Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spooky23 | Hacker News Reader

Solar is awesome in that yield scales with load peaks.

The problem with nuclear is an example of why deregulation was stupid. As a society of electricity consumers, we are sitting on lawn chairs on a railroad track with an electric train approaching us. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that electric cars are ramping up and will displace the current fleet, and equally obvious that that operating model (plug in your car at night) will increase base load requirements.

So because we've detached planning from electrical generation and distribution, we have 50 different sets of cartels optimizing for short term returns on the spot market. The various electrical shit-shows in California and Texas are like failed-state levels of dysfunction. North of NYC, electrical supply rates are up 50% because we turned off a massive reactor complex and replaced it with volatile natural gas. We're decommissioning nuclear at a point in time just before we need it, environmentalists were bought by gas extraction people and Wall St. accounting is very bad at dealing with capital assets with 50-100 year lifecycles.

If you think about it the "energy storage" problem is absurd. Installing millions of inefficient distributed battery cells in potentially millions of buildings, for want of adequate electrical generation is beyond dumb, and the scale of waste and wasted value is staggering. It is solely a byproduct of a market designed to maximize producer profit.

View on HN

> We're decommissioning nuclear at a point in time just before we need it, environmentalists were bought by gas extraction people and Wall St.

It’s insane that the environmentalist movement is inadvertently supporting the fossil fuel industry due to their traditional stance on nuclear. Modern civilisation requires reliable base load and nuclear seems like the only viable option which satisfies both the reliability and globally accepted environmentally sustainable goals.

The environmental movement is 9/10ths feelings, and 1/10th science. A lot of environmentalists just don't like rural people so they do things like rail on and on about pickup trucks whilest on a plane bound for a European vacation. That three eyed fish on the Simpsons probably resulted in thousands of deaths due to the environmental folks choosing coal over nuclear. The goal is good vibes, not results.

> A lot of environmentalists just don't like rural people so they do things like rail on and on about pickup trucks

What? I don't think there are many environmentalists who "don't like rural people" and have a problem with pickup trucks used where they're appropriate ( like on a farm). In a country like the US, they're often abused as a suburban vehicle, which is a preposterous waste which deserves railing on against.

The beauty of attacking a caricature of an environmentalist is that you can be as judgemental as you want about a fictional judgemental person.

You can then safely lump that caricature in the same bucket as people with actual policy proposals, and ignore the latter outright.

You may change my view today, but I have yet to meet a person who is passionate about pickup truck use, who will also decry air travel as a similar waste. I'm sure people like that exist, but I bet a lot of them don't use computers.

I'm right here thank you very much

Here as well. I'm even against SUVs which are the environmentally unfriendly car of choice here in Germany.

I applaud all of you for consistency in your opinions. I don't do either myself if it matters. (This applies to the sibling comments as well)

There's a reason why US produce over 2x CO2 per capita than EU, and cheap flights like Ryanair are extremely heavy used here.

Hello! I use computers too much and decry air travel as massive waste as well as pickups. I've done so for a long time and most of my friends agree, and also use computers a lot.

Yep, the vast majority of trucks I see in my city are spotless and probably only used for commuting. It's far less environmentally and financially costly to drive around town with a car, but for whatever reason a lot people think that commuting in a truck is cooler so that's what they burn their money on. Some absurd percent of 4x4 vehicles, like 90%, have never been driven off road.

Conversely, there's a lot of overlap between environmentalists and people who like to go outside and get off the beaten path. Driving in remote areas a lot pretty much necessitates having a truck. I've never heard any animosity from environmentalists towards truck owners who actually use their truck for truck things.

Ahhh yes, the "for my cause and values it's OK and worth it, but for yours, not so much".

Even in this example alone you neglected to consider the number of trucks that are used to tow something. Say you need (or want!) to tow a heavy trailer once a month or every other month. Should you buy one vehicle that can do this, and then use it to commute 90% of the time, or should you buy two vehicles, and let one sit around unused most of the time?

Now what about the person that needs to haul some things? Surely a small trailer + SUV is superior to a truck? Not so fast: gotta store that trailer and be comfortable with it. My guess is for 95% of people, a truck for utility purposes is far superior.

