←back to thread

193 points leymed | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.677s | source
Show context
fuoqi ◴[] No.44359889[source]
[flagged]
replies(7): >>44359974 #>>44360016 #>>44360080 #>>44360349 #>>44361806 #>>44363227 #>>44363325 #
pdpi ◴[] No.44360080[source]
What I'm reading from that quote is that the issue wasn't renewables as such, but an issue of power generation reacting too quickly and too intensely to price fluctuations. "Renewables" only matter insofar as they're the sort of generation that, under the current regulatory regime, get to react to those pricing changes.
replies(4): >>44360277 #>>44360379 #>>44360461 #>>44361821 #
baq ◴[] No.44360379[source]
The report goes to great lengths to avoid certain words or phrases. The market failed here, it didn’t price in risk of grid collapse correctly.
replies(2): >>44360554 #>>44361562 #
Yeask ◴[] No.44360554[source]
That is a simple and great explanation.
replies(1): >>44361393 #
plorg ◴[] No.44361393[source]
It's also just unfounded conspiracism and factually incorrect.
replies(1): >>44361513 #
mlyle ◴[] No.44361513[source]
> It's also just unfounded conspiracism

I don't see that.

> and factually incorrect.

Then substantiate your point.

Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for-- not just production.

replies(2): >>44361836 #>>44361912 #
1. rcxdude ◴[] No.44361836[source]
Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for, sometimes, but whether they pay enough and validate that they're actually getting it is another thing. One core thing the report highlights is that many of the plants on the grid didn't do what they were required (and being paid) to do.