Sure you could. How much do you think they will pay you per kw? 1/10 what you paid them and they will charge you for using their infrastructure..at least in the US they do.

So everything should be cheaper right...RIGHT?

UK is legally required to set the price of electricity to whichever generator has the highest cost - which is natural gas. Its called marginal cost pricing.

It's worth thinking how this would work if it didn't work like this though? Nearly all 'commodity' markets clear this way.

If you switched to 'people get paid what they bid' it's almost certain the market would just converge back to this anyway - but with a lot more gaming and guesswork (wind guessing the gas marginal price to try and get the highest price).

Unregulated free markets optimizing for the least efficient, and highest possible price to the consumer? That's interesting, because its 100% the opposite of what I've been told my whole life.

It's not the highest possible price, it's roughly the same price but with less transparency and some fudge factors added due to uncertainty.

In a world where renewables are cheaper the transparency speeds the transition

It floats oil and gas profits with huge public subsidy while ensuring nobody in the market realizes benefits from alternate sources. It slows/blocks the transition.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm open to the idea that oil and gas are protected and subsidized in many different ways.

Accurate information on how much more they costs than renewables I don't see the link.

Accurate prices are good. Actions that stop the market acting on the accurate prices are bad.

Why would anyone address the additional challenges and reliability concerns of renewables, when oil can be purchased for the same price? What kind of incentive does that set up?

Why do you see it that way?

The idea behind the regulation is that it's providing the maximum incentive to bring cheaper electricity to market.

If you try to mandate that high cost producers charge less, they will do what makes sense to control costs and then quit altogether once they are losing money.

That's only true for spot pricing, right? Longer term supply contracts can embody more "strategic" criteria.

Yes of course but the spot market and associated futures has a very big impact on any "OTC" deal that a supplier and generator does.

Like you are not going to agree a eg 3 year supply deal with $SUPPLYCO at a significantly lower price than what you could get on the spot market for it (or what you could hedge out on futures).

That's how all commodity markets works. All of Europe runs on the same scheme.

Do you think the Saudi's price their $10 per barrel oil at $10? The average price? Median? Or marginal?

They price at at the marginal price.

In the UK what this means is that cheap production like renewables and storage are incentivized to get built while the most expensive fossil production is shutting down.

Then at some point renewables start to become to marginal producer and prices crater. Which is already happening.

Saudi's use the government to price their oil internally low... on the free market they sell it at the price dictated by supply and demand. Renewables and storage are disincentivized because oil and gas is legally blocked from ever taking a loss. Whats stopping O&G from raising prices to keep their marginal producer status and ensuring a race to the bottom?

How can they be legally blocked from ever taking a loss? It is a market. They bid.

There's a plethora of producers with varying equipment, startup times, ramp times, costs and so on.

As renewable penetration expands the most expensive, or least flexible ones are called in fewer and fewer hours until they shut down. If one oil and gas producer tries to raise prices a competitor steps in and fills the demand.

Did you think there was this one monopoly oil and gas power producing able to dictate prices at will?

> How can they be legally blocked from ever taking a loss? It is a market. They bid.

I don't know enough about oil & gas to tell you what is happening there, but not every market truly operates as a free market.

For example, nuclear power plants almost always have a contract with the government for a specific electricity price: if the market pays more the profits will go to the government, if the market pays less the government subsidizes production. Something similar happened with early wind power.

Yes, that is a CFD. CFDs are allocated in bidding processes to get them as cheaply as possible.

Oil and gas plants in Europe are very much not on CFDs. They can bid out their power using futures. But that is like any other market.

Are there any efforts to fix this?

More renewables and batteries so that gas generators wouldn't have any leftover capacity to bid for.

I believe that no governing party has attempted to fix this. Generally - this set up benefits the oil/gas lobby, so efforts to change it will butt heads with them. UK also trades energy with mainland Europe, which can add a complication with how prices are set.

Why should they? It's not the right time for that yet. Letting the price stay high despite renewable prices being lower means it's tremendously profitable to build new renewable sources, so there's lots of incentive for it to be done.

There's no incentive... Why invest in a less reliable source if you could endlessly purchase gas power for the same price? It slows the transition from fossil fuels and ensures that oil and gas never takes a loss.

Because the sun is free but you can sell it like it's gas.

just like nobody in the US is qualified to work in tech so companies have to outsource jobs?

you mean AV1?

If your haven't been paid in a 6 months, then yes? A job is a means to an end - you don't have love or even like your job.

So hire 30k H1Bs first and then fire 30k? Outcome is pretty much the same.

In California, PG&E charges you for putting solar on their grid and they'll pay you a penny for your extra electricity.

Uninstalling malware takes extra steps and multiple reboots

so you're saying Shopify should all funding. By your own reasoning, saying ALL companies should withdraw funding for ALL OSS projects.

I absolutely didn’t say anything even similar to that. Are you ok?

"but if you haven't contributed to tinygrad your application won't be considered" this company expects people to work for free?

> See our bounty page to judge if you might be a good fit. Bounties pay you while judging that fit.

Literally the line above that

They MIGHT pay you IF you're a fit. They're bounties, i.e. spec work. They also pay a max of $1000, most of them significantly less. You can see more info at the link in that line:

> All bounties paid out at my (geohot) discretion. Code must be clean and maintainable without serious hacks.

No thanks. If you want to try before you buy, have your candidates do a paid test project. Founders need to stop acting like it's a privilege to work for them. Any talent worth hiring has plenty of other options that will treat them with respect.