Finally, newer trucks are actually surprisingly efficient. I just got 22mpg 360 miles round trip in my full ton pickup truck. Been shopping for minivans, aside from the rare hybrid minivan, they only get around 26mpg on highway.

> Should you buy one vehicle that can do this, and then use it to commute 90% of the time, or should you buy two vehicles, and let one sit around unused most of the time

Or maybe rent a vehicle if it's only for towing once every other month.. Unless renting costs upwards of 1k, it'd be many years before buying makes sense for usage once every other month.

In these types of conversations someone always brings up the idea of renting a vehicle instead of owning one that can do what you want to do "once a month". Renting a truck or SUV that can tow a decent amount of weight is expensive, if you can find it, and the friction of finding, renting, insuring, picking up, loading the truck, unloading, dropping off, dealing with things when you ding the vehicle, means you mostly won't do that activity. Once a year, rental makes sense. Once a month, nope.

This is where local swap or friend groups come in - there's certainly value being "The Guy With A Truck" if you're regularly lending it to people you know who need to do their one monthly thing.

e.g. I have a small fiesta - that's (nearly) perfect for my general use case, which is me commuting on my own, maybe a friend or two going out for lunch or whatever.

But a friend down the road has a jeep, I borrow that for camping (when I'm not going with them anyway) - same with "bulk" costco trips, or stopping by a landscaping store for garden stuff.

That makes it easier for him to justify keeping the jeep, especially as I'm not the only person who regularly takes advantage of it, while keeping costs down (I pay in gas and beer, no rental corporation skimming profits off the top).

Even regular cars get to the point of renting being too expensive vs. buying. Quite regularly.

I've been using carnextdoor.com.au for years when ever my motorbikes weren't enough to get around.

But if you're renting a car even for 1-2 days a week, it quickly cost as much it would have had for running costs and purchasing a car outright. The numbers below are all AUD.

I'm about to pick up a new Ute (Dmax XTerrain) thats going to cost $238 per week over 5 years for finance. With running costs on top of that I'm budgeting for $400 per week.

That's a rental car for 1.5-2 days.

Carnextdoor and rentals made sense when I didn't need a car weekly, just monthly. The new Ute is relatively inexpensive to run (4 cylinder turbo diesel), it's big, big compared to cars from Europe, not big for the US I'm sure.

But for me it definitely made sense to get a 4x4 that services all my needs rather than a 4x4 and another small car.

Admittedly I go camping a lot so my needs are a little different. And I have dogs now so going camping on my motorbikes isn't much of an option now.

Those are terrible mileage numbers for a modern gas vehicle, let's be clear. I recently averaged 37mpg with a 200hp VW in Comfort mode on a trip up and down CA 101.

Pretty dang good for an 8500lb vehicle with a 14,500lbs towing capacity! Again, better than owning two special purpose vehicles.

I guess I wasn't clear, but what I meant by "using trucks for truck things" I meant things you can do with a truck but not a car. Towing, moving construction supplies around, and other such tasks are all valid reasons to own a truck since you can't practically do that with a car.

On the other hand, commuting through a city can be done just as well or better by a car in every sense. 22mpg is terrible mileage compared to a modern car and the fact that it seems good reinforces my point of how wasteful it is to commute in a truck.

Is it really that common to need to haul/tow stuff? I live in Europe, and the only people I know who need this regularly are tradespeople. Most people I know don't even have a car at all!

Also, 22mpg efficient. You gotta be kidding me. You should getting at least 35mpg before you can call yourself efficient. A Vauxhall Zafira (MPV) can do 41mpg. A smart car can do 67mpg.

Depends. Come live out west on some acreage, own a tractor, build stuff, etc. Pretty easy to end up in the place where it makes sense. All my neighbors have large trucks and a "legitimate" reason for them, as long as you consider living the life you want to live on the size of property you want to have, legitimate.

I’m not opposed to people living the life they want to live, but I do feel like environmental concerns should be figured in, and energy usage prioritised to the areas you care most about rather than just “it doesn’t matter how much energy I use if I’m doing something I want to do”

100% in agreement. Fuel should be much more expensive and should find remediation efforts as well as investigating / building out alternatives. The problem that I struggle with is that disproportionately harms poor people. I can afford to fill my tank at 10 bucks a gallon, my mom with a 35mpg Honda who commutes to her job from a suburb can’t.

