economics note

One of the more useful Keynesian insights was that people do keep money under the mattress during depressions. If they did invest their savings the depression would be over.

Technically, Keynes recognisied that markets don't automatically clear - piles of unsold goods can hang around for ages (particularly in a recession). The mathematically tractable economic models that were (and still are) popular don't recognise this.

That depends on who the money is spent with.

Taxes don't "force" people not to save. They do have less money to spend or save after they've paid their taxes, but there's nothing about the taxes themselves that biases the choice.

Confiscatory tax levels don't leave a lot of money to spend or save, but that's a different problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman
Loading thread data ...

It's not always needed. The process began with the invention of agriculture. It spread because it increased the number and power of those who had mastered it, not because the conquered hunter gatherer societies recognised it as a good idea and adopted it.

And so it has been with very many innovations. The old guard simply gets wiped out by the new.

That's just Resident Chump funneling billions to his billionaire mates. All funded by debt.

Clifford Heath

Reply to
Clifford Heath

em

want to do with their money.

Up to a point. Keynesian pump-priming is designed to encourage people to th ink that the economy is healthy, so they will want to invest their savings rather than hoarding them in a bank. There's no force involved.

ey in a bank, the bank just loans it out. The only way to really hoard mon ey is to put it under the mattress. Anything else and it gets invested.

Banks only lend money to people who can prove that they don't really need t o borrow it. Their credit checking gets more vigorous in recessions, so the y don't lend as much as would be socially desirable from the point of view of getting the economy back to optimal productivity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Can be used to compare wealth - it is a medium of exchange. Some assets are more desirable than others, and that ratio can change with time (sometimes quite fast).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Here's a bunch of articles that suggest otherwise:

You're absolutely correct as to the effect of inflation on planned and future projects. Inflation makes them cost more. However, the current problem and discussion is about paying off the debt on past projects. Government projects are funded by the sale of treasure bonds at some interest rate: Eventually, those bonds come due and the treasury has to cough up the cash to pay the bond holders. When the treasury pays the bond holders with inflated dollars, it becomes a savings to the treasury, and a loss to the bond holder.

To a government with a mostly balanced budget, inflation can hurt. To a government that owes $22 trillion to bond holders, inflation just might be the easiest way out of the problem: "Debt-laden US government is expanding the size of Treasury bond auctions to fund itself"

As for complexity, yes, it's potentially an ugly mess. Much of the government debt is owed to other departments of the same government. Is it really debt if the government owes money to itself? Agencies that receive their operating budgets in cash often deposit them in banks or buy commercial paper, and then cash in the deposits and paper as needed. Some agencies (i.e. NRO) have hidden and obfuscated their financial trail sufficiently that not even the GAO cant find $2 billion per year of "lost" money: "A Secret Agency's Secret Budgets Yield Lost Billions, Officials Say" Yeah, it's a tough job following the money.

No. As long as they keep paying down their loans and credit card debt, the banks, S&L's, and credit card companies will continue to extend credit to Joe Sixpack. Only when he stops paying off the debt (usually at outrageously high interest rate) is there a hint of bankruptcy. So, Joe Sixpack just keeps borrowing money, to pay off previously borrowed money, to pay off previously borrowed money, etc at 17.5% or more.

It's called a "circuit breaker" by the NYSE: In 2010, it didn't work very well: "Regulators found that high frequency traders exacerbated price declines."

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

e:

rote:

t

They

den-the-trade-deficit/

ise

like the

se

money. Maybe "money" shouldn't be in that list because technically money i s a zero sum item. But value or wealth or whatever you want to call it *is

  • created when people do things or come up with ideas.

This describes a situation where the wealth is already created and the owne r is not charging as much as the fair market allows then recognizing the im balance and changing the rate to a fair value.

No, wealth was not created, rather it was simply being under valued and the n corrected.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:23:13 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :

ote:

ey it

on

ost

that

is

g

ebt

t

d so

e
e

was

the control theory is difficult because the human minds making the choices that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational principle.

eory hasn't got a lot to work on.

which may be 95% on the average, but with wild swings based on things like public events and even the weather. Why? Because it is human nature.

the distribution.

around big cities - because there isn't enough road space to accommodate t hem - but you could plot a histogram of the percentage of the cars parked a gainst the the percentage of the time that that proportion of cars are park ed.

ore cars on the road you need to characterise the distribution in more deta il.

symmetrical distribution (which is what Rick seems to be wanting to claim) you need skew and kurtosis.

of precision. A quick google search didn't throw up and of the kind of dat a he ought to be looking for, but that's not really an excuse for claiming that the data he needs would support his point of view if he could find it.

