Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmilcin | Hacker News Reader

"Allowed price of electricity to soar". You mean, they have free market that responds to demand? Where is the socialism in it?

Also, what's up with throwing expletives?

View on HN

I think the OP meant lack of competition. Prices are controlled by one or two public utilities companies and I agree summer in Southern Europe kind of sucks these days with extreme heat and lack of air conditioning. I lived in Houston,TX where we used to have hot summer as well but it was bearable with air conditioning s as we would Just simply stay in

Markets don't have anything to do with capitalism/socialism. There are capitalist places without markets, and socialist places with them.

I am not Spanish but I still know how to read and use Google.

https://rightcasa.com/spanish-utilities-electricity,-gas-and...

"The main electricity companies in Spain include Grupo Endesa (the largest), Iberdrola, Union Fenosa and Hidrocantábrico. Like many other countries, the energy market has been completely opened up, allowing customers to choose which supplier they use (...)"

So, are they lying or not?

Over 50% of the electricity bill is taxes.

Example: https://www.iberdrola.es/webclipb/gc/prod/es_ES/estaticos/in...

So... you are complaining most of the bill goes back to the budget rather than to a private company?

Listen, your country needs to pay for infrastructure some way.

That money has to find its way from your pocket to the budget, there are no miracles here.

At least with electricity bill you have option to use less electricity and pay less taxes. Would you like it to be levied on some things you can't decide to use less?

If you think your country costs too much, vote for people that promise to make the government cost less.

The cost of the infrastructure is not part of the >50% of taxes you pay. It's in the other part. You'd know that if you read the screenshot I posted.

And saying you have the option of using less electricity. Really laughable, sorry. I guess I'll turn off my refrigerator.

We have a goverment'regulated and an unregulated market. Often the regulated power contract is cheaper on the long term.

Man, your region couldn´t barely stay alive in Winter due to hard power shortages. The issue in Spain it´s like a Texas ultra-light version of that.

As I stated in the tread the Spanish goverment regulated power contract is the cheapest option compared to the ones in the free market, and companies have to comply by law so they can offer a regulated contract to the customer. It´s mandatory, but the sad story here is that not everyone is aware of that and power contracts are hard as fuck to understand. Now they even printed math summatories to ¨explain¨ the power spending to the ¨common folk¨ as if everyone got a pre-calculus diploma. Kafquesque.

To be fair, Texas is roughly in the same latitude as Sahara - a winter like the last one is basically once-in-a-lifetime occurence. Kind of makes sense not to prepare for it.

It most certainly does not make sense not to prepare for it when scientists have been telling you this issue will be coming for a few decades now.

Key words - prepare, and will be coming

To paraphrase famous saying from the stock markets: climate scientists predicted 50 of the last 2 severe winters. At some point you get the "boy that cried wolf" problem.

While you're missing the point,

What was the $ damages/lost due to the recent grid failure vs the $ for the winterization of the wind & nat gas plants?

Don't really care about exact numbers, ratio of the two is fine. I'm sure an obvious statement will be seen in said ratio.

You would have to compare against the cost of all predicted climate-related trends, not just the ones that hindsight has validated you about. Go back and find all the wrong predictions, and lump in their preparatory or prophylactic costs if you're interested in a true apples:apples comparison.

No, I wouldn't, because I'm talking about the very recent decision to not winterize the Texas grid, even though all of the data presented pointed to the fact it would be a very good idea to winterize it.

Specifically the Texas grid is what I'm talking about, I care not about anything else you may feel the need to refer to

1) Quite a motte and bailey maneuver you're pulling here, given the broad scope of your earlier comments.

2) Merely saying "it could have been different" is not an argument, unfortunately. What you refer to was 10 years ago, when the TX legislature made the decision to recommend electric grids be made more weather-resistant, instead of requiring it. Many electric cos did those upgrades. Most people would consider that actually a pretty good outcome given that this is a one-in-a-decade type of event.

> Quite a motte and bailey maneuver you're pulling here, given the broad scope of your earlier comments.

You're accusing me of not knowing what I was referring to when I posted something.

Both the parent, and grandparent, of which I replied to, are mentioning Texas. Grandparent, broadly, parent, much more specifically. With the recent cold snap in Texas, I presume all context is there to make it clear I was speaking of Texas, specifically.

Anyways - 10 years... yeah, that is well within the realm of what I'm talking about. If it were say, more than 25 years ago when it was highly recommended to winterize grids, perhaps I would relent.

I hope you do not venture into local/state politics, because your type of thinking is how these bad things happen.

Wrong predictions like what? If you're preparing for hundred-year weather, there's not much that will actually be "wrong" unless you really screw up your math. And it's mostly just hot, cold, and flood, isn't it? And some of the preparations will be shared.

I assure you that doing something like installing ACs in every home in Seattle would incur a massive cost, and it is not guaranteed that such a measure would ever be necessary at any point in the next 100 years.

What does that have to do with power grid failures?

Also having AC, even if it's not necessary, can be very useful.

"Seattle averages 24 days a year when the thermometer reaches into the 80s °F (over 27 °C). The temperature typically climbs to 90 °F (32 °C) on just one or two days a year."

That's high enough to cause a serious reduction in productivity/enjoyment. If the average person is exposed to those temperatures for 3 hours a day as a lack of home AC, and loses 10% of that time, that's 7 hours a summer. Multiply by minimum wage and it only takes a summer and a half to meet the cost of a window AC unit. Which should last a long time if it's only used one month a year.

> a winter like the last one is basically once-in-a-lifetime occurence

This will be interesting to watch. Any description of weather events that relates them to time (eg 1 in 100 years) seems to be massively wrong and getting less accurate each year.

If I read the IPCC report correctly, the extreme heatwaves will increase in likelihood while the extreme “cold waves” will actually decrease. So it’s not clear if this will become more common.

Didn't it happen 10 years ago already? And in the aftermath it was reported it will happen again and the network needs to be prepared better next time?

> a pre-calculus diploma

Isn't that high school?

You would defend a free market that kills people as long as it makes more money?

And if you can't swear when people are fucking dying then when would be more appropriate?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com