The part that winds people up is their vested interests and attachments. If you work in a coal mine or near a plant, this informs your biases.
If you own a lot of stock in a wind energy company, same story.
The people who make the decisions are often influenced by this garbage, or their parties are, so they are.
If we had unbiased technocrats competently running the show and regulations based on something like reality, the answer would be pretty close to a French generation mix everywhere - mostly nuclear with some gas speakers.
Some places would need more gas peakers for extreme weather events, others would need less. Some places with extraordinarily boring weather might do with more storage and less gas.
Pretty good. The modification I'd make is replace the "SCC" with "trajectory of tax rate on net CO2 emissions that achieves optimum CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." [Sorry that it's harder to say.]
An optimal (for an individual) CO2 tax trajectory would lead to that individual's optimum grid, only in an otherwise textbook perfectly competitive economy. That's not what we have. Nuclear's overwhelming problem is not a lack of a CO2 tax, but a hopelessly misdirected regulatory system. Your spitting model won't solve the biggest problem.
Sorry for the mis-understanding. I meant the individual applying their values to the estimation of the trajectory that led to a global optimum, not their personal optimum.
I don't see the need to decide whihc is the bigger obstacle, regulation or incentive ... except that regulation that properly trades off the benefit from CO2 emission reduction with other goals is itself dependent on the value of CO2 reduction. In effect it's a simultaneous equation.
It's the same as adaption. How much we need to adapt is a function of the accumulation but the optimal amount of accumulation itself depend in part on the cost of adapting.
To solve the Gordian knot we need should-cost nuclear. Should-cost nuclear does not need a CO2 tax and if we had one and and the current regulatory system,it would not help nuclear at all.
I translate that into the claim that if nuclear and other energy generating technologies were properly regulated (leading to their "should cost") the tax on net co2 emissions needed to optimize CO2 concentration would be zero.
That could be the result of the model given the right parameters.
Always entertaining and insightful!
The part that winds people up is their vested interests and attachments. If you work in a coal mine or near a plant, this informs your biases.
If you own a lot of stock in a wind energy company, same story.
The people who make the decisions are often influenced by this garbage, or their parties are, so they are.
If we had unbiased technocrats competently running the show and regulations based on something like reality, the answer would be pretty close to a French generation mix everywhere - mostly nuclear with some gas speakers.
Some places would need more gas peakers for extreme weather events, others would need less. Some places with extraordinarily boring weather might do with more storage and less gas.
"gas peakers" not "gas speakers" derp.
Pretty good. The modification I'd make is replace the "SCC" with "trajectory of tax rate on net CO2 emissions that achieves optimum CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." [Sorry that it's harder to say.]
Thomas,
Two very different concepts. An individual's effective SCC is a distillation of his values. A CO2 tax is a mechanism for implementing those values.
I'd see that as the individual values feeding into the parameters of the model that spits out [ionically simplifying] the trajectory of tax rates.
An optimal (for an individual) CO2 tax trajectory would lead to that individual's optimum grid, only in an otherwise textbook perfectly competitive economy. That's not what we have. Nuclear's overwhelming problem is not a lack of a CO2 tax, but a hopelessly misdirected regulatory system. Your spitting model won't solve the biggest problem.
Sorry for the mis-understanding. I meant the individual applying their values to the estimation of the trajectory that led to a global optimum, not their personal optimum.
I don't see the need to decide whihc is the bigger obstacle, regulation or incentive ... except that regulation that properly trades off the benefit from CO2 emission reduction with other goals is itself dependent on the value of CO2 reduction. In effect it's a simultaneous equation.
It's the same as adaption. How much we need to adapt is a function of the accumulation but the optimal amount of accumulation itself depend in part on the cost of adapting.
I may have to implement a word salad rule.
To solve the Gordian knot we need should-cost nuclear. Should-cost nuclear does not need a CO2 tax and if we had one and and the current regulatory system,it would not help nuclear at all.
I translate that into the claim that if nuclear and other energy generating technologies were properly regulated (leading to their "should cost") the tax on net co2 emissions needed to optimize CO2 concentration would be zero.
That could be the result of the model given the right parameters.
Maybe as educated people, we should just stop demonising Carbon and CO2, stop playing the globalist scam?