If all the cars in the US were EV's how much load would that put on the grid?

[Old Rocks]

About 30% more, and if we had the growth rate from 1960 to 2000, that would take about 6.5 years;

Sorry. This is vastly understating the problem.

The grid can't handle all the demands on its current baseload. That's why California has periodic blackouts.

The cost of upgrading the grid ranges from $4 trillion to $14 trillion to handle all the EVs.

Liberals are living in a fantasy land re EVs

While I respect your opinion on most things, you are completely wrong on this. First, there are some developments concerning generation for the grid that completely changes the equation. Things such as various methods of grid scale energy storage, whether by batteries, gravity, pumping, or liquid air. VPP's, already being done in Australia and in some places in the Northeast. Being experimented with here in Portland. As more and more competition comes into the market on home scale battery storage, this will become more accepted by utilities, for it is generation that they don't have to build. For the home owner, not only does their solar power their home and vehicle, but it also earns them money. We have a huge amount of roofs and parking lots in urban areas that could be turned into solar generators. That is being done right now in Australia. And solar panels are continuing to cost less every year.

 

[Old Rocks]

About 30% more, and if we had the growth rate from 1960 to 2000, that would take about 6.5 years;

Likely 2-4 times what it supplies now.
One variable is how much of current electrical capacity will be removed because it's not Green enough for the enviro-nazis.
Another variable is all the trucks carrying goods to the back doors of the stores you shop at. They will equal and more likely exceed the load for passenger vehicles/cars.

Not sure how a growth rate of 40 years is one you think can be done now in 6.5 years ???

The left's energy policy:

Paint it brown, and that is "Conservative" brains.

 

[Old Rocks]

About 30% more, and if we had the growth rate from 1960 to 2000, that would take about 6.5 years;

Likely 2-4 times what it supplies now.
One variable is how much of current electrical capacity will be removed because it's not Green enough for the enviro-nazis.
Another variable is all the trucks carrying goods to the back doors of the stores you shop at. They will equal and more likely exceed the load for passenger vehicles/cars.

Not sure how a growth rate of 40 years is one you think can be done now in 6.5 years ???

The math for the growth rate is explained in the video. However, I think it will be done faster than that. Because many people will be purchasing solar plus a battery system along with their EV's. As for the delivery and over the highway vans and trucks, they will convert to EV's faster than private vehicles because of reliability and low cost of operation of the the large EV's. Tesla and many others are already gearing up for production as they have been testing semi and van EV's for the last three years. Arrival is just one of many, although it has already delivered some delivery vans to UPS. UPS Orders 10,000 Electric Delivery Vans From Arrival

 

[Old Rocks]

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."

What does that mean?

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."
What does that mean?

Timber dams rot ... for the few kW these old dam produce, it's not worth repairing them with concrete ... duh ... plus silting is a problem, the impoundments fill up ...

The environmental concern, and this is shared by both the fishing and tourist industries, is these old dams block the salmon migration ... about 2/3's the Columbia River watershed is devoid of sea-run salmon and steelhead ... they can't get past Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State ... there's still a few places in Oregon where one could almost walk across small rivers on the backs of Springers ... besides, we have more than enough dams as it is, enough to ship electricity down to California, and California is rich enough to pay our prices ...

California is broke.

There are still timber dams in the northwest? Bloody hell.

There are still timber dams in the northwest? Bloody hell.

You don't know much about dams .. do you? ... if the closest source of cement is 500 miles away, and your dam location is surrounded by 20 foot diameter trees, what would you build your dam out of? ... look up what a "run-of-the-river" dam is, even the Columbia Gorge dams only impound enough water to allow navigation, not one drop more ...

I know a fair amount about dams. The ones I know are built with concrete. You do know cement is a component of concrete, right?

Oh, there's no concrete plant where you want to build something? Easy. Build a batch plant and truck, rail, or barge in the components -- cement, sand, aggregate. If you're building a dam, the water's already there.

Meanwhile, none of your statements refute my claim that environmentalists would never allow new hydroelectric dam construction.

Oh, there's no concrete plant where you want to build something? Easy. Build a batch plant and truck, rail, or barge in the components -- cement, sand, aggregate. If you're building a dam, the water's already there.

Hell no ... closest limestone deposits are 600 miles away in the Blue Mountains by rail ... the Cascades are composed of volcanic ash and thus unsuitable as aggregate ... and the closest we can get with rail is about 50 miles, then another 40 miles by truck ... from there, it has to be packed in on mules ... are you a flatlander or something? ... not just the concrete, but the portable batch plant has to be packed in by mule as well ...

On the other hand ... the timber has to be removed from the dam-site anyway ... so it's lots and lots cheaper to just build a timber dam every fifty years or so ...

You also seem to not understand that Oregon already has a surplus of electric power ... no one is advocating for new dams ... we export our extra down to California, who are investing heavily to providing electricity for themselves ... it makes no financial sense to install hydro-turbines on existing dams ... you may know much about dams, but you seem to not understand the business of dam operation ... you know ... income statements and balance sheets ...

I was roofing a place next door to an actual roofer ... he came out and chided me for all the mistakes I was making ... so I asked, and he said he was making $22/hr ... I laughed, I was making $85/hr with a four-year recap on twenty-year property ... he was the better roofer by far, but I was better at running a roofing business ... different skill-sets ... my secret was only roofing buildings I owned; no OSHA, no worker's comp, no payroll taxes, no license and I had insurance coverage with a general business policy ... plus I had a couple of peacocks hanging out with me while I worked ... cutest thing you've ever seen in your life I'll tell you ...

You keep arguing against a point I never made, and are refusing to answer a question I've asked several times now.

Do you think environmentalists would support building new hydroelectric dams?

NOTE: I'm speaking about everywhere. Stop pretending I've asked only about Oregon. The world is bigger than that one state.

No, for several reasons. The good sites have already been taken. What few undammed rivers are left for the most part have geological reasons for not damming them. Then there is the farmland that is usually along a river, and fisheries to consider. So you are not just dealing with environmentalists, but a very varied bunch of interest groups.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."

What does that mean?

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."
What does that mean?

Timber dams rot ... for the few kW these old dam produce, it's not worth repairing them with concrete ... duh ... plus silting is a problem, the impoundments fill up ...

The environmental concern, and this is shared by both the fishing and tourist industries, is these old dams block the salmon migration ... about 2/3's the Columbia River watershed is devoid of sea-run salmon and steelhead ... they can't get past Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State ... there's still a few places in Oregon where one could almost walk across small rivers on the backs of Springers ... besides, we have more than enough dams as it is, enough to ship electricity down to California, and California is rich enough to pay our prices ...

