Cap and trade as applied to the electrical power industry?

[Supposn]

Cap and trade as applied to the electrical power industry.

I believe I have an understanding of “cap and trade's" general concept.
[I'm among the proponents and have a good understanding of trade policy describes within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article that shares the same concept].
I do not know and can less speculate as to how the cap and trade concept would be applied to environmental legislation.

I would suppose the concept as applied to the electrical power industry would be among the simplest of industrial applications?

I suppose we could identify and locate all existing or new public utility power plants.

Would we (A) Provide sealed tamper-proof devices to measure and constantly monitor the extent of those plants pollution?

Or (B) Test the existing mechanism to determine the extent of their pollution per kilowatt of power produced? If it's (B), the plan will have to be subject to unannounced inspections to determine they have not been unauthorized modified to reduce their power production costs in a manner that would increase their pollution emissions per kilowatt.

Registration of locations and potential power production of electric power plants can be mandated. But as the operators' costs per kilowatt are (due to the cap & trade policy) somewhat increased, it may be profitable for operators to evade the registration and compliance laws. This will particularly be the case for operators producing power for their own use and/or to skimming undocumented delivery of power to operator's high volume users; in such cases there's no paper trail to document that power production.

Could we ignore auxiliary power plants to service any individual buildings or only those capable of producing a minimum rate of wattage? Could “bootleg” power plants be as conceivable as “bootleg alcohol stills”? (Illegal distillation systems have and may now continue to exist). Could “bootleg power plants” be of sufficient economic and/or environmental significance as to undermine the policy applied to electrical energy production?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which pollutants?

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm....nobody wants their electric bills to double. That's why Crap and Tax has been a radioactive topic on capitol hill for over 10 years now. Obama is on video from 2008 talking about how "expensive" his plan would be, which of course, was a Cap and Trade scheme. No pol wants to be fubar'd on election day.....and running on a green platform you might as well self-insert the bumpy. The last two mid terms, Tom Steyer backed HOUSE representatives got their clocks cleaned.

 

[Supposn]

Which pollutants?

Toddsterpatriot, I would suppose the volume of carbon particles would be among the air pollutants that would be measured or estimated. You have something in mind?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which pollutants?

Toddsterpatriot, I would suppose the volume of carbon particles would be among the air pollutants that would be measured or estimated. You have something in mind?

Respectfully, Supposn

Is carbon particle pollution a current issue at US power plants?

 

[Supposn]

Ummm....nobody wants their electric bills to double. That's why Crap and Tax has been a radioactive topic on capitol hill for over 10 years now. Obama is on video from 2008 talking about how "expensive" his plan would be, which of course, was a Cap and Trade scheme. No pol wants to be fubar'd on election day.....and running on a green platform you might as well self-insert the bumpy. The last two mid terms, Tom Steyer backed HOUSE representatives got their clocks cleaned.

Skookerasbil, inevitably our federal government will later, if not sooner be forced to act.
The longer we put off taking action, if we fail to do more now, the more costly it will be in our future. The threat is real.

I'm trying to understand the remedies that have been proposed and what are our options?
Do you have any constructive suggestions?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Is carbon particle pollution a current issue at US power plants?

ToddsterPatriot, pollution of our atmosphere is a current issue throughout the entire world.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is carbon particle pollution a current issue at US power plants?

ToddsterPatriot, pollution of our atmosphere is a current issue throughout the entire world.
Respectfully, Supposn

pollution of our atmosphere is a current issue throughout the entire world.

Right.
A while back, sulfur dioxide emissions were an issue in the US.
AFAIK, they aren't any more.

You mentioned carbon particle pollution, specifically.
Do you have any sources that show that specific form of pollution,
specifically from US power plants is a big enough issue that we want to
implement a cap and trade scheme to clear it up?

Or did you misspeak?

 

[sparky]

The longer we put off taking action, if we fail to do more now, the more costly it will be in our future. The threat is real.

I'm trying to understand the remedies that have been proposed and what are our options?
Do you have any constructive suggestions?

Respectfully, Supposn

It's already being done in Cali>

California Cap and Trade | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

~S~

 

[skookerasbil]

The longer we put off taking action, if we fail to do more now, the more costly it will be in our future. The threat is real.

I'm trying to understand the remedies that have been proposed and what are our options?
Do you have any constructive suggestions?