The real problem is energy production. So completely asinine to push for fleet electrification while base load is provided by coal and natural gas.

> The problem that I struggle with is that disproportionately harms poor people

I think the answer here is more general support for the poor. Progressive taxation, public transport, etc. That's politically difficult in the US of course. But it's surely the solution.

> The real problem is energy production.

That and energy consumption. IIRC the US consumes ~2x the energy per capita compared to Europe. Yes, we need greener production, but we could also do a lot by reducing consumptions.

Climate change disproportionately harms poor people. Environmental degradation in general disproportionately harms poor people.

Everything disproportionately harms poor people. It's practically the definition. To be poor is to have little power. So for any X you have less to bring to bear to avoid it.

Great, as long as you pay for the externalities of your choices.

They make you feel safer because you're in a bigger vehicle and higher off the road. Ironically they tend to roll more easily so are often more dangerous.

Very few people use them for "going off the beaten path" and would faint if you suggested them taking their freshly waxed lift kit truck down a dirt road where gravels flung back might hit their gorgeous paint job lol. Yeah I live in Texas and I know this as a fact. 90% of truck owners in the USA don't need a truck (no I'm not talking about commercial trucks so don't "whatabout" that)

The embedded energy of a second vehicle won't be made up for in a 10-20mpg improvement, except in very very niche cases.

The lifetime amount of fuel/electricity used by a vehicle generally accounts for only half of the total energy. The other half is in it's manufacturing and disposal/recycling.

And there's additional lost efficiency than just the mileage, because you're using twice the embedded energy and presumably aren't doubling the amount of driving you're doing.

Maybe rentals or sharing schemes work in some cases, but they present their own inefficiencies, like less than perfect allocation, and transferring vehicles back and forth for each switch.

But for the majority of cases, it's much more environmentally friendly to own one single vehicle that meets all of your needs, even if it's relatively inefficient.

The most efficient vehicle for any particular person is usually the one that's already been built. (Which is why cash for clunkers was actually a bailout with negative environmental impacts, despite its branding of improved efficiency.)

Why not? both cars will last roughly twice as long. Meaning if you can live with owning your cars twice as long there should be no extra embedded energy needed. (And one of the cars could even be an electric one you charge using ample solar powet

Because you're sitting on that embedded energy, at the opportunity cost of someone else not being able to use it.

So it's additional supply of both material and embedded energy that otherwise could go to someone else, or wouldn't need to be spent until you were sending you old car off to be salvaged.

There's a time value to it as well, just like with amortized financials.

Think of it this way: if everyone used that strategy, we'd have twice as big of a vehicle market, requiring twice as much material and energy.

Even if you expect each vehicle to last twice as long, it all has to be paid for with capital costs up front. Both your cash out of pocket, as well as manufacturing capacity and energy/resource extraction.

You might get effective use efficiency of 50% for twice as long, but the overall cost in dollars, energy, and emissions is much greater because of amortization.

I don't disagree really.

They focus on ideal outcomes over what we can realistically accomplish - I've had plenty of discussions where people just ignore the trillions in infrastructure we have baked into steel and concrete, as well as people habits and lifestyle - folks honestly seem to think that with enough political will you can just turn all of that off in 2-5 years.

As with everything in society, we didn't get here overnight, and turning a vast ship takes time.

It would be super easy to turn off all fossil fuels. Just flick the switch and make do with what electricity generation is left. The question is just how much we're willing to pay. Taking most of civilization offline is a bit much to ask, obviously, so flicking the switch is off the table. That said, we could probably do it in less than 5 years of wartime effort.

You made my point for me.

I would gladly join a more scientific environmental movement but I haven't found one. And I looked

This is just a completely imaginary attack on people you oppose. A textbook example of a "strawman argument".

The problems of pollution, climate change, etc are real. The science is clear.

Please don't make up an imaginary bad actor who has bad motivations for why they want to solve or improve some of these problems. This is a rhetoric device designed to distract people from the problems and solutions by getting them to dislike, distrust or hate the people trying to help.

