The reason why new power companies have stopped accepting bids or have withdrawn from the business is because the days when this JEPX spot market price reaches 80 yen/kWh have been going on and on since the beginning of 2010.
The electricity market is a market. If there is a surplus of electricity, the bid price goes down, and if there is a shortage of electricity, the bid price goes up. The spot market is a blind single-price auction, which means that once a contract price is determined, all market prices are traded at that price. Even if Masuda-san bids 10 yen, if many people bid 20 yen, it will be 20 yen, and if many people bid 5 yen, it will be 5 yen.
Then what happens? Many people think, "I'm going to buy it at the imbalance fee of 80 yen/kWh anyway, so I'll bid 80 yen for it. Here is the URL of Enexchange's website, which shows the spot market price in an easy-to-understand manner.
How much is the gross profit on something that sells for 25 yen? 8 yen, 5 yen, 3 yen? Let's assume that 90 out of every 100 jobs generate a gross profit of 5 yen, which is a profit of 450 yen. If 10 out of 100 sell at that price, the profit is 550 yen.
450 - 550 = -100.
This is the impact of a spot market price of 80 yen. Imagine if you had a customer base of tens of thousands of dollars, and you have to blow millions of dollars every day for a month. I think you can understand a little bit of the logic behind the suspension of acceptance and shutdown of business.
Of course, calculating the cost of procuring electricity is not this simple. I mean, I can't write about the inside story of procurement in my business because it would violate confidentiality. I wrote what I could find out just from the spot market, where the amounts are visualized by the general public. I didn't tell the whole story, if you think about it. Sorry. It's a title fraud.
In essence, I think "don't liberalize the infrastructure in the first place" is right. However, to put some position talk into it, I think that the various things that happened in the aftermath of Fukushima and the licking at the Kashiwazaki nuclear power plant were the result of being lenient because it was infrastructure, and I think there is some nuance to that.
However, I don't think that the designers of the system anticipated this level of instability in the power supply when the system was liberalized in April 2004. I was impressed when the supply-demand crunch warning came out. I was like, "This is it! That rumored ！！！！ Supply and demand crunch alert: ！！！！！！！" I was so excited. There's no way there's going to be rolling blackouts! It's about to happen!
However, in the extreme, retailers are wholesalers, and while they are wholesalers, the products they sell are not all that different. How can you make a difference in a commodity like electricity? It is usually impossible. It's hard to add value to a product because it's all about price. Of course it's not impossible. There are plans, decarbonization, optional services, and so on. But there is no difference in the electricity itself. I think it's possible to point out that the reason why various new electric power companies flocked to the market was because hyenas gathered in the industry that was assured of a sweet deal in infrastructure ......, and that's true for a percentage of the population. I think all electric power companies are looking for ways to add value to electricity.
まとめるとこうなるのもやむ無しという気がしてきたが。結局 so whatが無いんよ。
The narrative seems to have grown of late that the only reason the Russian forces aren't pushing forward faster and further is because of a lack of fuel for vehicles and food for its troops. This is exemplified by the discussion around "the column" north of Kyiv.
But that does a disservice in some respects to the thousands of Ukrainian troops fighting a bitter battle in front of the Russians. Yes, the supply problems are not helping Russia, but it's simply not the case that if they just had fuel they would be able to advance unhindered
There are many brigades holding the line around and inside Kyiv, providing a blocking force that is putting up a determined resistance to the Russian advances. This is not just scattered handfuls of SF and near partisan forces, this is several brigades of regular troops
Similarly, to the east of Kyiv there is something on the order of at least 8, and as many as 12-13 brigades, regular and reserve, holding a line that runs roughly to Kharkiv, down to the Donbas front, to Mariupol and back towards Zaporizhzhia.
That, arguably more so than logistic issues, is what has been holding the Russian tide back this long. Strung out their elements may be, but they're still providing a determined resistance across the majority of the front. The problem is for how long?
