Texas Power Failure

[ArthurEld]

Biased news is bullshit. It's that simple

 

[Woody]

Texas power failure is just another one of many to come. Let‘s not forget about California that has multiple power outages every year. California doesn’t have enough electrical power generation to run all the regular load plus all the AC needs on a heatwave. So where’s all that electricity coming from to charge up and run all the electric vehicles they are mandating? There’s no magic one size fits all perfect power source yet. Alternate energy currently has to be backed up by fossil or nuke power sources or you go dark. Those dirty power sources can be brought online by humans to fill the power needs. However, humans can’t make the sun shine or wind blow. Otherwise no power and that’s why some of us are here. We want our stuff to still turn on. We want water to flow, lights to turn on, radios to hear how bad it is out there, etc.

 

[Woody]

Just saw this up on spaceweather.com site, for our friends up North this weekend is the anniversary of:

The Great Québec Blackout​

”...the day the sun brought darkness.” On March 13, 1989, a powerful coronal mass ejection (CME) hit Earth’s magnetic field. Ninety seconds later, the Hydro-Québec power grid failed. During the 9 hour blackout that followed, millions of Quebecois found themselves with no light or heat, wondering what was going on?”

Just another reason to be preppared, well the best we can that is.

 

[svetz]

Biased news is bullshit. It's that simple

But how do you fix this particular problem?

India recently passed censorship laws, but who decides what to censor? As well meaning as it sounds to stop fake news, stifling free speech has never worked well for the democracy that does it.

The more I think about the labeling idea, the more I like it. Perhaps I'll write my congressman?

 

[Luthj]

Educating people to detect and understand bias, and to spot the calling cards of rank partisans while they are young helps. Research polling indicates that people under 35 are more concerned with practical governance, and are less interested in pure ideology than previous generations were, which may help some. Rational thinking and object truth finding are in no way natural human behaviors. They take quite a bit of training to obtain. Our brains would rather just take the easy shortcuts based on tribe, emotional appeals, or personal charisma.

As I mentioned, there is nothing inherently evil about low level bias. That doesn't make the information factually wrong. True neutral language is extremely hard to pull off, and even then mild inflection can have a dramatic effect on that. The real danger is when alternative facts come to bear. Look for the calling cards of weaponized narcissism. If the truth can't truly be known, and all sources are suspect, you are free to choose whatever supports your image/ego.

Historically when polarization in a government or culture reaches a certain level good governance can be discarded, as the side effects of bad aren't enough to cost elections. The primary issues are.

• winner take all primaries and general elections
• Identity and core voting issues become inflexible
• lack of multiparty representation.

These structural barriers punish moderates. In systems with ranked choice voting, multiple parties, no gerrymandering, etc, moderation is rewarded by the electoral structure. This goes a long way to keeping the crazies out of office. Winner take all primaries are a good example, where they often (but not always) punish the moderate majority who spreads their vote around, and rewards the extremist minority, as they typically have a single candidate. The 2016 R primary was a good example, where some 60% was split between a couple "moderate" candidates, which diluted their vote.

At any given time there are probably 20-30% of a population who would willingly cede power to a semi-permanent autocratic or theocratic government. These are the types of people for whom reality is just a obstacle to be overcome in pursuit of truth.

In the past, when this happened in the USA, (and it has happened many times before), it was broken up by major events, such as WWII, the civil war, great depression, etc. These forced realignments along ideological lines. None of these types of events are likely to occur in the near future, so we can expect a gradual shift of the status quo due to demographic changes. These have been in motion since the mid 90s, and will reach critical mass in the next 10 years.


Regulating news may help somewhat, but such efforts need to be constantly adjusted for changes in the media landscape. Some have proposed reducing protections for media organizations to lawsuits. Several ridiculous conspiracies which wrecked folks lives for example. Again, extremism in media is a symptom, not a root cause. Though it can be reinforcing. People have been spreading misinformation, and propaganda as long as there has been spoken language. The core issue is when leaders, especially elected ones, embrace it.