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

What you chart shows is that Texas could cover the electric demand with gas and coal only ... as wind is unreliable ... what you're claiming is that Texas gas suppliers ran their reserves to empty just before a massive polar front moved over the State ... do you have a citation or are you just guessing? ... and please refer to your claim in post #81 that you didn't know what happened ...

The Texas grid doesn't collapse every time the wind stops blowing (c.f. Jan 20th, Jan 23rd, Feb 1st) ... so the natural gas pipeline system can handle all the demand put on it ... something went wrong with the pipeline system ... and now we're laughing at Texas, an energy rich State can't keep her heaters on ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

No. What I am surmising is that the electrical providers counted on wind remaining online and did not contract with the gas marketers for gas to cover the increased generation needed because wind went down. They eventually got the gas to run the plants. It just took a little while to get enough.

The gas fired plants were already there. They just weren't running at full capacity because they were generating power from the wind turbines. Gas fired plants have essentially become swing generators. AND the electrical providers didn't plan for needing that swing because they did not anticipate or plan for the wind turbines going off line.

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ... why doesn't the grid go off-line then? ...

"... electrical providers counted on wind ..."

Are you serious? ... why are you letting Bubba make these decisions? ...

First ... explain to me in simple terms why it's physically impossible for freeze-offs to occur in Texas in cold weather ... something that's a fairly common problem in North Dakota ... I respect your opinion on The Verge, but I've been reading this elsewhere and The Verge was the first hit on a google search ...

What you want us to believe is that the Texas governor is too stupid to order those gas valves turned on ... yeah, right ... okay boomer ...

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ...

That's what I said. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

why doesn't the grid go off-line then? ...
It did. At least the amount needed to avoid an overload. They were supposed to roll the blackouts but they didn't do that the first 36 hours. The Y axis shows the percentage supplied by type not KWH so you can't see the lower load on that graph.

It did. At least the amount needed to avoid an overload. They were supposed to roll the blackouts but they didn't do that the first 36 hours. The Y axis shows the percentage supplied by type not KWH so you can't see the lower load on that graph.

No it didn't ... what the hell are you talking about? ... the Texas grid did NOT fail on Jan 20th, or Jan 23rd, or Feb 1st ... it failed on Feb 14th and ONLY on Feb 14th ... in spite wind going off-line those three dates beforehand ...

The difference is Texas was experiencing all time record cold on Feb 14th ... something that wasn't in the long term plans and the expensive equipment needed to prevent the black out never installed ... it's a risk/benefit decision made in corporate boardrooms ... profit before people ...

I did noticed one thing that the Practical Engineering video (post #101) didn't touch upon ... the record cold hit the entire grid, all the power plants were effected by the cold ... in previous cold snaps, only one side of the grid or the other would freeze up and the other side could manage the load ... that's a problem with Texas being mostly isolated from the Eastern Grid, Texas wasn't able to draw power in from where power plants were still working ...

You're trying to pin all this on the wind farms ... and that's very plainly something that's easily, and regularly, mitigated ... as demonstrated by your graph ... something else went terribly wrong and your the only one who claims gas suppliers refused to provide the gas needed ... other engineers, regulators and grid managers claim the pipelines were blocked with ice ... a fairly common problem in other areas of the USA ... the contracts were in place, users paid the spot price, when the spot price skyrocketed that evening, users shut down rather than pay that price ... profit before people ...

Actually I'm not. I am pinning it on they did not have contracts in place for extra gas. If they already had the contracts in place they wouldn't have needed to pay the higher prices. It was their going to the market for more gas that caused the prices to soar. And yes, I don't believe their story. They were seconds away from exceeding their load and catastrophe.

Unbelievable ... sorry, Texas grid managers warned power plant operators a full week ahead of time there would be record cold temperatures, and record demand ... you claim operators ignored this warning and didn't prepare ... maybe all the people involve really are that stupid ... Texas has the reputation of having a piss-poor education system ...

You still haven't explained the magical properties of Texas water so that it alone won't freeze when temperatures drop below 32ºF ... you tell me, how much water comes up with the natural gas into the wellhead ... other engineers from Texas claim freeze-offs in the pipeline and wellheads were a major contributing factor ...

You've yet to post a citation that backs your claims ... that tells me your idea are below the National Enquirer's journalistic standards ...

There are pipeline quality specs that limit water content, CO2 and H2S concentrations into pipelines. They are super picky about what goes into interstate pipelines. And interstate pipelines are typically buried 3 to 6 feet. Any freezing issues would be in fields - at wellheads and above ground flow lines - not in buried interstate pipelines. I haven't even brought up gas storage fields yet which are used during high demand periods and make up shortfalls. So the argument that gas was unavailable is bullshit.

You can rant on Texas all you want. In my opinion that says more about you than Texas.

But listen, if you want to believe that shit, go right ahead. I couldn't care less.

Is this quality control to limit water, CO2 and H2S done down in the gas pocket, or is it done after the gas reaches the surface and done at surface temperatures? ... how are we keeping the water used for fracking down in the well and NOT come out with the gas released? ... just explain this, and I'll believe you ...

The problem with your claim is that it requires there be plenty of gas available, and clear pipelines to deliver is gas to the power plants ... the power plants themselves decided to shut down during all time peak demand, in spite orders from the grid managers to stay on-line ... is that even legal? ... your claim also requires this system to be immune from any "State of Emergency" declaration from the governor's office ... all without citations of any kind ...

You can rant on Texas all you want. In my opinion that says more about you than Texas.

Absolutely correct ... a lot of Texans think they're better off not being a part of the Union ... fine, don't be asking for Federal tax dollars to repair the damage ... Texas can deal with it themselves ... such statements are intended to say more about me than Texas ... I'm a patriot ... "one nation ... indivisible with liberty and justice for all"

Don't care if you believe me. I spent my career working in upstream oil and gas across a variety of engineering disciplines.

At a minimum the processing at the wellsite uses a separator which separates gas, oil and water. This is where the lion's share of water is removed. So the freezing risk is from the wellhead to the separator. Depending upon the oil a heater treater may be used to break oil/water emulsions but this would occur downstream of the separator.

Usually from there the gas will go to an operator owned central processing facility or a third party midstream processing facility. That's usually where the dehydration (glycol unit) and H2S/CO2 removal (amine unit) is performed. You have to remember that the higher the pressure the gas the less water vapor it can hold. So the appropriate level of water removal is performed where it makes the most sense. You could have a dehyration unit at the wellsite but usually only if you are going into someone else's system and the pressure of that system and the owners specs require dehydration. Otherwise it makes more sense to do dehydration at a central facility.

