4 ms·

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.

by baq 1y ago

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.

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.

by 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.