6 ms·

Having experts ask me not to turn on my washing machine and warn that blackouts are possible is precisely the right solution. Giving them power to reach into m

Having experts ask me not to turn on my washing machine and warn that blackouts are possible is precisely the right solution. Giving them power to reach into my home and turn off the outlet my washing machine is on is definitely not "asking." It seems to me that we've managed to have stable power for... decades?... without having rolling blackouts or the ability of politicians to reach into my home and turn off my computer.

mavhc 3y ago
By burning fossil fuels and causing a catastrophe. Easy solution anyway: Unlimited kwhs, for £100/kwh, controlled kwhs for £0.05/kwh
- engineer_22 3y ago
  Ah yes, this is what global climate change is all about, isn't it? Save the energy for the rich, and punish the poors.
  - gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
    How dare you question the current ruling? Don’t you know that we are most likely to hit no more warming than 2C by the end of this century? This was to advert crisis. However the current ruling moved to 1.5 C. Now don’t question things. Rather you should accept a transition to energy that is highly dependent on stable weather given the fact that we are supposed to face unstable weather. We don’t know if we’ll get less sun and wind due to the collapse of the jet stream. Therefore we need to invest in more solar and wind. It’s not hard. Allow the government to be more authoritarian. Notice I’m not recommending the fascist governments like the GOP (yes I know the article is on the UK). No, I’m recommending the soft handed authoritarianism provided by our leftist benefactors. They’ll let you love whoever you want (including children if you’re a MAP). Love them. Accept them. Allow them to quarter people in your home. After all you wouldn’t even have a home if it wasn’t for the government.
    - mavhc 3y ago
      That's true, someone would have just stolen your home, and with no government there's no one to say that's illegal. Have you heard of batteries? Nuclear power?
      - gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
        The idea that government gets to run roughshod because it protects some features of the commons is ludicrous.
        mavhc 3y ago
        How is it running roughshod? I'm sure you can opt of of society by going to live on a small island
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  For a free market loving political party the Conservatives are surprisingly reluctant to allow the market to do it's thing.
badcppdev 3y ago
Agreeing with you and expanding. The law gives a government department the ability to ban the sale of washing machines (or perhaps heat pumps) that don't have this remote control facility. Although I'm quite sure that there will be a class of appliances available for people who don't perhaps want their heated pools to become cool.
engineer_22 3y ago
-> It seems to me that we've managed to have stable power for... decades?... without having rolling blackouts or the ability of politicians to reach into my home and turn off my computer. Are you using a fallacy as a basis for your argument? Past performance is not a reliable predictor of the future. But I agree with you, giving technocrats control of rationing decisions leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  I don't think it's fallacy. I'm not saying the future is guaranteed. I'm saying that we've managed to solve this problem in the past in different ways, so it's not very compelling for the parent to say that it's impossible.
cameronh90 3y ago
These events happen faster than you could react to the situation, plus in most cases, will involve small changes that you wouldn't even notice to your most energy intensive devices. This isn't about turning off your TV while you're watching it (though, in the alternative which may be a blackout, that IS what would happen). Consider a freezer where you have the thermostat set to -18c. Your freezer will have some tolerance on that, so maybe it kicks on the compressor at -16c and turns it off at -20c. In the event that we've had a sudden loss of generation capacity, the freezer responds to the signal by temporarily setting the the range to -15c / -18c, or to delay the next compressor run for an hour, or some other minor change that you likely won't notice or care about. On the other hand, if you get an SMS asking you to change your freezer's thermostat for the next hour, are you going to go home and do that? Edit: Also doesn't clause 236 part 6 permit us to modify our own devices as we see fit: "Energy smart regulations may not provide for a prohibition to be contravened by an end-user of an appliance (in their capacity as such) or for such a person to be enforced against as described in section 237 or 238."? If it's so important, I'm sure one can figure out how to block the signals.
- gustavus 3y ago
  You know this reminds me of a point made by C.S. Lewis in his book the abolition of man. He points out that when we say we've conquered nature (or in the modern parlance "made progress") what we have really done is taken power from some men and given it to others. I think your comment perfectly highlights that, essentially the advancement of technology has now allowed the technicians and "experts" to now reach into your home and control how and when you use power arbitrarily at their discretion.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  I'm not denying there are benefits to being able to control (even more) demand as well as supply. This would make it technically possible to run the whole system more efficiently. You know what I noticed when I had an old house with old AC? It could barely keep up. On really hot days, it didn't. They offered me $5/month off my bill to allow them to turn off my AC remotely up to 15/min/hour. For a lot of people this would be precisely what you said: "small changes that you wouldn't even notice to your most energy intensive devices" In that house, it would have meant the AC would need to be replaced. "Oh yeah, and you're totally allowed to turn this off if you can figure out how, and we'll never charge you with a crime. Good luck!" "Wait! Why are you arresting me?!" "You've been intentionally violating the DMCA!" lol