So to answer your question directly, no processing is done within the well. All processing is done at the surface. All of these lines are buried except the line when it comes out of the wellhead but is buried soon after. Most of the water is removed at the wellsite using a separator and the greatest risk of freezing is at the wellhead.

Most water production from wells is not from frac fluids. Usually less than 10% of the frac fluid is recovered when the well is initially flowed. Most water production is from the reservoir itself. It can be connate water (water that exists in the pore spaces of the rock with the hydrocarbons) or from aquifer support. Connate water is an irreducible water saturation but due to compressibility of water some will flow to the surface as the reservoir pressure decreases. A well with a strong water drive will continue to produce water with increasing water cuts. Water production from a well producing connate water will decline as the well is produced.

As for Texas, you paint with broad brush strokes. I suspect if I painted Oregonians with a similar broad brush stroke you would get my point.

Don't care if you believe me. I spent my career working in upstream oil and gas across a variety of engineering disciplines.

But you've never experienced this kind of cold in Texas ... no one has ... that's why it's called "all-time record cold temperatures across the state" ... so unless all these facilities are vaulted underground, the pipelines are exposed to freezing temperatures, and water vapor will deposit and block the pipeline that are exposed ... unless there's heaters installed ... watch the video in post #101 and tell me he's a liar ...

Still you haven't answered the question of why power plant operators shut down during the all-time peak demand ... they knew perfectly well they'd crash the system ... someone shut the gas off because they didn't get pre-paid? ... if this is lawful in Texas, then I'm rightfully painting with a broad brush ... this caused people to die, that's criminal manslaughter in Oregon ...

Oregonians can't be trusted to pump their own gasoline without blowing up the neighborhood ... go ahead and try to fling a deeper insult, I dare you ... I've burnt my hand on the radiator cap in California so many times it's not funny ...

There was a time when a fella could get his daughter's tubes tied so he didn't get her pregnant ... but we have abortion now, so problem solved ...

I've worked on the North Slope and Norway. Pretty sure I know about how to operate oil and gas wells in cold weather better than you do.

Yes, they did know they were getting ready to crash the system. That's why they started shedding load shut on 2/16. The wind turbines started going offline on 2/8. They did not have enough gas to offset that loss.

Do you understand how natural gas storage works? Did you even know that there are natural gas storage fields or why they exist in the first place?

But it was much colder in the Dakotas, and their wind turbines did not go off line? Why was that? Nor did they in most northern states. Could it be that Texas has some fucked up fools running their grid regulations?

 

[ReinyDays]

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."

What does that mean?

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."
What does that mean?

Timber dams rot ... for the few kW these old dam produce, it's not worth repairing them with concrete ... duh ... plus silting is a problem, the impoundments fill up ...

The environmental concern, and this is shared by both the fishing and tourist industries, is these old dams block the salmon migration ... about 2/3's the Columbia River watershed is devoid of sea-run salmon and steelhead ... they can't get past Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State ... there's still a few places in Oregon where one could almost walk across small rivers on the backs of Springers ... besides, we have more than enough dams as it is, enough to ship electricity down to California, and California is rich enough to pay our prices ...

California is broke.

There are still timber dams in the northwest? Bloody hell.

There are still timber dams in the northwest? Bloody hell.

You don't know much about dams .. do you? ... if the closest source of cement is 500 miles away, and your dam location is surrounded by 20 foot diameter trees, what would you build your dam out of? ... look up what a "run-of-the-river" dam is, even the Columbia Gorge dams only impound enough water to allow navigation, not one drop more ...

I know a fair amount about dams. The ones I know are built with concrete. You do know cement is a component of concrete, right?

Oh, there's no concrete plant where you want to build something? Easy. Build a batch plant and truck, rail, or barge in the components -- cement, sand, aggregate. If you're building a dam, the water's already there.

Meanwhile, none of your statements refute my claim that environmentalists would never allow new hydroelectric dam construction.

Oh, there's no concrete plant where you want to build something? Easy. Build a batch plant and truck, rail, or barge in the components -- cement, sand, aggregate. If you're building a dam, the water's already there.

Hell no ... closest limestone deposits are 600 miles away in the Blue Mountains by rail ... the Cascades are composed of volcanic ash and thus unsuitable as aggregate ... and the closest we can get with rail is about 50 miles, then another 40 miles by truck ... from there, it has to be packed in on mules ... are you a flatlander or something? ... not just the concrete, but the portable batch plant has to be packed in by mule as well ...

On the other hand ... the timber has to be removed from the dam-site anyway ... so it's lots and lots cheaper to just build a timber dam every fifty years or so ...

You also seem to not understand that Oregon already has a surplus of electric power ... no one is advocating for new dams ... we export our extra down to California, who are investing heavily to providing electricity for themselves ... it makes no financial sense to install hydro-turbines on existing dams ... you may know much about dams, but you seem to not understand the business of dam operation ... you know ... income statements and balance sheets ...

I was roofing a place next door to an actual roofer ... he came out and chided me for all the mistakes I was making ... so I asked, and he said he was making $22/hr ... I laughed, I was making $85/hr with a four-year recap on twenty-year property ... he was the better roofer by far, but I was better at running a roofing business ... different skill-sets ... my secret was only roofing buildings I owned; no OSHA, no worker's comp, no payroll taxes, no license and I had insurance coverage with a general business policy ... plus I had a couple of peacocks hanging out with me while I worked ... cutest thing you've ever seen in your life I'll tell you ...

You keep arguing against a point I never made, and are refusing to answer a question I've asked several times now.

Do you think environmentalists would support building new hydroelectric dams?

NOTE: I'm speaking about everywhere. Stop pretending I've asked only about Oregon. The world is bigger than that one state.

Poor baby ... doesn't like the answer so you puff up and claim I'm not answering ... fine ... stick you head in the sand, flatlander ...

 

[ding]

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."

What does that mean?

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."
What does that mean?

Timber dams rot ... for the few kW these old dam produce, it's not worth repairing them with concrete ... duh ... plus silting is a problem, the impoundments fill up ...

The environmental concern, and this is shared by both the fishing and tourist industries, is these old dams block the salmon migration ... about 2/3's the Columbia River watershed is devoid of sea-run salmon and steelhead ... they can't get past Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State ... there's still a few places in Oregon where one could almost walk across small rivers on the backs of Springers ... besides, we have more than enough dams as it is, enough to ship electricity down to California, and California is rich enough to pay our prices ...

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

What you chart shows is that Texas could cover the electric demand with gas and coal only ... as wind is unreliable ... what you're claiming is that Texas gas suppliers ran their reserves to empty just before a massive polar front moved over the State ... do you have a citation or are you just guessing? ... and please refer to your claim in post #81 that you didn't know what happened ...

