True, but could the incentuve be structured around the individual employee’s coffee shop (which would mean divulging the i individual coffee shops financials? That could make each employee look better out for the profitability of their coffee shop.
Not specific to the Chevron deference, but I’ve always felt that judicial interpretation should be conservative, i.e. legal rulings should aim to not change society without a previous law change by the parliament. This would mean that the power to change how society works should lie with the parliament, not the judiciary.
I’m aware thus would also block some changes that I agree with, but longer term I think this would be much healthier for democracy.
Legislation is always the first-line rule maker, this is about deciding who is the second-line rule maker - the administrative state of experts and political appointees, or the judicial state of, well, political appointees.
Yeah, I was not talking about this case in particular. For example, various international treaties are often very vaguely formulated, which has the concequence that practical law making gets done in the courts (which is too undemocratic). I would prefer the judiciary in such cases to e.g. rule that the parliment needs to make clearer rules and until that happens, the court adjourns the legal case.
This would move both power and responsibility to the parliament from the courts, which IMO would be healtier for democracy long-term.
Perhaps a better word for that would not be conservative but not interventionist. I think some of that is possible (less interventist) but the US unlike the UK is built around the supreme court deciding according to the constitution. The UK makes Parliamentary supremacy work but even if we could throw out the constitution I don't think Americans would trust that idea.
That said getting rid of the Chevron defense and a lot of other rulings from the court have been both very activist, very harmful, and badly argued.
Not OP, but to me it sounds line p-hacking aka bad science as well: If you slice a dataset en enough subsamples you will very likely find random correlations. That’s the nature of these kinds of analyses and we should be sceptical of conclusions that are based on suce analyses.
Isolated this is a zero sum game in favor of buyers (someone has ti take the electricity), but longer term, this shows there needs to be better greater electricity storage solutions available, i.e batteries or similar.
Just to add to that: Any fluctuation in prices works to incentivise storage, negative prices are not so special in that regard.
Negative prices allow for some weird actions to become profitable - like starting an empty washing machine, turning in the light in an empty room or needlessly heating some water tank. Basically everything we are used to think of as waste. It sounds absurd, but it's not really a big deal.
And even better, the incentive to expand the grid. The market is easy to control, because the money flows via the internet. But how to transport the energy?
Without a proper grid not possible. The various countries block the expansion for political reasons. They would loose their power.
I argue that the number of such industries is and will be low.
Usually clients want consistency in the output. (they depend on the product/service)
Business owner usually wants consistency in employee/machinery output. (They cost money)
To me it seems that only low priority computation (incl. con-coins) is such industry.
(Investment kind of reused, and relatively few employees)
There will be some shift to adjust to intermitency (e.g. Worker hours might be shifted to the time when solar generates the most energy to take advantage of the price)
Sure, or more precisely they need to be able to draw a box around the power intensive step where they can cheaply store a buffer of the inputs and outputs, and have excess capacity for that step.
Like I'm not an expert on fertilizer production, but it seems pretty likely to me that you could draw that box around ammonia production and build out capacity that relatively cheaply, while leaving what I imagine to be the more operationally complex and capital intensive steps of extracting phosphates (via sulphiric and phosphoric acid) and potassium (which has nitric and sulphiric acid as biproducts), and combining that nitric acid with the ammonia (into ammonium nitrate) alone.
In some cases if you have excess production capacity (because you have unpredictable or seasonal load and you aren't currently at a peak) you don't necessarily even need more production capacity at all, just the ability to store a bit more of the inputs and outputs in a buffer.
Unfortunately you've got a massive term mismatch. You have negative prices today, but a lot of reason to believe that by the time you could bring your storage online the problem will already have resolved itself.
Oil briefly went negative a few years ago. If you decided to build a storage business dependent on negative oil prices for profit, you might just be coming online around now, and very much poorer than you were before. (Of course you would in fact have stopped a long time ago.)
Oil prices went negative due to an exogenous, rare event shocking demand. No one expected that would recur. (And indeed, many people did try to figure out how to store oil in one-off vessels, short term leases for storage, etc., though I don't know if anyone succeeded.)
Solar panel production on the other hand is exponential and growing much faster than overall power consumption. It can be very, very favorable to build batteries and that's why grid scale battery production is taking off. There is in fact a storage business dependent on energy arbitrage over time, it's lucrative, and all indications suggest it will continue to be lucrative for many years to come.
OP is correct. Negative prices stokes battery storage deployment. See California and their ~52GW storage target (currently @ ~10GW), because of negative prices and the duck curve. California utility scale storage soaks up solar during the day (when spot prices approach zero or go negative), and discharges most profitably right after sunset for ~4 hr (but occasionally, right before sunrise when demand is ramping before the sun is up). If spot prices rise during daylight hours, you add more solar generation to push them back down.
The reason why the prices are negative is that renewables have become cheap to install, but don't come with an off switch.
There is good news though. With electric car sales slowing down (at least in the west) there is a surplus of batteries on the market, which makes grid storage projects more affordable. The incentives are currently pushing us towards decarbonizing our electric infrastructure faster and that is wonderful. As long as the politicians don't do anything dumb like slap huge tariffs on solar cells or something we should be making some real progress towards a green future.
Negative prices usually happen because of laws requiring minimum utilization, or subsides, or because they are so small and rare that it is not worth having someone on place to turn the switch.
If you want to be pedantic yes. But its not like grid operators back in the control rooms are disconnecting solar farms because the grid is oversaturated. They instead tell the fossil fuel plants to reduce their burn rate. They have to work around the instability from the renewables. That's why grid scale storage is such a key component of the future energy economy.
