3 ms·

Also, the power outages are a symptom of a disease afflicting the entire first world, not something NI specific. Politicians pushing policy that is forcing chan

Also, the power outages are a symptom of a disease afflicting the entire first world, not something NI specific. Politicians pushing policy that is forcing change faster than is economically wise to do so for politically fashionable reasons. It's the same exact crap here in Canada and it looks similar in many other first world spots.

amluto 3y ago
As a Californian, I feel obligated to point out that: (a) this isn’t necessarily about environmental policy, and (b) speed of changes isn’t necessarily part of it. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–2001_California_electricity_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–2001_California_electri... I agree that a bunch of the regulatory pushes for clean energy seem to be poorly done. I would much rather see a carbon tax along with sensible regulatory changes to avoid excessive red tape when building new clean energy projects. (But even that could cause problems if the market fails to prioritize reliability — see the California situation above and the recent problems in Texas, both of which involved.) (Also, for Pete’s sake, what’s up with trading credits for not producing carbon dioxide? Just tax greenhouse gas emissions already — if you don’t emit them, you don’t pay the the tax, and if you do emit, then you just pay the tax instead of paying someone else to supposedly reduce emissions.)
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  The speed of change I was referring to was putting in policies that force decommissioning before the replacement is ready(and/or replacing with a generation mix that isn't compatible with reliable grid operation yet but this isn't applicable to this specific situation) and it is an environmental related politically fashionable policy in this case (and in Canada's case). In the comment I was referring to the specific problem is they decommissioned the coal plants by 2024 while the natural gas plants won't be ready till 2026. California is a really bad example because all their problems stem from environmental policy and the profit opportunities extremely bad environmental policy made possible. That place has it all. They have a legacy grid where they first tried to get rid of pollution that just moved most of the pollution just outside the state with large and semi unreliable power lines bringing the power back in. They had artificially low prices for consumer, which caused demand and reality to diverge. They had differential pricing at the import/export nodes that were ripe for abuse (that no other power grid did because it was obviously stupid and ripe for abuse). I am sure I am missing a bunch of stuff because it's been a long time since I looked at it, but CAISO is basically a story about how the path to hell is paved with good environmental intentions. I agree with you on the carbon tax thing as the better solution. I would caveat that agreement with making sure other government policies are not causing undue inelasticity in demand for hydrocarbons that would make a carbon tax not work except for at crippling levels (i.e. North American zoning that basically makes a car a requirement would have to change to drastically increase density and make public transit/cycling/walking a viable alternative). In general, increasing elasticity of demand will make a carbon tax more effective at a given level and there are probably lots of government policies that could be changed to make demand more elastic, the zoning stuff being the very low hanging fruit.
  - amluto 3y ago
    > I would caveat that agreement with making sure other government policies are not causing undue inelasticity in demand for hydrocarbons that would make a carbon tax not work except for at crippling levels (i.e. North American zoning that basically makes a car a requirement would have to change to drastically increase density and make public transit/cycling/walking a viable alternative). Define inelasticity? In many places, and for many purposes, a car is effectively necessary, the distance driven is more or less fixed, and carpooling may not be an option. But there are multiple kinds of cars! EVs can emit very little carbon (and the tax would be built in to electricity pricing), and even among gas cars, there is huge variability in efficiency. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml#noEVs https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml#noEVs That’s a factor of more than 3 within the midsize class.
    - snapplebobapple 3y ago
      Inelasticity means large price changes do not change demand much. Your statement about a car being necessary is an example of inelastic demand. You need to make the carbon tax so high that peole become so poor they cant deal with a car i order to change demand. Electric cars are a red herring at this point because they still cost so much more than an equivalent gas car that the break even point is a decade plus out for the bulk of people who are relati ely low mileage. (Don't say a subsidy makes up for it, subsidies are mostly bullshit. Its just making rich people pay for you buying an electric car nit making sense). The better policy is changing zoning so we can build more like the netherlands, which makes public transit/biking/walking a lot more viable vs a car, which makestbe elasticity of demand for carbon higher and makes a carbon tax cause much higher switching off carbon at a given price level.
      - amluto 3y ago
        You’re not commenting on the efficient car options. They’ve been around for years, and they’re not that expensive. I don’t know how people would behave, but people could certainly (slowly) produce less carbon by purchasing cars that are more efficient.

