Yeah, because the ability to generate from hydro is down.

Contribution to the grid was 19% in 2019.

9.2% was not the requested contribution from hydro, it's all it could provide.

Hydro generated 16,900,077 Kwh in 2021, 40,374,761 Kwh in 2019.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1662693354.jpg

Tenn. gets back 69 cents for every dollar
they pay in fed taxes
They rank 18th in that regard


here are the top 10 states that get
back more than they paid in:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1662714681.jpg

Thanks for that ^

Wow, Mississippi and W. Virginia taking home the cheese!

Alaska I get. We need to do what we can to keep that State pumping out energy. And Military support there is strategically important too.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1662757004.jpg

I wonder why they don’t do that…not a big windmill but several little scoops across the hood or roof with mini turbines inside to generate a recharge while moving. Is that implausible?

These were suggestions in hopes that some would actually try to conserve in a freakish heatwave. The power stayed on unlike Texas. Sometimes in our lives we are asked to sacrifice. It’s not talked about much anymore but sacrificing is an actual thing. Keeping the AC at 78 for four f@$ing hours is not a big deal.

TX is by far the biggest wind producer in the country.

In TX wind is a smaller planned portion of the power package during the winter than it is during the summer.

During the summer when demand for electricity is high the residential gas demand is low and wind is a major contributor to the grid.

That gets inverted in winter. Most homes are heated by gas so residential demand goes up without affecting providers because electric demand goes down.

It balances out and is why wind is not needed as much.

During our freeze gas completely **** the bed and it was a domino.

Wind operators were able to spin up and make up for a chunk of the shortfall.

Even with failure of turbines wind contributed 30% of the available grid when the winter package only planned for 6%.

TX did lose 40% of it's capacity so that 30% contribution on a normal day would be more like 18%? or so. Still 3x's what it was expected to provide.

It outperformed gas.

Yeah, California kept the lights on, Texas didn’t. My niece never lost power in her Dallas suburb home during the freeze but she got an $8k dollar bill.

Once again, nobody was forced to cut back and the power stayed on in California.

That she never lost power means she is on the same grid as a hospital or similar essential service.

They don’t ever turn them off or subject them to rolling blackouts.

Chuck is a lying POS.

Wind is only 7% of TX winter plan.

Yes the turbines were off line because they were planned to be offline.

But they did bring them online and they contributed more than they were planned to.

NG failed, big time.

His bull**** that thermal sources contributed 91% of the need is because THEY SHUT OFF EVERYONES POWER so no **** sherlock, they met the demand because they TURNED OFF EVERYONES POWER to bring “demand” down to what they could supply.

Oh, and then ERCOT and Abbot told them they can charge 900% more for that power.

the true irony?
*****ing about potential solutions to what caused the problem in the first place.

You are exactly right. She is on the same grid as a nursing home.

This thread is about CA demanding that the (car) future is electric (by decree) and then says don't charge your electric car (not enough juice.)

Generations past figured out how to produce MORE power to meet demand.

This generation figures out how to pass the buck, kick the green can around to gather kickbacks and ensure that the problem persists. - "oh, but LOOK, We CARE... sorry you can't use power right now. No, that gas generator is illegal too.."

Are you against any type of progression? It seems that way. If I had the money I’d gladly get a tricked out Tesla over another over priced super car like say a Porsche. As far as the ICE ban in California, it’s really not a ban at all. You can keep your polluter car and if you want something new you can go with a hybrid version. Also by that year battery tech will be vastly different in a good way so what is wrong with looking towards a different future?

:rolleyes:

as a kid I built a minibike with a car battery and a starter motor. When getting my engineering degree I got on a hybrid car project.

So, BTDT. I'm quite aware of tech. Are you? You seem emotionally invested in rainbows and unicorn solns. Or do you think it makes you look smart to call others stunted in progressive vision?

Look, pushing a 5k lb car around uses lots of juice. If the grid can't handle existing draw then the grid can't handle future draw when millions of electric cars need to suck big E-juice.

At best, with charging at night (when green wind and solar are next to nil) CA still does not have enough juice for that kind of demand.

And really, is such a fragile system a good goal?

Batteries are not progress. That's a marketing illusion. It's technology older than ICEs. Making vehicles heavier is not progress. Making vehicles with less driving range is not progress. Increasing refueling time and decreasing fuel availability is not progress. Decreasing towing ability is not progress. Relying on fossil fuel power plants is not progress. Developing 1000s of new strip mining operations is not progress. Relying on foreign countries for critical minerals is not progress (see Russia, Europe ....).

Something truly innovative and efficient to replace the ICE will happen. It will most likely involve some type of fuel cell that we can't really even conceive of currently. When that happens, it will not need to be force-fed down our throats by legislation and government rebates. It will be something everyone WANTS to buy because it is better, cheaper, has more range, better performance and is more convenient than an ICE vehicle (think cellphone revolution). Until that day comes, we have enough oil to outlive all of us and then some. The sky is not falling. 'Mother Earth' is not in danger. Relax. :cool:

But but but the sticker on the EV says it is "Zero Emissions" and all the promotions say it has no carbon footprint. They wouldn't lie to us. :rolleyes:

CurtEgerer

https://media3.giphy.com/media/U23rl...giphy.gif&ct=g

Beautiful.