Respectfully, Supposn

It's already being done in Cali>

California Cap and Trade | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

~S~

Well of course California is doing it. If its st00pid public policy, it's happening there. For Christsakes, California is the only state that pays other states to use their glut of solar power!

Why are Californian solar firms paying to give away power?

 

[Supposn]

The longer we put off taking action, if we fail to do more now, the more costly it will be in our future. The threat is real.

I'm trying to understand the remedies that have been proposed and what are our options?
Do you have any constructive suggestions?

Respectfully, Supposn

It's already being done in Cali>

California Cap and Trade | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

~S~

Well of course California is doing it. If its st00pid public policy, it's happening there. For Christsakes, California is the only state that pays other states to use their glut of solar power!
Why are Californian solar firms paying to give away power?

Excerpted portions of

Why are Californian solar firms paying to give away power?#



Why are Californian solar firms paying to give away power?

… Electricity production from renewable sources has skyrocketed in California.

… The growth is thanks in part to laws that require half of the electricity sold to consumers to come from renewable energy sources by 2030. …



… But demand for energy is shrinking. ...

… So supply and demand are getting out of whack - especially at peak sunshine hours.

That is a problem. In extreme cases, production spikes can overwhelm power lines and end in power outages.

One response from grid operators has been to cut production from solar and wind producers, which they say are responsible for excess supply.

In 2016, about 1.6% of solar electricity generation was curtailed, according to the California Independent System Operator, which runs the state's electric grid and wholesale electricity market.



But what was that about getting paid to take electricity?
Renewable energy is sold using long-term contracts - and in real time on a regional wholesale market, where prices fluctuate based on supply and demand.

The price heads below zero on the wholesale market when there's too much supply. In those instances of "negative pricing" companies pay other firms to take their power.

Solar turns wholesale price of electricity in California negative


Why would they do that?
In some cases, a utility or other company has already paid for the power at a higher price but doesn't need it.

In other cases, it is more expensive for the solar power company to stop production than it is to pay a firm in another state to take the electricity because of how their tax benefits are structured.

The examples of negative pricing are rare but increasing. They occurred in more than 5% of five-minute market intervals in 2016, up from about 4% the year before, according to CAISO.


Is this happening anywhere else?
Yes. The growth of renewable energy has led to negative pricing in Texas, which has a lot of wind power, in the UK and other parts of Europe, including Germany. …



… What are the proposals to fix this?

One option is to change the way tax subsidies for renewable energy work, so that firms don't have as much incentive to keep their plants running at full capacity when the power isn't needed.

Another option would be to make the retail market more flexible. Then families could opt to charge phones, electric cars and the like when electricity is cheapest.

"Economists for a really long time have said let's make retail rates reflect wholesale prices," says Lucas Davis, a professor at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. "Now I think is a great time for economists to renew that push."

///////////////////////////////////////////

“The examples of negative pricing are rare but increasing. They occurred in more than 5% of five-minute market intervals in 2016, up from about 4% the year before, according to CAISO”.

Skookerasbil, apparently it's currently less of a problem, rather than a symptom of our progress to create more of our electrical power from renewable energy sources. We can prepare and possibly begin remedying the problems, and the proposed remedies seem to be reasonable plans. If this upsets you, you're too easily upset.

My immediate question is aren't producers reducing their consumption of carbon fuels while the renewable energy sources are sufficient to satisfy immediate demands? If they cannot entirely do so, why is that so?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Is carbon particle pollution a current issue at US power plants?

ToddsterPatriot, pollution of our atmosphere is a current issue throughout the entire world.
Respectfully, Supposn

pollution of our atmosphere is a current issue throughout the entire world.

Right.
A while back, sulfur dioxide emissions were an issue in the US.
AFAIK, they aren't any more.

You mentioned carbon particle pollution, specifically.
Do you have any sources that show that specific form of pollution,
specifically from US power plants is a big enough issue that we want to
implement a cap and trade scheme to clear it up?

Or did you misspeak?

ToddsterPatriot, refer to
Reports: Carbon pricing too low to meet Paris Agreement emissions goals
for a discussion of the carbon taxes relationship to “greenhouse gasses”.

The consensus of the worlds scientific communities' conclusions was a driving force that led to the Paris Accord. President Trump has exercised presidential prerogatives to withdraw the United States from that agreement. Trump's administration's denies what ex-vice-president Gore well expressed as “climate changes' “inconvenient truth”.

