3 ms·

Maybe its time for people to stop treating electricity like essentially an unlimited cheap resource and instead something they consciously try not to waste. I'

Maybe its time for people to stop treating electricity like essentially an unlimited cheap resource and instead something they consciously try not to waste. I've been working in an off-grid office where I am limited by solar and battery capacity and it really puts into perspective what really needs to be plugged in all the time and how much running a large appliance affects capacity. Maybe electricity should be sold in blocks that have to be refilled, set daily/monthly quotas or limit current draw. Or even just significantly raise "2nd block/high usage" kWh prices.

zamadatix 6y ago
I think most would rather pay an e.g. +10% premium for the plants to handle more extreme conditions once a decade than think about what has to be plugged in all day every day.
- pixl97 6y ago
  The generator will take that 10% as profit and not invest, then when the disaster happens they'll beg for public money and even higher rates.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    It's quite easy to mandate providers have certain winterization requirements, lots of other power grids do it. For that matter, it's exactly why insurance is so tightly regulated, because government wants to ensure companies have the resources to handle rare but predictable events.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  I'd be surprised if they will. If provider A is selling power at 10 cents/KWh and says that they can handle a once every decade cold spell, and provider B is selling power at 9 cents/KWh and isn't taking cold weather precautions, I'd bet that most people will use the cheaper provider. They'll tell themselves that if the extreme event happens again, they'll switch to another provider, or they'll tough it out, or get a hotel or whatever, then they'll be in this same situation where there's no where to go and no where else to buy power from. It needs to be mandated so all power producers incur costs to handle the weather.
lightgreen 6y ago
Electricity is unlimited and cheap when people do not fear to build nuclear power plants. > Maybe electricity should be sold in blocks that have to be refilled, set daily/monthly quotas or limit current draw Or maybe there should be realtime electricity price and fines for outages, so both providers and consumers would be incentivised to optimize consumption, and market will make the electricity available.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  Nuclear power is nearly the most expensive source of power if you include the cost of decommissioning and liability insurance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
  - pas 6y ago
    Yes, but no. Nuclear power plants are extremely costly because they lack prefabrication-level standardization. This is the main cost driver. And this is simply because there's no economies of scale. Because we're not building enough. Classic vicious cycle. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      > because they lack prefabrication-level standardization It is not the only reason. Another reason is too many regulations and unpredictable government. As a private investor, you get lower ROI because you'd need spend several years fighting bureaucracy with no predictable outcome, and after the project started, it can be shut down in a couple years.
      - pas 6y ago
        > it can be shut down in a couple years. This is true for almost any energy project nowadays. EPA regulations change and bam, you're out of business. > too many regulations I don't think there's "too many", but I'm very far from an expert on this. What seems evident is that a prefab reactor/plant can amortize the cost of getting approved, whereas template plants, like the AP1000 are unique every time, even if they are fundamentally very-very similar, they are not identical. Hence the need for going through all the site specific differences, and their effects on the whole system.
unethical_ban 6y ago
I think "emergency ration pricing" would make sense, but I'm not sure non-emergency restrictions are needed.

zamadatix 6y ago

I think most would rather pay an e.g. +10% premium for the plants to handle more extreme conditions once a decade than think about what has to be plugged in all day every day.

pixl97 6y ago
The generator will take that 10% as profit and not invest, then when the disaster happens they'll beg for public money and even higher rates.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  It's quite easy to mandate providers have certain winterization requirements, lots of other power grids do it. For that matter, it's exactly why insurance is so tightly regulated, because government wants to ensure companies have the resources to handle rare but predictable events.
Johnny555 6y ago
I'd be surprised if they will. If provider A is selling power at 10 cents/KWh and says that they can handle a once every decade cold spell, and provider B is selling power at 9 cents/KWh and isn't taking cold weather precautions, I'd bet that most people will use the cheaper provider. They'll tell themselves that if the extreme event happens again, they'll switch to another provider, or they'll tough it out, or get a hotel or whatever, then they'll be in this same situation where there's no where to go and no where else to buy power from. It needs to be mandated so all power producers incur costs to handle the weather.

lightgreen 6y ago

Electricity is unlimited and cheap when people do not fear to build nuclear power plants. > Maybe electricity should be sold in blocks that have to be refilled, set daily/monthly quotas or limit current draw Or maybe there should be realtime electricity price and fines for outages, so both providers and consumers would be incentivised to optimize consumption, and market will make the electricity available.

Johnny555 6y ago
Nuclear power is nearly the most expensive source of power if you include the cost of decommissioning and liability insurance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
- pas 6y ago
  Yes, but no. Nuclear power plants are extremely costly because they lack prefabrication-level standardization. This is the main cost driver. And this is simply because there's no economies of scale. Because we're not building enough. Classic vicious cycle. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    > because they lack prefabrication-level standardization It is not the only reason. Another reason is too many regulations and unpredictable government. As a private investor, you get lower ROI because you'd need spend several years fighting bureaucracy with no predictable outcome, and after the project started, it can be shut down in a couple years.
    - pas 6y ago
      > it can be shut down in a couple years. This is true for almost any energy project nowadays. EPA regulations change and bam, you're out of business. > too many regulations I don't think there's "too many", but I'm very far from an expert on this. What seems evident is that a prefab reactor/plant can amortize the cost of getting approved, whereas template plants, like the AP1000 are unique every time, even if they are fundamentally very-very similar, they are not identical. Hence the need for going through all the site specific differences, and their effects on the whole system.

unethical_ban 6y ago

I think "emergency ration pricing" would make sense, but I'm not sure non-emergency restrictions are needed.