Hacker News Reader

> So what would I do to "winterize"?

They were not speaking to home owners as much as utility and energy infrastructure owners. There is a great deal that could be done to make the system overall more able to withstand winter.

Here are a couple concrete suggestions:

* Wind turbines are available with an optional 'cold weather package' that lets them run more reliably in the sort of weather that Texas experienced last February. Texas wind generators often don't pay for this package on the basis of perceived risk, but maybe that decision needs to be revisited.

* The gas pipeline companies that own electrical pumping stations could file the paperwork that notes these stations as critical infrastructure that should not be cut off from power. (A lot of this paperwork was missing in February.)

* Nat gas well heads could be retrofitted with equipment that keeps them freezing due to water production from the well.

* Long term planning could be put in place to connect ERCOT into neighboring power grids to allow for better risk sharing. (Southwest Power Pool in Arkansas is part of the Eastern Interconnect that covers the entire eastern half of the country. Even though SPP had had the same weather as TX, they were able to import power generation from as far away as the PA area to help support their load.)

* The South Texas Nuclear Project lost a generator due to a frozen pressure sensor line. Large coal plants went offline due to frozen coal piles. I'm sure there are remediations that could be put in place for that sort of thing too.

* The state could make an ernest effort to bring in political leadership that does not try to boil down all of the above to "Green New Deal Bad".

>gas pipeline companies that own electrical pumping stations

Only a problem because EPA no longer permits self sufficient gas turbine compressor stations.

>Nat gas well heads could be retrofitted with equipment that keeps them freezing due to water production from the well.

Pressure drop is a bigger factor than ambient temp and insulation. Increasing capacity by increasing # of wells and pipe size does more than defrosting equipment. Being overly reliant on NG to pick up the slack when renewables go offline causes avoidable pressure drops.

>Long term planning could be put in place to connect ERCOT into neighboring power grids.

The neighboring grids were also under emergency reductions and had no surplus power. OK and LA were extremely close to also implementing blackouts. LA was able to use its peaker plants and reduce industry demand to avoid this, in part due to a lower reliance on renewables (and not needing to waste peaker plant or transmission capacity to make up for wind turbines shut-in and solar panels covered in snow). A connected grid just would have further spread a cascading grid failure.

>Wind turbines are available with an optional 'cold weather package' that lets them run more reliably in the sort of weather that Texas experienced last February.

Wind turbines shutting off caused Texas to use peaker power prematurely to replace renewable power instead of in its proper role as a buffer for surges in demand. Once the front passed through, there was little to no wind for the remaining ~week of cold weather (high pressure system).

>Large coal plants went offline due to frozen coal piles.

The state just lost over 20% of its coal capacity due to increased EPA regulations. But I have not heard of any plant in Texas shutting down due to "frozen coal piles".

>The state could make an ernest effort to bring in political leadership that does not try to boil down all of the above to "Green New Deal Bad".

$1500/MWh DOE floor "market" prices to generate under conditions permissible 10 years ago is bad policy. Over reliance on intermittent renewables without sufficient backup is bad policy. Regulations reducing the number of NG wells is bad policy. Regulations reducing coal capacity by 20% without on-demand replacement capacity is bad policy.

None of those are state leadership. They're federal "green" friendly regulations and mandates.

> Wind turbines shutting off caused Texas to use peaker power prematurely to replace renewable power instead of in its proper role as a buffer for surges in demand.

Blaming wind for the problems seems a bit disingenuous, when wind outages were 3,000MW and thermal outages were over 30,000MW. I don't deny that wind failed too, but this was a holistic failure.

> The neighboring grids were also under emergency reductions and had no surplus power. OK and LA were extremely close to also implementing blackouts.

You missed a chance here to point out that SPP actually did have blackouts, although only for a few hours. They did better outside of Texas because they had more options and better preparedness.

> But I have not heard of any plant in Texas shutting down due to "frozen coal piles".

I heard about it at the time through connections in the industry, but it's gotten some press too.

https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/andlinger-center-speaks...

> Over reliance on intermittent renewables without sufficient backup i

In 1989, I sat in a cold dark house in Houston, due to power shortages and forced blackouts much like those in 2021. You're concerned about an overeliance on wind power in 2021? There was 'no' wind power in 1989. You're concerned about shut down coal plants in 2021? They were running in 1989. You're concerned about electrical NG pipeline pumps in 2021? They were self-powered in 1989.

Most of my suggestions are really about ensuring sufficient backup and addressing problems that range far beyond just the number of wind turbines and solar panels in the state. What are your suggestions?

> Regulations reducing coal capacity by 20% without on-demand replacement capacity is bad policy.