I always find it funny when Bill can't understand an issue that is so simpl e. He keeps spouting that single statistic which is so pointless since it says so little about a fairly complex quantity. He just can't see the futi lity of that argument.

The issue is not that *I* can't characterize the tail of the distribution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid backup the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to be understo od... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issue, but a deter minant issue. If it is not understood when the battery capacity would be l ow and the exact level to be available isn't known, the utility grid will n ot be designed to depend on it. It would be far more economical to simply utilize batteries provided for that purpose where the availability is much more accurately known.

No one cares what Bill thinks of the issue. The utilities aren't going to depend on a resource they don't have control over. But Bill just doesn't u nderstand the problem. He has that limitation sometimes. He just overthin ks things where the problem can actually be analyzed much more simply.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:28:39 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :

to borrow it.

That is a load of bunk that is typically spouted by those who are not capab le of thinking. I'm surprised to see Bill spouting it. I borrowed money t o buy a car once and to buy houses twice. In each case I needed the money for the purpose at hand. Otherwise I would have not borrowed it and would have been saving money for decades to be able to buy a house. Just one!

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

The first article...

"Let?s assume an economy has 0% inflation, and people expect inflat ion to remain at 0%."

You can assume anything you want, it doesn't prove your assertion, "The cla ssic way for governments to pay their debts is to create inflation, which d evalues the currency, making it easier for the government to pay its debts. "

Inflation happens. The US government owes more money now than ever before and yet inflation is still low. That alone disproves you point that govern ments *use* inflation to pay debts.

None of this proves the assertion that governments "use" inflation to pay o ff debt. The main point is that inflation is typically factored into any b ond sales. Although inflation may not correspond to expectations, this is risk which is *also* factored into bond prices. You are aware that governm ents sell bonds at auctions, no? The buyers are informed experts and every aspect of your argument is well known to them and factored into the prices .

You just said Joe was "unable to pay back from their savings or their incom e". When he can't pay, that means bankruptcy.

Until his credit is no longer good and his personal Ponzi scheme collapses and he is bankrupt.

But it did work. There was no meltdown.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

rote:

t

They

den-the-trade-deficit/

ise

like the

se

Where did you get this number, 10x?

I think you must be reading web sites that get you worked up over a few sou nd bites and you never question the validity of the arguments.

I thought I explained debt, but I don't see the post. Debt is not a loan f rom the future. It is a loan from someone who has money and wants to inves t it. You get to use *their* money now and they get paid back later when they need it, with interest. It's that simple. Someone else is letting yo u spend *their* money. It's not from the future.

I don't recall, but now that you used the term, GFC for the "Financial cris is of 2007?2008" I see you are clearly reading some BS site that is feeding you sound bites without real analysis of the issues. "Minor tremo r", lol

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:30:22 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:

te:

:

oney it

s on

cost

y that

o is

y

ing

.

ng

r

debt

est

ked so

,

ate

e

ive

e was

to

d
e

t the control theory is difficult because the human minds making the choice s that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational principle .

theory hasn't got a lot to work on.

ge which may be 95% on the average, but with wild swings based on things li ke public events and even the weather. Why? Because it is human nature.

of the distribution.

st around big cities - because there isn't enough road space to accommodate them - but you could plot a histogram of the percentage of the cars parked against the the percentage of the time that that proportion of cars are pa rked.

more cars on the road you need to characterise the distribution in more de tail.

asymmetrical distribution (which is what Rick seems to be wanting to claim ) you need skew and kurtosis.

nd of precision. A quick google search didn't throw up and of the kind of d ata he ought to be looking for, but that's not really an excuse for claimin g that the data he needs would support his point of view if he could find i t.

ple. He keeps spouting that single statistic which is so pointless since i t says so little about a fairly complex quantity. He just can't see the fu tility of that argument.

, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid backup the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to be unders tood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issue, but a det erminant issue.

If there are enough parked electric cars, the statistical distribution is p redicable enough to be exploited.

Rick C., hasn't got a clue about the actual distribution - and neither do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value often enough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.

xact level to be available isn't known, the utility grid will not be design ed to depend on it.

The phone system doesn't know exactly how often people want to use their ph ones, but it gets by by providing enough spare capacity to cover 99% of sit uations.

formatting link

The utilies will have to collect the data and perform the same kind of anal ysis.

that purpose where the availability is much more accurately known.

