baseline regulations to support -- critical infrastructure should be designed to support a temperature range of X to Y, where X is a record cold times some factor and Y is a record heat times some factor.
> This is the sort of thing we should have some baseline regulations to support -- critical infrastructure should be designed to support a temperature range of X to Y, where X is a record cold times some factor and Y is a record heat times some factor.
Meanwhile the folks in the El Paso area (which is not regulated/managed by ERCOT) are going just fine:
> El Paso Electric said they always try to prepare for the future and after a winter storm in 2011, the utility company worked towards replacing and upgrading their equipment. Many generators now have antifreeze protection.
The first step is making sure you have regulators who are somewhat clued in.
Of course being hooked up to the national grid could be useful as well, so as to allow for energy inputs when your own infrastructure is having problems. Though that would mean dealing with the Feds, which seems to be undesirable:
> Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid.
> I don't even necessarily believe it was malicious (unless you consider cost cutting to make a profit malicious, which, maybe you'd have an argument there), just potentially lazy.
Playing devil's advocate here: It might not have been malicious or lazy, but actually just good judgement in avoiding unnecessary waste and getting those services deployed sooner for less cost to the customer.
Of course it looks bad now that the situation they didn't expect to happen has happened, but in the long term, were the losses worse than what they saved by not implementing extreme cold weather mitigations?
Well, of course costs of resiliency would practically exceed savings for energy companies. But the costs of outages are tremendous for Texas overall. That's why critical infrastructure must be well regulated. Corrupt politicians are sure to protect profits of the energy industry, but in the end we all pay for the shenanigans that deregulation allows them to get away with.
Lets say it led to no increased profits and the savings were entirely passed on to the customer (perhaps through careful regulation like you mention). Then wouldn't the costs be better for Texas overall?
No, the cost to produce electricity is largely independent of the value people receive from it.
Differences in incentives are why hospitals for example have backup generators. They might be paying 100x as much to get power from a generator for a few hours a year, but losing power would cost them vastly more.
That said, individual consumers are going to have their own personal preferences. For some people saving 10c a month on their monthly electric bill might be worth a once in a decade power outage. Some might even agree to save 1c/month.
I think there is another factor of Choice that needs to be considered here. If people were given the choice between losing power when it gets cold and saving money or paying more for more reliable power then it might be reasonable.
Power companies making that choice for their customers isn't fair. As a utility it should be expected that it is well run and stable. It isn't an easy market to have competition in due to the infrastructure meaning we can't have "cheap and unstable" options next to "expensive and stable". Where the state decides the utilities fall on that axis is the question here, I personally think they should be on the more conservative side and provide stability.
The other thing to consider are the huge knock on effects from losing power. I may be ok with getting extra cash in exchange for power outages but when the stop lights are out and restaurant freezers start thawing things get a lot worse.
Good points. Although, it is of course impossible to have perfect service. Is a major failure once a decade not "well run and stable"? What level of service would be acceptable?
“but in the long term, were the losses worse than what they saved by not implementing extreme cold weather mitigations?”
A lot of people (and businesses too) have been without any power for several days. In the case of Austin, “a lot” appears to be around 40%. Many more have had power only intermittently. That’s got to be a pretty sizable hit to economic output. Not to mention all the busted pipes.
But is it greater than the impact on economic output of having done a safer, but slower and more costly expansion of the electrical grid? That's much harder to measure
Heh, this is a 100 billion+ disaster when it is over. There are so many things people have not talked about yet. Multiple blood banks have lost their entire cooling and flooded at the same time. A medical testing and samples lab has had similar issues. You've not seen that in the news yet.
The there are the things we do know, like the Samsung IC shutdown that will cost millions in itself.
"By Friday, when Ercot declared that the emergency had ended, 14.4 million still lacked reliable access to public water supplies, and the crisis had already cost the state $50 billion in damages, according to Accuweather. The cost of power on Monday alone was $10 billion, according to estimates from Wood Mackenzie."
It seems like you're thinking purely of net economic impact.
As someone in Texas who just got their power back and no longer has running water, I'm having a real hard time not posting a really vicious retort here.
Pure capitalism without any humanism is really quite gross and frustrating.
Were the losses worse? Yes, workout a doubt? People died. Pets died. Homes and water mains were destroyed. People have to boil their water. Having power wouldn't have prevented all that but it definitely would have prevented some.
It's possible more people could have died from, for example, medical delays due to smaller hospitals from increased electricity costs over a period of decades due to unnecessary risk aversion
The cost of electricity is not a constraint on the size of hospitals. And there are plenty of states who are part of the national grid, with cheaper electricity than Texas.
It depends on how you price a human life. Give me that number, and I can start to answer.
More than 300 people have ended up in ERs in Houston alone for carbon monoxide inhalation as a result of misguided efforts to avoid freezing to death, I'm not entire sure how to allocate that cost, either.
1989, 2011, 2021. At some point, having been told twice now, and soon to be a third time, you spend the money to avoid the pitchforks.
I'm sure "we saved a few bucks" will be comforting to the families of people who froze to death or died of carbon monoxide poisoning from this entirely avoidable disaster.
Methane melts at -295.6 F (It's cold in Texas, but not that cold!) so if NG facilities are having freeze ups it is absolutely due to the presence of water or hydrates.
Because people have died, and the energy industry is heavily to blame, you're extremely unlikely to get any information to confirm or even satisfy your curiosity until a federal investigation has completed.
Or, you know, maybe nature played a role in those deaths too. It’s not like there’s just electricity lying around on the ground, free for anyone, and the evil energy companies are hoarding it all. Might be more helpful to temper the righteous indignation for now.