Why didn't they have this excess capacity before the 20% reduction rule went into effect? When will they have it now that is has gone in to effect? I get the gist, although if the goal is to encourage green alternatives and planning, a policy that requires a reduction is simpler than one that requires reduction and a plan. I would rather have the latter, but if the alternative to the former is no green policy, then that's not a real option. So what could that policy have been to improve the situation?

There's a huge amount of uncertainty, mainly. The EPA is trying to act on its own, and despite losing lawsuits, cost of regulatory compliance and lawsuits goes up.

Investors don't want to risk entering the "new market" in case the "old market" isn't actually shut down or run out of town and remains competitive. Uncertain indirect subsidies via govt driving up your competitors costs is less enticing than guaranteed subsidies for building more wind and solar.

The best solution is not allowing arbitraty administrative agencies to take the place of legislative certainty. But that's been deemed unacceptable by those demanding change at all costs despite lacking popular or legislative support.

Once you've lived in Texas for a while, you start to understand the government mostly has a "let them eat cake" attitude towards the population. This applies at all levels, but particularly at the state level.

There really is no reason for the energy industry to bother winterizing. They don't really loose much by just idling capacity for a few days, especially if they don't have to worry about the cold weather preparations.

The government is not going to require any industry to do something it does not want to unless it is filled up with their buddies that can get rich in the process through government subsidized programs.

I'm sure this is going to be followed up with "but you could vote in politicians that cared!". There have been some definite attempts at voter disenfrachisement in recent history, although the most prominent one has failed. Texas is a representative democracy. It's representative of the districts, not the populace. The districts do not want politicians who are going to prioritize such things. The general population may in fact want it, but that isn't how our government is structured. So when you say "vote in other politicans", what you really mean is "replace the state government entirely". I doubt that is going to happen.

> I can just run a bucket of water then shut off the main to make sure the pipes don't burst.

Don't do this... please don't do this. Just set all your taps (internal and external) to drip slowly. That's all you need to do. Shutting off the main could actually make it worse because it creates an area without expansion.

> So what would I do to "winterize"?

Consider putting in more insulation in your attic, R30 should do it. It will help with energy bills in the summer too. Fixing walls is nice but not worth it unless you're doing a whole house reno.

Also next time you get your AC replaced, consider swapping it for a unit that also functions as a heat pump. Get one rated to 5-10F, that means it will be within rated efficiency range until that point. It will still function and operate below that but will be more like the electric heat you have now below that. But still generally more efficient overall. That reduces load, less load overall means less chance of things going out. It may seem small but those two things can have an effect.

Dripping worked fairly well for us during the last freeze (Austin), although I still had a few frozen pipes (that did not result in a leak). The insulation is sufficiently poor that our indoor bathroom faucets will freeze after ~12 hours of <30 or so. There's pipes that run along the exterior of the home that have literally no insulation whatsoever. We'd have to do some targeted insulation in those exposed areas as well, unfortunately.

> Don't do this... please don't do this. Just set all your taps (internal and external) to drip slowly. That's all you need to do. Shutting off the main could actually make it worse because it creates an area without expansion.

Can you please elaborate on this? Why wouldn't shutting off the water supply to my house and then completely draining the pipes by running the lowest faucet in the house be the safest way to protect against burst pipes? Or am I misunderstanding your recommendation?

You're misunderstanding. I was responding to the idea that simply shutting of the mains will protect from burst pipes. It wouldn't; all it would do is trap the water inside the existing pipes with no outlet. Completely draining (and potentially backfilling antifreeze into sumps) will protect pipes however but that was not what was being suggested by my reading. That said homeowners in this sort of situation may not have pipes built to completely drain anyway; nor would they necessarily want to as that would have a negative impact on sanitation.

I have over one meter of insulation in my attic. But realize that way this home was constructed, a good portion of the roofline is directly against the ceiling. You can't add insulation to that area. It is very poorly insulated by design. The snow on my roof always melts in this area and make some nice ice dams as it runs off. There is no fixing that without a major change to the home.

The only thing that could freeze when I shut off my water main is the water main in the street. If that freezes, that isn't my problem. Nor is it anything I can do something about.

I live in Houston - the water main actually froze last year. It sucked, to say the least.

Unfortunately, problems like that are very hard (expensive & time consuming) to fix.

But my house was warm due to excellent insulation and running the fireplace for about 8 days straight.

Fix the parts that are likely to cause the most damage in a hard freeze: - Insulate your walls at the areas you have exposed pipes using something like closed-cell foam or rockwool. - Know how to evacuate your sprinkler/pool water lines. - Know where the water main comes in and how to turn it off. - Flush your water heater regularly to that it retains max capacity/efficiency when the power is cut.

If you know the freeze is coming and have bathtub(s). Fill them up ahead of time, you may need them for water for flushing.

