[sfifs]

Perhaps you misunderstood what marginal cost means. It is the cost of generating one additional unit of power on an already​ existing infrastructure. It takes expense to mine an additional ton of coal, transport it to a power plant, burn it and convert it into electricity even after the underlying infrastructure is setup. It doesn't for solar and wind.

[Mendenhall]

That falls under "rhetoric" the author takes a small unit of time "when sun is shining and wind is blowing" to then use the word "free". Thats cherry picking to the extreme and rhetoric 101. It is used to paint a picture that does not really exist. What happens to solar and wind when its night and the wind is still? By cherry picking and creating a scene which doesnt truly exist it paints a false picture of the efficiency of solar at this moment. Hence why I used "rhetoric".

I could also say that is a falsehood in the practicle sense because of what it left out but that wasnt my original intention. My falsehood statement was to include the part about shale which since shale fields are limited its simply not true.

We could further get into UV rays breakin down solar panels etc but that really wasnt my point. I dont expect people to see the rhetoric and falsehoods used in this article but it stood out to me like a sore thumb so I commented.

Nor was I somehow saying save coal or coal is more efficient etc. It was only a comment on the rhetoric and falshoods I saw in a very short span of words.

[rz2k]

I don't think anyone here is being fooled by the "rhetoric".

This is a forum for people who are inclined toward entrepreneurship, who understand basic economic terms like marginal cost without additional explanation.

Marginal cost is the only appropriate measure for discussing what even becomes a challenge where/when electric energy approaches non-scarcity — for example you may not have a use for it, but it requires resources if you wanted to sell that energy to a far away aluminum smelter.

I've had a discussion before where some one was convinced that "servicing debt" was a misleading term, because the debt wasn't being paid down at all. Hopefully we can agree that that is an absurd argument. Terms either mean what they do or not.

[Mendenhall]

This article is being read by other people besides on HN. My comment was directed at the overall quality and rhetoric/falshoods used in article not how it effects HN readers or to try to save them from themselves.

[stale2002]

It is not rhetoric, it is jargon.

Marginal cost is something that people who study economics would instantly understand, to the point where they would be confused as to why others are confused.

It means something very specific, but it is very common to talk about in economics.

I will throw around the term accidently, without even realizing that it would make some people confused.

Capital costs vs marginal costs is an important concept, and definitely appropriate to talk about in the energy sector. But you of course have to explain it.

[Mendenhall]

I was not speaking to what marginal cost is, I was speaking to the reason they chose to use the term marginal cost and also chose to pin it to sunny/windy and free.

Some are assuming I did not see "marginal" in there, but the rhetoric angle is exactly why author chose marginal cost. It was simply to get the word "free" in there and then again author used "free" when speaking about shale.

[jgamman]

i used to work on the trading desk of an energy company that had hydro resources. the bid for hydro to clear the stack was always something like $0.10 ie, essentially free. Note: the clearing price was _always_ set by the last generating units offer price which tends to be coal/gas (here in NZ). If there was no clearing price, the offer price of hydro/solar/geothermal would go up to something like the Wighted Average Cost of Capital but there would competitive pressure from the other players to keep a lid on it. to a first order approx. in a _really_ complex industry/market it is absolutely OK to say installed wind/solar/hydro is free to run.

[Dylan16807]

I don't understand. If someone is giving out free balloons but only during certain hours, you shouldn't call it free?

[Mendenhall]

As rhetoric I would compare it more with "I will be giving everyone free balloons all day while supplies last!" and the supply is one balloon. Sounds great but reality is vastly different.

Again though I dont expect everyone to see the rhetoric I see.

[Dylan16807]

One balloon? Maybe if renewables exploded after half an hour.

The solar-power equivalent would be a balloon every few minutes every weekday, but they run on a strange calendar and you can't predict when weekends happen.

I just don't see how a supply that's unpredictable on a short-term basis, but very predictable on a long-term basis, disqualifies it from being "free".

[ska]

   Again though I dont expect everyone to see the rhetoric I see.

When you get to this point, it's a good time to ask yourself if you are tilting at windmills, in my experience.

[acqq]

The "free" balloons were paid for to be produced before being given away as ads.

The production of energy has always the costs, and some interested parties attempt to hide them to make them an easier sell.

[Dylan16807]

It's not about hiding costs, it's about capital cost vs. marginal cost. When marginal cost is near-zero, you get significantly different economic behavior from something that has a balance of capital and marginal costs.