(02-18-2021 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 12:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Another opinion

{Less than a minute and a half, for the busy people here.)

Says to subsidize insulating NG pipelines rather than wind.

You gotta start posting a summary or linking to an article - sorry, just a really tedious way to digest news.

What was his point?

His point, as I noted above, was "to subsidize insulating NG pipelines rather than wind."

Geez, I posted a summary, I gave the duration, what more do you guys want? Do you need arrows or emojis?

Sorry - I completely skimmed over the last sentence because I read the comment about watching the clip, my bad!

I know the GND had weatherization of existing infrastructure as a key tenant. I wonder if that would have extended to infrastructure such as transmission lines and power producers.

I ask myself, though, why not both?

(02-18-2021 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 12:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Another opinion

{Less than a minute and a half, for the busy people here.)

Says to subsidize insulating NG pipelines rather than wind.

You gotta start posting a summary or linking to an article - sorry, just a really tedious way to digest news.

What was his point?

His point, as I noted above, was "to subsidize insulating NG pipelines rather than wind."

Geez, I posted a summary, I gave the duration, what more do you guys want? Do you need arrows or emojis?

Sorry - I completely skimmed over the last sentence because I read the comment about watching the clip, my bad!

I know the GND had weatherization of existing infrastructure as a key tenant. I wonder if that would have extended to infrastructure such as transmission lines and power producers.

I ask myself, though, why not both?

Whose money are you spending anyway?

Why not add unicorn stickers?

(02-18-2021 02:36 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 12:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Another opinion

{Less than a minute and a half, for the busy people here.)

Says to subsidize insulating NG pipelines rather than wind.

You gotta start posting a summary or linking to an article - sorry, just a really tedious way to digest news.

What was his point?

His point, as I noted above, was "to subsidize insulating NG pipelines rather than wind."

Geez, I posted a summary, I gave the duration, what more do you guys want? Do you need arrows or emojis?

Sorry - I completely skimmed over the last sentence because I read the comment about watching the clip, my bad!

I know the GND had weatherization of existing infrastructure as a key tenant. I wonder if that would have extended to infrastructure such as transmission lines and power producers.

I ask myself, though, why not both?

Whose money are you spending anyway?

Why not add unicorn stickers?

Great contribution!

Since these things cost money, we shouldn't do anything! I mean, why have a society and government anyways? Everyone should only pay for the exact thing that they specifically believe they need and not have any public services that someone else may use, but that they don't.

First, what is the scope of wind development that the guy was talking about and same for weatherization? Second, what is the magnitude of the costs differences to both energy initiatives?

You must have some understanding of the scale and scope to make that kind of comment.

Texas this week is a combination of two simple factors:

1) Renewables aren't reliable.
2) If you design for reasonably expected events, but not for the once in a lifetime ones, the once in a lifetime ones will bite your butt.

There are lessons to be learned:

1) If you rely on renewables, you need alternatives--power storage, natural gas storage would be two good ones. Those cost money.
2) Relaxing environmental and other rules and regulations in emergency situations is almost always a good idea.
3) Like any emergency, preparedness costs money when there is no emergency. We need to determine how much we are willing to spend versus what consequences we are willing to accept.

(02-18-2021 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Texas this week is a combination of two simple factors:

1) Renewables aren't reliable.
2) If you design for reasonably expected events, but not for the once in a lifetime ones, the once in a lifetime ones will bite your butt.

There are lessons to be learned:

1) If you rely on renewables, you need alternatives--power storage, natural gas storage would be two good ones. Those cost money.
2) Relaxing environmental and other rules and regulations in emergency situations is almost always a good idea.
3) Like any emergency, preparedness costs money when there is no emergency. We need to determine how much we are willing to spend versus what consequences we are willing to accept.

I think the only thing I would change is your second #2.

I would have it read: 2) In emergencies, relaxing environmental and other rules may be necessary and should be implemented if determined to be necessary and a net positive.