For some simple minded definition of economical.

Worst case analysis is easy, and mostly good enough.

Nobody cares what Rick thinks about the issue either. If anybody did, we'd be publishing better analyses on a better-paying site.

l over.

They already depend on their customers, over whom they have no control, but the statistical distribution of the demand for power is stable enough that they can plan the number and size of generating stations they need.

I don't understand the problem in the way that Rick thinks he does - he's h appy to over-simplify to the point where it all makes sense to him, and doe sn't seem able to recognise that there might be more going on that he has a ppreciated.

oblem can actually be analyzed much more simply.

Rick's analysis has the defect of most very simple analyses - you'd end up spending more than you needed to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

It would seem that you're declaring the inability for a governmental or economic model to deal with uncertainty as fatal to any form of modeling or control. I beg to differ. Computer models have been dealing with erratic and unpredictable human behavior using the Monte Carlo methods for quite some time. If the uncertain parameter is insignificant and has little effect on the outcome, it works quite nicely. However, if the effect is huge, such as the trying to model a country run by an unpredictable psychopathic dictator, it's not going to work.

Some of my worst time burning distractions are computer simulation games. I started with the original Flight Simulator and eventually graduated to war games, air combat simulations, business simulations (SimCompanies), economic simulations (SimCity), planetary ecosystems (SimEarth), and currently space flight simulations (Kerbal Space Program). Whatever the area of interest, there's probably a game or more professional simulation program available: All of these include some variables that are unpredictable. It would be a very boring game if the outcome was repetitive and deterministic. Want to become the global dictator? There's even a game for that: which unfortunately is not a very good game.

What I find fascinating is that some of these simulations are amazingly realistic and are becoming more accurate as computer horsepower increases allowing increasingly more complexicated algorithms. (To be fair, some are not very accurate and quite horrible). It will be a long time before one can accurately model a planetary ecology, economy, or the current political situation. However, todays games and simulations are certainly good enough to be used as a learning tool to see how things function and interact at a simplified level. Want to learn how to run the government, the stock market, or the economy? Then find a suitable game and play it until you understand how it works. Also, don't worry about unpredictable variables. They make the game more interesting.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

You're being generous. I suspect few politicians are competent in arithmetic, statistics, and compound interest, all of which are basic requirements for the job of law manufacturer. Expecting politicians to understand control system theory might be a bit ambitious. I think hammering home the concepts that positive feedback is inherently unstable and that unstables systems are really bad, might be more productive.

However, there's a problem. In an ideal negative feedback only economy, there would only be punishment for doing something wrong (negative feedback), and never any incentives or incouragement to do something right (positive feedback). Althought I think it might be interesting to try, it probably won't work. So, methinks we're stuck with using positive feedback and all its problems.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Yes, it is. Ultimately it is, because it's tied up in the value of the dollar as supported by long-term bonds issued by the government to fund the economy. "Their" money does not have a fixed value, it varies over time.

There is more "money" than wealth. The difference is debt. If it wasn't, there'd be someone to whom all the debt is owed, we could cut their heads off and cancel the debt.

No, I don't read conspiracist web sites.

Reply to
Clifford Heath

Did STM, ARM and FTDI etc happen in the US too?

--
Mike Perkins 
Video Solutions Ltd 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mike Perkins

rote:

te:

money it

ges on

e

he

s, cost

e

ney that

zmo is

lly

e

ucing

ed.

ding

eir

er debt

erest

orked so

ts

at

le,

reate

ive

ative

ere was

ic

h to

med

're

hat the control theory is difficult because the human minds making the choi ces that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational princip le.

l theory hasn't got a lot to work on.

sage which may be 95% on the average, but with wild swings based on things like public events and even the weather. Why? Because it is human nature.

k of the distribution.

east around big cities - because there isn't enough road space to accommoda te them - but you could plot a histogram of the percentage of the cars park ed against the the percentage of the time that that proportion of cars are parked.

ds more cars on the road you need to characterise the distribution in more detail.

an asymmetrical distribution (which is what Rick seems to be wanting to cla im) you need skew and kurtosis.

kind of precision. A quick google search didn't throw up and of the kind of data he ought to be looking for, but that's not really an excuse for claim ing that the data he needs would support his point of view if he could find it.

imple. He keeps spouting that single statistic which is so pointless since it says so little about a fairly complex quantity. He just can't see the futility of that argument.

on, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid backup the tai l of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to be unde rstood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issue, but a d eterminant issue.

predicable enough to be exploited.

