Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Electricity Markets

austinvernon.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 142 posts

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#21

Post by fragmede »

rgmerk wrote: post #4
timeimp wrote: post #2

I, for one, want Gen IV small-modular nuclear reactors built. They solve all our climate change-related challenges AND they eat the waste of older generation reactors. I fail to see why we're not investing in more nuclear over solar and wind (whose components are not usually recycled)

This has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, which was a commentary on the value of a functioning market for electricity (I hesitate to call it a "free" market because any electricity market ends up having a lot of rules). I personally think Gen IV nuclear reactors have stuff-all chance of competing in such a market, but if somebody believes otherwise and wants to put up the dollars to try, all power to them…

I wouldn't say that a technology which would dump a ton of supply, affecting, if not disrupting the market, has "almost nothing to do with the topic at hand". it's unfortunately a bit of a fantasy and years out from being possible due to a natural disaster setting the industry back by yet another a decade but it's totally relevant for a threaded forum.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#22

Post by bee_rider »

timeimp wrote: post #2

I, for one, want Gen IV small-modular nuclear reactors built. They solve all our climate change-related challenges AND they eat the waste of older generation reactors. I fail to see why we're not investing in more nuclear over solar and wind (whose components are not usually recycled)

Invest in both, I don’t think nuclear is the future but wouldn’t mind being wrong.

To pay for it, raise taxes on fossil fuels.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#23

Post by RandomLensman »

timeimp wrote: post #2

I, for one, want Gen IV small-modular nuclear reactors built. They solve all our climate change-related challenges AND they eat the waste of older generation reactors. I fail to see why we're not investing in more nuclear over solar and wind (whose components are not usually recycled)

Nuclear so far is very expensive and hasn't shown a great price trajectory. It remains unclear if new designs would realize better price points if they were to become reality.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#24

Post by rgmerk »

fragmede wrote: post #21
rgmerk wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, which was a commentary on the value of a functioning market for electricity (I hesitate to call it a "free" market because any electricity market ends up having a lot of rules). I personally think Gen IV nuclear reactors have stuff-all chance of competing in such a market, but if somebody believes otherwise and wants to put up the dollars to try, all power to them…

I wouldn't say that a technology which would dump a ton of supply, affecting, if not disrupting the market, has "almost nothing to do with the topic at hand". it's unfortunately a bit of a fantasy and years out from being possible due to a natural disaster setting the industry back by yet another a decade but it's totally relevant for a threaded forum.

SMRs are going to have relatively high capital costs and (hopefully) low but non-zero operating costs. They will probably have similar ramping characteristics to coal. As such, they will probably operate like coal - generating most of the time when able to and get their lunch eaten by zero-marginal-cost solar in the middle of the day.

One thing SMRs will absolutely not be used for is as peakers, which is where market design matters is most important for keeping the lights on at an affordable cost.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#25

Post by vlovich123 »

Animats wrote: post #13
cyberax wrote: post #5

Counterpoint: electricity markets are terrible for reliability. Markets are great, but there are no pricing signals for reliability. You won't know that your grid will collapse at the first strong breeze, until it happens (see: Texas). Theoretically, it can work because companies might invest in reliable generation, in the hopes of getting $$$$$$$$$ when the spot price goes up through the roof. But in practice, prett…

PJM does have pricing for reliability. The first California deregulated electricity market had an auction every half hour and all pricing was spot. This caused blackouts and the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric, even though it was what PG&E had lobbied for. Today, most markets (at least PJM and CAISO) have a "day ahead" auction, and a current auction to fine-tune. Most of the market is in the day-ahead auction.…

Weren’t the California brownouts caused by Enron fucking with California’s supply to cause them to purchase electricity from Texas at insanely high rates. Also led to Gray Davis being recalled which must have been a nice bonus because the Bush administration was very allied with Enron execs.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#26

Post by yunohn »

theshrike79 wrote: post #19
sfn42 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what OP refers to but it isn't very long ago that we were paying over a dollar per kwh in Norway. We've always had extremely low energy prices due to our abundant hydroelectric power etc, but now it's all being sold to Germany or whatever and we get to buy their coal power for 30 times the price we're used to.

Yea, that was when we refused to buy natural gas from a dictator attacking sovereign countries. And due to how the market was built, Germany's over-reliance on Russian gas affected everyone for a good while. On the other hand I've been enjoying pretty much free electricity for about 6 months now. A few rare spikes up to 40c/kWh, but it's mostly been under 1c/kWh.

> A few rare spikes up to 40c/kWh, but it's mostly been under 1c/kWh.

The cheapest rate I can get in NL is ~30c/kwh, and that’s with a dynamic price contract.

The government has applied an artificial limit of 40c/kwh for 2023, after energy companies here fleeced everyone last year. Unfortunately, it expires by 2024.

The worst part is that NL privatized the energy market long ago, to give people “choice” - which has only led to coordinated exorbitant pricing.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#27

Post by karmakurtisaani »

sfn42 wrote: post #17
alphager wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it worse in Europe? Where in Europe is it worse? I can't remember the last time the grid failed.

Not sure what OP refers to but it isn't very long ago that we were paying over a dollar per kwh in Norway. We've always had extremely low energy prices due to our abundant hydroelectric power etc, but now it's all being sold to Germany or whatever and we get to buy their coal power for 30 times the price we're used to.

From the market's point of view selling to Germany distributes the goods more efficiently. Germans don't freeze in the Winter, while you don't keep office buildings lit up at night just because electricity is cheap. It feels like you're losing here, but on average everyone wins.

(also, there's the whole invasion of Ukraine going on, which has caused a massive disruption to the market)

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#28

Post by nologic01 »

A sprawling read that is difficult to follow. In particular the critical design elements of an "electricity market" are never defined, let alone convincingly defended.

Market dynamics is a complex interplay of market design (which influences participant behavior), market maker incentives and regulation etc.

There is no single alternative to a monopoly market. Turning every nano-Watt of electricity consumption into in incessant trade and emulating money markets is the market intermediary dream but it is not necessarily optimal.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#29

Post by fodkodrasz »

pstuart wrote: post #9
cyberax wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small modular reactors have almost nothing but disadvantages compared to the good old large-scale PWRs. The ONLY advantage of SMRs is that they are easier to build because only a handful of companies in the _world_ possess technology to build reactor vessels for large-scale PWRs. And none of them are in the US.

We have yet to see, as they've yet to truly enter the market. So far, the record's not been good for large plants -- they tend to go way over budget and schedule. Case in point: Vogtle.

That is mostly because there are no more large scale nuclear investments, lot of knowhow has been lost, everything is custom built now on every level of implementation (which SMRs promise to solve), and because people care about the initial investments, not for the TCO. Oh, and politically motivated NIH red-tape for getting some votes on the cost of whole society.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#30

Post by asynchronous »

cyberax wrote: post #3
timeimp wrote: post #2

I, for one, want Gen IV small-modular nuclear reactors built. They solve all our climate change-related challenges AND they eat the waste of older generation reactors. I fail to see why we're not investing in more nuclear over solar and wind (whose components are not usually recycled)

Small modular reactors have almost nothing but disadvantages compared to the good old large-scale PWRs. The ONLY advantage of SMRs is that they are easier to build because only a handful of companies in the _world_ possess technology to build reactor vessels for large-scale PWRs. And none of them are in the US.

Since they’re small they can be placed far closer to urban hubs and other places that suck electricity. The last design plans I saw one could fit within a single city block, buried under ground with only 1 story exposed.
Post reply on HN