4 ms·

The nonpartisan approach would be a carbon tax along with paying higher prices for energy that provides guarantees that it won’t be interrupted during a cold sp

by babesh 6y ago

The nonpartisan approach would be a carbon tax along with paying higher prices for energy that provides guarantees that it won’t be interrupted during a cold spell. Then the research should center on how high the carbon tax should be and how much higher prices Texas is willing to pay for frost hardened energy. Unfortunately both sides are playing partisan politics and try to tilt the playing field.

makomk 6y ago
"Paying higher prices for energy that provides guarantees that it won’t be interrupted during a cold spell" is effectively a subsidy for fossil fuel power plants and coal in particular - and a real subsidy too that actually gives it a financial advantage over renewable power, not the inflated fake "subsidies" that articles like this quote which usually turn out to be things that are available equally to all power sources or even all businesses. There's some controversy over capacity payments to power suppliers (effectively, payments for being able to offer a guaranteed supply of electricity on demand) here in the UK for exactly this reason. They're seen as unnecessary subsidies to coal and other unclean fuel sources. The US media coverage blaming this outage on Texas not having capacity payments because it's supposedly run by right-wingers with a delusional belief in the free market above all else didn't mention this, but you can bet that if they introduced such a thing the press would be all over the Texas Republicans subsidising dirty fossil fuels angle.
- babesh 6y ago
  If coal has that effect, then it is a plus for coal. But there are other sources of power that do have that effect: any form of stored energy, nuclear, geothermal, etc... Also note that you can pair energy storage with renewables. It may even spur technological development in these areas. Also the carbon tax taxes unclean energy. Dirty coal would have to pay that tax.

by babesh 6y ago

makomk 6y ago

"Paying higher prices for energy that provides guarantees that it won’t be interrupted during a cold spell" is effectively a subsidy for fossil fuel power plants and coal in particular - and a real subsidy too that actually gives it a financial advantage over renewable power, not the inflated fake "subsidies" that articles like this quote which usually turn out to be things that are available equally to all power sources or even all businesses. There's some controversy over capacity payments to power suppliers (effectively, payments for being able to offer a guaranteed supply of electricity on demand) here in the UK for exactly this reason. They're seen as unnecessary subsidies to coal and other unclean fuel sources. The US media coverage blaming this outage on Texas not having capacity payments because it's supposedly run by right-wingers with a delusional belief in the free market above all else didn't mention this, but you can bet that if they introduced such a thing the press would be all over the Texas Republicans subsidising dirty fossil fuels angle.

babesh 6y ago
If coal has that effect, then it is a plus for coal. But there are other sources of power that do have that effect: any form of stored energy, nuclear, geothermal, etc... Also note that you can pair energy storage with renewables. It may even spur technological development in these areas. Also the carbon tax taxes unclean energy. Dirty coal would have to pay that tax.