The Texas grid doesn't collapse every time the wind stops blowing (c.f. Jan 20th, Jan 23rd, Feb 1st) ... so the natural gas pipeline system can handle all the demand put on it ... something went wrong with the pipeline system ... and now we're laughing at Texas, an energy rich State can't keep her heaters on ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

No. What I am surmising is that the electrical providers counted on wind remaining online and did not contract with the gas marketers for gas to cover the increased generation needed because wind went down. They eventually got the gas to run the plants. It just took a little while to get enough.

The gas fired plants were already there. They just weren't running at full capacity because they were generating power from the wind turbines. Gas fired plants have essentially become swing generators. AND the electrical providers didn't plan for needing that swing because they did not anticipate or plan for the wind turbines going off line.

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ... why doesn't the grid go off-line then? ...

"... electrical providers counted on wind ..."

Are you serious? ... why are you letting Bubba make these decisions? ...

First ... explain to me in simple terms why it's physically impossible for freeze-offs to occur in Texas in cold weather ... something that's a fairly common problem in North Dakota ... I respect your opinion on The Verge, but I've been reading this elsewhere and The Verge was the first hit on a google search ...

What you want us to believe is that the Texas governor is too stupid to order those gas valves turned on ... yeah, right ... okay boomer ...

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ...

That's what I said. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

why doesn't the grid go off-line then? ...
It did. At least the amount needed to avoid an overload. They were supposed to roll the blackouts but they didn't do that the first 36 hours. The Y axis shows the percentage supplied by type not KWH so you can't see the lower load on that graph.

It did. At least the amount needed to avoid an overload. They were supposed to roll the blackouts but they didn't do that the first 36 hours. The Y axis shows the percentage supplied by type not KWH so you can't see the lower load on that graph.

No it didn't ... what the hell are you talking about? ... the Texas grid did NOT fail on Jan 20th, or Jan 23rd, or Feb 1st ... it failed on Feb 14th and ONLY on Feb 14th ... in spite wind going off-line those three dates beforehand ...

The difference is Texas was experiencing all time record cold on Feb 14th ... something that wasn't in the long term plans and the expensive equipment needed to prevent the black out never installed ... it's a risk/benefit decision made in corporate boardrooms ... profit before people ...

I did noticed one thing that the Practical Engineering video (post #101) didn't touch upon ... the record cold hit the entire grid, all the power plants were effected by the cold ... in previous cold snaps, only one side of the grid or the other would freeze up and the other side could manage the load ... that's a problem with Texas being mostly isolated from the Eastern Grid, Texas wasn't able to draw power in from where power plants were still working ...

You're trying to pin all this on the wind farms ... and that's very plainly something that's easily, and regularly, mitigated ... as demonstrated by your graph ... something else went terribly wrong and your the only one who claims gas suppliers refused to provide the gas needed ... other engineers, regulators and grid managers claim the pipelines were blocked with ice ... a fairly common problem in other areas of the USA ... the contracts were in place, users paid the spot price, when the spot price skyrocketed that evening, users shut down rather than pay that price ... profit before people ...

Actually I'm not. I am pinning it on they did not have contracts in place for extra gas. If they already had the contracts in place they wouldn't have needed to pay the higher prices. It was their going to the market for more gas that caused the prices to soar. And yes, I don't believe their story. They were seconds away from exceeding their load and catastrophe.

Unbelievable ... sorry, Texas grid managers warned power plant operators a full week ahead of time there would be record cold temperatures, and record demand ... you claim operators ignored this warning and didn't prepare ... maybe all the people involve really are that stupid ... Texas has the reputation of having a piss-poor education system ...

You still haven't explained the magical properties of Texas water so that it alone won't freeze when temperatures drop below 32ºF ... you tell me, how much water comes up with the natural gas into the wellhead ... other engineers from Texas claim freeze-offs in the pipeline and wellheads were a major contributing factor ...

You've yet to post a citation that backs your claims ... that tells me your idea are below the National Enquirer's journalistic standards ...

There are pipeline quality specs that limit water content, CO2 and H2S concentrations into pipelines. They are super picky about what goes into interstate pipelines. And interstate pipelines are typically buried 3 to 6 feet. Any freezing issues would be in fields - at wellheads and above ground flow lines - not in buried interstate pipelines. I haven't even brought up gas storage fields yet which are used during high demand periods and make up shortfalls. So the argument that gas was unavailable is bullshit.

You can rant on Texas all you want. In my opinion that says more about you than Texas.

But listen, if you want to believe that shit, go right ahead. I couldn't care less.

Is this quality control to limit water, CO2 and H2S done down in the gas pocket, or is it done after the gas reaches the surface and done at surface temperatures? ... how are we keeping the water used for fracking down in the well and NOT come out with the gas released? ... just explain this, and I'll believe you ...

The problem with your claim is that it requires there be plenty of gas available, and clear pipelines to deliver is gas to the power plants ... the power plants themselves decided to shut down during all time peak demand, in spite orders from the grid managers to stay on-line ... is that even legal? ... your claim also requires this system to be immune from any "State of Emergency" declaration from the governor's office ... all without citations of any kind ...

You can rant on Texas all you want. In my opinion that says more about you than Texas.

Absolutely correct ... a lot of Texans think they're better off not being a part of the Union ... fine, don't be asking for Federal tax dollars to repair the damage ... Texas can deal with it themselves ... such statements are intended to say more about me than Texas ... I'm a patriot ... "one nation ... indivisible with liberty and justice for all"

Don't care if you believe me. I spent my career working in upstream oil and gas across a variety of engineering disciplines.

At a minimum the processing at the wellsite uses a separator which separates gas, oil and water. This is where the lion's share of water is removed. So the freezing risk is from the wellhead to the separator. Depending upon the oil a heater treater may be used to break oil/water emulsions but this would occur downstream of the separator.

Usually from there the gas will go to an operator owned central processing facility or a third party midstream processing facility. That's usually where the dehydration (glycol unit) and H2S/CO2 removal (amine unit) is performed. You have to remember that the higher the pressure the gas the less water vapor it can hold. So the appropriate level of water removal is performed where it makes the most sense. You could have a dehyration unit at the wellsite but usually only if you are going into someone else's system and the pressure of that system and the owners specs require dehydration. Otherwise it makes more sense to do dehydration at a central facility.

So to answer your question directly, no processing is done within the well. All processing is done at the surface. All of these lines are buried except the line when it comes out of the wellhead but is buried soon after. Most of the water is removed at the wellsite using a separator and the greatest risk of freezing is at the wellhead.

