Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: (ReacTor) Five SFF Books Featuring Frigid, Icy Worlds
Date: 20 Jul 2024 01:26:35 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <v7f3ob$pgl$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <v73atc$o3k$1@reader1.panix.com> <v7cd61$2lh4h$2@dont-email.me> <v7du6d$qv0$1@panix2.panix.com> <v7eff1$37fb$1@memoryalpha.rosettacon.com>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="20751"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 1573

 <rkshullat@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>Texas has had DC grid ties for years, they're just not high enough capacity to
>make much difference statewide (aggregate of around 1 GW I believe). Peak
>summer demand is somewhere around 85 GW.
>It's doubtful that any realistic grid ties would have done more than reduce
>the scope and duration of the rolling blackouts during winter storm Uri.
>Demand was around double available capacity...a shortfall of at least 35 GW.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the additional capacity of larger
grid ties would have made much difference.  I think people are arguing that
the additional design margins required by federal law that would have been 
demanded had there been AC grid ties would have made a difference. 
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."