I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value often enoug h that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.

This is not some statistical event based on the behavior of electrons. Thi s is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the most part) are d irectly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing and being part o f the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.

You, on the other hand, have already acknowledged the nature of human behav ior.

hat the control theory is difficult because the human minds making the choi ces that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational princip le.

Yes, you wrote that. Humans are not always operating on "rational principl e" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said it above. It's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.

exact level to be available isn't known, the utility grid will not be desi gned to depend on it.

phones, but it gets by by providing enough spare capacity to cover 99% of s ituations.

Exactly. Phones giving a busy signal is not really a big deal, we live for the most part, but not being able to call 911 is rather inconvenient. Eve n so, I only recall once in my life that I could not make a local call beca use of overloaded circuits. It does happen in emergencies and other extrem e events even though the phone network is a lot less expensive to provide t han electrical capacity.

When the electrical grid is unexpectedly overloaded it results in blackouts . When coming on gradually load shedding can mitigate the effect. When it comes on abruptly blackouts happen, potentially broadly. If these same ca rs are used to power the home in blackouts (a very likely result of this ma ssive reverse charging infrastructure), on hearing the news that the system is getting overloaded car owners will likely pull the connection and save their batteries for themselves resulting in massive blackouts.

This is not the only scenario. There are many situations where the human e lement being involved will exacerbate electrical supply problems, many as s imple as holidays or unusual sporting events (like a world series). Denyin g that is absurd. Even if it were only once a year events with unusual aut o use patterns would disrupt the availability of car batteries.

But as you always ignore, the real issue is not the severity of this proble m, it is the unpredictabilty of it and the fact that there is NO ECONOMIC A DVANTAGE to using car batteries over using batteries installed exclusively for the utility. In fact all the obvious and well known principles indicat e it would be MORE EXPENSIVE to use auto batteries even if just for the dif ference in cost of the equipment to connect to the grid. Millions of small installations or a few much larger installations? Which will be more econ omical? The answer is obvious.

alysis.

r that purpose where the availability is much more accurately known.

Yes, that definition is rather simple, the "lowest cost".

d be publishing better analyses on a better-paying site.

rol over.

ut the statistical distribution of the demand for power is stable enough th at they can plan the number and size of generating stations they need.

They don't "depend" on their customers. They provide for their customers. My agreement with the utility provides for disconnecting my service if my usage of power becomes detrimental to the utility. So they clearly don't " depend" on my behavior.

happy to over-simplify to the point where it all makes sense to him, and d oesn't seem able to recognise that there might be more going on that he has appreciated.

LOL! It's funny that Mr. 95% says I am oversimplifying the discussion.

problem can actually be analyzed much more simply.

p spending more than you needed to.

Except that I'm analyzing the issues while you try to make it about erlang units, over complicating the simple idea that "averages happen" and at the same time over simplifying the fact that humans are hard to predict by tryi ng to rely on averages.

Bottom line is the grid providers won't be using your idea. But you will n ever acknowledge the problems with the idea because you are far too deeply dug in. Rather at every point you will use the rubber-glue argument saying that *I* am the one oversimplifying, not you, *I* am the one not understan ding the facts, not you, that *I* am the one who doesn't properly analyze i ssues, not you.

Bottom line... using EV batteries will be more expensive than using dedicat ed utility batteries for several reasons. Human nature will make the avail ability of EV batteries difficult to predict and as a result, unreliable. The utilities won't want to make the massive investment in the cost of reve rse charging equipment distributed around the utility network.

Too expensive, too unreliable, too much investment. Yeah, that's pretty si mple.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

You seem to be mixing two concepts, negative feedback (control theory) and negative reinforcement (psychology). Negative feedback simply means the ef fect of feedback will tend to reverse a change in the output. Negative rei nforcement means when the right thing is not done or the wrong thing is don e, the organism is given an undesirable stimulus rather than a desirable st imulus as in positive reinforcement. The two things don't have to be used together.

A negative feedback system can employ positive reinforcement without negati ve reinforcement. I recall from PSYC101 that positive reinforcement is str onger and more effective than negative reinforcement. I don't recall what happens when the two are used together.