mavhc 3y ago

By burning fossil fuels and causing a catastrophe. Easy solution anyway: Unlimited kwhs, for £100/kwh, controlled kwhs for £0.05/kwh

engineer_22 3y ago
Ah yes, this is what global climate change is all about, isn't it? Save the energy for the rich, and punish the poors.
- gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
  How dare you question the current ruling? Don’t you know that we are most likely to hit no more warming than 2C by the end of this century? This was to advert crisis. However the current ruling moved to 1.5 C. Now don’t question things. Rather you should accept a transition to energy that is highly dependent on stable weather given the fact that we are supposed to face unstable weather. We don’t know if we’ll get less sun and wind due to the collapse of the jet stream. Therefore we need to invest in more solar and wind. It’s not hard. Allow the government to be more authoritarian. Notice I’m not recommending the fascist governments like the GOP (yes I know the article is on the UK). No, I’m recommending the soft handed authoritarianism provided by our leftist benefactors. They’ll let you love whoever you want (including children if you’re a MAP). Love them. Accept them. Allow them to quarter people in your home. After all you wouldn’t even have a home if it wasn’t for the government.
  - mavhc 3y ago
    That's true, someone would have just stolen your home, and with no government there's no one to say that's illegal. Have you heard of batteries? Nuclear power?
    - gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
      The idea that government gets to run roughshod because it protects some features of the commons is ludicrous.
      - mavhc 3y ago
        How is it running roughshod? I'm sure you can opt of of society by going to live on a small island
tonyedgecombe 3y ago
For a free market loving political party the Conservatives are surprisingly reluctant to allow the market to do it's thing.

badcppdev 3y ago

Agreeing with you and expanding. The law gives a government department the ability to ban the sale of washing machines (or perhaps heat pumps) that don't have this remote control facility. Although I'm quite sure that there will be a class of appliances available for people who don't perhaps want their heated pools to become cool.

engineer_22 3y ago

-> It seems to me that we've managed to have stable power for... decades?... without having rolling blackouts or the ability of politicians to reach into my home and turn off my computer. Are you using a fallacy as a basis for your argument? Past performance is not a reliable predictor of the future. But I agree with you, giving technocrats control of rationing decisions leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

jtbayly 3y ago
I don't think it's fallacy. I'm not saying the future is guaranteed. I'm saying that we've managed to solve this problem in the past in different ways, so it's not very compelling for the parent to say that it's impossible.

cameronh90 3y ago

These events happen faster than you could react to the situation, plus in most cases, will involve small changes that you wouldn't even notice to your most energy intensive devices. This isn't about turning off your TV while you're watching it (though, in the alternative which may be a blackout, that IS what would happen). Consider a freezer where you have the thermostat set to -18c. Your freezer will have some tolerance on that, so maybe it kicks on the compressor at -16c and turns it off at -20c. In the event that we've had a sudden loss of generation capacity, the freezer responds to the signal by temporarily setting the the range to -15c / -18c, or to delay the next compressor run for an hour, or some other minor change that you likely won't notice or care about. On the other hand, if you get an SMS asking you to change your freezer's thermostat for the next hour, are you going to go home and do that? Edit: Also doesn't clause 236 part 6 permit us to modify our own devices as we see fit: "Energy smart regulations may not provide for a prohibition to be contravened by an end-user of an appliance (in their capacity as such) or for such a person to be enforced against as described in section 237 or 238."? If it's so important, I'm sure one can figure out how to block the signals.

gustavus 3y ago
You know this reminds me of a point made by C.S. Lewis in his book the abolition of man. He points out that when we say we've conquered nature (or in the modern parlance "made progress") what we have really done is taken power from some men and given it to others. I think your comment perfectly highlights that, essentially the advancement of technology has now allowed the technicians and "experts" to now reach into your home and control how and when you use power arbitrarily at their discretion.
jtbayly 3y ago
I'm not denying there are benefits to being able to control (even more) demand as well as supply. This would make it technically possible to run the whole system more efficiently. You know what I noticed when I had an old house with old AC? It could barely keep up. On really hot days, it didn't. They offered me $5/month off my bill to allow them to turn off my AC remotely up to 15/min/hour. For a lot of people this would be precisely what you said: "small changes that you wouldn't even notice to your most energy intensive devices" In that house, it would have meant the AC would need to be replaced. "Oh yeah, and you're totally allowed to turn this off if you can figure out how, and we'll never charge you with a crime. Good luck!" "Wait! Why are you arresting me?!" "You've been intentionally violating the DMCA!" lol