5 ms·

We have completely screwed up market price discovery for energy with big govt involvement and subsidies. The numbers I see everywhere are cherry picked to prese

We have completely screwed up market price discovery for energy with big govt involvement and subsidies. The numbers I see everywhere are cherry picked to present a winner and loser. e.g. Depending on whose point of view you read, solar/wind prices either includes or not: subsidies, storage, land, weather, green label costs passed on to customers, interest rates, etc. Coal prices either includes or not: labor, imports, duties, mining, environmental costs, health costs, etc. Lately I've come to a conclusion that we can make any of these methods appear equal, higher or lower by shifting the books. Atleast I'm happy that this article is focusing only on the benefits and outcome, rather than invent winners and losers.

rectang 5y ago
If we leave energy decisions to an under-regulated "free market", we guarantee that market forces will select for the most short-termist, externality-spewing choices possible. What do power execs care if they leave behind ruins decades down the road? They will have already made their money and enjoyed it.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I’m hoping all these comments on HN I see that follow the pattern "I was wrong about something important, but rather than admit that, I'm going to believe that the truth is unknowable" are just the first step on someone's journey to accept an unpleasant shock to their ego. It's depressing to think there's a growing army of geeks who have given up on science, rationality and objective reality just because they got sucked in by some propaganda and tied their identity a bit too firmly to it to ever escape.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  I think the issue is not the geeks grasp of science and objectivity, but the cultures democratization of the talking space to include vast numbers on un-rational and subjective thinkers on equal status with educated and more objective thinkers. Politics and the funding of state actions seems to be enacted highly subjectively according to power plays and vested interests, with minimal impact from rational geeks. This is the defining issue of our times in my opinion, the reason climate change is the barely mitigated disaster it's turning into. We only get a small fraction of the possible benefits of science as a race, because so much of our potential is wasted or actively worked against.
- skybrian 5y ago
  I don't see why it shouldn't be a reason for being hopeful? Admitting ignorance is generally a step in the right direction. No reason to be depressed about it.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Admitting ignorance is no indication that the number is closer to what you wish it were. Increasing uncertainty increases uncertainty. Increased uncertainty undermines investment, which depends mainly on confidence. But literally every reactor ever built depended more on government extraction and concentration of capital (i.e., politics) than on market forces, making it all even less predictable.
- rdsubhas 5y ago
  I'm not sure what identity or propaganda or bias I'm part of, so I humbly accept there may be things I don't know I don't know. But maybe if remotely applicable, an optimistic view can be: that some of those geeks, some of the times care about seeing progress happen, rather than the means.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    You appeared to have given up on being able to answer the question "Is coal/peat/oil a better option than nuclear/solar/wind". Some of those questions are tricky, once you get to the level of which of these should be combined in what locations to absolutely maximize the system and what the trade-offs are, but some are easy. For example, peat is a bad fuel for all sorts of reasons. Yes assuming different interests rates or counting the effects of illness differently will affect different models in different ways, but peat is still a stupid thing to be burning for electricity in 2022. This is something we know. Throwing your hands up and declaring the whole thing unknowable just because (I assume) the expert consensus is coming up with a different answer than you were confidently told and believed about renewables for decades by talking heads in your media bubble seems a weak cop out. Either prove to everyone that it's a big conspiracy and you were right all along, or convince yourself that what you were told previously was a big conspiracy. One of these options is true.
    - rdsubhas 5y ago
      You may have misjudged the comment thread. You should realize I'm excited about this plant serving 14% of Finland energy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653980 I think you should read the thread and context of the reply again. Just to make the misunderstanding clear: Any *green energy* that takes us out of coal/peat/oil is progress. You don't have to repeat as if there is a conspiracy. I was replying to a comment asking for comparison with other sources, saying that *progress to green energy is way more important* than comparisons against brown energy, no matter even if said comparisons paint coal/peat/oil in favourable or unfavorable terms. It's exactly the same you said, burning peat doesn't make sense today no matter the cost, and that's exactly the same I'm saying.

rectang 5y ago

If we leave energy decisions to an under-regulated "free market", we guarantee that market forces will select for the most short-termist, externality-spewing choices possible. What do power execs care if they leave behind ruins decades down the road? They will have already made their money and enjoyed it.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

I’m hoping all these comments on HN I see that follow the pattern "I was wrong about something important, but rather than admit that, I'm going to believe that the truth is unknowable" are just the first step on someone's journey to accept an unpleasant shock to their ego. It's depressing to think there's a growing army of geeks who have given up on science, rationality and objective reality just because they got sucked in by some propaganda and tied their identity a bit too firmly to it to ever escape.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
I think the issue is not the geeks grasp of science and objectivity, but the cultures democratization of the talking space to include vast numbers on un-rational and subjective thinkers on equal status with educated and more objective thinkers. Politics and the funding of state actions seems to be enacted highly subjectively according to power plays and vested interests, with minimal impact from rational geeks. This is the defining issue of our times in my opinion, the reason climate change is the barely mitigated disaster it's turning into. We only get a small fraction of the possible benefits of science as a race, because so much of our potential is wasted or actively worked against.
skybrian 5y ago
I don't see why it shouldn't be a reason for being hopeful? Admitting ignorance is generally a step in the right direction. No reason to be depressed about it.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Admitting ignorance is no indication that the number is closer to what you wish it were. Increasing uncertainty increases uncertainty. Increased uncertainty undermines investment, which depends mainly on confidence. But literally every reactor ever built depended more on government extraction and concentration of capital (i.e., politics) than on market forces, making it all even less predictable.
rdsubhas 5y ago
I'm not sure what identity or propaganda or bias I'm part of, so I humbly accept there may be things I don't know I don't know. But maybe if remotely applicable, an optimistic view can be: that some of those geeks, some of the times care about seeing progress happen, rather than the means.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  You appeared to have given up on being able to answer the question "Is coal/peat/oil a better option than nuclear/solar/wind". Some of those questions are tricky, once you get to the level of which of these should be combined in what locations to absolutely maximize the system and what the trade-offs are, but some are easy. For example, peat is a bad fuel for all sorts of reasons. Yes assuming different interests rates or counting the effects of illness differently will affect different models in different ways, but peat is still a stupid thing to be burning for electricity in 2022. This is something we know. Throwing your hands up and declaring the whole thing unknowable just because (I assume) the expert consensus is coming up with a different answer than you were confidently told and believed about renewables for decades by talking heads in your media bubble seems a weak cop out. Either prove to everyone that it's a big conspiracy and you were right all along, or convince yourself that what you were told previously was a big conspiracy. One of these options is true.
  - rdsubhas 5y ago
    You may have misjudged the comment thread. You should realize I'm excited about this plant serving 14% of Finland energy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653980 I think you should read the thread and context of the reply again. Just to make the misunderstanding clear: Any *green energy* that takes us out of coal/peat/oil is progress. You don't have to repeat as if there is a conspiracy. I was replying to a comment asking for comparison with other sources, saying that *progress to green energy is way more important* than comparisons against brown energy, no matter even if said comparisons paint coal/peat/oil in favourable or unfavorable terms. It's exactly the same you said, burning peat doesn't make sense today no matter the cost, and that's exactly the same I'm saying.