2 ms·

I think we may be arguing past each other. There's a difference between treating the market as an end and using one as a means. You (and yukkuri below) are cri

I think we may be arguing past each other. There's a difference between treating the market as an end and using one as a means. You (and yukkuri below) are criticizing the former, but I'm advocating the latter. When society sets the values ("reduce this harmful pollution below X please"), a market can be a very efficient means of accomplishing that. NOx trading is one example. The problems come when the market itself starts getting held up as the primary underlying value in-and-of-itself. Markets should be considered as powerful tools, not the main goal. Just my opinion. Anyway cheers.

marcosdumay 3y ago
No amount of taxing and mingling will make protection against long-tail events profitable. It's something that either the government does or it hires, the market will not provide. (But, well, it can order too, that works.) For seasonal balancing, nothing is certain. Maybe you luck-out and there's a profitable way to consume the summer overproduction. But I'd advise against betting your life on it. Anyway, carbon taxing does absolutely nothing to change the profitability of this one. The funny thing is that the US (I imagine this is your context, because most people thinking this way are there) is one of the democracies that most intervene on energy safety. It doesn't show on the final result, but the amount of reserves that government holds is so large that when it changes its mind on something it bankrupts people.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- schiffern 3y ago
  >No amount of taxing and mingling will make protection against long-tail events profitable. It's something that either the government does or it hires, the market will not provide. [citation desperately needed] Insurance seems to be quite an effective mechanism for handling rare events. >Anyway, carbon taxing does absolutely nothing to change the profitability of this one. Of course it does. When "Good Old Reliable" carbon-heavy baseload gets more expensive, that creates more incentive for storage (factobattery or otherwise). Remember that the end goal is to achieve 100% renewable energy, not to build the most factobatteries. If you build more factobatteries than needed to efficiently achieve 100% renewable energy, you did it wrong.

marcosdumay 3y ago

No amount of taxing and mingling will make protection against long-tail events profitable. It's something that either the government does or it hires, the market will not provide. (But, well, it can order too, that works.) For seasonal balancing, nothing is certain. Maybe you luck-out and there's a profitable way to consume the summer overproduction. But I'd advise against betting your life on it. Anyway, carbon taxing does absolutely nothing to change the profitability of this one. The funny thing is that the US (I imagine this is your context, because most people thinking this way are there) is one of the democracies that most intervene on energy safety. It doesn't show on the final result, but the amount of reserves that government holds is so large that when it changes its mind on something it bankrupts people.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
schiffern 3y ago
>No amount of taxing and mingling will make protection against long-tail events profitable. It's something that either the government does or it hires, the market will not provide. [citation desperately needed] Insurance seems to be quite an effective mechanism for handling rare events. >Anyway, carbon taxing does absolutely nothing to change the profitability of this one. Of course it does. When "Good Old Reliable" carbon-heavy baseload gets more expensive, that creates more incentive for storage (factobattery or otherwise). Remember that the end goal is to achieve 100% renewable energy, not to build the most factobatteries. If you build more factobatteries than needed to efficiently achieve 100% renewable energy, you did it wrong.