> But its not like grid operators back in the control rooms are disconnecting solar farms because the grid is oversaturated. They instead tell the fossil fuel plants to reduce their burn rate.
Since we're being pedantic, as I understand it, the grid operators don't usually tell plants what to do (outside of system stress response, curtailment, etc), the grid operator shares the forecast, and when the price forecast is low, fossil fuel plants are likely tell the grid operator they'd rather shutdown than produce power at low/negative prices. For solar plants, there's no fuel cost, and there might be subsidies, so producing at a negative market price might still be positive for the generator and there's no reason to turn it off. For nuclear, fueling schedules don't really change based on use, so there's no reason to not provide optimum power outage other than for grid stability.
Grid scale storage should reduce price swings, since storage plants will tend to show up on the demand side when prices are low and the supply side when prices are high; although perhaps price swings will become bigger when prediction fails --- if storage fills up by noon you'll have a lot of excess supply until sunset; if storage empties by midnight, you may have a lot of excess demand until sunrise.
> its not like grid operators back in the control rooms are disconnecting solar farms because the grid is oversaturated
You are correct that they are not.
But this is due to policy, not physics. It's obvious to shut-down the fossil fuel plants first, but after then, there's no physical reason why they can't keep shutting power plants down.
Anyway, agreed, adding storage is a much better solution than focusing on the management of renewables.
> But its not like grid operators back in the control rooms are disconnecting solar farms because the grid is oversaturated.
In Australia, this has been happening for some time - plants are literally having their output dialled back (or even being disconnected entirely) during peak times by the market operator.
The oil situation is not analogous. It's not like solar prices going negative are something that is difficult to predict, or the result of things like "black swan" geopolitical events. Once we build out enough solar we should be having negative prices literally every sunny day - of course, the hope is that enough storage comes online then to mop up that excess generation so prices don't go negative.
And de-incentivizes supply. A real solution need to be available to balance the supply and demand of power such that the rates on both ends are predictable.
A market where a good fluctuates between profitable and not is not one very attractive to investment.
Playing the video game Victoria 3 has taught me a lot about healthy markets. You have to play both sides of supply and demand to get to the prices you need
Negative prices do incentivize storage, because storage will alliw sellers to sell at a time with higher prices (i.e. when demand is greater relative to supply).
I could see this then pushing more consumers to have their own batteries to store energy when it's inexpensive. Interesting market playing out with energy storage :-)
> A market where a good fluctuates between profitable and not is not one very attractive to investment.
This is the most wild thing I've ever read on this website. Pick just about any security and you'll see that buying and selling it over time fluctuates between profitable and not profitable. If something was always profitable everyone would do it and get infinitely rich. Arbitrage wouldn't exist. Economies would shut down.
One aspect of that time period is they absolutely idolized the romans. A lot of education at the time consisted of learning latin and at the same time people were well aware that only a fraction of the classical texts had been preserved. I find it very believable that they understood the significance of preserving and potentially unlocking these scrolls.
I agree. In general, european companies accepts unions, but in return requires its competitors are also be unionized. Tesla not being unionized is a problem for european car manufactorers as Tesla will have lower costs/more flexible work force.
Anyone know if the german Tesla factory is unionized?
Not yet unionized, but IG Metall is making progress. They have representation in the factory and there recently was an action where thousands of workers wore union pins.
With Tesla having a blanket global ban on allowing unions coming straight from the top, I think IG Metall is just deluding themselves if they think they make progress.
Considering IF Metall started the current strike after trying to get deal signed for six years, I guess IG Metall will be still reporting "progress" out to 2030...
Still, the M3 is the first 3nm processor. It would be interesting to see it compared to the latest 5nm processor (the M2) to see the gain from die switch.
Perhaps not showing it means there is little benefit from going from 5nm to 3nm?
You can only meaningfully determine that if you assume the die is more-or-less the same between the two versions. It is not; the M3 Pro has many changes, the perf/efficiency core ratio is different, they have different amounts of per-core cache, max clock rate, etc. That gets bigger as you move away from the CPU cores (e.g. the GPU is a big architecture change.)
For example, the M3 Pro has 6+6 P/E cores, versus the M2 Pro's 8+4. That is a big change that impacts performance, but can only be truly measured "globally" on a specific workload. The M3 Pro does do better for many workloads despite that. Maybe we could assume the improvement in transistor density gave them enough performance uplift, they were able to get rid of 2 P cores and still come out ahead. Does that mean that 3nm is "bad"? No, it meant it was good enough that it allowed them to make a different tradeoff.
"How much uplift comes from this one exact thing" is not really a super simple question to answer in this case, unfortunately, and there are many factors to control for.
Yes, that's my point. The M1 Pro is also 5nm, would you say that the M1 losing badly to the M3 means 3nm is way better than 5nm? No, the architectural differences mean that trying to derive or compare performance characteristics of the underlying lithographic process is mostly difficult or totally pointless. It doesn't matter whether you use the M1 or the M2 as the baseline. You need to use the same design to understand the lithographic differences, and these aren't the same designs. It's only one small part of the equation.
So going back to your original question, I think the reason people compare the M1 vs the M3, and not M2 vs M3, has nothing to do with making 3nm "look good" or whatever. The reason is more mundane: it's because that's what people would probably upgrade from. Because of all the differences, the only way to know whether an upgrade is worth it is to do workload comparisons, not one-to-one architectural/litho comparisons.
Given the multitude of choices that can affect the performance of the end product beyond just the lithography, it's mostly because the performance uplift going from M1 -> M3 is much more significant than from M2 -> M3.