Perhaps... Perhaps righteous indignation is not helpful. Perhaps some humility and resolve would be more helpful. Perhaps each and every Texan, myself included, should take personal responsibility for this failure to prepare for the consequences of this foreseeable (and [foreseen](https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Tex...)) disaster, and resolve to prepare both individually and by electing competent governors who won't prioritize corporate profit over resilience.
> A hurricane is an act of God. But failure to prepare, when the necessity for preparation is well known—that’s sin. That’s failure to hit the mark. And the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). The ancient Jews always blamed themselves when things fell apart. They acted as if God’s goodness—the goodness of reality—was axiomatic, and took responsibility for their own failure. That’s insanely responsible. But the alternative is to judge reality as insufficient, to criticize Being itself, and to sink into resentment and the desire for revenge. - 12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson
As far as personal prep, things aren’t that different from a hurricane/flood event. Intermittent power is better than 2 weeks without like Ike. The cold is a new twist but not unmanageable. Judge Hidalgo seems up to the task and a few steps ahead of the mayor.
Wells freeze in all the time. Around a decade ago I was working with an in law that was dealing with a frozen dewatering unit on a very large compressor. We also measure the water tanks get pumped back into the earth. High output wells need their water emptied every day or two. Guess what an ice storm prevents. On, and the water tanks will freeze and cant be emptied.
There are two ways to look at the Wind numbers. Texas was expecting 6 gigawatts from wind, and only got 1.5-2.5 gigawatts. So wind generation dropped 60-75%. That's a much bigger failure in percentage terms than from gas powered production. Gas was a majority of energy production, so it was much bigger in absolute numbers, but by no means did wind perform well.
Texas has taken a very "free market" approach to regulating electricity. I lived there during de-regulation and whatever else happened it didn't lower the price of electricity very much. In my opinion it was an excuse to line some pockets.
At any rate there has been zero investment in grid interconnects which could have been much more helpful. ERCOT only has the capacity to source sub-1% of load over the interconnects which is not meaningful. That's one of the ultimate failures in my mind: A relatively small investment in HVDC interconnect upgrades would have allowed the grid to import power - especially from the US Western grid which has not been impacted the way some parts of the US Eastern have.
ERCOT is fairly toothless as well. I'm not sure they bothered to issue any requirements for weatherproofing prior to the freeze but they wouldn't be able to do much about it if the generating plants refused to comply. And the Texas Railroad Commission regulates Natural Gas. And by "regulate" I mean let them do whatever they like.
How fully was it de-regulated? An advantage of regulation is that it generally shields you from lawsuits. If you follow the rules, you generally can't be successfully sued for negligence. If there are no rules more of the responsibility falls on the courts. If things were fully deregulated the producers should be hit with some massive lawsuits from the families of those who died.
These are small, and so far the courts have ruled those small interconnects do not open them to federal regulation. There were lawsuits back in the 70s over this.
Mess with the status quo too much and that could change. If they want to continue to avoid federal regulation, it's in their best interests to not invest heavily in interconnect.
The trick is that a natural gas furnace needs a decent chunk of electricity to operate, and we’re not very good at shedding all non-critical residential load. So it’s really not an either-or proposition for as long as we use natural gas for power, it’s a both-or-none situation.
The majority of the energy use in a natural gas furnace is still the core heating of air functionality. The electric ignition and fan aren’t most of the energy to my knowledge, although “decent chunk” is a fuzzy term.
Obviously the blower and controller don’t consume anywhere near the amount of energy that gas delivers, but it consumes more than most people think. The blower on a typical furnace consumes 75-400W per hour of operation, depending on whether or not it’s a single speed or variable speed type.
400 watts per hour isn’t a huge amount of power, a space heater consumes about 1,300 watts per hour, but it’s still a pretty decent chunk of electricity. A deep discharge marine battery (common for cheap backup power) could keep a larger blower running for maybe 3 hours tops, assuming an unreasonable 100% discharge and 100% conversion efficiency. So, not a lot, but still something that you’d need some pretty specialized backup gear to run.
I have an oil furnace, and when I was looking into it it sounded like setting up a battery backup that could allow me to keep the fans running through a power outage like this would probably be more expensive than replacing the oil furnace with an electric one.
If you have to use a battery, then that's probably true. But then again, once you have an electric furnace, the battery requirements are going to go up far more dramatically.
As an anecdote, my furnace blower pulls about 11 amps on 120V AC. So I can run it with a little 2000W inverter generator but won't have much spare capacity for anything else.
Natural gas fireplaces don't need electricity to work, though, and they are fairly common in some parts (maybe not Texas, but Ontario). But they're not very efficient, either.
Some do, some don’t. Depends on how they’re designed to handle ventilation and heat distribution. Quite a few that I’ve seen are fully sealed and can’t be started without power. A lot of these are really for looks and not heat.
For backup heat generation nothing beats an EPA certified wood burning stove, especially the free standing ones.
I was surprised to learn when I moved to a cold climate that some gas water heaters can operate without electricity. Modern ones use a small piezoelectric igniter to light a pilot light.
Probably obvious in retrospect, but took a bit of brain rewiring to realize no-power != no-hot-water given I had mostly dealt with areas with electric water heaters with fairly small tanks up till then.
I understand your surprise, but the difference is understandable when you think about how each system needs to operate. It's a matter of thermal mass, location, and complexity.
Both a hot water and a forced air furnace work by burning natural gas to heat something up until it's hot enough. In both cases the combustion is separated from whatever its supposed to heat by a chunk of steel, and the gas is simply burned in open air without any extra compression. Ventilation is usually done via convection, which works without power. So far, so good; both cases just need a small amount of power to open a valve and kick off combustion. The similarities largely end there though.
In the case of a hot water heater, the flame is heating a big slab of metal under 40+ gallons of water. It's very hard for this slab to overheat and get damaged, as water is both thermally dense and a great conductor. There's also no need to move the heat around; the flame is literally right underneath the thing that needs to be heated. This proximity also makes the control logic extremely simple; you turn on the flame when the tank is too cold and turn it back off when it isn't. This consumes a tiny amount of power, and you can use the heat generated by the pilot light to keep such a circuit alive.
