ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
46% Positive
Analyzed from 1195 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#market#more#model#should#system#capacity#don#same#plants#article
Discussion (19 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
And ISOs/RTOs/TSOs operate in complex political environments and have to ensure reliability in adverserial markets. They are often constraint in what they can/can't do.
What I will say is that their modelling should absolutely be open and transparent, and typically it's not. That would make necessary discussions around modelling assumptions, potential improvements and political constraints much much easier and more fruitful.
[1] That said, my intuition is that current outages are probably not due to supply insufficiency, but due to transmission system failures.
That was not clear in the article.
That could have been prevented by simply not permitting connections in certain parts of the network. Yes, theoretically it could also have been prevented by forcing generators to directly bear re-dispatch costs which would have led developers to build a different set of generating assets. This would have been a different set of market mechanisms.
However, if generation decisions had been made centrally, they would have been made by the same system operators, regulators, and governments that mandated the construction of the current system and they would have therefore built the same system more or less. Do you really think that if e.g. Germany or the GB network had been centrally planned by their respective government mandated regulators and system operators, they wouldn't have put all those windfarms exactly where the market-led model we actually have has put them?
This is anti-scientific woo. Both theoretically and empirically market-based electricity systems are much more efficient, that's why even China is adopting one: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chin...
This is hilarious coming from someone defending a concept that assumes neither thermodynamics nor Maxwell's laws exist.
> Both theoretically
When making preposterous hypothesis you can prove literally anything to be efficient.
> and empirically
Ah yes, like the PJM and the European market are “empirically efficient”.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/the-excel-error-heard-round...
It also reminds me of the flaws in the London epidemiological model about how to respond to covid.
It just may be that these things should be reviewed a little closer by people who are obsessive about correctness
No amount of review is enough. As anyone who's worked in quant science will attest, a model that hasn't repeatedly made correct out-of-sample predictions is most likely worthless, as it's far far easier to overfit a model to data than to predict the future.
That one was fun. I got into an argument with a scientist who was (IIRC) working with or for the specific professor that made that mess, and he blamed the entire software engineering/computer science industry for making C++ too hard to use, and said it should never have been released if mistakes like this could be made. And then accused me of gatekeeping when I said perhaps they should get an expert to look over this stuff before submitting results to governments to form a policy basis.
The attitude seemed to be "I am a scientist and am clearly very smart, and therefore anything you do must be trivial in comparison. If I can't pick up in seconds what takes you years to learn and more years to perfect, you've clearly done it all wrong and it's your fault."
Whilst these sorts of analyses are informative, they lack answers to the who profits? question.
The intention of the payments is to increase revenue for that kind of power generation capability to encourage more such plants be constructed.
The argument in the article is dubious to me. Of course the higher price isn’t leading to more generation today, that’s not the point, the point is to reward developers that build and built capacity CA needs in winter. The disagreement then becomes which model is correct about how much capacity is actually needed.. but the fact that a tiny move in demand moves the price so substantially seems to me to undermine the entire premise of the blog post, clearly supply is severely constrained?
I’m not a quant, and I’ve worked energy trading desks long enough to know there is a lot I don’t understand.. but I don’t see how separating auctions by plant age does anything other than move numbers around while keeping the total bill the same. Plants still need the same lifetime revenue to make investment decisions pencil out; whether you front-load payments or spread them evenly, the total in current value needs to be the same.
I know how I feel about this - I much prefer price signals here; it allows any developer that can meet the spec to build energy production - distributed decision making over centralized decree - and it allows the other side of the equation, consumers, to decide they'd rather not pay for this generation: Curtail demand rather than increase supply.
Like - maybe I don't want to pay energy prices this high, I can choose to insulate my house better or get a heat pump and thus reduce my electrical bill. The price signal lets everyone in the market choose how to act, rather than a central authority declaring we must build, say, more gas turbines and share the cost of that across rate payers.
But, there are people much, much smarter than I that completely disagree with this position. In the end I think the answer is how you feel about human nature, the capability and shortfalls of markets and the complexity of deciding how societies' resources should be allocated.