As was demonstrated after the recent election, for certain groups, failure to support the perceived party line can drive an exodus from "news" sources. The mass (though probably short lived) switch from Fox news to NewsMax was a perfect example. This somewhat demonstrates that forcing news to be actual news, will just drive people to pure opinion masquerading as factual reporting. Even putting a big flashing opinion notice at the bottom of the program won't do anything. This type of regulation won't have any impact on social media/small outlets anyways. There are thousands of them, ranging for great to none in their sourcing.

 

[ArthurEld]

But how do you fix this particular problem?

India recently passed censorship laws, but who decides what to censor? As well meaning as it sounds to stop fake news, stifling free speech has never worked well for the democracy that does it.

The more I think about the labeling idea, the more I like it. Perhaps I'll write my congressman?

I think people must become desensitized because when I look at the news all I see is bullshit.
The bullshit even extends into the regular programs.
I literally can't watch it.

I guess freedom means blindly follow your side.

Censorship is not the answer. Encouraging people to think for themselves instead of looking to the news or government for guidance would be a start. Following bullshit is not what free thinkers do.

 

[Luthj]

Following bullshit is not what free thinkers do.

The irony is that extreme partisans often say the same thing. Even followers of conspiracies say they are being free thinkers. Flat earthers are an extreme example. Its easy to put yourself into a tribe (free thinkers, Rs, Ds, etc). Language like "followers and leaders" if a great example. Once you do that you diminish your ability to reason some. The truth doesn't care if you are following or leading. The goal should be to believe as many true things as reasonable, and as few false things as reasonable.


Blanket distrust of media and/or authoritative sources is just as wrong as blanket trust. I have several friends who use more extreme versions of this to justify believing whatever is convenient. They don't need to know anything specific, because the truth is evident for those in the know.

Sources that I have found to be reliable and authoritative I still fact check on occasion. I have found most video type media (cable or otherwise) is of significantly lower quality than detailed pieces by dedicated journalists. Both on the local and national stage. Sadly too few Americans still read to get their news, thought that may be on the slight uptick.

 

[John Frum]

The goal should be to believe as many true things as reasonable, and as few false things as reasonable.

Once you do that you diminish your ability to reason some.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements.

 

[ArthurEld]

The irony is that extreme partisans often say the same thing. Even followers of conspiracies say they are being free thinkers. Flat earthers are an extreme example.

I'm more inclined to listen to extremists ahead of fake news

Blanket distrust of media and/or authoritative sources is just as wrong as blanket trust. I have several friends who use more extreme versions of this to justify believing whatever is convenient. They don't need to know anything specific, because the truth is evident for those in the know.

I have found that screaming and jumping up and down does no good. Neither does throwing money at it.

I'll stick to living in my own little world. It's gotten me this far and I don't have that much farther to go

Sources that I have found to be reliable and authoritative I still fact check on occasion. I have found most video type media (cable or otherwise) is of significantly lower quality than detailed pieces by dedicated journalists. Both on the local and national stage. Sadly too few Americans still read to get their news, thought that may be on the slight uptick.

Of course I have to get some news. Sadly it's hard to tune out all the fake news people are spreading.
I watch BBC once in a while and read the headlines on NPR's website. I don't blindly assume everything is fact there. They are less biased

 

[Zwy]

Texas power failure is just another one of many to come. Let‘s not forget about California that has multiple power outages every year. California doesn’t have enough electrical power generation to run all the regular load plus all the AC needs on a heatwave. So where’s all that electricity coming from to charge up and run all the electric vehicles they are mandating? There’s no magic one size fits all perfect power source yet. Alternate energy currently has to be backed up by fossil or nuke power sources or you go dark. Those dirty power sources can be brought online by humans to fill the power needs. However, humans can’t make the sun shine or wind blow. Otherwise no power and that’s why some of us are here. We want our stuff to still turn on. We want water to flow, lights to turn on, radios to hear how bad it is out there, etc.

Unfortunately, the real reason for rolling blackouts is not from lack of generating capacity but of emissions regulated by the Department of Energy. What has occurred is power generators rely more on wind and solar for carbon credits. In my local area, 2 coal plants shut down due to the requirement of new scrubbers for emissions. The upgrade cost too much to make it feasible. This is how they intend to take fossil fuel plants off line. Have rates increased due to this? Heck yes and they will rise more in the future.