A furnace on the other hand has an issue. While burning gas in a furnace is easy, getting that heat back up to where you need it isn't. Air is a pretty terrible thermal conductor, and without some cooling that combustion chamber is going to overheat and get damaged. You need to move a lot of air past the combustion chamber to get the heat away before that happens, which means you need a powerful fan to get that air moving. These fans consume a lot more power than you can reasonably generate locally, about 75-400W per hour, with an extra spike needed to get the fan moving in the first place. You also have the issue that it's not possible to measure the outcome of the furnace at the furnace; which means you're going to need relatively complex remote sensing and control devices, which only adds to the system's total power needs.
Yes, they do need need electricity. Source: I live in Ontario, Canada, and am currently being kept warm by one.
Most (gas) furnaces are forced air, and how exactly would the fan run without electricity? How do you think the thermostat runs its thermistor (and probably LCD display) without a power?
The Technology Connections YT channel has a recent good overview, "Forced-air Furnaces: The What, Why, and How":
I have two gas fireplaces, neither use power (nor have any available). Valves and safety is handled via millivolt thermopiles in the pilot light and main flame. Heating happens via convection through ducts that run from below to around/behind the fireplace itself, then out over the top. It passively moves a fair amount of air and can make the room uncomfortably warm if left on too long.
I have no idea if this is common or not, but I know of at least two counterexamples to your statement here in Michigan.
I think pilot lights are still pretty much standard on certain appliances, like water heaters and fireplaces. Probably deliberately so they can run without power. All my other gas appliances are electronic ignition, e.g. we have to use a lighter to start the range when the power is out.
In the case of gas fireplaces, all of the heat generated is used, so I would think it would be perfectly efficient. As long as you shut it off during the warm seasons, anyway.
The house I live in has two gas fireplaces, both 20-30 years old. They work in the same manner described above, with no requirement for electricity. Each one also has a blower that is simply plugged into the wall (one runs continuously, the other is thermostatically controlled; both are very loud). The blowers are optional, and the house gets adequately heated even when they are off.
Not sure about make & model, I'd have to find the paperwork from when the house was built 8 years ago. It's radiant, not forced air. That's an option I could add but it would require electricity for that part.
GP said fireplace, you're talking about furnaces. Plenty of fireplaces don't need power, but I've never seen a forced air furnace without power, and I don't think it's possible.
Gas fireplaces generally do not require electricity and many have no fans. Exhaust is passive, and thermostats use a thermopile that generates a small current from the heat of the pilot light. The pilot light is started manually with a piezoelectric starter, or a lighter.
Gas fireplaces are slightly less efficient than high-efficiency furnaces because some heat goes out the exhaust.
Which seems crazy to me. How is it cheaper and/or more efficient to create an entirely new system of gas pipes to every home so consumers can each inefficiently burn gas than simply converting the gas to electricity in a highly-efficient centralized plant and send the energy over the existing electrical infrastructure?
A modern gas furnace is very efficient, 95% or so. Really efficient gas power plants are only about 60% efficient. If you use the electricity to run an electrical resistance heater, it's more efficient to burn the gas directly for heat.
If you use a heat pump, you might get a COP of 3 or 4, which is effectively 300-400% efficiency. It's able to do this because it makes the outside colder while it makes the inside warmer.
Overall, the electric/heat pump system can be more efficient, but it has a lot more complex and expensive machinery, both in the home and in the power plant, and it's only been in the past 20 years or so that this has been practical. Many new homes are being built without gas hookups and use heat pumps instead.
when I looked into this for my house I found that gas was more like 10x cheaper than electricity. So a 3-4x efficiency advantage for a heat pump still made no economic sense
Depends on where you live, and how you get your electricity. Where I live, Idaho, electricity is very close to beating out gas for heating.
My gas costs $0.51 per therm, including distribution. When I consume electricity (more on that in a sec) it costs me $0.085 per kWh. On a straight therm to kWh basis, electricity is ahead.
But a single therm is equivalent to 29.3 kWh, so on an energy equivalent basis we've got $2.49 worth of electricity per therm of gas. So for 100% efficient electric radiant heat, electricity is about 5x more expensive than gas. That's close to the efficiency band of an air source heat pump, which tends to run in the 200-300% efficiency range, and geothermal might just beat out gas per BTU transferred into the house, especially if you include hot water consumption in that.
The extra complication is solar. Roof top solar is getting cheaper every single day, and for some of us the effective cost of electricity is $0. If you've got a rooftop solar system it's kind of silly not to switch over to electric heating if possible, since you can get your electricity cheap. Especially if you have net metering or a backup battery. If I didn't have a really high efficiency furnace in my new house, I'd probably have already done that.
Correct; unfortunately I can’t price that effectively for my specific house since I bought it with the solar, and can’t separate the numbers out cleanly.
That being said, we know that in the long run rooftop solar reduces electricity cost, because otherwise most people would never buy it. From my numbers above rooftop solar only needs to reduce electricity prices by ~40% to put them within striking distance of a heat pump being cheaper than gas.
Weird solution (or upselling by gas company) is co-generation system (power and bath warm water) at home. That's Available in Japan for a decade, it even use fuel cell.
A central generator plant may be more efficient than a house furnace. But electric heat is 1/3 as efficient as natural gas. I suspect it's a net win for gas heat, as modern furnaces are 80+ percent efficient.
You’ve got it backwards on the efficiency front. Burning gas for heat at home beats out most forms of electric heat efficiency wise.