Sorry but this is one of the least productive and silliest comments I’ve seen on here for a long time…

>nuclear seems like the only viable option which satisfies both the reliability and globally accepted environmentally sustainable goals.

Hydro?

Hydro is great, but is very limited in terms of viable locations.

Hydro causes massive environment destruction, takes up a large amount of area (typically the most agriculturally productive area at that), and can't just be thrown down anywhere.

> It’s insane that the environmentalist movement is inadvertently supporting the fossil fuel industry due to their traditional stance on nuclear.

The environmentalist movement, anti-nuke section, had little to nothing to do with the downfall of nuclear power. It was always and only economics, nothing else contributed to this. Nuclear is very complicated and thus very expensive, and this has nothing to do with regulations. Everything about generating power from nuclear is just expensive. If there was any opportunity to turn a profit with nuclear power, and I mean even the slightest margin of profit, you could not keep investors away, nor prevent nuclear power plants being built in every county in the country. There is a false narrative that supporters of nuclear energy seem to insist on perpetuating, which is that if the idiots would stop being so irrationally afraid of nuclear, we could have cheap, clean energy. This is a completely false position. The scardies have nothing to do with it. It is all and only economics that is killing nuclear power, and nothing else whatsoever enters into it.

Yep. Seems to be just a convenient excuse to hate on environmentalists, when nuclear power is just too damn expensive (and also takes too long to build), especially today when there are cheaper alternatives.

I was all for nuclear power myself before I started seeing how infeasible it was to get us to carbon neutral with them. I'm still fine with any new nuclear power plants that want to be built but it looks like pretty much no one wants to invest in them anymore anyway.

"The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189."

"Capital flows reflect that trend. In 2018, China invested $91 billion in renewables but just $6.5 billion in nuclear."[1]

"Nuclear power plant construction costs—mainly materials, labor, and engineering—rose by 185 percent between 2000 and 2007. More recently, costs have been increasing even faster: In mid-March, Progress Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100 MW nuclear plants it intends to build in Florida would cost $14 billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.”

Jim Harding, former direc tor of power planning and forecasting for Seattle City Light, estimates that nuclear plants constructed today would provide electricity at between 12 and 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. To put this cost into perspective, the average U.S. electricity price in 2006 was 8.9 cents per kWh, and well-placed wind turbines can produce electricity for less than 5 cents per kWh."[2]

"Study claims that investment in a new 1GW nuclear power plant leads to average losses of approximately 4.8 billion euros." [3]

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nucle...

[2]: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-reasons-not-to-i...

[3]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/07/24/nuclear-a-poor-invest...

Cost is not everything though - Nuclear also produces extremely consistent and reliable power. That in it of itself can be a double edged sword in that if we do not have a way to store the excess then it is "wasted" in some ways. But it also has big advantages in certain situations. If there is a decent sized natural disaster or war or some other thing that temporarily interrupts solar or wind power then the increased cost of nuclear power becomes much more attractive. Those situations may be rare but I still maintain we are best off with many different sources working simultaneously.

Again, I have no problem with new nuclear plants being pursued, and there are some benefits to it that solar and wind do not (namely consistency, like you said). But the investment just isn't there in a significant amount. Without people willing to put the money into it, they're not going to be built.

When money is not an obstacle, new nuclear plants are built. I expect US Navy will continue to commission and operate nuclear-powered fleet until bovines return.

Sadly, unless our future energy requirements have been vastly underestimated, economics is also going to make commercial-grade fusion unattainable. Like fission, it's development ultimately requires the vast sums only wealthy nations can provide. But even once fusion is achieved beyond breaking even, only those same wealthy nations will be able to pay, more likely massively subsidize, before any fusion power plant could dream about existing.

This is why I think society should abandon centralizing power generation and require all structures to generate they're own green power. While massively less efficient than centralized power generation and distribution, with clean energy generation like solar & wind, and necessary optimizations such as more efficient climate control, we can afford to be less efficient.

I hear people say this but I also almost never meet environmentalists who are super against nuclear power. Most will say they of course prefer something extra clean like solar or geothermal but nuclear is usually the sort of middle of the road option in those circles. And many of the less idealistic I have met also think it is our only real solution.

