blake1

Yeah, but the standard deviation goes by sqrt(n) for many operations, and there is significant autocorrelation. Interval arithmetic will give you worst-case bounds, which will quickly get fantastically pessimistic.

Numerical analysis was a field invented to give realistic error bounds.

It's still useful in options with very long maturities. Then the law of large numbers becomes important, and the vol smile flattens out over decades. These aren't listed, but are occasionally traded over-the-counter or embedded in some financial contracts, like executive stock options, insurance contracts, or convertible bonds.

All good points. All I would add is that it costs money to flatten the delta every day, or delta hedging your option. Each time the stock changes direction, you pay the bid-ask spread. The number of times this happens is proportional in some way to the volatility—that free variable you mentioned—so you can speculate that the market's number is too high or low.

If the market is too high on volatility: sell the option and you'll end up paying less in delta-hedging costs.

If that market is too low on volatility: do the opposite.

It actually is pretty easy to predict the future, in a limited sense, a decade out: the cost of new technologies generally follows an exponentially declining “learning” curve. This has been extremely well studied in the case of the aircraft and semiconductor industries, and is the subject of hundreds/thousands of articles. Of course, some conditions must be met—hence the articles—like plentiful inputs, lack of monopoly power, and government (dis)incentives, but we’d see evidence of these constraining battery tech by now.

The input variable is the cumulative number of units, and of course we can’t be exact about the trajectory of that number, but we can infer from X MWh manufactured -> $/MWh.

Not that old-school. It’s not depreciated or anything.

Government agents show up at the data center and confiscate the servers in the mining pool. The coerce the owners into turning over the login credentials.

Or they just deploy their own mining pool.

Or the just tax all of their citizens’ cryptos.

They have lots of options, since they have the power of the state behind them.

I’ve actually been using dotnet 5 on Linux recently. It’s been really successful, and to your question; I put performance critical bits in a .so with which I can use pinvoke. Speaks to the power of C, really because there’s been amazingly, no issues with ABI or strict layout or anything.

This can be especially bad if one corner hides a catastrophe. Any automatic method is likely to have an exponential struggle to sample appropriately. At a certain point, you just need to apply your own understanding of the problem you are trying to solve, and resort to an ad hoc method to do the “right” thing.

To be very specific: if you’re not comfortable with implied teenage suicide and incest, give the show a pass.

Also, it’s very confusing at the end, for the reasons mentioned above.

This is about gravitomagnetism. It would be beautiful if someone who studies electromagnetism in a turbulent plasma explain dark matter away. But these efforts always flounder on the bullet cluster results. I’m not going to get excited until I can see how those data are disposed of.

I wouldn’t be so sure. We have experience with fast chargers, and know how fast and what it costs for EV fast charging.

But how would a H2 fueling station work? Customers would have to make an extremely tight coupling, and while the compressors pressurize the customers tank. I expect that will take longer then petroleum refueling. And the cost? The bill will have to compensate the fueling station for same fairly exotic tech.

We know fuel cell technology works, and it may have a really important niche. I don’t think we can assume it will be able to compete with EVs on cost and charging time.

For your first question: in the TX power market, power producing companies contribute to a fund which will cover for losses if any participant defaults.

Even with that little detail, the rest of your comment seems spot-on. These power producers did not have enough incentive to deal with big problems, because the short term profits mattered more than potential future losses. That’s explicitly at the philosophical core of the TX power market, which is opposed to mandates, and relied on desire for profits and pressure from peers (peers that don’t want to pay extra into that fund) to encourage good behavior.

It’s unclear if that fund will be sufficient to cover all the losses. May yet need a bailout, which is indeed socialization of the losses.

EVs will have cheaper up-front costs within 3 years for a in-city car, and by 2030 for longer-range models, according to most honest research.

They are already cheaper for TCO, unless you add the artificial constraint that it is only charged at a “public fast-charger...in Europe.”

Biggest issue is cost of level 2 home chargers and apartment resident charging.

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV_cost...

Just look at the first image on the Wikipedia page, showing the extent of the blackout. This is far smaller than the footprint of the eastern interconnect. The control software at the time made some simplifying approximations which left the grid vulnerable to problems cascading between operators. I do not think they have quite the same problem anymore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003

I am in MISO, which roughly runs up the Mississippi River, and borders TX. They have some real-time data available publicly.

https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time-...

This is incorrect. MISO, the system to the north and east of TX, has capacity. The DC ties cannot handle it. You can see this by checking the price signals on their page. Right now, the TX hub is about $1,000 but the MS hub is about $60.

https://api.misoenergy.org/MISORTWD/lmpcontourmap.html

AC transmission absolutely does work over large distances. It’s just not a point-to-point system.

Imagine four cities in a row, all connected with AC. City A generates extra power, which gets sucked up by city B, whose power goes to the next city down the line, to city Z.

Sure, it’s not actually that simple, but when was the last time NY literally had no power? They benefit from being highly connected.

TX is paying for being isolated.

Their handful of DC interconnects do not have the capacity to power their mini grid. They’re short 35GW of generation, and I assume the DC ties are at capacity.

There likely is a climate change effect. Polar vortexes have been making deeper incursions into North America because of increased turbulence in the atmosphere, driven by the overall energy level.