 

[Luthj]

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements.

Sorry, editing mistake.

 

[Luthj]

Part of the issue with the grid in general, is that it is undergoing a paradigm shift which hasn't happened in close to 80 years. I am not saying government intervention is 100% required. Smart regulation, and letting the private utilities innovate to meet it may work. However a significant investment in grid reliability with a focus on renewable and local generation may be on the table.

Up until recently, building 200-800MW power plants fairly close to consumers, with modest to low interconnection capability to neighboring major grid areas worked fine. Renewables tend to be a more localized, with great solar generation areas (low land costs, and clear skies) often being quite a distance. Wind is also limited geographically for obvious reasons.

Combine this with the increasing amount of grid storage slated for construction, means some changes are in order. Better long distance transmission capability for one. Distributed storage to reduce peak demand on high tension lines, etc.


As far as EV usage goes, we can estimate the additional electricity consumption. Typically Americans drive 26 miles per day. An efficient EV will get about 2-2.5 miles per kwhr. So 26/2= 13kw-hr per day. Most of which can be consumed at night when power demand is lower than during peak times.

The average American uses about 30kwhr per day. About 30-50% of which is during peak hours. So the total increase would be around 40% in energy. However peak power may only increase nominally. With solar PV, its possible to use excess generation to charge EVs.

The idea result would be EV batteries which have more than enough cycle life for the vehicles lifespan. So they can be used as grid tied storage. Charge during peak PV during the day, and discharge 10-20% of capacity when needed for peaking. Distributing peaking loads around helps.

 

[ArthurEld]

Part of the issue with the grid in general, is that it is undergoing a paradigm shift which hasn't happened in close to 80 years. I am not saying government intervention is 100% required. Smart regulation, and letting the private utilities innovate to meet it may work. However a significant investment in grid reliability with a focus on renewable and local generation may be on the table.

Up until recently, building 200-800MW power plants fairly close to consumers, with modest to low interconnection capability to neighboring major grid areas worked fine. Renewables tend to be a more localized, with great solar generation areas (low land costs, and clear skies) often being quite a distance. Wind is also limited geographically for obvious reasons.

Combine this with the increasing amount of grid storage slated for construction, means some changes are in order. Better long distance transmission capability for one. Distributed storage to reduce peak demand on high tension lines, etc.


As far as EV usage goes, we can estimate the additional electricity consumption. Typically Americans drive 26 miles per day. An efficient EV will get about 2-2.5 miles per kwhr. So 26/2= 13kw-hr per day. Most of which can be consumed at night when power demand is lower than during peak times.

The average American uses about 30kwhr per day. About 30-50% of which is during peak hours. So the total increase would be around 40% in energy. However peak power may only increase nominally. With solar PV, its possible to use excess generation to charge EVs.

The idea result would be EV batteries which have more than enough cycle life for the vehicles lifespan. So they can be used as grid tied storage. Charge during peak PV during the day, and discharge 10-20% of capacity when needed for peaking. Distributing peaking loads around helps.

It seems likely that some kind of distributed power is in our future. PV is becoming so cheap and the electric companies already install it for free if you can't afford to.

 

[45North]

Perhaps rather than censorship, the government could take a page from the FDA labeling guidelines:

• You can't have "News" in the show's title unless you're over 90% accurate and balanced
• A show less than 90% but greater that 70% will be call Commentary
• A show less than 70% shall have the label Conspiracy theories in the title.

We could do the same with politicians:

• A politician that is > 90% accurate will be known as the Right Honorable.
• A politician that is 70 to 90% shall be known as the Right Trickster
• A politician that is 40 to 70% shall known as the Right Lying Bastard
• A politician that is less than 40% shall be automatically removed from office.

Wouldn't work though, imagine how much it would cost for all those recalls?

Yes, but who decides what's "accurate". When things become highly politicized it becomes more a matter of who's side are you on rather than what's true.
My "facts" might be your "fake news"

 

[Luthj]

It seems likely that some kind of distributed power is in our future. PV is becoming so cheap and the electric companies already install it for free if you can't afford to.