amluto 3y ago

As a Californian, I feel obligated to point out that: (a) this isn’t necessarily about environmental policy, and (b) speed of changes isn’t necessarily part of it. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–2001_California_electricity_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–2001_California_electri... I agree that a bunch of the regulatory pushes for clean energy seem to be poorly done. I would much rather see a carbon tax along with sensible regulatory changes to avoid excessive red tape when building new clean energy projects. (But even that could cause problems if the market fails to prioritize reliability — see the California situation above and the recent problems in Texas, both of which involved.) (Also, for Pete’s sake, what’s up with trading credits for not producing carbon dioxide? Just tax greenhouse gas emissions already — if you don’t emit them, you don’t pay the the tax, and if you do emit, then you just pay the tax instead of paying someone else to supposedly reduce emissions.)

snapplebobapple 3y ago
The speed of change I was referring to was putting in policies that force decommissioning before the replacement is ready(and/or replacing with a generation mix that isn't compatible with reliable grid operation yet but this isn't applicable to this specific situation) and it is an environmental related politically fashionable policy in this case (and in Canada's case). In the comment I was referring to the specific problem is they decommissioned the coal plants by 2024 while the natural gas plants won't be ready till 2026. California is a really bad example because all their problems stem from environmental policy and the profit opportunities extremely bad environmental policy made possible. That place has it all. They have a legacy grid where they first tried to get rid of pollution that just moved most of the pollution just outside the state with large and semi unreliable power lines bringing the power back in. They had artificially low prices for consumer, which caused demand and reality to diverge. They had differential pricing at the import/export nodes that were ripe for abuse (that no other power grid did because it was obviously stupid and ripe for abuse). I am sure I am missing a bunch of stuff because it's been a long time since I looked at it, but CAISO is basically a story about how the path to hell is paved with good environmental intentions. I agree with you on the carbon tax thing as the better solution. I would caveat that agreement with making sure other government policies are not causing undue inelasticity in demand for hydrocarbons that would make a carbon tax not work except for at crippling levels (i.e. North American zoning that basically makes a car a requirement would have to change to drastically increase density and make public transit/cycling/walking a viable alternative). In general, increasing elasticity of demand will make a carbon tax more effective at a given level and there are probably lots of government policies that could be changed to make demand more elastic, the zoning stuff being the very low hanging fruit.
- amluto 3y ago
  > I would caveat that agreement with making sure other government policies are not causing undue inelasticity in demand for hydrocarbons that would make a carbon tax not work except for at crippling levels (i.e. North American zoning that basically makes a car a requirement would have to change to drastically increase density and make public transit/cycling/walking a viable alternative). Define inelasticity? In many places, and for many purposes, a car is effectively necessary, the distance driven is more or less fixed, and carpooling may not be an option. But there are multiple kinds of cars! EVs can emit very little carbon (and the tax would be built in to electricity pricing), and even among gas cars, there is huge variability in efficiency. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml#noEVs https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml#noEVs That’s a factor of more than 3 within the midsize class.
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    Inelasticity means large price changes do not change demand much. Your statement about a car being necessary is an example of inelastic demand. You need to make the carbon tax so high that peole become so poor they cant deal with a car i order to change demand. Electric cars are a red herring at this point because they still cost so much more than an equivalent gas car that the break even point is a decade plus out for the bulk of people who are relati ely low mileage. (Don't say a subsidy makes up for it, subsidies are mostly bullshit. Its just making rich people pay for you buying an electric car nit making sense). The better policy is changing zoning so we can build more like the netherlands, which makes public transit/biking/walking a lot more viable vs a car, which makestbe elasticity of demand for carbon higher and makes a carbon tax cause much higher switching off carbon at a given price level.
    - amluto 3y ago
      You’re not commenting on the efficient car options. They’ve been around for years, and they’re not that expensive. I don’t know how people would behave, but people could certainly (slowly) produce less carbon by purchasing cars that are more efficient.