Most water production from wells is not from frac fluids. Usually less than 10% of the frac fluid is recovered when the well is initially flowed. Most water production is from the reservoir itself. It can be connate water (water that exists in the pore spaces of the rock with the hydrocarbons) or from aquifer support. Connate water is an irreducible water saturation but due to compressibility of water some will flow to the surface as the reservoir pressure decreases. A well with a strong water drive will continue to produce water with increasing water cuts. Water production from a well producing connate water will decline as the well is produced.

As for Texas, you paint with broad brush strokes. I suspect if I painted Oregonians with a similar broad brush stroke you would get my point.

Don't care if you believe me. I spent my career working in upstream oil and gas across a variety of engineering disciplines.

But you've never experienced this kind of cold in Texas ... no one has ... that's why it's called "all-time record cold temperatures across the state" ... so unless all these facilities are vaulted underground, the pipelines are exposed to freezing temperatures, and water vapor will deposit and block the pipeline that are exposed ... unless there's heaters installed ... watch the video in post #101 and tell me he's a liar ...

Still you haven't answered the question of why power plant operators shut down during the all-time peak demand ... they knew perfectly well they'd crash the system ... someone shut the gas off because they didn't get pre-paid? ... if this is lawful in Texas, then I'm rightfully painting with a broad brush ... this caused people to die, that's criminal manslaughter in Oregon ...

Oregonians can't be trusted to pump their own gasoline without blowing up the neighborhood ... go ahead and try to fling a deeper insult, I dare you ... I've burnt my hand on the radiator cap in California so many times it's not funny ...

There was a time when a fella could get his daughter's tubes tied so he didn't get her pregnant ... but we have abortion now, so problem solved ...

I've worked on the North Slope and Norway. Pretty sure I know about how to operate oil and gas wells in cold weather better than you do.

Yes, they did know they were getting ready to crash the system. That's why they started shedding load shut on 2/16. The wind turbines started going offline on 2/8. They did not have enough gas to offset that loss.

Do you understand how natural gas storage works? Did you even know that there are natural gas storage fields or why they exist in the first place?

But it was much colder in the Dakotas, and their wind turbines did not go off line? Why was that? Nor did they in most northern states. Could it be that Texas has some fucked up fools running their grid regulations?

Because they probably purchased turbines with heat tracing technology.

Do you really think insulting Texas bothers me? All you are really doing is showing what really bothers you and that you were never taught any manners.

The reality is that in Texas wind power went offline 8 days before the really cold weather hit and that put them behind the eight ball.

 

[ReinyDays]

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."

What does that mean?

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."
What does that mean?

Timber dams rot ... for the few kW these old dam produce, it's not worth repairing them with concrete ... duh ... plus silting is a problem, the impoundments fill up ...

The environmental concern, and this is shared by both the fishing and tourist industries, is these old dams block the salmon migration ... about 2/3's the Columbia River watershed is devoid of sea-run salmon and steelhead ... they can't get past Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State ... there's still a few places in Oregon where one could almost walk across small rivers on the backs of Springers ... besides, we have more than enough dams as it is, enough to ship electricity down to California, and California is rich enough to pay our prices ...

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

What you chart shows is that Texas could cover the electric demand with gas and coal only ... as wind is unreliable ... what you're claiming is that Texas gas suppliers ran their reserves to empty just before a massive polar front moved over the State ... do you have a citation or are you just guessing? ... and please refer to your claim in post #81 that you didn't know what happened ...

The Texas grid doesn't collapse every time the wind stops blowing (c.f. Jan 20th, Jan 23rd, Feb 1st) ... so the natural gas pipeline system can handle all the demand put on it ... something went wrong with the pipeline system ... and now we're laughing at Texas, an energy rich State can't keep her heaters on ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

No. What I am surmising is that the electrical providers counted on wind remaining online and did not contract with the gas marketers for gas to cover the increased generation needed because wind went down. They eventually got the gas to run the plants. It just took a little while to get enough.

The gas fired plants were already there. They just weren't running at full capacity because they were generating power from the wind turbines. Gas fired plants have essentially become swing generators. AND the electrical providers didn't plan for needing that swing because they did not anticipate or plan for the wind turbines going off line.

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ... why doesn't the grid go off-line then? ...

"... electrical providers counted on wind ..."

Are you serious? ... why are you letting Bubba make these decisions? ...

First ... explain to me in simple terms why it's physically impossible for freeze-offs to occur in Texas in cold weather ... something that's a fairly common problem in North Dakota ... I respect your opinion on The Verge, but I've been reading this elsewhere and The Verge was the first hit on a google search ...

What you want us to believe is that the Texas governor is too stupid to order those gas valves turned on ... yeah, right ... okay boomer ...

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ...

That's what I said. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

why doesn't the grid go off-line then? ...
It did. At least the amount needed to avoid an overload. They were supposed to roll the blackouts but they didn't do that the first 36 hours. The Y axis shows the percentage supplied by type not KWH so you can't see the lower load on that graph.

It did. At least the amount needed to avoid an overload. They were supposed to roll the blackouts but they didn't do that the first 36 hours. The Y axis shows the percentage supplied by type not KWH so you can't see the lower load on that graph.

No it didn't ... what the hell are you talking about? ... the Texas grid did NOT fail on Jan 20th, or Jan 23rd, or Feb 1st ... it failed on Feb 14th and ONLY on Feb 14th ... in spite wind going off-line those three dates beforehand ...

The difference is Texas was experiencing all time record cold on Feb 14th ... something that wasn't in the long term plans and the expensive equipment needed to prevent the black out never installed ... it's a risk/benefit decision made in corporate boardrooms ... profit before people ...

I did noticed one thing that the Practical Engineering video (post #101) didn't touch upon ... the record cold hit the entire grid, all the power plants were effected by the cold ... in previous cold snaps, only one side of the grid or the other would freeze up and the other side could manage the load ... that's a problem with Texas being mostly isolated from the Eastern Grid, Texas wasn't able to draw power in from where power plants were still working ...

You're trying to pin all this on the wind farms ... and that's very plainly something that's easily, and regularly, mitigated ... as demonstrated by your graph ... something else went terribly wrong and your the only one who claims gas suppliers refused to provide the gas needed ... other engineers, regulators and grid managers claim the pipelines were blocked with ice ... a fairly common problem in other areas of the USA ... the contracts were in place, users paid the spot price, when the spot price skyrocketed that evening, users shut down rather than pay that price ... profit before people ...

Actually I'm not. I am pinning it on they did not have contracts in place for extra gas. If they already had the contracts in place they wouldn't have needed to pay the higher prices. It was their going to the market for more gas that caused the prices to soar. And yes, I don't believe their story. They were seconds away from exceeding their load and catastrophe.