>environmentalists were bought by gas extraction people

In the US, opposition to nuclear energy is more like opposition to homeless shelters - people don't want the plants near them. I don't think environmentlists are that powerful politically as to significantly impact the trajectory of nuclear power policies in the US, otherwise, they would have the power to significantly impact climate change policies too.

Besides, what I have seen is that environmentalists are pretty divided in term of nuclear energy. There are strong opponents like green peace and Sierra clubs, there are strong supporters and there are many who are ambivalent. This further reduces their political power as a group.

I think nuclear energy supporters should stop blaming environmentalists as they are pretty much non-factor if they want nuclear power.

There's tons of FUD about nuclear waste, including with respect to environmental impacts. I think environmentalists have been coming around to nuclear, but I'm pretty sure that's a more recent development. At least my perception circa 10 years ago was that environmentalists were largely (if not overwhelmingly) opposed to nuclear. Certainly for a long while, environmentalists worked (perhaps unwittingly) with the fossil fuel industry to promote personal responsibility and lifestyle campaigns ("everyone needs to go vegan", "we just need more recycling", "get rid of SUVs", etc) rather than substantial energy reforms (like nuclear or carbon tax).

I don't think nuclear waste is a key factor, but cost overrun is. Source: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u...

Environmentalists are not against Nuclear generally - they are just against the shitty ways governments have stored the waste in the past. When a government cheaps out and ships the waste to some far off pacific island and does not invest as much as it should building a proper containment setup and then it all leaks into the ocean it becomes a big problem for everyone and then environmentalists are of course pissed. When done properly I would guess the majority would be relatively fine with it (although they may still prefer cleaner options).

Greenpeace's take on nuclear power [1]:

> Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes. > > Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. Nuclear energy is both expensive and dangerous, and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn’t mean it’s clean. Renewable energy is better for the environment, the economy, and doesn’t come with the risk of a nuclear meltdown.

The Sierra Club's [2]:

> The Sierra Club continues to oppose construction of any new commercial nuclear fission power plants. Further, the Sierra Club supports the systematic reduction of society's dependence on nuclear fission as a source of electric power and recommends a phased closure and decommissioning of operating commercial nuclear fission electric power reactors.

[1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues...

[2] https://www.sierraclub.org/policy/energy/nuclear-power

> Solar is awesome in that yield scales with load peaks.

No, this is the opposite of what is true. In most places, load peaks in the evening, just as the sun sets.

Looking up the data [1], the more nuanced answer is that load peaks in in the evening in the fall, winter, and spring. Only in the summer does solar energy match load.

1. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

If anyone wants another example, this has data for Australia [1]. Power usage consistently peaks in the late afternoon, typically as everyone ends work for the day [2][3]. Unsurprisingly, this is also around when the price spikes.

[1] https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e...

[2] https://i.imgur.com/60kGlIR.png

[3] https://i.imgur.com/nRjBjeN.png

It's worth pointing out AEMO's demand is for the grid, and residential solar typically does not show up on the grid. OpenNEM[1] uses estimates of residential solar to approximate the full load.

[1]: https://opennem.org.au/

> Solar is awesome in that yield scales with load peaks.

This might be true in California but peak in Poland and many other places is after sun sets.

And in some places in winter. And in some places in summer. Sometimes by HUGE multiples that operate inversely with the availability of solar power. For long periods that batteries struggle store power for.

Its a problem here in the US too, though probably to a lesser degree. South facing solar is the most efficient in total energy produced, but it starts to drop off just as A/C loads start to accelerate toward their peak.

West facing panels help, but the ROI isn't as good without variable energy pricing.

> It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that electric cars are ramping up and will displace the current fleet, and equally obvious that that operating model (plug in your car at night) will increase base load requirements.

It strikes me that transitioning to electric cars could become less viable the more we rely on renewables+batteries, as grid scale battery storage could hugely exacerbate shortages of battery materials.

Though on the other hand grid batteries would also spur more research into battery tech which could change the game for both grid & mobile batteries.

It seems like a huge gamble commiting to grid storage in the hopes of big innovations down the road instead of doubling down on baseload nuclear.

You have identified why grid-scale storage will not depend mainly on the kind of battery technology needed for cars.

