Sleep patterns have nothing to do with sufficient infrastructure. If someone has a monopoly on the delivery of your product...
BP's "giant oil discovery"
- Thread starter LTVibe
- Start date
- Status
How else would you deliver your wild west electricity tempest ?
300 million orange leads across America ?
Should the Government force Industry to not wind back on weekends ?
Abolish penalty rates to workers making industry "flat rate" ?
Get rid of weekends altogether ?
If the infrastructure can meet the peak demands, surely it's "sufficient".
You argue around in circles.
300 million orange leads across America ?
Should the Government force Industry to not wind back on weekends ?
Abolish penalty rates to workers making industry "flat rate" ?
Get rid of weekends altogether ?
If the infrastructure can meet the peak demands, surely it's "sufficient".
You argue around in circles.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Honestly, I can't believe that you feel that ungoverned square wave generators running extension leads door to door is a good thing.
As I said before, making trade regular is a proper function of regulators.
Quote:
If the infrastructure can meet the peak demands, surely it's "sufficient".
In the example I gave, people got power, but not in the most efficient manner. There is NO way that a for profit organization will tolerate paying someone to take their product...unless they are forced to.
Honestly, I can't believe that you feel that ungoverned square wave generators running extension leads door to door is a good thing.
As I said before, making trade regular is a proper function of regulators.
Quote:
If the infrastructure can meet the peak demands, surely it's "sufficient".
In the example I gave, people got power, but not in the most efficient manner. There is NO way that a for profit organization will tolerate paying someone to take their product...unless they are forced to.
The plant turns down only so far, the supply has expanded, the demand is down...that's what happens in an "efficient" market.
electricity is the ultimate in supply and demand, you flick the switch, we meet the demand.
You were bleating not so long ago that the regulator restricted ENTRY into the market.
electricity is the ultimate in supply and demand, you flick the switch, we meet the demand.
You were bleating not so long ago that the regulator restricted ENTRY into the market.
BTW, nobody has to pay anybody to take their energy if they are prepared to take a $50-$100,000 hit in auxilliary fuel for turning the station off at night and restarting in the morning.
They do it all the time in the UK/US to match supply and demand.
Makes for even poorer thermal efficiency in the market
They do it all the time in the UK/US to match supply and demand.
Makes for even poorer thermal efficiency in the market
Quote:
You were bleating not so long ago that the regulator restricted ENTRY into the market.
Indeed they do.
Quote:
They do it all the time in the UK/US to match supply and demand.
With poor public transmission lines and subsidies that pay "alternative" sources to produce, even when not needed, that is not a big surprise.
Quote:
Evidence from market data suggests that wind power producers will accept prices down to about negative $35 MWh before they shut down, since marginal operating costs are very low for wind power we can conclude that the subsidies are worth about $35 – $40 for each MWh of wind output. [UPDATE: Chart now includes data through December 2008.]
Subsidies do this sort of thing – distort the market and lead to waste – and of course to some degree distorting the market is just what is intended when policymakers offer a subsidy. Only usually it isn’t so easy to see the evidence of the waste created by the subsidies. Wind turbines that operate more hours require more maintenance, so these hours spent producing negative-value electric power do consume real resources. At the same time, the conventionally-fueled generation that is forced offline temporarily will also face additional “wear-and-tear” and require additional maintenance because of the effects of shutting down and then restarting the machines. This extra wear-and-tear and extra maintenance also represents wasteful use of resources due to PTC- and REC-subsidized power production.
http://knowledgeproblem.com/2008/11/20/frequent_negati/
You were bleating not so long ago that the regulator restricted ENTRY into the market.
Indeed they do.
Quote:
They do it all the time in the UK/US to match supply and demand.
With poor public transmission lines and subsidies that pay "alternative" sources to produce, even when not needed, that is not a big surprise.
Quote:
Evidence from market data suggests that wind power producers will accept prices down to about negative $35 MWh before they shut down, since marginal operating costs are very low for wind power we can conclude that the subsidies are worth about $35 – $40 for each MWh of wind output. [UPDATE: Chart now includes data through December 2008.]
