[bumby]

>Why call this political uncertainty as opposed to economic uncertainty?

I'm assuming this is because so much of the energy market is directed through political mechanisms like subsidies, research funding etc. It's the political uncertainty that undergirds the economic uncertainty.

[dpierce9]

Sure, but why is that special for gas plants? CTs are expensive to run so if they run less that is generally good for people using electricity. I am not saying political uncertainty doesn’t exist or that the grid systems are apolitical or that building plants is easy. I don’t know much about the UK grid or rules which is why I was asking for specifics on what makes this specific case political.

[bumby]

Just speculation, but I imagine there is much less volatility in terms of fossil fuel policies. Fossil fuels (regretfully) have large and entrenched lobbyists who seem to get continued political support regardless of the office party. Contrast that to policies for/against renewables which have become a signaling mechanism.

[dpierce9]

What? Gas prices in Europe are extremely volatile [0]. Neither lobbyists nor politicians control prices and even if they did it isn’t obvious the lobbyists would prefer smooth prices.

[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas

[bumby]

Volatility in terms of policies, not prices. E.g., the it's fairly certain the subsidies for gas that are in place this year will continue next year. Price volatility has a lot more market dynamics at play.

[dpierce9]

I have lost the thread. The og parent said that political uncertainties were responsible for gas plant economic issues. You are now saying that gas plant lobbyists create more political certainty. I don’t know if that is true but it is beside the point.

[bumby]

I don’t think it is. If we agree that lobbyists affect political outcomes, and we can agree that some industries have entrenched lobbyists, then we can connect the two to say that lobbyists create more political certainty. That’s not to conflate “more certainty about policy” with “good policy.” It’s only beside the point if you think policy doesn’t impact energy prices, which is fairly easy to disprove.

In other words, if you think it's hard to implement a new energy policy in part because of monied interests, those monied interests are providing certainty in policy. To ground it in more real terms, I may not want to bet on new energy tech if the have an economic advantage based on who's in the White House. By contrast, betting on fossil fuels has more certainty because those interests are protected almost regardless of who's in the White House.

[s1artibartfast]

Not to mention taxes, mandates, sanctions , and even wars

[bumby]

I've often wondered if anyone has ever studied what the "all in" cost of gasoline would be taking account of all those externalities.

[s1artibartfast]

It's pretty interesting question actually. I think for an honest accounting you would have to take into account the positive externalities as well.

One way to start thinking about the question is to benchmark society before gasoline.

Mass use of gasoline kicked off around 1900, with the popularization of the automobile.

You can compare life now versus 1900 to get one estimate. The world definitely had problems and Wars before 1900.

What the world would look like today had gasoline never been discovered is a lot more tricky, but my gut feeling is that we would be worse off than today.

[bumby]

I suspect you're right. That's why I think it's important to get a transition right, because it would be a shame to squander the type of bootstrapping that oil afforded us as a society.

>You can compare life now versus 1900 to get one estimate.

I think this is probably too broad because it assumes a causal connection between gasoline and all of those differences. The industrial revolution had been decades underway before cheap oil, and would have continued if oil was never found in Pennslyvania. But cheap oil definitely helped speed it along faster.

[s1artibartfast]

>The industrial revolution had been decades underway before cheap oil, and would have continued if oil was never found in Pennslyvania. But cheap oil definitely helped speed it along faster.

That is certainly true. I meant using it a benchmark to extrapolate from. In many ways it seems to me that the industrialization at that time had a pretty negative trajectory, with a heavy basis in coal and brutal industrial towns. It is quite possible that we are living one of the best possible timelines from 1900.

[bumby]

I don't think the fuel type, but rather the labor and regulatory environment, was the driver of those conditions. We can't know for sure, obviously, but had oil been used before coal, I have a feeling those towns would still exist.