Unbelievable ... sorry, Texas grid managers warned power plant operators a full week ahead of time there would be record cold temperatures, and record demand ... you claim operators ignored this warning and didn't prepare ... maybe all the people involve really are that stupid ... Texas has the reputation of having a piss-poor education system ...

You still haven't explained the magical properties of Texas water so that it alone won't freeze when temperatures drop below 32ºF ... you tell me, how much water comes up with the natural gas into the wellhead ... other engineers from Texas claim freeze-offs in the pipeline and wellheads were a major contributing factor ...

You've yet to post a citation that backs your claims ... that tells me your idea are below the National Enquirer's journalistic standards ...

There are pipeline quality specs that limit water content, CO2 and H2S concentrations into pipelines. They are super picky about what goes into interstate pipelines. And interstate pipelines are typically buried 3 to 6 feet. Any freezing issues would be in fields - at wellheads and above ground flow lines - not in buried interstate pipelines. I haven't even brought up gas storage fields yet which are used during high demand periods and make up shortfalls. So the argument that gas was unavailable is bullshit.

You can rant on Texas all you want. In my opinion that says more about you than Texas.

But listen, if you want to believe that shit, go right ahead. I couldn't care less.

Is this quality control to limit water, CO2 and H2S done down in the gas pocket, or is it done after the gas reaches the surface and done at surface temperatures? ... how are we keeping the water used for fracking down in the well and NOT come out with the gas released? ... just explain this, and I'll believe you ...

The problem with your claim is that it requires there be plenty of gas available, and clear pipelines to deliver is gas to the power plants ... the power plants themselves decided to shut down during all time peak demand, in spite orders from the grid managers to stay on-line ... is that even legal? ... your claim also requires this system to be immune from any "State of Emergency" declaration from the governor's office ... all without citations of any kind ...

You can rant on Texas all you want. In my opinion that says more about you than Texas.

Absolutely correct ... a lot of Texans think they're better off not being a part of the Union ... fine, don't be asking for Federal tax dollars to repair the damage ... Texas can deal with it themselves ... such statements are intended to say more about me than Texas ... I'm a patriot ... "one nation ... indivisible with liberty and justice for all"

Don't care if you believe me. I spent my career working in upstream oil and gas across a variety of engineering disciplines.

At a minimum the processing at the wellsite uses a separator which separates gas, oil and water. This is where the lion's share of water is removed. So the freezing risk is from the wellhead to the separator. Depending upon the oil a heater treater may be used to break oil/water emulsions but this would occur downstream of the separator.

Usually from there the gas will go to an operator owned central processing facility or a third party midstream processing facility. That's usually where the dehydration (glycol unit) and H2S/CO2 removal (amine unit) is performed. You have to remember that the higher the pressure the gas the less water vapor it can hold. So the appropriate level of water removal is performed where it makes the most sense. You could have a dehyration unit at the wellsite but usually only if you are going into someone else's system and the pressure of that system and the owners specs require dehydration. Otherwise it makes more sense to do dehydration at a central facility.

So to answer your question directly, no processing is done within the well. All processing is done at the surface. All of these lines are buried except the line when it comes out of the wellhead but is buried soon after. Most of the water is removed at the wellsite using a separator and the greatest risk of freezing is at the wellhead.

Most water production from wells is not from frac fluids. Usually less than 10% of the frac fluid is recovered when the well is initially flowed. Most water production is from the reservoir itself. It can be connate water (water that exists in the pore spaces of the rock with the hydrocarbons) or from aquifer support. Connate water is an irreducible water saturation but due to compressibility of water some will flow to the surface as the reservoir pressure decreases. A well with a strong water drive will continue to produce water with increasing water cuts. Water production from a well producing connate water will decline as the well is produced.

As for Texas, you paint with broad brush strokes. I suspect if I painted Oregonians with a similar broad brush stroke you would get my point.

Don't care if you believe me. I spent my career working in upstream oil and gas across a variety of engineering disciplines.

But you've never experienced this kind of cold in Texas ... no one has ... that's why it's called "all-time record cold temperatures across the state" ... so unless all these facilities are vaulted underground, the pipelines are exposed to freezing temperatures, and water vapor will deposit and block the pipeline that are exposed ... unless there's heaters installed ... watch the video in post #101 and tell me he's a liar ...

Still you haven't answered the question of why power plant operators shut down during the all-time peak demand ... they knew perfectly well they'd crash the system ... someone shut the gas off because they didn't get pre-paid? ... if this is lawful in Texas, then I'm rightfully painting with a broad brush ... this caused people to die, that's criminal manslaughter in Oregon ...

Oregonians can't be trusted to pump their own gasoline without blowing up the neighborhood ... go ahead and try to fling a deeper insult, I dare you ... I've burnt my hand on the radiator cap in California so many times it's not funny ...

There was a time when a fella could get his daughter's tubes tied so he didn't get her pregnant ... but we have abortion now, so problem solved ...

I've worked on the North Slope and Norway. Pretty sure I know about how to operate oil and gas wells in cold weather better than you do.

Yes, they did know they were getting ready to crash the system. That's why they started shedding load shut on 2/16. The wind turbines started going offline on 2/8. They did not have enough gas to offset that loss.

Do you understand how natural gas storage works? Did you even know that there are natural gas storage fields or why they exist in the first place?

But it was much colder in the Dakotas, and their wind turbines did not go off line? Why was that? Nor did they in most northern states. Could it be that Texas has some fucked up fools running their grid regulations?

Because they probably purchased turbines with heat tracing technology.

Do you really think insulting Texas bothers me? All you are really doing is showing what really bothers you and that you were never taught any manners.

The reality is that in Texas wind power went offline 8 days before the really cold weather hit and that put them behind the eight ball.

No citation means it didn't happen ...

 

[jc456]

In 2020, about 123.49 billion gallons (or about 2.94 billion barrels) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States.

ding, what about peak loads? there is no way to do all of the math unless one assumes peak load percentages. In today's electrical grid running air conditioners by entire cities stresses the current grid. brown outs. I honestly don't believe this can be accomplished. too many unknown variables. It's all someone's wet dream.

 

[ding]

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."

What does that mean?

"...the ones not worthy for the new technologies..."
What does that mean?

Timber dams rot ... for the few kW these old dam produce, it's not worth repairing them with concrete ... duh ... plus silting is a problem, the impoundments fill up ...

The environmental concern, and this is shared by both the fishing and tourist industries, is these old dams block the salmon migration ... about 2/3's the Columbia River watershed is devoid of sea-run salmon and steelhead ... they can't get past Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State ... there's still a few places in Oregon where one could almost walk across small rivers on the backs of Springers ... besides, we have more than enough dams as it is, enough to ship electricity down to California, and California is rich enough to pay our prices ...