Subsidies do this sort of thing – distort the market and lead to waste – and of course to some degree distorting the market is just what is intended when policymakers offer a subsidy. Only usually it isn’t so easy to see the evidence of the waste created by the subsidies. Wind turbines that operate more hours require more maintenance, so these hours spent producing negative-value electric power do consume real resources. At the same time, the conventionally-fueled generation that is forced offline temporarily will also face additional “wear-and-tear” and require additional maintenance because of the effects of shutting down and then restarting the machines. This extra wear-and-tear and extra maintenance also represents wasteful use of resources due to PTC- and REC-subsidized power production.
http://knowledgeproblem.com/2008/11/20/frequent_negati/
Last edited:
You obviously got to the point in the website that talks of "automatic entry", that is the set of standards that you HAVE to be allowed entry into the market.
If you can't meet the standards, you can be denied, or allowed derogations, where you negotiate entry to the market or not.
That's the role of the regulator.
Meet the standard, and go your hardest, no fetters.
So you are now an advocate of 300 million extension leads across America too ?
If you can't meet the standards, you can be denied, or allowed derogations, where you negotiate entry to the market or not.
That's the role of the regulator.
Meet the standard, and go your hardest, no fetters.
So you are now an advocate of 300 million extension leads across America too ?
Quote:
That's the role of the regulator.
You forget about zoning, environmental regs, and whatever else they can think of.
Quote:
So you are now an advocate of 300 million extension leads across America too ?
Just a better system. Amazon, UPS, Fedex....they are able to "transmit" their products very efficiently and make a profit. Our power grid is largely operated, maintained and expanded by "public" monopoly and is in poor shape.
That's the role of the regulator.
You forget about zoning, environmental regs, and whatever else they can think of.
Quote:
So you are now an advocate of 300 million extension leads across America too ?
Just a better system. Amazon, UPS, Fedex....they are able to "transmit" their products very efficiently and make a profit. Our power grid is largely operated, maintained and expanded by "public" monopoly and is in poor shape.
transmitting (transporting) a product free, over a "grid" (highway system) that was designed as part of your ability to transport military infrastructure over great distances....and paid for by the taxpayer as opposed to the user.
Once again, oil gets a military backed free kick, as you can transport a diesel generator over the roads, and power the short term need.
Maybe that's your niche tempest, selling community power to people dis-satisfied with the grid.
Once again, oil gets a military backed free kick, as you can transport a diesel generator over the roads, and power the short term need.
Maybe that's your niche tempest, selling community power to people dis-satisfied with the grid.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Our power grid is largely operated, maintained and expanded by "public" monopoly and is in poor shape.
Hmmm..how about the market producing hydro plants in every location so that everyone can make their own power? The heck with the rest of them. If your plant trips ..well, you're just not going to have a good day.
I keep having visions of some post neo-modern "Eval" (don't know if it's prime or mid) ..where you would have 100's of kings. The size of their realm would vary.
Hundreds of little tiny kings ..ruling their little tiny fiefdoms ...
Our power grid is largely operated, maintained and expanded by "public" monopoly and is in poor shape.
Hmmm..how about the market producing hydro plants in every location so that everyone can make their own power? The heck with the rest of them. If your plant trips ..well, you're just not going to have a good day.
I keep having visions of some post neo-modern "Eval" (don't know if it's prime or mid) ..where you would have 100's of kings. The size of their realm would vary.
Hundreds of little tiny kings ..ruling their little tiny fiefdoms ...
Tempest,
In addition to long term supply and demand, it is very common to see hiccup in a market economy when the demand or supply crashes that causes something that doesn't make sense: i.e. having to pay people to take power or charging 4x as much as recent past.
This is not the fault of the regulator regulating too much, but more of the inherit instability issue in the energy business. You can't predict weather, oil price, coal mine strike, drought, grid accident (or sabotage from Enron), and therefore you just have to accept the possibility of inefficiency here and there, and factor it into the cost.
This, my friend, is also something inevitable in a market economy. As long as this inefficiency isn't fatal, it is a cost of doing business and should be factored in as such.
Having a power plant to pay someone to take its energy at midnight vs having to pay someone for more expensive solar energy at 3pm isn't "inefficiency" unless you can get free storage. This is not because of regulator stupidity, but market economy, because it is cheaper than the alternative (i.e. $100k diesel start up cost)
In addition to long term supply and demand, it is very common to see hiccup in a market economy when the demand or supply crashes that causes something that doesn't make sense: i.e. having to pay people to take power or charging 4x as much as recent past.
This is not the fault of the regulator regulating too much, but more of the inherit instability issue in the energy business. You can't predict weather, oil price, coal mine strike, drought, grid accident (or sabotage from Enron), and therefore you just have to accept the possibility of inefficiency here and there, and factor it into the cost.