This is exactly what I wanted to say, and have been for the last several years.

The issue is no states, cities, population want to issue permits to build them. Its political to the point no one will touch it.

We just make it expensive to plug-in at night for the average joe so they plug-in during the day, at the office etc?

If you’re a courier or something you’re exempt.

> The problem with nuclear is an example of why deregulation was stupid.

There was never a deregulation that happened. In fact deregulation is what's needed to revive nuclear power. Competition in the power market is illegal in most states.

I think the residents of texas that had no power for days, or $15k residential bills would disagree with you. In fact, my co-worker in MN had their natural gas rates go up a very noticable jump this year due to losses the company had in texas (and having to buy gas at super inflated peak rates when many texas pumping stations had to power down, since they weren't winterized to save some money.)

The parent you are responding to is talking about deregulation in a different context and with a different purpose. Regulation and deregulation are both broad terms and talking about one does not requisite jumping to a different topic. Doing so just means we'll fight all day because you can find examples on both sides where they had disastrous effects. We need to be more nuanced than this. I'll also argue that the parent should be more specific to avoid these types of responses too.

Can you elaborate on what nuclear regulations were lifted and how that contributed to the Texas power outage? This isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious.

Nuclear regulations had nothing to do with it. Texas had very few regulations for oil/gas and for power plant winter weatherization hence the grid failed. Overall the grid is fine, but it can't handle a freak winter weather event like that, and it still can't. It has handled many summer heat events just fine (I know I've lived here for almost 15 years). Regulations are the obvious factor that lead to the failure, ERCOT has been warned (and in turn warned the politicians) about the dangers multiple times and the politicians will not pass legislation and money to fix the issue.

I can tell you in New York, utilities were compelled to divest from power production. Your state may vary.

Similar to the charter school scam, the scrappy upstarts bonded out lots of debt to buy up power plants and subsequently became a powerful lobby to keep their cartel tight.

Some of the remaining municipal energy co-op utilities were exempted from deregulation, and all of them have lower cost structures.

I know Massachusetts is a similar story, not sure about others.

What is the charter school scam? Kids actually learning to read and do math? Giving parents a choice?

Take the money from public education and fund vouchers. Those vouchers aren't going to get you into the good private school, you'll need money on top of the voucher for that. They get you in the school that prepares your for life in prison. https://time.com/101440/new-orleans-charter-schools-shouldnt...

This is in stark contrast to the charter schools in NYC which are far better than all but the best regular public schools.

If you look at the economic backgrounds and general location of students you will find that is the true predictor of educational outcomes (on average) rather than whether that child is at a charter or public school.

That doesn’t really hold for the success academies or the charters in Harlem. A lot of these charter schools mainly serve low income families.

Floating tax exempt bonds, skimming the cream with building construction/rehab and fees, and then using the different vehicles to monetize building deprecation. Then you hire young and dumb teachers as cheaply as possible and keep costs down with turnover.

Most of them are structured like real estate syndicates. It’s basically like building a strip mall or franchise hotel, except you have a captive customer and can leave the local taxpayer holding the bag. The educational mission is mostly a secondary concern. There are exceptions.

What do you mean by captive customer? My understanding was that they were all about “parent choice”, so parents can choose to send their kids to either charter schools or public schools, and the schools only get federal money proportionate to the number enrolled. Presumably parents would not tend to keep their kids in a school with high teacher turnover.

N.b. I don’t have kids, so this is mostly academic for me, no pun intended

Charter schools are private and per child offer no education advantages over public school. There are -plenty- public schools that achieve better results. The idea that there is something inherently wrong with public education is a myth pursued by the elite (read top 0.1%) to persuade the general public to do away with the public education system so that only private schools will exist and they can prevent the public from becoming too educated and questioning the status quo and with the added advantage of lowering their tax bills.

Charter schools aren't a scam. They improve the ability of children to learn.

Nuclear power hasn't been deregulated, but grid generation and planning for the large part has.

As a result of that deregulation, the grid is often optimizing for cost, instead of reliability, which can lead to problems. Saving 5% on your power bill is great, but it's less great if the consequence is, say, not having any power one week of the year.

18 states isn't a majority but it's more than "never happened"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com