This about a pot, slowly boiling. As it gets hotter, it swirls more.

They were eventually given the right to “print” EUR. One of the many problems with the euro system that periphery countries have unfortunately been subjected too.

I think it is about the money. It will definitely be about the debts, which were unwittingly taken on by everyone who bought on margin at these levels. The price will collapse.

The other bad assumption in this article is thinking the hedge funds are on one side of this. Some hedge funds made fortunes in the short squeeze.

I scrapped my model year 2007 car when the engine block broke. The labor on replacing that exceeded the value of the car.

They absolutely do have these associated costs.

Robust electricity networks? The US has spent trillions on transmission networks in the era dominated by coal.

Dispatchable power plants? We’ve had both base-load and peaker plants for decades. Indeed, base load gas is cost-competitive with solar now. But all base-load gen is so slow to start up and shut down that peakers can charge 2-3 orders of magnitude more per MWh.

Storage technologies? Given the exorbitant cost of peaker power, pumped storage has been in use for decades.

Demand response has also made sense for decades, but we’ve lacked the technology and market structures to make it a reality until recently. It was introduced before renewables had real market share.

In short: yes, renewables require these technologies. So does fossil-fuel generation. The IEA’s bias is showing if they’re implying that this is unique to one technology.

Of course, our current system is optimized around the characteristics of huge fossil plants, and a lot of capital will be required to optimize it around a different technology. These investments are worth it if you consider the externalities of carbon emissions. If you do it correctly, and include extreme weather costs, we should try to get to a zero emissions ASAP.

But even if you ignore externalities, as you appear to be doing, renewables are now so much cheaper that there is no economic reason to replace obsolete generation with non renewables. Under this approach, we’ll still get to 100% renewable in 40-50 years.

I disagree with a lot of this, except the conclusion.

The economy never came close to a “total shutdown.” In most places, the overwhelming majority of jobs were classified as essential—maybe 2/3rds—even while certain sectors did shut down. You can look at various stats, but a very simple one is the output gap, estimated to be 6%, which is potential GDP minus actual. This is a fair proxy for how shut down the economy was. The severe shutdowns were relatively brief.

Mostly, we massively changed the mix of activities we engage in, substituting relatively cleaner ones for more polluting ones. Maybe you purchased more manufactured goods and used more electricity, while driving less. A different conclusion from yours is that simple behavior changes—like more telework—can have significant impacts on emissions.

It proves that we can cut emissions without living a prehistoric lifestyle. And given that renewable energy sources are cheaper than polluting ones, this gives me reason to be optimistic.

The only one of these links which focuses on Democrats is the first one. Assuming the highly-edited video fairly represents the speakers’ contexts, they are calling for street demonstrations. If the events on the 6th had remained in the streets, we would be in a very different place. None of your links has anyone, much less a democrat, calling for the forcible occupation and disruption of a major part of the government.

I do think some of the rhetoric from some Democrats was unwisely heated over the summer. This week was different.

Please provide a source for your claim that Democrats encouraged riots. To the best of my recollection, no one encouraged riots, except for extremist groups like the “boogaloo boys.” Certainly no mainstream political party encouraged violence this summer.

I’d you want, I will provide a source that Republicans encouraged violence this year.

The US consumes about 4 PWh/year, so bitcoin isn't comparable with the nation as a whole. However, that is more power consumption than many individual states, so your overall point remains completely valid.

I do lots of simulation, and make extremely heavy use of SIMD.

The second is analyzing the law, and finding a provision that conflicts with a provision of the constitution. It’s not very formal, but it’s more than opinion.

It’s not quite that pure. If there are self-contradictions in the constitution, then that gives them some choice about what to compare the law to. They ought to balance that appropriately, but their biases surely creep in.

Have you ever read a warrant application? I have read a few, and they love to use the phrase "information and belief" to persuade the judge.

That's just a fancy way of saying "speculate," and judges don't seem to object.

We should see when the warrant application becomes public.

That volatility can be dealt with by distributing the renewables geographically. It’ll be sunny or windy somewhere. This requires overbuilding, which is currently cheaper that storage, and the average generation is highly predictable for day-ahead or hour-ahead trading. My rule of thumb is you can supply 70% of demand economically today without long distance transmission.

Search for “overbuilding renewables,” e.g. https://energycentral.com/c/em/overbuilding-curtailing-renew...

This still leaves room for hydro and nuclear.

The negative costs are borne by the owners of generating units that generate excess power when net demand falls. Solar can ramp down in milliseconds, windmills in minutes, CCGT can take hours, and nuclear takes days.

But what if we did add long distance transmission? Look at the US west of the Mississippi. I once estimated the capital cost of powering today’s demand using 100% renewables without storage.

That’s approximately $200bn in generation + $100bn for overcapacity.

The transmission system was mainly built to serve the legacy coal generators, but that’s often not where the best renewable resources are located. I estimated $40-80 billion for transmission.

That sounds like a lot, but 25% of the generation has already been spent. The cost of fuel for the gas generators, which is part of the LCOE, is on par with those numbers.

My biggest criticism of the Lazard study you mention is that it understates the cost of hedging fuel volatility costs.