A basic gas furnace is 80% efficient, with a nicer condensing unit being 96-98% efficient. Meanwhile most gas turbines hang out in the 32-38% efficiency range, plus transmission losses. Maybe if you’re using a heat pump and your local power plant is a triple pressure high efficiency model (~60% efficient) you might end up ahead, but for most users in most municipalities it’s actually better to burn the gas at home directly rather than at a power plant, at least for heat.
Wow, I had no idea gas power plants were that inefficient. And I suppose it's a lot harder to turn natural gas into heat to produce electricity with turbines at a power plant, which is then sent to homes to turn back into heat with resistive heaters than it is to just send the natural gas straight to the homes in the first place. I didn't consider that those extra steps would add up to such a high loss.
I’d call them semi -complementary from a consumer perspective and have different strengths and weaknesses, similar to phone and cable before.
My long term view is gas will go away first as electric costs go down and reliability goes up with local caches such as the PowerWall. Eventually usage will be light enough to cut the cable from long distance generation for close range neighborhood nukes.
I recently submitted an article, which after I read it, made me think the same thing. We could’ve had cleaner indoor air and fewer points of failure if just used electricity.
> According to a paper from Pecan Street, an Austin-based energy research organization, the transition would reduce climate-warming pollution, save Texas households up to $452 annually on their utility bills, and flip the state from a summer-peaking to a winter-peaking system. And that winter peak would be “nothing the grid couldn’t evolve to handle,” according to co-author Joshua Rhodes.
An electric heat pump would not be cheaper than natural gas at heating. If you follow the rabbit hole of links from what you linked to, it comes to https://www.ideasmiths.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/IdeaSm... and the claim there is that summer cooling would be cheaper with newer more efficient heat pumps, and result in the annual heating/cooling expense being lower. But it’s not drawing a direct comparison of the cost of natural gas heat versus electric heat pump heat.
> Our analysis finds that electric heat pumps generally use less energy in warm states and
have moderately positive economics in these states if a heat pump can replace both the
furnace and a central air conditioner.
> Based on our analysis, we find that electric heat pumps have higher equipment and
installation costs than gas furnaces and that electricity is generally more expensive per Btu
than natural gas. As a result, in all of the comparisons the gas furnace has a lower life cycle
cost for homes without central air-conditioning. However, if a central air conditioner can be
replaced with a heat pump, the high-efficiency heat pump has lower life cycle costs in
climates from Virginia southward as well as in the Northwest. This is shown by an analysis
that credits the avoided cost of a central air conditioner and also includes cooling-energy
savings from replacing a central air conditioner meeting federal minimum efficiency
standards—a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 13 in the North and a SEER of 14 in
the South—with a higher-efficiency heat pump
> As discussed above, our analysis is only for existing homes. The results may be more
positive toward heat pumps for new homes, as most new homes have air-conditioning and
the cost of supplying gas to the home can be avoided by installing heat pumps.
Note that this is a few years old (2016), and more efficient heat pumps improve the economics.
Quality heat pumps will extract heat from the air even below 0F, and they are more efficient than resistive heat (disclaimer: I have a high quality heat pump). It's not a silver bullet, but combined with weatherizing homes properly, it would've reduced peak demand on ERCOT (although ERCOT should probably have pressure applied on it to force natural gas generation and infrastructure to winterize so that this infrastructure can continue to operate during extended cold snaps, because it's clear in the decade(s) ERCOT has known this is an issue [1], they haven't done a damn thing to address the problem).
[1] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Tex... ("A federal report that summer recommended steps including installing heating elements around pipes and increasing the amount of reserve power available before storms, noting many of those same warnings were issued after similar blackouts 22 years earlier and had gone unheeded.")
I'm just advocating for (or, attempting to) improved policy and planning around energy consumption and infrastructure. Penny wise pound foolish is getting old.
These are designed in Japan, where they often have earthquakes, and so any flammable materials (natural gas) seem not to be used for heating. Things can get quite chilly up north:
AFAICT, the units do not have external thermometers, but rather look at the refrigerant temperature. So if the piping from the unit into your wall is short, then the refrigerant isn't exposed to the cold that much, and so may not effected as much by air temperature.
Kerosene heater is common heating method than heat pump in Japan cold area. But nowadays heat pump increasing share because it gets efficient and kerosene heating is bad for air.
Especially it's prohibited to use on better insulated house, and heat pump's power is enough for such house.
I believe why natural gas heating is not popular is because they are a bit expensive and gas pipes aren't common outside big city. I'm getting curious why gas heating isn't popular even in big city (Sapporo). Your assumption (earthquake) looks reasonable for a part of reason.
Maybe gas heater is hard to install/uninstall and never use except winter. So we don't want to put all year on small house is reasonable.
I'm discouraged no one is asking about the elephant in the room - which is why the polar vortex has shifted to the extent that these events are happening at all.
It's not just Texas. There has been extreme cold across Europe, and unseasonable warmth across parts of the Arctic.
Of course it's far too late to fix the primary cause now. But it's still true that extreme weather events caused by climatic instability were being discussed more than twenty years ago.
Adding more of Power Source [X] is a bandaid. The real problem is structural, and it could have been solved more cheaply back then.
I couldn't believe the WSJ Editorial Board came out with an article saying otherwise. Wouldn't being blatantly factually incorrect about business analysis hurt their reputation among their target audience?
The target audience of the WSJ has learned long time ago to treat the editorial board as the crazy uncle you ignore at Christmas gatherings. The WSJ has arguably the best news gathering organization in the US. Their editorial board is a joke in comparison and nobody takes them seriously. They usually take the side of the rich against anybody, so I am sure most old school WSJ readers appreciate that but that does not mean one should go as far as believing them.
It is not unusual for the news section and the editorial section to take completely opposing positions on an issue. (I think they did that this past summer on the issue of effectiveness of masks.)