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

In Oregon we get more power from renewables than from gas, coal, and nuclear combined.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

Two points here:

1. Oregon is not Texas.

2. "In 2019, 49% of Oregon's utility-scale electricity net generation came from hydroelectric power, and 62% came from conventional hydroelectric power plants and other renewable energy resources combined."

Are you saying environmentalists would support new hydroelectric dams being built? Because -- they wouldn't.

Oregon is actively trying to tear out dams ... the ones not worthy for the new technologies ... the power is surplus and so unnecessary to Oregon's electric demand ... BPA's facilities also provide for navigation up and down the Columbia River, so those dams aren't going anywhere, and they get all the latest technology and equipment ...

No one supports building more dams, we have all that we need already ... land to build homes on is what's in dreadfully short supply ...

Read'em and weep Old Rocks

View attachment 498006

What you chart shows is that Texas could cover the electric demand with gas and coal only ... as wind is unreliable ... what you're claiming is that Texas gas suppliers ran their reserves to empty just before a massive polar front moved over the State ... do you have a citation or are you just guessing? ... and please refer to your claim in post #81 that you didn't know what happened ...

The Texas grid doesn't collapse every time the wind stops blowing (c.f. Jan 20th, Jan 23rd, Feb 1st) ... so the natural gas pipeline system can handle all the demand put on it ... something went wrong with the pipeline system ... and now we're laughing at Texas, an energy rich State can't keep her heaters on ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

No. What I am surmising is that the electrical providers counted on wind remaining online and did not contract with the gas marketers for gas to cover the increased generation needed because wind went down. They eventually got the gas to run the plants. It just took a little while to get enough.

The gas fired plants were already there. They just weren't running at full capacity because they were generating power from the wind turbines. Gas fired plants have essentially become swing generators. AND the electrical providers didn't plan for needing that swing because they did not anticipate or plan for the wind turbines going off line.

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ... why doesn't the grid go off-line then? ...

"... electrical providers counted on wind ..."

Are you serious? ... why are you letting Bubba make these decisions? ...

First ... explain to me in simple terms why it's physically impossible for freeze-offs to occur in Texas in cold weather ... something that's a fairly common problem in North Dakota ... I respect your opinion on The Verge, but I've been reading this elsewhere and The Verge was the first hit on a google search ...

What you want us to believe is that the Texas governor is too stupid to order those gas valves turned on ... yeah, right ... okay boomer ...

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ...

That's what I said. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

why doesn't the grid go off-line then? ...
It did. At least the amount needed to avoid an overload. They were supposed to roll the blackouts but they didn't do that the first 36 hours. The Y axis shows the percentage supplied by type not KWH so you can't see the lower load on that graph.

It did. At least the amount needed to avoid an overload. They were supposed to roll the blackouts but they didn't do that the first 36 hours. The Y axis shows the percentage supplied by type not KWH so you can't see the lower load on that graph.

No it didn't ... what the hell are you talking about? ... the Texas grid did NOT fail on Jan 20th, or Jan 23rd, or Feb 1st ... it failed on Feb 14th and ONLY on Feb 14th ... in spite wind going off-line those three dates beforehand ...

The difference is Texas was experiencing all time record cold on Feb 14th ... something that wasn't in the long term plans and the expensive equipment needed to prevent the black out never installed ... it's a risk/benefit decision made in corporate boardrooms ... profit before people ...

I did noticed one thing that the Practical Engineering video (post #101) didn't touch upon ... the record cold hit the entire grid, all the power plants were effected by the cold ... in previous cold snaps, only one side of the grid or the other would freeze up and the other side could manage the load ... that's a problem with Texas being mostly isolated from the Eastern Grid, Texas wasn't able to draw power in from where power plants were still working ...

You're trying to pin all this on the wind farms ... and that's very plainly something that's easily, and regularly, mitigated ... as demonstrated by your graph ... something else went terribly wrong and your the only one who claims gas suppliers refused to provide the gas needed ... other engineers, regulators and grid managers claim the pipelines were blocked with ice ... a fairly common problem in other areas of the USA ... the contracts were in place, users paid the spot price, when the spot price skyrocketed that evening, users shut down rather than pay that price ... profit before people ...

Actually I'm not. I am pinning it on they did not have contracts in place for extra gas. If they already had the contracts in place they wouldn't have needed to pay the higher prices. It was their going to the market for more gas that caused the prices to soar. And yes, I don't believe their story. They were seconds away from exceeding their load and catastrophe.

Unbelievable ... sorry, Texas grid managers warned power plant operators a full week ahead of time there would be record cold temperatures, and record demand ... you claim operators ignored this warning and didn't prepare ... maybe all the people involve really are that stupid ... Texas has the reputation of having a piss-poor education system ...

You still haven't explained the magical properties of Texas water so that it alone won't freeze when temperatures drop below 32ºF ... you tell me, how much water comes up with the natural gas into the wellhead ... other engineers from Texas claim freeze-offs in the pipeline and wellheads were a major contributing factor ...

You've yet to post a citation that backs your claims ... that tells me your idea are below the National Enquirer's journalistic standards ...

There are pipeline quality specs that limit water content, CO2 and H2S concentrations into pipelines. They are super picky about what goes into interstate pipelines. And interstate pipelines are typically buried 3 to 6 feet. Any freezing issues would be in fields - at wellheads and above ground flow lines - not in buried interstate pipelines. I haven't even brought up gas storage fields yet which are used during high demand periods and make up shortfalls. So the argument that gas was unavailable is bullshit.

You can rant on Texas all you want. In my opinion that says more about you than Texas.

But listen, if you want to believe that shit, go right ahead. I couldn't care less.

Is this quality control to limit water, CO2 and H2S done down in the gas pocket, or is it done after the gas reaches the surface and done at surface temperatures? ... how are we keeping the water used for fracking down in the well and NOT come out with the gas released? ... just explain this, and I'll believe you ...

The problem with your claim is that it requires there be plenty of gas available, and clear pipelines to deliver is gas to the power plants ... the power plants themselves decided to shut down during all time peak demand, in spite orders from the grid managers to stay on-line ... is that even legal? ... your claim also requires this system to be immune from any "State of Emergency" declaration from the governor's office ... all without citations of any kind ...

You can rant on Texas all you want. In my opinion that says more about you than Texas.

Absolutely correct ... a lot of Texans think they're better off not being a part of the Union ... fine, don't be asking for Federal tax dollars to repair the damage ... Texas can deal with it themselves ... such statements are intended to say more about me than Texas ... I'm a patriot ... "one nation ... indivisible with liberty and justice for all"

Don't care if you believe me. I spent my career working in upstream oil and gas across a variety of engineering disciplines.