But knowing how people operate, positive feedback will dominate even in the face of instability and chaos.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

e:

ent

. They

widen-the-trade-deficit/

dvise

e like the

else

th

sound bites and you never question the validity of the arguments.

an from the future. It is a loan from someone who has money and wants to i nvest it. You get to use *their* money now and they get paid back later w hen they need it, with interest. It's that simple. Someone else is lettin g you spend *their* money. It's not from the future.

That is not relevant. The value of an auto varies over time, but I can ren t a car without it being a "loan from the future". A loan is renting money from someone who has more than they need now and wishes to make some profi t.

I think you have that exactly backwards. There is more wealth than money. I have multiple houses and no debt. The houses value is not kept in a ban k or in a strong box or in any other form of money. In fact, one of the pr oblems with nuclear power is that an accident at a reactor has the potentia l of destroying the value of real estate over a *very* large area. The amo unt of money involved is so massive no insurance can be obtained to cover i t. If all the real estate in the country were to be made worthless it woul d far exceed the M2 money supply. Real estate is just a single example of wealth.

Your idea of debt being owed to a single person is not clear.

Never said you did. But ideas like "there'd be someone to whom all the deb t is owed" usually don't pop out of thin air. They are written by someone else who then spreads the idea to those who don't think so critically.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

rote:

tion, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid backup the t ail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to be un derstood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issue, but a determinant issue.

is predicable enough to be exploited.

do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value often eno ugh that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.

his is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the most part) are directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing and being part of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.

Which is what every statistical ignoramus says when he hasn't got enough da ta and wants to jump to a conclusion.

avior.

that the control theory is difficult because the human minds making the ch oices that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational princ iple.

ple" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said it above. It 's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.

Why would rational behaviour make statistical analysis any easier?

Rational behaviour might be more predictable, but only if the rational acto rs had perfect information (which is another lunatic assumption built into classic economic models).

he exact level to be available isn't known, the utility grid will not be de signed to depend on it.

r phones, but it gets by by providing enough spare capacity to cover 99% of situations.

or the most part, but not being able to call 911 is rather inconvenient. E ven so, I only recall once in my life that I could not make a local call be cause of overloaded circuits. It does happen in emergencies and other extr eme events even though the phone network is a lot less expensive to provide than electrical capacity.

So what?

ts. When coming on gradually load shedding can mitigate the effect.

Twit. The same people who phone at random times turn on their ovens and air

-conditioners at random times too - as I did go on to point out. But you ha d to post your half-baked response as soon as it popped into your head.

lem, it is the unpredictabilty of it and the fact that there is NO ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE to using car batteries over using batteries installed exclusivel y for the utility.

None that you can see.

RE EXPENSIVE to use auto batteries even if just for the difference in cost of the equipment to connect to the grid. Millions of small installations o r a few much larger installations? Which will be more economical? The ans wer is obvious.

It would be, if the utility had to pay the entire cost of all the smaller i nstallations. The car batteries are going to need charging in any event, an d the utilities only need to add enough to the chargers to make them bidire ctional and remotely controllable. It isn't heavy duty power electronics an d it would be produced in huge volume. It's also a lot cheaper than the bat teries themselves.

analysis.

for that purpose where the availability is much more accurately known.

Sadly, your intuitions about lowest cost are about as reliable as your intu itions about statistical variance.

e'd be publishing better analyses on a better-paying site.

ntrol over.

but the statistical distribution of the demand for power is stable enough that they can plan the number and size of generating stations they need.

. My agreement with the utility provides for disconnecting my service if m y usage of power becomes detrimental to the utility. So they clearly don't "depend" on my behavior.

If they didn't have customers buying their power, they wouldn't exist.

They depend on their customers in a very real and fundamental sense, even i f you can't see it.

's happy to over-simplify to the point where it all makes sense to him, and doesn't seem able to recognise that there might be more going on that he h as appreciated.

Rick can't see that the fact that cars spend 95% of their time parked has i mplications. It would be nice if we had data that spelled out how often the proportion of cars parked fell below 90% or 80%, but since commuting accou nts for only about 18% of car trips, it's unlikely to go much lower.

e problem can actually be analyzed much more simply.

up spending more than you needed to.

Except that you don't adduce any data. Telling us what you think might happ en isn't analysis - it's just spitballing.

idea that "averages happen" and at the same time over simplifying the fact that humans are hard to predict by trying to rely on averages.

Given enough humans, the right kind of averages do an excellent job of pred icting what humans will do.

The phone system and the businesses that sell electricity to householders h ave relied on this for years.

Says Rick. Since it's not my idea at all, I couldn't care less.