I say that because we shouldn't just relax regulations willy nilly, but if it's needed and it won't do more harm than good. For example, let's say that getting one power plant back online would have required the emergency release of thousands of pounds of X contaminant to the aquatic environment, upstream of a water supply source. We probably shouldn't do that because of the potential immediate and long term impacts.

But if we're talking about relaxing emission requirements for a small period of time? Have at it.

I think most people are concentrating on the power situation when to me, the water situation is even more dire (power is back on for most - how long will it take to overcome the lasting problems from the burst pipes?).

Why does Texas fare so much worse in the pipe bursting department than other states when we rarely face as much cold weather as perhaps 25 or 30 other states? Do we rely more on PVC piping than other states? Personally I fared fine this time around in the water department but (a) I had wrapped everything pretty good to begin with and (b) I kept the water pressure going on all the faucets. Plus, I had two main pipes burst on me 5 and 10 years ago and replaced the PVC with copper at that point. Those were done in by tree roots, not weather.

What I hear is copper and PEX are way better than PVC.

(02-18-2021 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 02:36 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2021 12:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You gotta start posting a summary or linking to an article - sorry, just a really tedious way to digest news.

What was his point?

His point, as I noted above, was "to subsidize insulating NG pipelines rather than wind."

Geez, I posted a summary, I gave the duration, what more do you guys want? Do you need arrows or emojis?

Sorry - I completely skimmed over the last sentence because I read the comment about watching the clip, my bad!

I know the GND had weatherization of existing infrastructure as a key tenant. I wonder if that would have extended to infrastructure such as transmission lines and power producers.

I ask myself, though, why not both?

Whose money are you spending anyway?

Why not add unicorn stickers?

Great contribution!

Since these things cost money, we shouldn't do anything! I mean, why have a society and government anyways? Everyone should only pay for the exact thing that they specifically believe they need and not have any public services that someone else may use, but that they don't.

First, what is the scope of wind development that the guy was talking about and same for weatherization? Second, what is the magnitude of the costs differences to both energy initiatives?

You must have some understanding of the scale and scope to make that kind of comment.

I admit I'm not an expert on public finance or economics. Oh, I'm a (university) degreed, big six (public accounting firm) trained, qualified (aka professionally licensed) accountant, but maybe I lack sufficient experience having only worked in the private and public sector across two continents in the past 40+ years in finance and consultancy.

I freely admit that my economic thinking was partially poisoned at Rice where I was fed a constant drip of Keynesian dogma that believes government intervention is not just the best solution, it is the only solution. The Austrian school of economics (I discovered after graduating) will teach and show you that the only certain result of government intervention is more government intervention. My limited formal education also included what my English Ex refers to as a 15 minute (one semester) course in Public Policy. The text we used "Understanding Public Policy" by Thomas Dye is now touted by some as the gold standard. One line, probably poorly quoted here as I read this over 45 years ago, remains with me to this day: "Policy isn't just what someone chooses to do, it is also what they choose not to do."

Part of my work over those forty years dealt with cost modelling and benefits realisation. What I've found is that costs are rarely completely understood and consequently understated. Benefits for some 'unknown' reason are invariably grossly overstated (?).

Now I realise that we're only talking about fiat money, so for the Keynesian spending it and creating more debt this is of no concern. As the Keynesians say "In the long term we're all dead anyway." Funny that after the crash in 2008 even certain governments started looking at not only controlling, but also reducing spend. They rediscovered the concept of prioritisation. Cost numbers on proposals not only had to be 'real' they had to be 'verifiable'. Doubly so for benefits. Then they prioritised what they chose to do and what they chose not to do. How could that be that an organisation that effectively prints its own money limits how much it spends?

I don't know how much money you're suggesting to spend in the instant case. Personally I've never had signature authority over a project that was over $40M. I would assume that this is multiple magnitudes of that miniscule sum. One of the reasons I was given signature / financial authority is that I am understood to be a 'mean bastard'. Not only don't I like spending my own money (unless it's on my kids), I don't like spending other people's money.