I don't currently pay for news. I would be willing to pay extra for a subscription to a reputable newspaper if they would assure me that the money wouldn't go to the editorial board.
You need to mentally downgrade your expectations of the WSJ editorial board; this isn’t new behavior at all. If you look for it, you’ll notice the naked contempt that the WSJ news side has for their editorial board, and occasionally post “yeah, those were all lies that the editorial board just said” pieces.
> I couldn't believe the WSJ Editorial Board came out with an article saying otherwise. Wouldn't being blatantly factually incorrect about business analysis hurt their reputation among their target audience?
Who do you imagine the audience is for the editorial pages of the WSJ?
Even long before Murdoch took it over, that part of the paper has a very different reputation and appeal than the rest.
The WSJ Editorial board was writing editorials outright denying climate change as late as 2016, so it's not like they have a strong track record to sully.
Editorial board's audience is "my tribe", and I don't believe that "my tribe" ever really has much of a factual requirement. I know I unconsciously support the positions of my tribe more those of not my tribe.
I suspect that the target audience of WSJ is inclined to like WSJ no matter what the editorial board pursues as long as they stay within their tribal lane.
That's true to some extent, but when it hits people in their wallets, it starts to break down somewhat. Taking the wrong side of this bet could lose businesses really large amounts of money.
It’s not clear to me who to believe. This fact check claims only 4 GW of wind power was down but the link that precedes that claim doesn’t actually state that. Meanwhile the WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002) claims 42% of power came from wind in the week before the freeze but there’s no sourcing of that either.
Believe primary sources that you can read and understand yourself. That’s it. Sad that we’ve come to this, but I had to adopt that policy last year for obvious reasons.
This other source claims 16 GW of renewable energy, mostly wind, is offline as compared to 30 GW of thermal sources (gas, coal, nuclear). That’s a very different claim from Politifact’s figure of 4 GW of wind offline. However Politifact frames it as 4 GW of wind experiencing problems (presumably meaning freezing problems and not just lack of wind). That seems like a spin of a different kind from the WSJ editorial.
EDIT: even more bizarrely, a different fact check from Politifact relating to the Texas outages claims yet another loss figure for wind power of only 2 GW, disagreeing with their other fact check: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-car...
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it a ton and we ban that sort of account. We're trying for something a bit different here.
You should always be doubtful of the thesis from editorial articles, but you could be less contemptuous... and more correct.
>...between the mornings of Feb. 7 and Feb. 11, wind as a share of the state’s electricity fell to 8% from 42%, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
>Gas-fired plants produced 43,800 MW of power Sunday night and coal plants chipped in 10,800 MW—about two to three times what they usually generate at their peak on any given winter day—after wind power had largely vanished. In other words, gas and coal plants held up in the frosty conditions far better than wind turbines did.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613...
so wind power cratered and other sources are running at 2-3x their normal despite problems from the cold like equipment freezing and water at water intake facilities freezing. this is despite a just in time operational mindset that is causing shortages of natural gas. power plants are shutting down because they don't have gas to burn.
so you can't blame it on wind power really. but your comment is fantastically derisive.
the 42 to 8 statistic is from a government organization.
generation is not equal to consumption because texas lacks batteries to store excess energy.
the politifact article is correct that the failure is on carbon based plants, and its on plants that are not used to cold weather for obvious reasons. but its also silly because the implication is that you just need more windmills. which is obviously silly because texas has one of the highest wind energy %s in the US.
but carbon based plants are running 3 times as hot as theyre used to and plants are shutting down because they dont have fuel. So you obviously need carbon fuel to help out.
the carbon plants are stepping up as much as they can but its not enough.
thats it. no huge conspiracy theory. but lots of people like to make fun of the other side.
they need more power, and you cant magically sprout up wind turbines
I don’t think that’s the implication at all. The implication is that some people are blaming wind generation for this shortage because of a few iced over turbines. When the cause is a system-wide failure to prepare for cold weather conditions.
I don’t know how to reconcile your claim of “wind power cratered” with plenty of other sources claiming “wind power generation exceeded expectations.” It makes me suspect you are not arguing in good faith.
sorry what? my point is that it is a system wide failure.
but the wind power dropped to 8% of power generated. carbon power obviously has to make up the difference and there are plants shutting down because they dont have fuel.
all wind power has to do to exceed expectations is to lose 50% as opposed to the expected 60%. (random numbers)
its easier to pump gas than it is to construct a wind turbine? the politifact article is blaming carbon plants, and I said that's true, but you need to understand the context. theyre blaming carbon plants because theyre the only source of power you can ramp up quickly without the wind complying
I think the 42 to 8 statistic is measuring a different metric.
My understanding is that natural gas, coal, and other fossil fuel-based electric sources only run when it is profitable to do so. When the price of natural gas is low and the price of electricity is high, it makes sense to use natural gas to generate electricity. When it's the other way around, turning natural gas into electricity is a money-losing proposition.
By contrast, wind and solar power have no input cost. So long as there is wind or sunlight, renewable power is being provided to the grid.
Last week, temperatures were higher and there was less demand for electricity. Prices were lower, so less fossil fuel energy was needed/wanted/generated.
This week, the temperature drop greatly increased demand for energy, increasing prices with it. More fossil fuels are burned. While the amount of wind/solar power generated did not greatly chang, the total amount of electricity generated increased, reducing renewables' share.
I think I get what you're saying. the amount of energy required increased, and therefore the % of energy from natural resources decreased because carbon plants are running 3 times as hot? especially since you'd rather burn free renewable energy as opposed to a limited supply of gas.
but isnt that the point? even if wind energy held up better than expected, theyre still not enough to cover the energy needs?
texas needs energy that they dont have.
and obviously the wind/solar output DID drop, and carbon plants have to make up for it
Yeah, Texas needs energy they don't have. They could have it if they were connected to any other power grid. But they purposefully built their grid to be incompatible with the US's other grids. There are still some interchanges, but those are inefficient (have to convert power from AC to DC and then back to AC at a different frequency) and running well over their capacity right now.