This, my friend, is also something inevitable in a market economy. As long as this inefficiency isn't fatal, it is a cost of doing business and should be factored in as such.
Having a power plant to pay someone to take its energy at midnight vs having to pay someone for more expensive solar energy at 3pm isn't "inefficiency" unless you can get free storage. This is not because of regulator stupidity, but market economy, because it is cheaper than the alternative (i.e. $100k diesel start up cost)
Quote:
oil price, coal mine strike
Ever seen these have a negative price? Have you ever paid someone so that you can work for them?
Quote:
This is not because of regulator stupidity, but market economy, because it is cheaper than the alternative
They are NOT in control of alternatives. Either feed into a monopolistic grid or shut down. Those are the options presented BY the regulator. That is NOT a market condition.
oil price, coal mine strike
Ever seen these have a negative price? Have you ever paid someone so that you can work for them?
Quote:
This is not because of regulator stupidity, but market economy, because it is cheaper than the alternative
They are NOT in control of alternatives. Either feed into a monopolistic grid or shut down. Those are the options presented BY the regulator. That is NOT a market condition.
So you are in favour of 300M extension leads...should have just admitted it the first time.
And there would STILL be excess capacity on Sunday and Monday mornings, requiring electricity generators to make the economic choice of paying people to take power, hoping to take advantage of the Monday morning start-up peak, turn their units off with $100k start-up costs and the potential of missing the Monday morning start up peak.
Electricity can't be reasonable stored, and with air conditioning and cooking all occurring at around the same time, the peaks and troughs are major (and met instantly, as there's no storage).
And there would STILL be excess capacity on Sunday and Monday mornings, requiring electricity generators to make the economic choice of paying people to take power, hoping to take advantage of the Monday morning start-up peak, turn their units off with $100k start-up costs and the potential of missing the Monday morning start up peak.
Electricity can't be reasonable stored, and with air conditioning and cooking all occurring at around the same time, the peaks and troughs are major (and met instantly, as there's no storage).
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
oil price, coal mine strike
Ever seen these have a negative price? Have you ever paid someone so that you can work for them?
Quote:
This is not because of regulator stupidity, but market economy, because it is cheaper than the alternative
They are NOT in control of alternatives. Either feed into a monopolistic grid or shut down. Those are the options presented BY the regulator. That is NOT a market condition.
Technical challenges have higher priority than market economy. You will never get 100% perfect efficiency in a market economy with spikes here and there. Hydro dam has been pumping water up at night and weekend to store energy for the constant power type of places to compensate for that. Should they do it for free? IMO paying them to take the system balance seems to be a market driven approach to these kind of problems. If you want to take advantage of it, you can build an energy intensive business and pay people overtime to work weekend and use these free/low cost energy.
Quote:
oil price, coal mine strike
Ever seen these have a negative price? Have you ever paid someone so that you can work for them?
Quote:
This is not because of regulator stupidity, but market economy, because it is cheaper than the alternative
They are NOT in control of alternatives. Either feed into a monopolistic grid or shut down. Those are the options presented BY the regulator. That is NOT a market condition.
Technical challenges have higher priority than market economy. You will never get 100% perfect efficiency in a market economy with spikes here and there. Hydro dam has been pumping water up at night and weekend to store energy for the constant power type of places to compensate for that. Should they do it for free? IMO paying them to take the system balance seems to be a market driven approach to these kind of problems. If you want to take advantage of it, you can build an energy intensive business and pay people overtime to work weekend and use these free/low cost energy.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
If you want to take advantage of it, you can build an energy intensive business and pay people overtime to work weekend and use these free/low cost energy.
Sounds market driven to me.
If you want to take advantage of it, you can build an energy intensive business and pay people overtime to work weekend and use these free/low cost energy.
Sounds market driven to me.
Quote:
You will never get 100% perfect efficiency in a market economy with spikes here and there.
You can't get 100% perfect efficiency under any circumstances.
You will never get 100% perfect efficiency in a market economy with spikes here and there.
You can't get 100% perfect efficiency under any circumstances.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
So, you admit that there's no market solution to this as you define it.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
You will never get 100% perfect efficiency in a market economy with spikes here and there.
You can't get 100% perfect efficiency under any circumstances.
Then why are you attack wastefulness due to spikes?
Quote:
You will never get 100% perfect efficiency in a market economy with spikes here and there.
You can't get 100% perfect efficiency under any circumstances.
Then why are you attack wastefulness due to spikes?
- Status
Similar threads
