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

41–50 of 142 posts

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#41

Post by cyberax »

hef19898 wrote: post #39
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…

Actually, electricity markets in Europe work just fine, and provide in fact a lot of required stability. And income events are pretty much instantanious. The only problem European markets have is way too low costs for CO2 certificates which make coal plants way to cheap. Other than that, they work just fine.

Nope. They are not fine. Europe is floundering with its renewable transition.

Right now it's easy to build tons of cheap low-quality wind or solar generation, but it's not economic to build any kind of storage. As a result, Europe is now dependent on natural gas and coal during the winter.

And there's nothing that can change that within the next decade.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#42

Post by jounker »

RandomLensman wrote: post #37
devjab wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sort of depends on what you mean by markets. In most places in Europe the production of power is on the market, but the actual power grid is not freely traded. The grid is instead handed out to semi-permanent monopolies that are heavily regulated and controlled by governments and/or non-profit NGOs that are essentially a way we do efficient government in the supply sector. It works, but the benefit isn’t usually t…

Having very very few grid failures in Germany is a benefit to consumers, too. Price is only one dimension of consumer benefit.

There are very few grid failures under regulated systems too. Also, was said, the grid itself is a heavily regulated service.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#43

Post by cyberax »

alphager wrote: post #8
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…

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

Europe is worse in carbon-free transition.

The grid itself is fine, but it's backed by fossil fuels with no way out.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#44

Post by hef19898 »

cyberax wrote: post #41
hef19898 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, electricity markets in Europe work just fine, and provide in fact a lot of required stability. And income events are pretty much instantanious. The only problem European markets have is way too low costs for CO2 certificates which make coal plants way to cheap. Other than that, they work just fine.

Nope. They are not fine. Europe is floundering with its renewable transition. Right now it's easy to build tons of cheap low-quality wind or solar generation, but it's not economic to build any kind of storage. As a result, Europe is now dependent on natural gas and coal during the winter. And there's nothing that can change that within the next decade.

Strong claims. Any evidence to back them up, besides "Germany shutting nuclear stupid"?

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#45

Post by guappa »

baq wrote: post #38
guappa wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh the offices are all on at night. No worries there.

Can’t for the life of me understand that particular Scandinavian peculiarity in what would seem otherwise very rational society. I assume it must have been logical or still is?

To be honest I have no idea. I'm baffled/enraged to walk at night and see rows of tall buildings completely lit up with nobody inside.

It's basically impossible to see anything in the sky other than Jupiter here, because of the insane light pollution.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#46

Post by tuukkah »

devjab wrote: post #35
Roark66 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If anything the electricity markets in Europe prove the point they can work.

It sort of depends on what you mean by markets. In most places in Europe the production of power is on the market, but the actual power grid is not freely traded. The grid is instead handed out to semi-permanent monopolies that are heavily regulated and controlled by governments and/or non-profit NGOs that are essentially a way we do efficient government in the supply sector. It works, but the benefit isn’t usually t…

The grid is a natural monopoly, so it doesn't make sense to let private companies control it and a market wouldn't work.

Electricity production is not a monopoly and can work well as a market, but there needs to be oversight and rules for the trading.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#47

Post by cyberax »

asynchronous wrote: post #30
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.

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.

> The last design plans I saw one could fit within a single city block, buried under ground with only 1 story exposed.

This is a completely unrealistic plan, designed to lure investors.

An SMR meltdown will produce enough radioactive contamination to make a small city unlivable, at least for a while. So you'll need a full containment building. You'll need emergency generators, coolant pumps, etc.

Then you have a question of security, an easily accessible reactor will provide a great target for terrorism. So you'll need a perimeter around it with armed guards.

Then there's a question of control. A working reactor requires at least two trained nuclear engineers on duty at all times. So each reactor will likely need around 15 highly specialized engineers. That will have to live within a commuting distance.

Sounds bad already. But that's not all. There's also a question of inspections, something like the NRC can be reasonably expected to regulate several hundred reactors. They are not prepared to inspect many thousands of reactors. And the last thing I personally want is a "self-regulating" nuclear industry.

Any _realistic_ SMR power plant will look just like a regular large nuclear plant, except that it'll have multiple reactor units instead of just one large reactor.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#48

Post by cyberax »

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.

Rosatom is exporting nuclear power plants within budget and (mostly) on time.

It's simply a question of expertise and experience. The US and Europe have ignored nuclear power for so long, that most expertise was lost long ago. And each new nuclear power plant becomes a unique snowflake.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#49

Post by haakonhr »

cyberax wrote: post #41
hef19898 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, electricity markets in Europe work just fine, and provide in fact a lot of required stability. And income events are pretty much instantanious. The only problem European markets have is way too low costs for CO2 certificates which make coal plants way to cheap. Other than that, they work just fine.

Nope. They are not fine. Europe is floundering with its renewable transition. Right now it's easy to build tons of cheap low-quality wind or solar generation, but it's not economic to build any kind of storage. As a result, Europe is now dependent on natural gas and coal during the winter. And there's nothing that can change that within the next decade.

Aren't you saying the same thing? If externalities were priced appropriately, then storage probably would be a good investment.

Re: In Defense of Electricity Markets

#50

Post by everybodyknows »

andromeduck wrote: post #20
Animats wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Day ahead isn't enough. Need capacity markets & year ahead futures from what I remember last time I read up.

California providers are required to purchase "Resource Adequacy" contracts. Those that are badly managed try to dodge the expense, rather like operating a business without insurance:

https://thecoastnews.com/cpuc-issues-over-1-million-in-fines...

Post reply on HN