Texas relies heavily on natural gas power because the price of natural gas went very low in the past decade [1], and Texas has historically favored low average electricity prices over other electrical system attributes. Modern gas generating plants are cheaper to build and cheaper to run than modern coal plants. Coal-generated electricity used to dominate over natural gas in the US and Texas because coal was so much cheaper as a fuel that it was worth building more expensive, maintenance-intensive plants to use it. But that's no longer the case. Every coal plant in the continental US is a legacy plant whose construction started before natural gas prices reached the low levels of recent years.
The same price forces caused Texas to install a lot of wind and (more recently) solar. The federal production tax credit makes wind-generated electricity very cheap for Texans, if somewhat less cheap for all Americans.
There are other historical factors for methane utilization in TX.
By the early 1970s, the artificially low price set by the federal government had created a shortage, but only of interstate gas. Gas consumed within the state where it was produced was plentiful, but more expensive
So it's not clear that relying on other electricity sources would have been better, if those other sources also failed to plan for operating in prolonged cold weather.
Presumably nat gas and coal can perform fine in cold weather as they are major sources of electricity in northern climes that get much worse weather much more often.
I was more commenting on the gap in the articles logic that suggested wind/solar was off the hook because nat gas went down worse. I really don’t know the systems well enough to fill that gap on my own.
It has been shut down and replaced by a floating nuclear power barge that is docked near the coast - one advantage is that the sea will never freeze bar some Hollywood climate apocalypse.
Wind can perform fine in cold weather too. Wind actually outperformed what it was projected to, Coal and Natural gas plants did not meet their design goals.
But this isn't about wind vs. coal vs. gas, it was about weatherized vs. not weatherized.
ERCOT's current output page[0] shows 3643 MW of Total Wind Output, but total installed capacity is over 25000 MW [1]. Current wind output is less than 7% of installed capacity. ERCOT was previously able to generate 17541 MW of wind power[2] in February 2018, when it had only 21190 MW of wind capacity.
PVGR Output (solar) is currently 0 MW, with over 3000 MW of installed capacity. That's 0%.
Nuclear is apparently doing best, outputting 75% capacity (with a capacity of around 5000 MW). I'm not sure on the exact numbers for coal, gas, etc., but they are clearly supplying the bulk of the 49089 MW demand.
> Wind actually outperformed what it was projected to
If you read the full quote from the article, this is so heavily qualified that it seems designed to be quoted out-of-context. As in, they couldn't say that wind generation performed well in any meaningful sense without outright lying, so they came up with this quotable take instead, knowing that the extremely heavy qualification would not make it into the quotations. If I project wind power to generate 5% of its capacity, and it actually generates 10%, I can say that wind power "exceeded expectations" in exactly the way the fact "checkers" mean it. But this ignores the fact that most of the wind capacity failed to produce anything, which is what people actually care about.
If the projections had been made a month ahead of time, then "exceeding projections" might have some useful meaning. But the projections referred to are only made 24 hours in advance, meaning that the expectations being exceeded were incredibly low and easy to "exceed". I'm sure ERCOT does projections more than 24 hours in advance as well. Why doesn't PolitiFact reference those, or compare this February's output to previous Februarys, or do anything other than cherry-pick a single set of numbers that just so happens to support their political agenda?
> But this isn't about wind vs. coal vs. gas, it was about weatherized vs. not weatherized.
This seems to be spot on. Many of the issues could have been avoided if the systems had been built to sustain cold weather.
I made a silly mistake: Current wind output was below 15% of installed capacity, not 7%. It's picked up a bit now, and is about 21%. Still far, far below nuclear and fossil generation.
Yes typically Gas generation are used in combination with wind power as their up and down cycle are fast compared to other sources. Secondly, Texas is overflowing with natural gas due to fracking.
Maybe, but only in a sense that doesn't really mesh with the right wing criticism. The adoption of wind and solar isn't because it is green, it's because it is cheaper. And then natural gas is the cheapest make up for when those fall short (or really, it's profitable to build capacity that can come online when energy prices rise).
In any case, the current generation mix isn't particularly dependent on wind/solar (a couple percent of predicted winter generation).
I guess my main point is that this article doesn’t do a good job of arguing one way or another for _weather adjusted_ results for energy production. Effectively all of the energy sources in Texas were impacted by this weather event.
The article takes one position (weakly) that renewables weren’t to blame. The Texas governor for instance has taken a very strong position that renewables are to blame. It seems likely that the real answer is between (and on the side of this articles position) these points. But to just arbitrarily judge based on what solar did vs “expectations” compared to what nat gas did, ignores the idea that solar demands more nat gas than other energy sources.
I’m good with the answer “we’d have adopted solar/wind/nat gas mix in the same proportion given the same risk modeling we had for this sort of event in comparison to coal/nat gas/etc”
Here in Spring Texas, I’m seeing rolling blackouts since Tuesday pm. Few hours on. Few hours off. Having a gas fire and stove is killing it for us. I’m planning on switching one of our water heaters to gas so we can be covered for hot water in power outages.
I’ve gone tankless and have a gas tankless water heater on a battery backup and I can also power it from a generator if needed... so from the battery I get around 90 mins of usage... highly recommended
It sounds like you're one of the relatively lucky ones. From what I've heard "rolling" blackouts are a misnomer for large swathes of the state, unless by "rolling" you mean "the blackout rolled in and never rolled out".
Good luck. I'd be glad to suffer short blackouts here if the grid were interconnected so we could share power with your state.
Why all the competing narratives? We can actually measure power produced and where the gaps occurred. Seems to me like this is a simple case where facts can be verified and corrective actions deployed. Political spin will not keep anyone warm.
