User:RobbieIanMorrison/sandbox/archive

New Zealand energy reforms

 * evince ~/synk.usb/work/wip-tu-berlin-2012-2013/2013/meridian-example/presentation/wip-nz-market-power-ohps-jan2013.org.pdf &

By way of background, South Island hydro operators were offering above North Island thermal operators in order to conserve water as they expect hydro generation to be more valuable in two months time. The South Island electricity prices were substantial and power flows southward. Meridian was able to dominate the South Island reserves market as North Island reserve assets cannot be deployed with only one HVDC pole in operation. Meridian then offered high for its numerous South Island reserve assets and this prejudices the sole operational HVDC link still further. South Island electricity prices escalated as a result. Meridian benefited because more of its South Island generation is dispatched when the HVDC link is choked. Nodal prices became seriously high, hitting a day-averaged $400/MWh. Meridian eventually backed off after criticism. The New Zealand Electricity Authority handed the matter to the New Zealand Competition Commission to investigate market abuse.

Meridian Energy alleged abused the reserves market between May–June 2012 during upgrade work on the HVDC cable. Meridian was able to dominate the South Island reserves market as North Island reserve assets could not be deployed with only one HVDC pole in operation. Nodal prices became uncharacteristically high, hitting, on occasion, a day-averaged $400/MWh. The Electricity Authority handed the matter to the Commerce Commission to investigate.

Bertram (2011) focuses on the role of circular asset revaluations by the distribution companies and gentailers to set and justify prices : again the detrimental effects are large.

In addition, there have been several studies examining market power in the electricity industry. McRae and Wolak (2009) and Browne et al (2012) investigate economic rent taking in the wholesale market by gentailers. Both come to similar results using very different methodologies : that the abuse is substantial.

CC license extortion

 * Creative Commons license
 * http://www.linux-community.de/Internal/Artikel/Print-Artikel/LinuxUser/2016/07/Kleingedrucktes

Not only here, it is worthwhile to pay attention on fine print: The same applies to supposedly free licenses, which one is using daily. Let's say you bind an image on your website, which is under a common creative license. Then it is enough to mention the author and the license, and with a link to the original, right? If you believe the CC site, even that is already overkill: "The easiest CC License Agreement requires the user (licensee) only the attribution of the author / copyright owner (licensor)", writes copy for example the organization full-bodied on its German site [4] ,

If you believe that, you'd better have a monthly salary for a rainy day. My colleague Christoph Langner garnished his private blog Linuxundich.de (which is even under CC-BY) with two CC-BY-licensed images of the Berlin photographer Dennis Skley [5]. He gave the name of the author, the source and the license. The result was a warning about 2,300 euros, including legal fees. In the small print that is writing the CC provisions before that you have to call not only the author, the source and the license up. We must also specify the full name of the book and the author, license text and source link [6]. Did you know? I bet: not because even professionals as the CC-works-using industry services Golem.de, Heise.de and t3n.de meet these criteria are not complete as a short sample results.

The 2300 Euro does not get about the author of the work: Mr Skley has - by the way, without any attempt to communicate with the "license breaker" - its rights to a warning provider called "Union for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet" (VGSE) endorsed, sold under the pithy URL Bilderdiebstahl.de trades [7]. For Mr. Skley did not get about the demanded by the VGSE 1658.50 euro "damages", but 50 pieces of silver: 40 euros pays the VGSE the rightholders for an image 10 Euro as can be read on the website of the Association for each additional, ,

Cases like this demonstrate once again how right the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project have when they insist on free licenses and refuse any restricted versions [8]. Only free licenses have the sense to ensure rights, especially the disclosure. All other licenses restrict rights, in particular the free dissemination. This in turn benefit from reckless contemporaries like Dennis Skley and VGSE to attract bona fide users without warning the wool over your eyes. In this respect you should be very careful taking of such inferior licenses as CC distance - or read the fine print carefully and keep your bank account full.


 * [4] "Was ist CC?": http://de.creativecommons.org/was-ist-cc/
 * [5] Dennis Skley: http://www.skley.de
 * [6] Lizenztext CC-BY 3.0 EN: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
 * [7] VGSE (Suchergebnis): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Verband+zum+Schutz+geistigen+Eigentums+im+Internet%22
 * [8] Freie und unfreie Lizenzen: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/

Energy scenario studies transparency paper
Cao et al (2016)

ESS is energy scenario study

"In particular, we adopt the view that comprehensibility is necessary, if ESS are intended to successfully fulfil their purpose of adding value to strategic decision-making."

"On the other hand, we consider open source approaches to be an extreme case of transparency that does not automatically facilitate the comprehensibility of studies for policy advice."

"we recommend that ESS authors give a statement about the effect of  uncertainties,  because  they  are  the  most knowledgeable about the model exercise."


 * transparency: black-box, grey-box, and glass-box
 * transparency: assumptions