4 ms·

How'd you figure out which solution was the lowest cost? Because if subsidizing these power plants was the lowest cost, that would probably be already happening

How'd you figure out which solution was the lowest cost? Because if subsidizing these power plants was the lowest cost, that would probably be already happening. Normally grid operators use an economic model (including huge penalties for blackouts) to pick the solution with the lowest cost. Batteries are cost-effective in the short-term, and natural gas storage is cost-effective in the medium-term. Subsidizing expensive coal and nuclear is not cost-effective at any timescale. Add a carbon tax, then maybe nuclear might still make sense.

jacobush 8y ago
As much as I propose to shut down coal plants everywhere, fast, grid operators don't have a natural incentive to keep the grid stable. It's the job of the State (in broad terms) to either force how that's supposed to work through legislation, or to nudge it with legislated incentives. If what we have now is that coal is a guarantor for base load conditions, I can see how a politician may come to the (on the surface) reasonable conclusion that we need to prop up the guarantor of base load, coal in this case, if coal was in danger of being closed due to it not being profitable anymore. This kind of thinking has a LOT of precedent in other areas. (The US subsidized corn to make starvation in case of a global blockade/war impossible. The EU subsidized farms in general for the same reason.) These stop gap measures can easily spiral out of control. What see is a severe lack of vision. We should legislate, by force or nudge, towards a bright solution with modern solutions. Batteries, a decentralized grid etc is much better option for national security than some large coal plants.
- 3rdAccount 8y ago
  Regarding your last point. You're thinking in the long-term (5-15 years). The fuel-security concern is right now and batteries aren't going to fix this in a couple of years.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    So the vision should be something like: “we will subsidise coal with this many dollars and match that with investing in batteries “ (or whatever). Not just defending status quo.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  I was referring to those regulations/legislated incentives, actually, sorry that I wasn't very clear. Usually they're monetary and the utility gets to choose the most cost-effective way to meet these requirements.
- 3rdAccount 8y ago
  The idea that grid operators don't have an incentive to keep the grid stable is completely false. I work with and talk to and support system operators on a daily basis and it is pretty much the only thing on their minds as they monitor the grid 24/7 and some days can get very tense. To use an analogy, you basically just said Air Traffic Controllers have zero incentive to keep planes from crashing.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    On that level yes, just like doctors care about patients. But the owner of a coal plant will not keep operating a coal plant at a loss. The plant will be shuttered. The same goes for a private hospital operating at a loss.

jacobush 8y ago

As much as I propose to shut down coal plants everywhere, fast, grid operators don't have a natural incentive to keep the grid stable. It's the job of the State (in broad terms) to either force how that's supposed to work through legislation, or to nudge it with legislated incentives. If what we have now is that coal is a guarantor for base load conditions, I can see how a politician may come to the (on the surface) reasonable conclusion that we need to prop up the guarantor of base load, coal in this case, if coal was in danger of being closed due to it not being profitable anymore. This kind of thinking has a LOT of precedent in other areas. (The US subsidized corn to make starvation in case of a global blockade/war impossible. The EU subsidized farms in general for the same reason.) These stop gap measures can easily spiral out of control. What see is a severe lack of vision. We should legislate, by force or nudge, towards a bright solution with modern solutions. Batteries, a decentralized grid etc is much better option for national security than some large coal plants.

3rdAccount 8y ago
Regarding your last point. You're thinking in the long-term (5-15 years). The fuel-security concern is right now and batteries aren't going to fix this in a couple of years.
- jacobush 8y ago
  So the vision should be something like: “we will subsidise coal with this many dollars and match that with investing in batteries “ (or whatever). Not just defending status quo.
greglindahl 8y ago
I was referring to those regulations/legislated incentives, actually, sorry that I wasn't very clear. Usually they're monetary and the utility gets to choose the most cost-effective way to meet these requirements.
3rdAccount 8y ago
The idea that grid operators don't have an incentive to keep the grid stable is completely false. I work with and talk to and support system operators on a daily basis and it is pretty much the only thing on their minds as they monitor the grid 24/7 and some days can get very tense. To use an analogy, you basically just said Air Traffic Controllers have zero incentive to keep planes from crashing.
- jacobush 8y ago
  On that level yes, just like doctors care about patients. But the owner of a coal plant will not keep operating a coal plant at a loss. The plant will be shuttered. The same goes for a private hospital operating at a loss.