Spend money to properly insulate the windows/doors. This helps for the awful TX summers too. Get an IR therm gun and find the leaky spots in the house and get them fixed. Insulate the garage and garage door. If the water heater is in a closet in the garage, insulate the closet.

Spare propane tank(s) for the grill if you have electric cooktops in the house.

Get a powerwall/generac like unit for the house that'll give you a longer runway if power is lost.

Have an electrician wire in a tap on your main to allow cutover from city to a plugin generator.

Keep sleeping bags on hand.

For clothing; mitts, wool socks/hats, down jacket, over jacket/pants or shell.

Keep a set of chains for your car, no one in TX has winter tires. (chains are illegal in TX, but I'd still use them in an emergency)

A couple water filtration units like a Brita. If you lose water and run out of bottled water you may need to drink the bathtub water.

You can buy standard bathtub sized bladders that sit in the tub and store about 100 gallons of water. I have two here in SE Florida. They roll up small and are easy to store. I also have a small two burner Coleman stove and 3 20 pound propane tanks plus 4 cases of assorted MREs. My sister lived in Homestead during hurricane Andrew and I learned a lot about prep from her experience.

> I can just run a bucket of water then shut off the main to make sure the pipes don't burst.

FYI for warm-weather dwellers: that is not adequate preparation to prevent pipes from freezing and bursting!

Required prep depends on insulation and interior temperature, but in the extreme you want to drain the supply pipes and put antifreeze in the drain traps (which can also burst, though less catastrophically than supply lines!).

An alternative that works in medium-cold temperatures is to leave all terminal taps dripping slowly.

Can you please elaborate on this? Why wouldn't shutting off the water supply to my house and then completely draining the pipes by running the lowest faucet in the house be the safest way to protect against burst pipes? Or am I misunderstanding your recommendation?

That is the proper way, sorry if I wasn't clear.

But also, there are often low points in the piping that are not drained by the lowest faucet. And people frequently forget traps, tanks, and toilets.

It doesn't matter if the pipes burst when there is no water pressure. The repair cost in that case is like $10. The only time a burst pipe is a real problem is when the water is on and it runs 10000 gallons of water into your home.

It's a matter of degrees (!).

A burst pipe will leak water when the pressure is restored. This can leak inside a wall cavity causing a great deal of damage in a short amount of time, including follow-on problems like mold and rot if not fully dried.

A frozen/burst pipe (even with pressure) will rarely leak while still frozen. The leak begins when it thaws, and yes that can be catastrophic if everyone is asleep (rare, due to nighttime temperature) or if no one is home to notice.

If the pressure is OFF when the burst pipe thaws, unless the system is drained in advance, you'll still have many gallons of water in the system that could leak, depending on location of burst. Again if you are not aware when the leak begins, you can drain a large quantity/most of the system contents.

Even a few minutes of leaking can require replacement of a lot of drywall, wallpaper, etc.

> A burst pipe will leak water when the pressure is restored.

Why on earth would I turn my water back on after a freeze without also checking for leaks?

It is not possible to check all possible locations for a leak. And in many locations, a leak will not be detectable until pressure is restored. An inrush of water at the main cutoff is ambiguous if there are any depleted tanks to refill.

This may be non-intuitive if you haven't lived through it.

None of what you are saying makes any sense. My water meter reads down to tenths of a gallon. That is a tiny amount of water. If I open the valve and it starts spinning like a clock, I've got a leak. Do you think I'd just walk away and think "Oh well, I guess it just takes 500 gallons to fill the toilet!". I'd have to be blindfolded to not notice this.

Nope, if it starts spinning it means you have a tank to fill (toilets, water heater, etc), or a system to pressurize (hundreds of feet of pipe). In the minutes required to do this, you could be leaking gallons into a wall.

Why do you think a burst pipe will flow at or above the rate of a single toilet fill? Sometimes it might, but some frozen pipe bursts create very small breaches in the pipe wall. A tiny, steady stream inside a wall will barely if at all register on the spinner, and might not be audible at the valve. But it could cause a lot of damage.

Hundreds of feet of pipe? Where do you think I live, some estate where I have 100 acres to myself?

Obviously it varies. But having plumbed entire houses, I can tell you that it adds up.

Supply line in the basement, a run to the water heater(s), then forking into two parallel lines (hot and cold) to supply kitchen(s) and bathroom(s), verticals to get to higher floors, sometimes horizontal runs if the bathrooms are not stacked, etc. Cold supply to the outdoor spigots.

Even small single-story houses with perfectly located utilities will have several dozen feet of potable water lines. Add stories or less-convenient utility locations and you can be well into the hundreds.

>So what would I do to "winterize"?

Vote in politicians that will force the winterization of the energy grid. That's the only way.

On a side note if I lived in Texas with all of that sun, I would be installing a solar roof and tesla power wall. I don't think this issue is going to be resolved for a long time.