Indeed. The big question is if its going to be home scale, or neighborhood scale. Though chemical flow batteries may make utility scale practical. We are on a cusp of a grid storage revolution I believe. The low per kwhr cost of renewables combined with feasible storage will make fossil fuel peaker plants much less profitable, which will accelerate existing trends.

 

[svetz]

I looked at some studies of Gen-Zs susceptibility to fake news, they're all over the place. But the one heartening thing I saw was 9 in 10 had seen fake news, so some 90% at least know you can't always trust what you hear.

Here's a Gen-Zer's thoughts on finding the truth...

Part of the issue with the grid in general, is that it is undergoing a paradigm shift which hasn't happened in close to 80 years.

It does needs careful planning, less the country at large suffer issues like California (although California seems more due to mismanagement and lawsuits). I'm not crazy about the current piecemeal strategy, ideally there should be some regionalized (interstate) planning/agreement front and center for any modernization/expansion.

The idea result would be EV batteries which have more than enough cycle life for the vehicles lifespan. So they can be used as grid tied storage. Charge during peak PV during the day, and discharge 10-20% of capacity when needed for peaking.

The big downside is people drive their cars to work and they don't sit on chargers then when solar can resupply them. Then, worse, they drive their depleted EVs home arriving at 6 and plug into the grid to recharge thus increasing the high demand problem. To fix that, they need to be able to charge during the day, they need to arrive home at 4, then discharge to the grid and have enough power to make it back to work the next day. Not saying it can't work, but the model doesn't fit the current average work model and most people like a fuel reserve.

Yes, but who decides what's "accurate"....My "facts" might be your "fake news"...

See post #35 for one idea.

 

[Luthj]

It does needs careful planning,

This is one of those areas where federalism fails. Coordinated effort by the federal government would be the most effective, but its not likely to happen with one major party having an ideological opposition to renewables in general. Which does seem pretty silly given the compelling economic arguments.

Something similar to the interstate highway system comes to mind.

 

[John Frum]

To fix that, they need to be able to charge during the day, they need to arrive home at 4, then discharge to the grid and have enough power to make it back to work the next day. Not saying it can't work, but the model doesn't fit the current average work model and most people like a fuel reserve.

I don't drive 26 miles a week since the vid hit.
For lots of folks the only reason to go back to the office is fear of being out of the gossip loop when the others return.
Not entirely accurate but I'm sure you take my meaning.

 

[Hedges]

News and activism delivers what captures eyeballs and ears.
Of course much "news" is advertisement, intended to acquire money and power.

When I've seen reports of how certain demographic groups are disproportionately affected by COVID (rates of juvenile infection and death for certain races, for instance), I looked up demographics of nation as a whole and discovered it was almost exactly in proportion. But true statistics wouldn't sell newspapers.

Same goes for usage of lethal force by police against various demographic groups. Turns out the groups more/less likely to experience that while being apprehended are the reverse of what activists and [particular political persuasion] media has been saying. Some of the actual statistical figures for law enforcement and crime regarding race are well known and far beyond margin for error, like greater than an order of magnitude difference.

Global warming and sea-level rise, it seems Arctic ice is melting and Antarctic ice is freezing (but not at sufficient rate to make up for what is melting.) One should at least be a WAG and ask if man made CO2 release and global warming is the cause for increasing Antarctic ice. As for possible sea-level rise, while I have always doubted that the Great Flood actually covered mountain tops, my rough calculations say there is enough ice to make possible the rise predicted for coming centuries.

 

[45North]

Indeed. The big question is if its going to be home scale, or neighborhood scale. Though chemical flow batteries may make utility scale practical. We are on a cusp of a grid storage revolution I believe. The low per kwhr cost of renewables combined with feasible storage will make fossil fuel peaker plants much less profitable, which will accelerate existing trends.

Yes, and the mix is going to depend where in the world you live too.
Around here we've had so much hydro-electric power from falls and dams (eg Niagara Falls and James Bay) for so long that the hydro-electric utility is now just called "Hydro".
When I pay my Hydro bill, that's different from my water bill.
Which sounds odd if you don't know the history.