Skip to main content


I haven't read much about the subject ,but I know power in Texas is supplied by ERCOT which is a non-profit agency.
So I was wondering what did you mean when you talked about privatization.
This makes sense now, because tbh, it didn't make sense to have an independent grid just to have it owned by the state, that's still a bit regulated especially that texas is a mostly republican state, and from what I know , is that most republican support neoliberalism afaik that's why I had to ask and thanks for the explanation.
If you are able to penetrate a paywall, I can recommend a good overview of this story here
The Second Battle of the Alamo: The Midnight Connection Richard D. Cudahy Natural Resources & Environment Vol. 10, No. 1 (Summer 1995) https://www.jstor.org/stable/40923434
@shuttersparks
I don't think one big national grid is the answer here, but rather a bunch of tiny microgrids.
This entry was edited (5 days ago)

bhaugen reshared this.

we are also not prepared for a world where microgrid and macrogrid work together tightly. microgrid is just as important as the macro.
it all boils down to backups and integrity tho, systems fail and we all need help sometimes.
sorry main issue i mean to bring up is that economic forces and greed will enable the larger macro grid to inevitably put non equitable economic pressure on the micro-grid as it will probably be perceived to have less leverage.

now if we had superconducting transmission lines, this would all be a different story.
Two very important issues here:
1. Privatization is always highly risky because large transactions attract unscrupulous investors, and deals involving the state are susceptible to corruption.

2. Efficiency optimization compounds systemic risk.

Texas's electrical isolationism can be blamed in this particular case, but "one big happy grid" is not enough. There needs to be artificial incentive to over-build generation capacity because this problem can occur at any scale.
> Efficiency optimization compounds systemic risk.

Ever so true, but you could expand on that a bit if you feel like it....

@shuttersparks
I could write volumes on the topic, but anything I say will pale in comparison to what Taleb wrote in The Black Swan and Antifragile.
>bear in mind that Texas "seceded" from the US national electrical grid in order to avoid federal regulation.
Imagine a man whose house was blown away by a hurricane because he was not rich enough to build a stronger one, selling his mother into slavery to do so. You think it was his fault for wanting to escape his mother's slavery. Slavery is just a form of regulation, isn't it?
No. Capitalism is inherently predatory. That's it's nature. Despite the talk about a "free market", capitalist entities do not want a free market. Each entity competes and wants it all for themselves.

There is no such thing as a free market other than as a theoretical concept that's useful in discussions of economics. The moment the first transaction occurs in a market, it is no long free. From there, capitalism always trends towards creating monopolies. That's the goal.

The primary function of any government is to regulate capitalism such that lively economic markets occur, monopolies are prevented, and the citizens are not harmed.