At a minimum the processing at the wellsite uses a separator which separates gas, oil and water. This is where the lion's share of water is removed. So the freezing risk is from the wellhead to the separator. Depending upon the oil a heater treater may be used to break oil/water emulsions but this would occur downstream of the separator.

Usually from there the gas will go to an operator owned central processing facility or a third party midstream processing facility. That's usually where the dehydration (glycol unit) and H2S/CO2 removal (amine unit) is performed. You have to remember that the higher the pressure the gas the less water vapor it can hold. So the appropriate level of water removal is performed where it makes the most sense. You could have a dehyration unit at the wellsite but usually only if you are going into someone else's system and the pressure of that system and the owners specs require dehydration. Otherwise it makes more sense to do dehydration at a central facility.

So to answer your question directly, no processing is done within the well. All processing is done at the surface. All of these lines are buried except the line when it comes out of the wellhead but is buried soon after. Most of the water is removed at the wellsite using a separator and the greatest risk of freezing is at the wellhead.

Most water production from wells is not from frac fluids. Usually less than 10% of the frac fluid is recovered when the well is initially flowed. Most water production is from the reservoir itself. It can be connate water (water that exists in the pore spaces of the rock with the hydrocarbons) or from aquifer support. Connate water is an irreducible water saturation but due to compressibility of water some will flow to the surface as the reservoir pressure decreases. A well with a strong water drive will continue to produce water with increasing water cuts. Water production from a well producing connate water will decline as the well is produced.

As for Texas, you paint with broad brush strokes. I suspect if I painted Oregonians with a similar broad brush stroke you would get my point.

Don't care if you believe me. I spent my career working in upstream oil and gas across a variety of engineering disciplines.

But you've never experienced this kind of cold in Texas ... no one has ... that's why it's called "all-time record cold temperatures across the state" ... so unless all these facilities are vaulted underground, the pipelines are exposed to freezing temperatures, and water vapor will deposit and block the pipeline that are exposed ... unless there's heaters installed ... watch the video in post #101 and tell me he's a liar ...

Still you haven't answered the question of why power plant operators shut down during the all-time peak demand ... they knew perfectly well they'd crash the system ... someone shut the gas off because they didn't get pre-paid? ... if this is lawful in Texas, then I'm rightfully painting with a broad brush ... this caused people to die, that's criminal manslaughter in Oregon ...

Oregonians can't be trusted to pump their own gasoline without blowing up the neighborhood ... go ahead and try to fling a deeper insult, I dare you ... I've burnt my hand on the radiator cap in California so many times it's not funny ...

There was a time when a fella could get his daughter's tubes tied so he didn't get her pregnant ... but we have abortion now, so problem solved ...

I've worked on the North Slope and Norway. Pretty sure I know about how to operate oil and gas wells in cold weather better than you do.

Yes, they did know they were getting ready to crash the system. That's why they started shedding load shut on 2/16. The wind turbines started going offline on 2/8. They did not have enough gas to offset that loss.

Do you understand how natural gas storage works? Did you even know that there are natural gas storage fields or why they exist in the first place?

But it was much colder in the Dakotas, and their wind turbines did not go off line? Why was that? Nor did they in most northern states. Could it be that Texas has some fucked up fools running their grid regulations?

Because they probably purchased turbines with heat tracing technology.

Do you really think insulting Texas bothers me? All you are really doing is showing what really bothers you and that you were never taught any manners.

The reality is that in Texas wind power went offline 8 days before the really cold weather hit and that put them behind the eight ball.

No citation means it didn't happen ...

uh huh

Horsefeathers ... the graph you posted clearly shows wind going offline .. and gas kicking in to cover the load ...

I'm starting to worry about you.

 

[ding]

In 2020, about 123.49 billion gallons (or about 2.94 billion barrels) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States.

ding, what about peak loads? there is no way to do all of the math unless one assumes peak load percentages. In today's electrical grid running air conditioners by entire cities stresses the current grid. brown outs. I honestly don't believe this can be accomplished. too many unknown variables. It's all someone's wet dream.

I'm ignoring that but yeah. Factoring peak loads would require extra generating capacity.

 

[theHawk]

We’ll need like 30-50 new nuclear plants and more natural gas generation sites.

 

[jc456]

We’ll need like 30-50 new nuclear plants and more natural gas generation sites.

or....................................................it can't be done. and it's just someone's jerking off wet dream.

 

[danielpalos]

Advances in geothermal technologies could provide more energy.

 

[jc456]

Advances in geothermal technologies could provide more energy.

Could? When?

 

[skookerasbil]

The point in the thread topic is moot.

Only 325,000 EV's were sold in the US in 2020. Toyota sold that many Camry sedans alone!
13,000,000 cars sold in the US last year. Think of that 325,000 on a pie graph!

Americans dont want EV's.........Toyota is building none. Why? Because those mofu's are astute in understanding the US car market. Other companies building EV's are doing it for one reason" to meet stringent ( and goofy ) SAE standards. Enables them to sell gas guzzling SUV's that the public buys.

Funny factoid I just learned............the EV obsessed always point to the Tesla Roadster being this hyper-performance state of the art EV. And it is. Yet since 2015, Tesla has sold only 150,000 units. Porsche sells more 911 Turbo S cars in a couple of months every year.. The Tesla Roadster sells for a cool 250K. Nobody wants to show up at the car show in a Tesla Roadster because only about 7 people are looking at that car at any car show.

Once again proving the old adage...........the argument of the progressive always falls apart when the question is asked, "As compared to what?"

 

[ReinyDays]

Advances in geothermal technologies could provide more energy.

But only where there's geothermal activity ... and that's only along the flanks of active volcanoes ... too much cost for too little output ... we get the occasional stone wind here in the Pacific Northwest ... stones the size of houses at 900ºF traveling 700 mph ... cubic miles of the stuff ...

 

[danielpalos]

Advances in geothermal technologies could provide more energy.

Could? When?

 

[jc456]

Advances in geothermal technologies could provide more energy.

Could? When?

Hahaha hahaha.04% hahahaha

 

[skookerasbil]

Every single climate crusader projection/prediction on solar and wind for the past 10 years has been dead wrong. Like as in spectacularly wrong.

10 years worth of hot air.

Go look at statements made on this topic from 2010....it's almost verbatim the same crap. You would think that somewhere along the way, at least one of these bean heads would change the script....just a bit.....if only for the optics. I told them years ago to try a Plan B.

And they call the skeptics "morons"