I recall the last scene in the movie "Trading Places" when the question was raised as to what to have for lunch, "Cracked crab or lobster?" Their response, "Why not both?"

So I'll ask again, "Whose money are you spending anyway?"

(02-19-2021 07:25 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think most people are concentrating on the power situation when to me, the water situation is even more dire (power is back on for most - how long will it take to overcome the lasting problems from the burst pipes?).
Why does Texas fare so much worse in the pipe bursting department than other states when we rarely face as much cold weather as perhaps 25 or 30 other states? Do we rely more on PVC piping than other states? Personally I fared fine this time around in the water department but (a) I had wrapped everything pretty good to begin with and (b) I kept the water pressure going on all the faucets. Plus, I had two main pipes burst on me 5 and 10 years ago and replaced the PVC with copper at that point. Those were done in by tree roots, not weather.
What I hear is copper and PEX are way better than PVC.

The secret to avoiding bursting pipes is finding a material that expands the way that water does. Most substances contract when they get colder and move from gas to liquid to solid. Water unusually expands when it freezes. Lead was thought for centuries to be perfect for water pipes ("plumber" is derived from the Latin plumbeus, lead), because it dealt with this expansion property better than most. Then we found out about lead poisoning.

As you note, keeping water moving is another way. When the home is heated, the major risk is in the relatively short outside connection, and keeping water moving through there should be enough. When there is no heat, pipes can freeze anywhere in the house.

A big problem is that because we don't have the hard freezes that occur regularly up north, we don't protect pipes as well as they do in construction. It's more expensive to do so, and the risk is generally too low to justify it.

(02-19-2021 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As you note, keeping water moving is another way. When the home is heated, the major risk is in the relatively short outside connection, and keeping water moving through there should be enough. When there is no heat, pipes can freeze anywhere in the house.

My well is frozen at the well head, the short section where my water well comes up out of the ground (for access) before going underground to storage in my house. I had drips and usage, but whenever I had no power, that meant I also had no power to replenish the water dripping out of pipes and no movement of water at the well head, so despite plenty of insulation on that 10" of pipe it froze, so no new water coming in.

The insulation now means it will not thaw quickly.

world of difference between being on municipal water and well water.

(02-19-2021 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As you note, keeping water moving is another way. When the home is heated, the major risk is in the relatively short outside connection, and keeping water moving through there should be enough. When there is no heat, pipes can freeze anywhere in the house.

My well is frozen at the well head, the short section where my water well comes up out of the ground (for access) before going underground to storage in my house. I had drips and usage, but whenever I had no power, that meant I also had no power to replenish the water dripping out of pipes and no movement of water at the well head, so despite plenty of insulation on that 10" of pipe it froze, so no new water coming in.
The insulation now means it will not thaw quickly.
world of difference between being on municipal water and well water.

Our well growing up was actually enclosed inside the dairy barn, and we could heat it in winter. We went down as far a 0F without losing water. A well exposed to the elements can freeze up totally like yours and be a real bear to unfreeze. And obviously with no power, heating it could be problematic.

(02-19-2021 12:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As you note, keeping water moving is another way. When the home is heated, the major risk is in the relatively short outside connection, and keeping water moving through there should be enough. When there is no heat, pipes can freeze anywhere in the house.

My well is frozen at the well head, the short section where my water well comes up out of the ground (for access) before going underground to storage in my house. I had drips and usage, but whenever I had no power, that meant I also had no power to replenish the water dripping out of pipes and no movement of water at the well head, so despite plenty of insulation on that 10" of pipe it froze, so no new water coming in.
The insulation now means it will not thaw quickly.
world of difference between being on municipal water and well water.

Our well growing up was actually enclosed inside the dairy barn, and we could heat it in winter. We went down as far a 0F without losing water. A well exposed to the elements can freeze up totally like yours and be a real bear to unfreeze. And obviously with no power, heating it could be problematic.

