Bi-Directional Charging??? When???

[Dave Cundiff]

It's not. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Depends on the situation, @mkhuffman.

Here's my best take, though I'm a health/science professional who's studied economics and I'm not an economist. It is oversimplified -- people write big books on the conditions that are needed in order to make unregulated or self-regulating markets work for everyone, and not become "snake pits" for bad or dangerous ideas, goods, and services.

***

Unregulated free markets work really well -- way better than government! -- in situations where (1) most people can understand the goods and services well enough to make informed choices to buy any of them; (2) people can decide to buy or not; (3) the purchaser gets the vast majority of the benefits and the risks of their choice; and (4) either there is no change needed, or there's already a "critical mass" of individuals ready to make needed change on their own.

Unregulated free markets can work well enough when the issues are simple enough to catalyze sufficient individual actions. For instance, in eighteenth-century Philadelphia (population maybe 23,000), Benjamin Franklin enjoyed enough community respect to organize private, voluntary fire departments and free libraries.

Unregulated free markets work very poorly when there's a need to minimize external impacts of one's action. If each of us can save $10,000 over a lifetime by driving a highly polluting vehicle instead of a clean one, but 2% of the population will die early if all of us drive the polluting cars, almost all the personal advantage goes to the person who makes the antisocial choice, compared to the one who is careful about others. That still applies even when each of us would willingly pay $10,000 to avoid having it be us, or one of our loved ones, who dies early. In this case, because it fails to "internalize the external cost" of harming others, the unregulated market systematically fails to create conditions for maximum happiness. And that's just human health -- who but government could have saved the bald eagles and other endangered species? I prefer a world WITH bald eagles, thank you.

Unregulated free markets struggle with situations where the customer can't tell the quality of the product or service. If every Public Health restaurant inspector vanished overnight, what would you do to protect your family while eating out? Are you willing to have everyone do that? How about building codes, which help take the profit out of corner-cutting in the parts of the house that the buyer can't see?

Unregulated free markets also struggle with "first mover disadvantage." EXAMPLE: Nobody's making affordable chargers because there aren't enough EVs, and nobody's buying EVs because there aren't enough chargers. If there's enough public benefit from the change, temporary market subsidies can encourage the "early adopters" to change without coercing a single person who isn't ready yet.

Finally, should there be an unregulated free market for the nation's defense? God save us then, because some absolutely necessary group actions require a functioning government.

***

Does government do stupid things? You bet it does! Decisions that don't respond to people's wishes usually get punished, in government as well as elsewhere, although the mechanisms of that punishment are different in the public sector than in the private sector.

What keeps politicians "honest" -- or, I would say, responsive to the public's wishes -- is the realistic fear that they may lose the next election if they don't serve the public well, or if they don't explain the basis for their decisions in such a way that ordinary people can approve of the work.

Politicians don't act as idiots and get re-elected, unless voters tolerate idiocy in their politicians. If a politician has been re-elected in a contested election, I guarantee they did something that made people vote for them instead of for their opponent(s).

Please don't blame the politicians for the voters' shortcomings.

***

Very best wishes, @mkhuffman! Glad you're here!

Sponsored

 

[risingphoenix]

I don't want to keep arguing about this. I don't agree with you and everyone else who thinks the government is better at making decisions than free people are - like you and me. Politicians and many scientists are idiots. I don't trust them to do much of anything, including ordering me around. So let's just agree to disagree. We all are fans of Rivian, so let's get back to that.

It is a fact that burning fossil fuels is responsible for 20% (that's 1 out of every 5) deaths in the world. So no, your air is not "clean", especially not from what you think is the "free market".

Mandating THE ABILITY to discharge the massive EV battery infrastructure into the grid during peak hours can eliminate or dramatically reduce peaker power production, which is the dirtiest form of electricity generation. This is guaranteed to SAVE LIVES. Anybody arguing against this must believe that "their right to do whatever the hell they want is more important than anyone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is the entitled attitude of a 2 year old and the same ludicrous protests against masks, vaccines, smoking bans, and other public health policy that is proven to SAVES LIVES. There is nothing "political" about that unless your politics is not giving a damn about anyone else in the world.

 

[mkhuffman]

Depends on the situation, @mkhuffman.

Here's my best take, though I'm a health/science professional who's studied economics and I'm not an economist. It is oversimplified -- people write big books on the conditions that are needed in order to make unregulated or self-regulating markets work for everyone, and not become "snake pits" for bad or dangerous ideas, goods, and services.

***

Unregulated free markets work really well -- way better than government! -- in situations where (1) most people can understand the goods and services well enough to make informed choices to buy any of them; (2) people can decide to buy or not; (3) the purchaser gets the vast majority of the benefits and the risks of their choice; and (4) either there is no change needed, or there's already a "critical mass" of individuals ready to make needed change on their own.

Unregulated free markets can work well enough when the issues are simple enough to catalyze sufficient individual actions. For instance, in eighteenth-century Philadelphia (population maybe 23,000), Benjamin Franklin enjoyed enough community respect to organize private, voluntary fire departments and free libraries.

Unregulated free markets work very poorly when there's a need to minimize external impacts of one's action. If each of us can save $10,000 over a lifetime by driving a highly polluting vehicle instead of a clean one, but 2% of the population will die early if all of us drive the polluting cars, almost all the personal advantage goes to the person who makes the antisocial choice, compared to the one who is careful about others. That still applies even when each of us would willingly pay $10,000 to avoid having it be us, or one of our loved ones, who dies early. In this case, because it fails to "internalize the external cost" of harming others, the unregulated market systematically fails to create conditions for maximum happiness. And that's just human health -- who but government could have saved the bald eagles and other endangered species? I prefer a world WITH bald eagles, thank you.

