Science & Technology News

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

....The market has got to be the fundamental mechanism -- it's the only efficient way to allocate resources,....

The markets are an efficient mechanism to make profits for shareholders under "typical" circumstances. They are NOT an efficient mechanism to provide an essential service during a black swan event.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually the upfront cost is more than they want you or me for that matter to actually know.

While true you don't need to extract minerals to fuel it you do need vast quantities of rare earth minerals to manufacture it not to mention all the steel , polyester resin and the amount of concrete In its manufacture. Then there is the whole grave issue when it has outlived its 25 year expected lifecycle.

It's true that rare earths used in the magnets in wind generators are environmentally harmful, but amortize that harm overy the useful life of the turbine and it's a drop in the bucket compared to fossil fuel plants spewing out CO2 and all kinds of other crap day in and day out. It's not "vast quantities". Very much like the tiny quantity of nuclear waste compared to the amount of power generated (uranium has a million times the power density of oil). Do the math, and be reasonable about this.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The markets are an efficient mechanism to make profits for shareholders under "typical" circumstances. They are NOT an efficient mechanism to provide a reliable service during a black swan event.

By definition, a "black swan event" is something during which no mechanism provides reliable service.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

By definition, a "black swan event" is something during which no mechanism provides reliable service.

I disagree.

Societies plan for black swan events all the time. Fire stations; FEMA; health insurance; etc, etc, etc. But it works best if you don't have shareholders breathing down your neck for profits every quarter, which is why governments often have to fund and manage these types of entities. It's also why governments have to regulate "free markets." Free markets, on their own, typically try to become monopolies, which is great for shareholders, but terrible for innovation and society at large.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, no market. So what then -- Communism? I've lived in Communist countries -- no thanks.

The market has got to be the fundamental mechanism -- it's the only efficient way to allocate resources, and without efficiency we won't have the means to pull people out of poverty. Look at the Nordic countries for ways to let the market loose for the benefit of mankind, while protecting the weak from its rough edges.

Enron was massive, accounting-firm facilitated fraud -- not any paradigm for the market. The Texas energy crisis is caused by technical failings in the grid itself -- also not an example of failures of markets at all.

There’s a whole spectrum of regulatory possibilities between fully planned economy (eg communism, for example China, Cuba) and an almost completely free market (Hong Kong, Columbia, Singapore, Chile, Ireland, Iceland)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, no market. So what then -- Communism? I've lived in Communist countries -- no thanks.

I didn't say "no market"; I said " the market is NOT the best or only mechanism for managing energy resources". Market PLUS oversight is better. Or, for example, market freedom to set energy pricing that's delivered over a mandated grid.

Enron was massive, accounting-firm facilitated fraud -- not any paradigm for the market.

... but fraud is a risk of private for-profit energy management.

The Texas energy crisis is caused by technical failings in the grid itself -- also not an example of failures of markets at all.

The Texas system bet that "the market" would provide sufficient inducement for suppliers to put in just enough resilience because they would get handsome returns for being able to deliver high-priced power during peak demand or crisis. It's a bet the people of Texas LOST, big-time.

By definition, a "black swan event" is something during which no mechanism provides reliable service.

Except this wasn't really a black swan, it wasn't even the coldest Texas ever got. "The market" alone was simply too shortsighted to build in reasonable resilience.

[GordMay]

Fusion reactor set for fuel test run
A mini version of ITER, the world’s biggest nuclear-fusion experiment, is gearing up to start pivotal fuel tests. The Joint European Torus (JET), in Britain, is a sibling of the ITER project, in France: it has the same doughnut-shaped ‘tokomak’ design as the French project, but one-tenth of its volume.
In June, JET will try to fuse tritium and deuterium, the fuel mix that ITER will use. ITER aims to someday create more power from a fusion reaction, than is put in, something which has never before been demonstrated.

“Fuel for world’s largest fusion reactor ITER is set for test run”
“Nuclear fusion experiments with deuterium and tritium at the Joint European Torus are a crucial dress rehearsal for the mega-experiment...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00408-1

[GordMay]

What Texas teaches about our climate future
Winter storms that led to the widespread loss of power and water services in Texas have revealed the United States’ vulnerability to extreme weather. Everything from sewers to roads must be revitalized to keep pace with the changing climate, argue experts in energy, infrastructure and emergency management. “We are colliding with a future of extremes,” said Alice Hill, who oversaw planning for climate risks on the National Security Council during the administration of former president Barack Obama. “We base all our choices about risk management on what’s occurred in the past, and that is no longer a safe guide.”

“Texas Blackouts Point to Coast-to-Coast Crises Waiting to Happen”
More from NYT ➥ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/20/c...re-storms.html

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Wind power is not only cheaper, it's cheapest.

I wish someone would tell the Ontario government - our 7% of wind-made electrickery gives us the highest bills in the country. That's with the bulk of our production from hydro (60%) and nuclear (26%).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I wish someone would tell the Ontario government - our 7% of wind-made electrickery gives us the highest bills in the country. That's with the bulk of our production from hydro (60%) and nuclear (26%).

Gord forgot the new infrastructure needed to get that wind farm to market

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I wish someone would tell the Ontario government - our 7% of wind-made electrickery gives us the highest bills in the country. That's with the bulk of our production from hydro (60%) and nuclear (26%).

Cute, but not exactly true:

[Lodesman]

Sadly Mike, I trusted the information from your beloved CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...tudy-1.4212668

I feel that the Ontario rate reflected in your graph might be a tad misleading - Ontario has tiered time-of-use rates, so they've probably calculated a raw average, but the reality is most of us won't be up in the middle of the night cooking, doing our laundry, etc.

Also the Nunavut figure is a bit suspect given what the govt says about it:

Non-government residential customers are entitled to receive a subsidy for up to 700 kilowatt hours (kW.h) of electricity used each 30 day period from 1 April to 30 September and 1 000 kW.h of electricity used each 30 day period from 1 October to 31 March. In addition, public housing customers pay 6.0 ¢/kW.h throughout the year. This report uses the non-government subsidized residential rate of 29.28 ¢/kW.h for the time periods and kW.h identified above, after which the residential rate established for Iqaluit is used.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Sadly Mike, I trusted the information from your beloved CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...tudy-1.4212668

Reort by the Fraser Institute... says it all (i.e., garbage)...

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Reort by the Fraser Institute... says it all (i.e., garbage)...

Not only that, but the CBC report is for prices from between 2008-2016 and apparently is referencing mostly (?) increases for hydro prices.

"The report by the Fraser Institute, which used data from Statistics Canada, shows from 2008 to 2016 residential hydro costs in Ontario rose 71 per cent, while the average increase across Canada totalled 34 per cent."

Whilst the report that goes with the graph Mike posted references 2020 prices.

https://energyhub.org/wp-content/upl...anada-2020.pdf

Typical WAD cherry-picking and disinformation.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Sadly Mike, I trusted the information from your beloved CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...tudy-1.4212668

I feel that the Ontario rate reflected in your graph might be a tad misleading - Ontario has tiered time-of-use rates, so they've probably calculated a raw average, but the reality is most of us won't be up in the middle of the night cooking, doing our laundry, etc.

Stuff changes. The above CBC article links to another which discusses how the Ontario rates were cut, after the cited Fraser Institute study.


This infographic is as-of Sept 2020:





Tiered time-of-use rates are great, btw. They reduce domestic load peaks on the grid, and incentivize some basic conservation. For example, it's no hardship to start the dishwasher or the clothes-dryer just before we go to bed.