Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I add two minor criticisms here:
  • The Imperial College paper explicitly expresses total faith in the efficiency of markets (in causing production according to the merit order);
  • There is no discussion of the sensibility of the government's plans for new nuclear capacity.

These issues don't significantly affect their arguments regarding wind power and the absurdity of Hughes's points, though.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Oct 22nd, 2012 at 05:32:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the first point, I didn't notice them say "markets" without adding "and regulation"... At least, they often said that.

On the second, I think the discussion is very focussed on wind, no doubt as per the Select Committee remit.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 22nd, 2012 at 06:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo,

I only scanned the paper, but I didn't see this. Rather, they followed their remit: accepting the government's plans on nuclear as a baseline makes sense as you have to have some baseline, and theirs is not to question what is a largely orthogonal issue.

As to their "total faith in markets", I think it is more a case of assuming the merit order because it is optimal, market or no market. What they are demonstrating is that Hughes' argument amounts to "if you build a large amount of wind power and also behave stupidly, then..."

;-)

by mustakissa on Tue Oct 23rd, 2012 at 02:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series