Unregulated free markets struggle with situations where the customer can't tell the quality of the product or service. If every Public Health restaurant inspector vanished overnight, what would you do to protect your family while eating out? Are you willing to have everyone do that? How about building codes, which help take the profit out of corner-cutting in the parts of the house that the buyer can't see?

Unregulated free markets also struggle with "first mover disadvantage." EXAMPLE: Nobody's making affordable chargers because there aren't enough EVs, and nobody's buying EVs because there aren't enough chargers. If there's enough public benefit from the change, temporary market subsidies can encourage the "early adopters" to change without coercing a single person who isn't ready yet.

Finally, should there be an unregulated free market for the nation's defense? God save us then, because some absolutely necessary group actions require a functioning government.

***

Does government do stupid things? You bet it does! Decisions that don't respond to people's wishes usually get punished, in government as well as elsewhere, although the mechanisms of that punishment are different in the public sector than in the private sector.

What keeps politicians "honest" -- or, I would say, responsive to the public's wishes -- is the realistic fear that they may lose the next election if they don't serve the public well, or if they don't explain the basis for their decisions in such a way that ordinary people can approve of the work.

Politicians don't act as idiots and get re-elected, unless voters tolerate idiocy in their politicians. If a politician has been re-elected in a contested election, I guarantee they did something that made people vote for them instead of for their opponent(s).

Please don't blame the politicians for the voters' shortcomings.

***

Very best wishes, @mkhuffman! Glad you're here!

Dave, this is a great response, well-reasoned and thoughtful.

I fully agree with the theory behind your post. And I agree that if there are not consequences for bad decisions individuals make, they will continue to make them. The environment is one area where bad decisions often do not lead to consequences, as you said. (I also think animals fall into the "environment" bucket because they cannot defend themselves.)

The problem we have today is there are politicians pushing huge agendas that are causing harm in other areas, while claiming to be preventing harm in the area they say they care about. In addition, there are politicians who have agendas that are not shared with the public - they lie about their plans and positions, and then do things when in office that they said they would not do. In theory, this behavior should result in them getting voted out, but it is not happening.

I think it is because a huge percentage of the people do not pay attention, and make their decisions based on a 20 second video. People rarely take the time needed to find out the truth, and then just vote for the name they recognize or against a candidate/party they hate. (Not going to get into names in this forum as then it is over the line. Trying to stay generic! It is true of people on all sides of the isle, I think.)

There are serious consequences to the mandates being discussed in this thread. All mandates have consequences, and many politicians will lie about the consequences or ignore them, so the voters do not know. And if the voters are uniformed, they will vote for the wrong policies and the wrong people. Which is what is happening, IMO.

Mandates are bad in general. In a very small number of situations, the benefits can outweigh the consequences. But it is rare. Unfortunately, our politicians love mandates, and mandates are not rare.

A good exercise is this: whenever a mandate is proposed, find out what the negative consequences are - all of them. If someone is saying there are no negative consequences, or not saying what the negative consequences are, they are being deceitful, and it should be a huge red flag to everyone. It is not to most people, unfortunately.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, @mkhuffman!

When I've had the privilege of advising elected officials, I often tell them, "You can enact any policy you choose, because you're the elected official. What you can't do is avoid the unintended consequences of the policy you chose."

You're correct that every significant policy option has at least some unintended consequences. Sometimes the bad or good consequences won't be seen or discussed until after the next election. Because voters don't choose based on things they don't remember, delayed consequences can distort decision-making.

The only thing I'd try to (gently) correct in #48, is that I would point out that NOT deciding and NOT regulating are also decisions, which also carry significant unintended consequences. It's a complicated world, which doesn't usually respond well to simple analyses.

***

To loop back to bi-directional charging, I can see "pros and cons" to mandating that new cars come with bidirectional charging capability. Done well, it could dramatically reduce stress on the electrical grid. Done poorly, it could slow down EV adoption.

I don't think it's practical for government to mandate that EVs be plugged in, or to monitor compliance with such a rule if instituted. Mandating that new cars come with specific features has a long history of improving safety and conserving resources, though, and is usually workable if it produces net benefits.

Thanks so much!

 

[SANZC02]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, @mkhuffman!

When I've had the privilege of advising elected officials, I often tell them, "You can enact any policy you choose, because you're the elected official. What you can't do is avoid the unintended consequences of the policy you chose."

You're correct that every significant policy option has at least some unintended consequences. Sometimes the bad or good consequences won't be seen or discussed until after the next election. Because voters don't choose based on things they don't remember, that can distort decision-making.

The only thing I'd try to (gently) correct in #48, is that I would point out that NOT deciding and NOT regulating are also decisions, which also carry significant unintended consequences. It's a complicated world, which doesn't usually respond well to simple analyses.

***

To loop back to bi-directional charging, I can see "pros and cons" to mandating that new cars come with bidirectional charging capability. Done well, it could dramatically reduce stress on the electrical grid. Done poorly, it could slow down EV adoption.

I don't think it's practical for government to mandate that EVs be plugged in, or to monitor compliance with such a rule if instituted. Mandating that new cars come with specific features has a long history of improving safety and conserving resources, though, and is usually workable if it produces net benefits.

Thanks so much!

I have to agree with you here and we can see from how the home battery implementation was done what the bidirectional charging would be like.

From what I have read so far they are trying to regulate that EVs should be required to support bidirectional charging not how it is used. Currently if you have a battery backup on your house you are able to feed the grid but are not mandated to do it. I have full control on how my battery is charged and discharged. I can set a minimum charge amount to retain power for a power outage.

Currently my Powerwall charges during the day and powers my house during peak time from 4pm to 9pm. I do not send any of the battery back to the grid. Once the bidirectional charging on my Rivian is enabled I will certainly tie it into my current system.

Sponsored