Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now

Post by twunde » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

cmdli wrote: post #79

twunde wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not directly. In Texas and other deregulated markets, you can be on either a fixed rate for n months or on a variable rate. If you're on a variable rate, the rate will be much higher than normal for the next few months. If you're on a fixed rate you're fine for now, but keep an eye on when your fixed rate expires. This assumes that your supplier is still in business after the next few months (many suppliers will go b…

> If you are in a regulated market or are using the regulated utilities like ConEd in NYC, you'll see limited rate increases to deal with the increased cost to supply. These rate increases need to be approved by the state's Public Utility Commission. If deregulated suppliers are having to raise prices to cover costs, wouldn't that apply to regulated suppliers as well? Unless they have enough cash on hand to ride it o…

Post by akamaka » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

zbrozek wrote: post #327

akamaka wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most existing buildings can be retrofitted: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/united-states-b...

At eye-watering expense and with long lead times. Both of those are largely self-inflicted wounds. As with everything, if it were cheaper and faster to do, we'd probably be doing more of it. We'd do well to shorten timelines and costs by removing permitting requirements for most types of work and loosening control over building. We also need to reduce costs of living so a broader occupational dynamic range of people…

Post by zbrozek » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

akamaka wrote: post #333

zbrozek wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At eye-watering expense and with long lead times. Both of those are largely self-inflicted wounds. As with everything, if it were cheaper and faster to do, we'd probably be doing more of it. We'd do well to shorten timelines and costs by removing permitting requirements for most types of work and loosening control over building. We also need to reduce costs of living so a broader occupational dynamic range of people…

It’s expensive up front, but it should pay for itself if done right. This is not a trivial finance problem, though. It’s very challenging fund projects with decades-long payoffs.

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #322

ineedasername wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if they aren't making progress towards the goals, but they do seem to be making progress.

The progress could be just from the world changing around them (cost competitive renewables). Doing something would mean putting some skin in the climate change fight.

Post by Maursault » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

acidburnNSA wrote: post #312

Maursault wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar photovoltaic and wind are much older technologies than nuclear, to be fair on the "modern" quip. To be completely fair, the development of nuclear power took governments and would have been impossible otherwise. Solar and wind, not so much. The problem with nuclear is only cost, not NIMBY and before it is said so, it certainly is not the regulations jacking the cost of nuclear so high. If nuclear power was ec…

The German government spent like $500B buying expensive solar PV which was instrumental in allowing the manufacturing efficiencies to reduce prices to what we see today in solar. Similarly, we know that serial construction of standard nuclear is cost effective from the examples cited.