It's important to know who in government caused this so we can assess their performance on the next election day. It's the entire point of voting in the first place. In this case, all available evidence points to the Republican officials in the government of Texas, so keep that in mind if you're a resident of Texas.
The article's author clearly has an ax to grind if an unsubstantiated "botched Covid vaccine rollout" accusation is thrown into an article about this winter storm and the power grid. In reality, Texas has one of the most effective vaccination rollouts being tied for the tenth-highest percentage of available doses administered. A friend of mine who's employed at Moderna commented that Texas's non-micro-managed approach to vaccinations has proven quite effective. I do wish that Texas's power grid were more resilient, but that is an entirely unrelated topic.
While the proximal reasons may be technical, the systemic cause is our dual focuses on meeting demand no matter what and growth but not focusing on resilience. The result is that when demand is always met, we grow (population and consumption) until we hit problems like this. Then we build more capacity.
It costs a lot to go from 99.99% uptime to 99.999%, but we do it every time.
The savings to go from 99.99% uptime to 99.9% is also huge. Most of the world does fine with under 99% and we could too if we built our systems and lives to handle power going down sometimes, even unpredictably. Hospitals, elderly, etc would need special treatment. The rest of us could reduce our needs and learn from how people lived all the time for hundreds of thousands of years.
We'd save tons of money, live healthier, and pollute a lot less. We'd learn to treat nature with a bit more humility and respect.
It really feels like they're trying hard to manipulate the statistics. They mention that wind lost a full 50% of its capacity, but only mention that natural gas / coal made less than "was estimated". I don't really care what somebody estimated it would make, I want to know what capacity was lost. 10%? 90%?
That and the last 5 paragraphs departing from just reporting facts and instead start trying to convince the reader of a viewpoint gives the article a smell for me.
We all know how this will eventually wash out. People will make noise for a while, there will be legislative noise. Power operators will grease the skids and nothing will happen. Then the next big freeze happens and the cycle will start again. Meanwhile, the governor will deflect the blame onto Democrats, who haven’t been power for 20 years and can’t get elected here anyway, no matter how many people die.
Oh come on, I thought this site was about interesting technical discussion, but it appears people are cashing in on a disaster to attack their political opponents. If anyone's working political angles it is people writing and sharing hollow articles like this one.
The article picks on this amongst other items, but I want to know: who HAS had a successful rollout of vaccines? The US, the UK, and the EU have all failed. Is there a model state, province, or nation that has been doing 'great' at rolling out of vaccines?
Not really. Besides the obviously unsolved waste-disposal problem, one of the main problems in Texas seems to have been non-weatherproof control and distribution systems. Nuclear does nothing to solve that. Texas has nuclear plants, and they've been unable to contribute for the same reasons as every other generation technology.
Nope the waste-disposal problem has conclusively solved: you bury it in a deep unmarked hole [1]
I tire of the constant opposition to nuclear energy on HN and in general. We discovered rocks spicy enough to power our civilization 50+ years ago, but got outplayed so hard by big oil that to this day people are still opposed to it.
Waste? Nope not a problem
Too expensive (HN's favorite critique), nope, not really.
Unsafe? Patently false
Doesn't work in cold weather? Only because of ERCOT's ineptitude
The current crisis in Texas is a direct result of anthropogenic climate change. Had we gone big into nuclear 50+ years ago this might have never have happened
They had to turn off a nuke because the water intake was freezing. Everywhere else in the world, you put your water intake deep enough into the body of water that it's not going to freeze. Sounds like engineers in Texas cheaped out on their designs because they thought "oh, that will never happen". We all know what happens when we do that in software...
The waste disposal problem isn't solved? What part of "Put it in a hole" isn't solved yet? The waste issue seems very well solved to me. Nuclear has been providing a fifth of US power for decades - and more in some other countries.
Better sensor maintenance and weatherproofing systems seem like they could solve the issue Texas faced with nuclear power. That seems like a much more minor change than figuring out how to solve the issues with gas, wind, or solar. Plus, as far as I can tell the problem was with a fifty year old power plant. If we had been building new nuclear plants and investing in them I bet we'd have better, more modular, and safer systems (that might not rely on a single safety sensor system like this).
You are aware that those holes are leaky relative to the half-life of the waste they contain, right? Decades? Pffft. No, that problem's only deferred, not solved.
The waste is less radioactive than most people assume and it's put deep enough that it doesn't even matter. In fact, we don't even need to put it underground. Because of activists fear mongering, the construction of underground storage has been blocked for decades. So the waste has been safely sitting on the surface all that time. Why change what works?
There is no nuclear waste, only different kinds of nuclear fuel. We _could_ have started building reactors that can extract power from that fuel decades ago.
Considering that we still haven't exactly perfected U-238 technology in 70+ years, when exactly do you think we'll be able to separate and use things like Np-237 or Tc-99? Is there even anyone seriously working on that? There's a reason so many people are actively working on better containment technologies, and I don't think it's because they're dumber than a bunch of HN dilettantes.
You don't need isotope separation or enrichment. What is needed is chemical separation of transuranics. The only real expense there is just the care that must be exersized when dealing with radioactive elements.
Have you heard of water table contamination? If these problems were so simple that someone approaching them for what is obviously the first time could solve them with the first facile idea that comes into their head, those solutions would already be implemented. As it turns out, though, storing things so they won't leak for 100K years or more is a hard problem. Rock is not the perfect barrier you think it is. We're just barely getting to the point where the most specialized kinds of glass, buried in rock, with other measures to prevent material degradation, might be sufficient. It hasn't actually been tried yet, not even to determine whether our measurements for the first 0.1% of that timescale are correct. Literal lifetimes have already been spent getting us that far. Do you seriously think you're smarter than all of those people put together?