They're refuting the overwhelming plurality of global, (including USA”s) scientific communities' conclusions regarding “climate changes” and its relationship to airborne carbon particles contributions to the “greenhouse” effects.

President Trump's administration's withdrawal from the Paris Accord is contrary to the almost all nations and all other is unique among the world's major industrial nations which are also the major contributors to our atmosphere's proportion of carbon particles.

The short answer to your posts is yes, overwhelming global conclusions were greenhouse gasses and particularly carbon particles are significant threats to the quality of future life on earth.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is carbon particle pollution a current issue at US power plants?

ToddsterPatriot, pollution of our atmosphere is a current issue throughout the entire world.
Respectfully, Supposn

pollution of our atmosphere is a current issue throughout the entire world.

Right.
A while back, sulfur dioxide emissions were an issue in the US.
AFAIK, they aren't any more.

You mentioned carbon particle pollution, specifically.
Do you have any sources that show that specific form of pollution,
specifically from US power plants is a big enough issue that we want to
implement a cap and trade scheme to clear it up?

Or did you misspeak?

ToddsterPatriot, refer to
Reports: Carbon pricing too low to meet Paris Agreement emissions goals
for a discussion of the carbon taxes relationship to “greenhouse gasses”.

The consensus of the worlds scientific communities' conclusions was a driving force that led to the Paris Accord. President Trump has exercised presidential prerogatives to withdraw the United States from that agreement. Trump's administration's denies what ex-vice-president Gore well expressed as “climate changes' “inconvenient truth”.

They're refuting the overwhelming plurality of global, (including USA”s) scientific communities' conclusions regarding “climate changes” and its relationship to airborne carbon particles contributions to the “greenhouse” effects.

President Trump's administration's withdrawal from the Paris Accord is contrary to the almost all nations and all other is unique among the world's major industrial nations which are also the major contributors to our atmosphere's proportion of carbon particles.

The short answer to your posts is yes, overwhelming global conclusions were greenhouse gasses and particularly carbon particles are significant threats to the quality of future life on earth.

Respectfully, Supposn

So you don't want to create a moronic trading scheme to reduce pollution, you want to create a moronic trading scheme to reduce CO2.

Thanks for the clarification.

overwhelming global conclusions were greenhouse gasses and particularly carbon particles are significant threats to the quality of future life on earth.

Carbon dioxide is very different than carbon particles.
But thanks for confirming your scientific illiteracy.

 

[skookerasbil]

The longer we put off taking action, if we fail to do more now, the more costly it will be in our future. The threat is real.

I'm trying to understand the remedies that have been proposed and what are our options?
Do you have any constructive suggestions?

Respectfully, Supposn

It's already being done in Cali>

California Cap and Trade | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

~S~

Well of course California is doing it. If its st00pid public policy, it's happening there. For Christsakes, California is the only state that pays other states to use their glut of solar power!
Why are Californian solar firms paying to give away power?

Excerpted portions of

Why are Californian solar firms paying to give away power?#



Why are Californian solar firms paying to give away power?

… Electricity production from renewable sources has skyrocketed in California.

… The growth is thanks in part to laws that require half of the electricity sold to consumers to come from renewable energy sources by 2030. …



… But demand for energy is shrinking. ...

… So supply and demand are getting out of whack - especially at peak sunshine hours.

That is a problem. In extreme cases, production spikes can overwhelm power lines and end in power outages.

One response from grid operators has been to cut production from solar and wind producers, which they say are responsible for excess supply.

In 2016, about 1.6% of solar electricity generation was curtailed, according to the California Independent System Operator, which runs the state's electric grid and wholesale electricity market.



But what was that about getting paid to take electricity?
Renewable energy is sold using long-term contracts - and in real time on a regional wholesale market, where prices fluctuate based on supply and demand.

The price heads below zero on the wholesale market when there's too much supply. In those instances of "negative pricing" companies pay other firms to take their power.

Solar turns wholesale price of electricity in California negative


Why would they do that?
In some cases, a utility or other company has already paid for the power at a higher price but doesn't need it.

In other cases, it is more expensive for the solar power company to stop production than it is to pay a firm in another state to take the electricity because of how their tax benefits are structured.

The examples of negative pricing are rare but increasing. They occurred in more than 5% of five-minute market intervals in 2016, up from about 4% the year before, according to CAISO.


