[dmitriid]

> If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power.

Ah yes. What a libertarian view of the world. The rich will get the power while the unfortunate ones won't even be able to refrigerate their food. Medical equipment will fail. People will freeze in winter. Trains will not run. etc.

Also. How do you propose to separate reliable and non-reliable energy sources? By building a parallel energy grid?

How is this a realistic policy?

> Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will

It's not unlimited. However, it's not as scarce and limited as you want to make it.

[jacquesm]

It's not libertarian at all, it is simply realistic. Keep in mind that the power grid as it is today is already unreliable, it's just that we've started to think about it as 100% available. But there are many reasons why it can - and often does - fail and we have build our processes around that.

Just like we do not need a separate grid for green energy we do not need one for reliable and unreliable sources, case in point: we already use reliable and unreliable sources right now, it's just that we do not bill differently for them.

As for medical equipment, refrigeration and trains: it is clear that some consumption will need to be sourced from reliable sources or at least sources with sufficient overlap during generation that their chance of failure is small.

Power is not as scarce and unlimited as I believe it well may become in the near future, and if you look at this through a slightly wider lens (developing world vs developed world) then you'll see that in many countries this situation is a reality today, but instead of being billed differently and given a choice the power will simply fail.

[dmitriid]

> Just like we do not need a separate grid for green energy we do not need one for reliable and unreliable sources, case in point: we already use reliable and unreliable sources right now

That really doesn't answer how you would solve your own proposal. Let me quote it again: "If you want power continuity then you will have to provide it yourself. If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power."

So. How are you going to solve that? You either make the entire grid reliable, or you make the entire grid unreliable. There's no "both".

The most simple scenario: two neighboring houses on the same grid. One "is paying premium for reliable power continuity". The other is paying cheaply. HOw are you going to provide one with reliable power, and the other one with unreliable on the same grid?

> it is clear that some consumption will need to be sourced from reliable sources or at least sources with sufficient overlap during generation that their chance of failure is small.

They are on the same grid as everybody else. So you are proposing to build a parallel electrical grid?

> you'll see that in many countries this situation is a reality today, but instead of being billed differently and given a choice the power will simply fail.

I come from Moldova. It's been reliably the poorest country in Europe for the past 30 years. For the past 20 years it hasn't had any rolling blackouts. The US had rolling blackouts in California in 2000-2001 and in Texas in 2021.

Power availability and reliability in the modern world is first and foremost the function of corruption and political will.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

With smart meters. Premium payer gets power. Cheapskate gets switched off.

[dmitriid]

> With smart meters

So,

- it is a parallel grid for all intents and purposes. Because you will have to supply literally every apartment, every house, every building (and parts of buildings) with smart meters.

It's also funny how you don't see beyond this already weird decision. Example from actual reality: TV Pickup [1]. "A phenomenon in the United Kingdom that involves surges in demand on the electrical grid, occurring when a large number of people simultaneously watch the same television programme. TV pickup occurs when viewers take advantage of commercial breaks in programming to operate electrical appliances at the same time, causing large synchronised surges in national electricity consumption"

That's just kettles and microwaves.

Now, with smart meters you've powered down "cheapskates". When we have more power, we now... bring entire households back online. Good luck handling that

- it is a libertarian view: The rich will get the power while the unfortunate ones won't even be able to refrigerate their food. Medical equipment will fail. People will freeze in winter. Trains will not run. etc.

I absolutely love your "realistic policies".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup

[LargoLasskhyfv]

I don't know where you live, but where I'm living they seem to be standard now. By law. With few exceptions. Though the ones in the House I'm living in are continously blinking "E-21", so I'd guess their uplink is down, and they can't do FTP.

I'm just telling how it is. Not what I like, or support.

[dmitriid]

> I don't know where you live, but where I'm living

Exactly. There's a lot you don't know.

> I'm just telling how it is.

You're not telling it "how it is". You're telling a fantasy and calling it "realistic policies".

You didn't even know about things like TV Pickup, did you? And you can't even imagine how your "realistic policies" would affect the grid.

You didn't even know that smart meters are not everywhere.

You didn't think how selling "good power" only to the rich would affect everyone. (Oh, right, anyone who won't be able to afford it are just cheapskates).

Yup. "Just how it is".

> so I'd guess their uplink is down, and they can't do FTP.

Ah yes. Great smart meters that should be installed in the millions and people should rely on them to properly turn off and turn on gigawatts of power in the blink of an eye.