You are being needlessly hostile in a way that is very confusing. You're asking if I think I'm "smarter than all of those people put together" when you are the person going against the status quo. Nuclear has been in use for decades providing significant portions of power in multiple countries throughout the world and waste is demonstrably a solved problem - solved by putting it in the ground.
Nuclear is extremely safe and clean. The passage of time will make it more so as we develop reactors that consume nuclear waste, better storage or nuclear technology, etc.
> You are being needlessly hostile in a way that is very confusing.
Challenges to your hand waves are not "needlessly hostile"; they're exactly as "hostile" (i.e. skeptical) as the situation warrants. Maybe it's confusing because you're unaware that the consensus here is not the consensus among people who actually work on this stuff. They recognize that the current "solutions" are only stopgaps.
> Nuclear is extremely safe and clean.
Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Hanford. Not actually a great record considering the number of deployments involved. Yes, newer kinds of reactors are likely to be safer. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm not actually against nuclear power. I just recognize that it's not easy or perfect. Blind faith is not my thing.
Yes, you are being needlessly hostile. Your hostility serves no purpose beyond embarrassing yourself.
Regarding nuclear power accidents, of course this is actually a great record considering the amount of power nuclear provides and the number of deaths caused by other forms of power.
I don't think you've yet made a worthwhile argument and you continue to try and be rude. On top of that, you don't even seem to believe the argument you are pretending to make. I won't read further replies here.
We’ve had some difficulty deciding whose backyard to dig that hole in after Nevada changed their mind and said no. If only we could just sprinkle radioactivity from nuclear power up into the air the way we do with radioactivity from coal...
So you’d prefer radioactivity and c02 in the air from coal to spent nuclear fuel in holding pools at nuclear power plants? Which potentially could be used as fuel again for a different type of reactor? This is literally the choice - something needs to be Baseload generation on a cloudy week with no wind.
> something needs to be Baseload generation on a cloudy week with no wind
That's not the only solution. Texas is big enough that a lack of wind across the entire state is even less likely than the weather they've been having. Wind has held up better than oil and gas there, and properly weatherproofed wind would be even better. Texas also has rivers, and waves. There's still untapped potential in energy storage. Most significantly, better interconnection to other grids would be pretty helpful but has been foregone to protect Texas suppliers' profits. There really doesn't need to be that much non-renewable baseload generation in Texas.
Also, why do you (and others) assume that anyone who mentions unsolved problems with nuclear must be flat-out against it? I for one am not. It can be part of a complete energy solution, but until some of those problems are solved it can't be a primary solution by itself. What I object to, mostly, is not nuclear power itself the simplistic "atomic energy please, this is a solved problem" hand wave. Contrary to the HN ethos, not every problem has a simple technical solution, and people who point that out wrt energy are not necessarily shills or dupes of the oil industry. It's a matter of being empirical about things and working them out instead of turning technologies into new religions.
I don't get why you think there's an open problem. 20% of US energy currently comes from nuclear. If waste is an open problem - what problem is it causing now? Would scaling nuclear related problems by a factor of five be better or worse than current energy problems? My view is that it would be better.
dumping waste at midnight into a river is a solved problem, too .. maybe some of the actual prosecuted cases like that (plenty) should be more publicized, along with the pitch to investors for electricity "too cheap to meter"
The phrase “too cheap to meter” was used in a 1954 speech by the then-Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis L. Strauss. ... Chairman Strauss predicted that: “Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter…"
Capitalism working as intended was the main driver of the Texas power shortage. Texas' grid was explicitly designed to profit off of shortages, which is why it has always been kept separate. Former governor Rick Perry said Texans would rather have no power than have federal regulation of their grid. The mayor of Colorado City Texas said the government owes the people nothing and that the strong will survive and the weak will perish.
Until we have socialism, exploitation and abuse of the poor will continue.
So I don't know if you read the terms of service for this site, but it isn't Reddit. While any topic can be discussed (and is), this site isn't about shilling your pet political ideology and character attacking political opponents.
If you want to have a discussion about the merits of different political ideologies then do that. But this is not a community designed for you to crusade.
I'm not in any way mischaracterizing what these people say and therefore it is not a character attack.
You may disagree with my conclusions, and you might even be justified saying my conclusions don't belong on this site, but you can't just imply I'm lying or simply trying to make people look bad.
Of course, this was never in doubt. The right wing of the USA has become increasingly un-tethered from reality in the past decade or so and the gap between their beliefs and reality has been repeatedly shown to be false.
"We've gone from Big Mistake to Big Lie. The official GOP response to the power outage is now in the same moral and intellectual universe as Stop the Steal and Jan 6 was a false-flag antifa operation. No acceptance of reality, let alone responsibility."
Everything is not political and the only people that say things like that want to forcibly inject their political ideology into unwilling peoples lives.
The politicians responsible aren't frozen, they are patting themselves on the back in their 72-degree homes for having an independent energy grid free from federal oversight - or from cross-state assistance.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/17/texas-power-outage-a...
It appears that wind and solar power produced more electricity this week than they were expected to produce, but at this time of year, that’s a relatively small part of the expected statewide generation. Generation from gas and coal plants was far below expectations, causing supply to fall as demand rose. How much of that is bad design — a case where the system should be reworked — and how much was operator error is still to be sorted out.
As someone in the Houston blackout and hearing a bit of the initial blame-game: I’d like to find out what failure modes were gamed out, what likelihood’s were assigned to each and how and what mitigation was chosen with the knowledge that between time, money and people not all failure scenarios can be covered.
For example: water vapor in methane (natural gas) freezes and causes sensor and valve problems which have shut plants down. That seems predictable to a point, something that operators with experience in other climates would know about. On the other hand, the mitigation strategy for that failure may run counter to fixes for hot weather problems.