3 ms·

What I'm reading from that quote is that the issue wasn't renewables as such, but an issue of power generation reacting too quickly and too intensely to price f

by pdpi 1y ago

What I'm reading from that quote is that the issue wasn't renewables as such, but an issue of power generation reacting too quickly and too intensely to price fluctuations. "Renewables" only matter insofar as they're the sort of generation that, under the current regulatory regime, get to react to those pricing changes.

kmeisthax 1y ago
[dead]
baq 1y ago
The report goes to great lengths to avoid certain words or phrases. The market failed here, it didn’t price in risk of grid collapse correctly.
- mslansn 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - xwolfi 1y ago
    Except to point out that it's not nice that renewables arrive at random prices in the grid and start crapping all around it until they disappear when expensive again. The stability of a nuclear plant vs the instability of a solar far when a cloud passes over.
- Yeask 1y ago
  That is a simple and great explanation.
  - plorg 1y ago
    It's also just unfounded conspiracism and factually incorrect.
    - mlyle 1y ago
      > It's also just unfounded conspiracism I don't see that. > and factually incorrect. Then substantiate your point. Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for-- not just production.
      - rcxdude 1y ago
        Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for, sometimes, but whether they pay enough and validate that they're actually getting it is another thing. One core thing the report highlights is that many of the plants on the grid didn't do what they were required (and being paid) to do.
      - plorg 1y ago
        It's unfounded conspiracy to bang on about how "they are clearly hiding something". Read the report. Power systems are complicated and not as easy as just "build another nuclear plant". It was (by regulation) conventional units that were required to provide voltage support, and it was in part their failure to operate according to their requirements that lead to the voltage excursions that caused the system collapse. The renewable systems that were capable of providing voltage stability were not allowed to do so.
        mlyle 1y ago
        > It's unfounded conspiracy to bang on about how "they are clearly hiding something". It's also a bit of a straw-man to put your own version of what someone's saying in their mouth. Buying insurance and other mitigations against rare circumstances, outside of well regulated and well understood products in stable marketplaces, is really hard. You need to do your homework with the counterparties and be sure that incentives align well enough to get what you want. Unfortunately, when you set up an incentive system, you tend to get exactly what you pay for-- whether that's what you want, or not.
fuoqi 1y ago
See the sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44360082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44360082
rcxdude 1y ago
That wasn't the core issue. It was the spark to the powder keg, so to speak.

by pdpi 1y ago

kmeisthax 1y ago

[dead]

baq 1y ago

The report goes to great lengths to avoid certain words or phrases. The market failed here, it didn’t price in risk of grid collapse correctly.

mslansn 1y ago
[flagged]
- xwolfi 1y ago
  Except to point out that it's not nice that renewables arrive at random prices in the grid and start crapping all around it until they disappear when expensive again. The stability of a nuclear plant vs the instability of a solar far when a cloud passes over.
Yeask 1y ago
That is a simple and great explanation.
- plorg 1y ago
  It's also just unfounded conspiracism and factually incorrect.
  - mlyle 1y ago
    > It's also just unfounded conspiracism I don't see that. > and factually incorrect. Then substantiate your point. Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for-- not just production.
    - rcxdude 1y ago
      Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for, sometimes, but whether they pay enough and validate that they're actually getting it is another thing. One core thing the report highlights is that many of the plants on the grid didn't do what they were required (and being paid) to do.
    - plorg 1y ago
      It's unfounded conspiracy to bang on about how "they are clearly hiding something". Read the report. Power systems are complicated and not as easy as just "build another nuclear plant". It was (by regulation) conventional units that were required to provide voltage support, and it was in part their failure to operate according to their requirements that lead to the voltage excursions that caused the system collapse. The renewable systems that were capable of providing voltage stability were not allowed to do so.
      - mlyle 1y ago
        > It's unfounded conspiracy to bang on about how "they are clearly hiding something". It's also a bit of a straw-man to put your own version of what someone's saying in their mouth. Buying insurance and other mitigations against rare circumstances, outside of well regulated and well understood products in stable marketplaces, is really hard. You need to do your homework with the counterparties and be sure that incentives align well enough to get what you want. Unfortunately, when you set up an incentive system, you tend to get exactly what you pay for-- whether that's what you want, or not.

fuoqi 1y ago

See the sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44360082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44360082

rcxdude 1y ago

That wasn't the core issue. It was the spark to the powder keg, so to speak.