I got it from the 2008 book

and the journalist who wrote the book - Thomas Friedman - won't have come up with it himself either.

ated utility batteries for several reasons.

None of the "reasons" you have come up with has been particularly plausible .

ct and as a result, unreliable.

Wrong. Individual human are somewhat unpredictable. Lots of them are much m ore predictable. The phone system and the existing utilities do rely on thi s.

everse charging equipment distributed around the utility network.

But they would make the same massive investment if the batteries were on th eir sites?

Tesla's Powerwall installation in South Australia is just a large pile of c ar batteries. It wasn't invented separately for the job.

simple.

And wrong ...

formatting link

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

e:

bution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid backup the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to be understood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issue, but a determinant issue.

n is predicable enough to be exploited.

r do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value often e nough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.

This is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the most part) a re directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing and being pa rt of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.

data and wants to jump to a conclusion.

Live and learn. I've seen it and I know it happens, not infrequently. Onl y the ignoramus would say that human behavior is much predictable in terms of the extremes. Weather follows trends with quantifiable extremes. Human s are constantly changing, forgetting the past and reacting in unpredicted ways. Hence the great recession. Only a fool would deny that.

ehavior.

ut that the control theory is difficult because the human minds making the choices that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational pri nciple.

ciple" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said it above. It's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.

tors had perfect information (which is another lunatic assumption built int o classic economic models).

Yes, now you are starting to get the idea. The problem is very complex but mostly the issue is that the behavior of people are chaotic responding in unpredictable ways to something as small as a tweet.

the exact level to be available isn't known, the utility grid will not be designed to depend on it.

eir phones, but it gets by by providing enough spare capacity to cover 99% of situations.

for the most part, but not being able to call 911 is rather inconvenient. Even so, I only recall once in my life that I could not make a local call because of overloaded circuits. It does happen in emergencies and other ex treme events even though the phone network is a lot less expensive to provi de than electrical capacity.

The phone network can go down simply through overuse. For the electric gri d to depend on BEVs for electric supply would doubly expose them in unusual events. Supply can be diminished and demand increased as everyone stopped supplying power and started charging their cars.

outs. When coming on gradually load shedding can mitigate the effect.

ir-conditioners at random times too - as I did go on to point out. But you had to post your half-baked response as soon as it popped into your head.

Wow! You have run completely out of arguments and resort to calling names! !! Is this KRW???

oblem, it is the unpredictabilty of it and the fact that there is NO ECONOM IC ADVANTAGE to using car batteries over using batteries installed exclusiv ely for the utility.

MORE EXPENSIVE to use auto batteries even if just for the difference in cos t of the equipment to connect to the grid. Millions of small installations or a few much larger installations? Which will be more economical? The a nswer is obvious.

installations. The car batteries are going to need charging in any event, and the utilities only need to add enough to the chargers to make them bidi rectional and remotely controllable. It isn't heavy duty power electronics and it would be produced in huge volume. It's also a lot cheaper than the b atteries themselves.

f analysis.

d for that purpose where the availability is much more accurately known.

tuitions about statistical variance.

we'd be publishing better analyses on a better-paying site.

control over.

l, but the statistical distribution of the demand for power is stable enoug h that they can plan the number and size of generating stations they need.

rs. My agreement with the utility provides for disconnecting my service if my usage of power becomes detrimental to the utility. So they clearly don 't "depend" on my behavior.

if you can't see it.

he's happy to over-simplify to the point where it all makes sense to him, a nd doesn't seem able to recognise that there might be more going on that he has appreciated.

implications. It would be nice if we had data that spelled out how often t he proportion of cars parked fell below 90% or 80%, but since commuting acc ounts for only about 18% of car trips, it's unlikely to go much lower.

the problem can actually be analyzed much more simply.

nd up spending more than you needed to.

ppen isn't analysis - it's just spitballing.

le idea that "averages happen" and at the same time over simplifying the fa ct that humans are hard to predict by trying to rely on averages.

edicting what humans will do.

have relied on this for years.

e up with it himself either.

icated utility batteries for several reasons.

le.

dict and as a result, unreliable.

more predictable. The phone system and the existing utilities do rely on t his.

reverse charging equipment distributed around the utility network.

their sites?

car batteries. It wasn't invented separately for the job.

I think there is a lot more than just batteries.

y simple.

Ok, you have run out of any substantive arguments and have lowered the conv ersation to the typical SED level. Congratulations.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.