When you have the well piping freeze, then invariably the pump mechanism grinds it way to dust trying to dry pump. Double bad hit.

Or, when the water that is next to the pump mechanism freezes and the motor then tries to work against a solid.

Im relearning my redneck skills on the clock presently.

(02-19-2021 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 07:25 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think most people are concentrating on the power situation when to me, the water situation is even more dire (power is back on for most - how long will it take to overcome the lasting problems from the burst pipes?).
Why does Texas fare so much worse in the pipe bursting department than other states when we rarely face as much cold weather as perhaps 25 or 30 other states? Do we rely more on PVC piping than other states? Personally I fared fine this time around in the water department but (a) I had wrapped everything pretty good to begin with and (b) I kept the water pressure going on all the faucets. Plus, I had two main pipes burst on me 5 and 10 years ago and replaced the PVC with copper at that point. Those were done in by tree roots, not weather.
What I hear is copper and PEX are way better than PVC.

The secret to avoiding bursting pipes is finding a material that expands the way that water does. Most substances contract when they get colder and move from gas to liquid to solid. Water unusually expands when it freezes. Lead was thought for centuries to be perfect for water pipes ("plumber" is derived from the Latin plumbeus, lead), because it dealt with this expansion property better than most. Then we found out about lead poisoning.

As you note, keeping water moving is another way. When the home is heated, the major risk is in the relatively short outside connection, and keeping water moving through there should be enough. When there is no heat, pipes can freeze anywhere in the house.

A big problem is that because we don't have the hard freezes that occur regularly up north, we don't protect pipes as well as they do in construction. It's more expensive to do so, and the risk is generally too low to justify it.

The building code in northern states requires bucu insulation at the water input *and* anywhere within 18 inches of a wall.

Also, northern states dont do water lines between the ceiling and attic.

In the southern states, it is only the 50 or 100 year events are the only things that freeze those pipes within 18 inches and in the attic.

Secondly, people in Texas when they are forced out due to no power, dont think about keying the water off at the street. Everyone I know here that is having the 'flood' thing left an unpowered house alone without shutting the water off and draining the lines.

When we bailed, we made a specific point about shutting the main off. Better shutting the main off before bailing than having to shut it off after a thaw.

Really good infographic in the Times that shows power generation over time and when the storm started. You can almost see the storm blowing in.

Wind power went up with the winds, then started dropping as the turbines iced. Natural gas started increasing as the weather got colder and more power was needed.

Then, when the ice really hit on the 15th, you see natural gas drop off a cliff and stay relatively depressed, wind continue to drop and stay low, coal begin to fall, nuclear drop, and then solar bounce around and do its thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021...49ff8CFWco

For my next house, I have been thinking that I should build a small water tower, to keep the house supplied when everything else is out.

(02-19-2021 06:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  For my next house, I have been thinking that I should build a small water tower, to keep the house supplied when everything else is out.

For my next house, I have been thinking Costa Rica.

Add this to the list of Bad PR Moves During a Natural Disaster:

Quote: “This week is like hitting the jackpot with some of these incredible prices,” Chief Financial Officer Roland Burns said on an earnings call Wednesday, via Bloomberg. “Frankly, we were able to sell at super premium prices for a material amount of production.”

Note the source - fricken hilarious.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...t-jackpot/

(02-19-2021 06:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  For my next house, I have been thinking that I should build a small water tower, to keep the house supplied when everything else is out.

Except when it freezes, it won't do you much good.

Federal disaster assistance

Even a progressive should be able to figure out what this is about.

(02-20-2021 06:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Federal disaster assistance

Even a progressive should be able to figure out what this is about.

Not following

(02-20-2021 07:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-20-2021 06:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Federal disaster assistance

Even a progressive should be able to figure out what this is about.

Not following

Guess I was wrong.

It’s about Federal Disaster Assistance.