21–30 of 291 posts
I don’t buy the queue argument. It would devolve in to a bunch of churn inevitably resulting in thrown hands and black eyes.
It’s a good lesson in the importance of picking the right things to measure/optimize for. Queue length is not a good thing to optimize for by itself.
I feel like I missed something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a good lesson in the importance of picking the right things to measure/optimize for. Queue length is not a good thing to optimize for by itself.
Exactly, I don't get how that would increase throughput.
I was curious to see if anyone had tried the coal mine bit. This is the closest I could find, a business plan to sell coal attached to carbon credits. Not sure what’s happened since 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/business/energy-environme...
Though maybe that's also a cautionary tale. Back when that happened (2015) the political discussion around coal in Germany was that a coal exit wasn't really part of the discussion and local politicians would say things like coal will be mined until the 2040s. Since then the debate has moved to "Coal exit in 2038", and more recently to "Coal exit very likely in 2030".
What I'm trying to say: Even if you're successful with such a project, it's not exactly clear how much you gain. The political discourse on climate is moving fast (though still not fast enough).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, I don't get how that would increase throughput.
It's not about increasing throughout, it's about increasing user satisfaction. A system where 60 customers are served an hour, and none of them has queued, is theoretically better than one where the same amount are served, but each has queued for 10 boring minutes. You achieve this by disincentivising queueing.
If it's orderly, they kind of queue in the middle. If it's not, you'll have a large brawl as people try to get in front of each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how it works. If the price of coal goes up, other generation technologies outcompete it (renewables and natural gas). By disrupting the fossil fuel supply chain, you apply pressure to the point where coal generators are taken offline and demolished (lots of videos if you Google for coal plant demolition). This ensures you can’t go back, as the lead time is too long to build new coal and no one will finance…
That's an expensive bet if your model parameters are off by just a little bit.
With that said, the theory is sound based on existing economic conditions. 75% of coal generators in the US and roughly 45% globally operate unprofitably, for example (per Bloomberg NEF).
I don’t buy the queue argument. It would devolve in to a bunch of churn inevitably resulting in thrown hands and black eyes.
If we adopt the rule that the next person to be served is the most recent person to join line, it's inevitable that a second line will form with people waiting to go to the first line and if someone tries to go to bypass the second line and go directly to the first line, the crowd in the first line will direct their rage at this person and compel him or her to queue in the second line - it's just as if there were only one line and the person had cut in that.
I don't think the idea of reverse logic is even clear. Exactly what aspect should you choose to reverse? A better name would be unintuitive logic, but we already know some things are unintuitive.
When you are given something I want it too. I might even want you not to have it if I can't have it. However, if I am the one giving you the thing it becomes important for me that you have the thing even if I no longer do.
This is intuitive even if it is logically an eyesore.
If environmentalists made major impact shutting down mines, the price of coal would go up incentivizing new ones or at least to increase the output of existing ones - demand hasn’t changed. Just the same with buying gas stations and shutting them down, too.
If environmentalists made major impact shutting down mines, the price of coal would go up incentivizing new ones or at least to increase the output of existing ones - demand hasn’t changed. Just the same with buying gas stations and shutting them down, too.
If you shut down some number of oil production the price would go up quickly but it would take much longer for alternative sources to come online.
Also when prices of gas goes up, unlike in the past, there are now alternatives in EVs.
If environmentalists made major impact shutting down mines, the price of coal would go up incentivizing new ones or at least to increase the output of existing ones - demand hasn’t changed. Just the same with buying gas stations and shutting them down, too.
That’s not how it works. If the price of coal goes up, other generation technologies outcompete it (renewables and natural gas). By disrupting the fossil fuel supply chain, you apply pressure to the point where coal generators are taken offline and demolished (lots of videos if you Google for coal plant demolition). This ensures you can’t go back, as the lead time is too long to build new coal and no one will finance…
I think that the only kind of generation that can quickly replace coal would be based on burning LNG and turning the same turbines.
Solar is great but unstable, adding a battery is pretty expensive yet.
Nuclear is sadly way too slow and expensive to build, even if no NIMBY protests would appear.