Is this happening anywhere else?
Yes. The growth of renewable energy has led to negative pricing in Texas, which has a lot of wind power, in the UK and other parts of Europe, including Germany. …



… What are the proposals to fix this?

One option is to change the way tax subsidies for renewable energy work, so that firms don't have as much incentive to keep their plants running at full capacity when the power isn't needed.

Another option would be to make the retail market more flexible. Then families could opt to charge phones, electric cars and the like when electricity is cheapest.

"Economists for a really long time have said let's make retail rates reflect wholesale prices," says Lucas Davis, a professor at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. "Now I think is a great time for economists to renew that push."

///////////////////////////////////////////

“The examples of negative pricing are rare but increasing. They occurred in more than 5% of five-minute market intervals in 2016, up from about 4% the year before, according to CAISO”.

Skookerasbil, apparently it's currently less of a problem, rather than a symptom of our progress to create more of our electrical power from renewable energy sources. We can prepare and possibly begin remedying the problems, and the proposed remedies seem to be reasonable plans. If this upsets you, you're too easily upset.

My immediate question is aren't producers reducing their consumption of carbon fuels while the renewable energy sources are sufficient to satisfy immediate demands? If they cannot entirely do so, why is that so?
Respectfully, Supposn

Well we certainly could...…..but we wont!

Last Obama EIA report issued in 2017...………..

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b2/e9/0e/b2e90ee1b2b4fd04029c76dd8ebae5ea--energy-consumption-futurism.jpg


Yuk...….yuk...……..scientific consensus has zero to do with it!! Doy

Disney thinking is ghey!!

 

[Supposn]

So you don't want to create a moronic trading scheme to reduce pollution, you want to create a moronic trading scheme to reduce CO2.

Thanks for the clarification.

overwhelming global conclusions were greenhouse gasses and particularly carbon particles are significant threats to the quality of future life on earth.

Carbon dioxide is very different than carbon particles.
But thanks for confirming your scientific illiteracy.

Excerpted from Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia:

“Carbon dioxide is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution anthropogenic emissions – primarily from use of fossil fuels and deforestation – have rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming “.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, my interests have been more toward physics rather than chemistry. I speculate if carbon particles can be detected and quantified, they rather than the gas carbon dioxide would be a more useful means of detecting the sources and extents of their carbon emissions into the air. Gas disperses much more readily than particles. In this case, (if my speculation is correct), common sense trumps your pretense of knowledge.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't want to create a moronic trading scheme to reduce pollution, you want to create a moronic trading scheme to reduce CO2.

Thanks for the clarification.

overwhelming global conclusions were greenhouse gasses and particularly carbon particles are significant threats to the quality of future life on earth.

Carbon dioxide is very different than carbon particles.
But thanks for confirming your scientific illiteracy.

Excerpted from Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia:

“Carbon dioxide is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution anthropogenic emissions – primarily from use of fossil fuels and deforestation – have rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming “.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, my interests have been more toward physics rather than chemistry. I speculate if carbon particles can be detected and quantified, they rather than the gas carbon dioxide would be a more useful means of detecting the sources and extents of their carbon emissions into the air. Gas disperses much more readily than particles. In this case, (if my speculation is correct), common sense trumps your pretense of knowledge.

Respectfully, Supposn

If your common sense means we have to damage our economy and waste tens of trillions to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.1 degree, you can stick your "common sense" up your ass with the rest of your moronic ideas.

 

[skookerasbil]

So you don't want to create a moronic trading scheme to reduce pollution, you want to create a moronic trading scheme to reduce CO2.

Thanks for the clarification.

overwhelming global conclusions were greenhouse gasses and particularly carbon particles are significant threats to the quality of future life on earth.

Carbon dioxide is very different than carbon particles.
But thanks for confirming your scientific illiteracy.

Excerpted from Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia:

“Carbon dioxide is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution anthropogenic emissions – primarily from use of fossil fuels and deforestation – have rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming “.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, my interests have been more toward physics rather than chemistry. I speculate if carbon particles can be detected and quantified, they rather than the gas carbon dioxide would be a more useful means of detecting the sources and extents of their carbon emissions into the air. Gas disperses much more readily than particles. In this case, (if my speculation is correct), common sense trumps your pretense of knowledge.

Respectfully, Supposn

But where is there any evidence anybody is caring about AGW? Where is there any evidence that the "consensus science" is mattering in the real world?

Links please