As much as they've been taking a toll on the Russians, they've been suffering casualties of their own, expending stocks of ammunition and losing critical equipment like tanks, artillery, and other armoured vehicles.
Even the Ukrainian defence ministry seems worried about the build up of Russian forces occuring in front of these positions and the fraility of their defensive line. Despite the stream of images of burning or captured Russian kit they've been advancing steadily this whole time
And while everyone focuses on Kyiv and the idea that the Russians are planning to storm the city block by block (which seems highly unlikely when they can just shell it to pieces from the outside), a lot of people have been missing the real danger in the east and south.
One area of interest is the Russian build up to the west of Kharkiv, which seems likely to result in a push towards Poltava and behind it, Kremenchuk, home to one of the few bridges across the Dnieper from there all the way south to Zaporizhzhia.
To the east of that, there is serious concern about a possible Russian thrust in the region around Izyum-Slovyansk-Severodonetsk, with the real risk of some Ukrainian forces being pocketed in the later
Equally as concerning, Russian forces have moved up to the area around Vasylivka-Orikhiv and are poised to move on Zaporizhzhia, which possesses the southern most bridge across the Dnieper available to the Ukrainians.
Not that this bridge doesn't need to be captured, nor even the city. The Russians merely have to get close enough to deny its use through artillery and direct fire as a supply route to their forces in the east.
This leaves the many brigades operating east of Kharkiv (possibly as many as 8) in a dire situation, where the only line of communication to the west of the Dnieper for all the brigades would be in the Dnipro/Kamianske region.
If they wait too late to try and make a break for the bridges, this will involve a running battle with the Russians across some pretty good tank country, with multiple Ukrainian brigades having to bunch together and cram themselves across four or five bridges in the region
To make matters worse, Mariupol is not expected to be able to hold for more than another four or five days, after which the forces surrounding it will be free to join the offensive north. In short, things are getting a bit dicey in the east.
They're not much better in the south, with Russian forces closing around Mykolaiv. The defenders are putting up a brave resistance, but inexorably being pushed back. Russian forces have already pushed on to the north and reached the area around Voznesens'k.
The latter course actually seems more likely as a force attacking Odesa more directly would be left miles from friendly forces and dependent on over the beach supply lines, whereas an attack just behind Mykolaiv would help support the assault there and be closer to friendlies
And again, herein lies part of the problem with the Kyiv narrative, and the idea that victory will be defined by the capture or not of the capital. If Odesa falls and the Russians secure the entire southern coast line, that is a major problem for Ukraine and its economy
Obviously, I mean outside of the war itself, thinking ahead to the potential peace. If Russia maintains control of all these areas in a negotiation then they basically have Ukraine by the balls, so to speak. This in many ways is far more important than Kyiv
Thus I think we need to temper our expectations. The Ukrainians have done brilliantly, better than almost anyone expected, but we're gradually creeping towards the decisive moment and none of that has much to do with what's happening around the capital.
Slow Russian progress there is encouraging and that's helping to keep aid corridors open to the east, but I fear people are putting far too much emphasis on it just because it's the biggest city and the centre of government. Russia doesn't need to seize Kyiv to "win"
The fights in the south and east are far more important in the grand scheme of things, and unfortunately those seem to be the ones the Russians are winning, albeit it slowly. If the east in particular collapses, that frees up an enormous number of Russian men and equipment
Men and guns that can be shifted west and south, to Kyiv and/or Odesa as required. It's a grim outlook I'm afraid, but I wish the Ukrainian defenders the very best of luck. It's possible they can still carry the day, but it looks like it might take some kind of miracle 😞 /end
Yes, at great cost, yes, through the tragic events of the actual civil war, because now there are still brothers shooting at each other, separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies - but Ukraine as the anti-Russia will no longer exist.
If we refused to do this, if we allowed the temporary division to take hold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but we would be damned by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
The first would always remain a complex of divided people, a complex of national humiliation - when the Russian house first lost part of its foundation (Kiev), and then was forced to accept the existence of two states no longer one, but two peoples.
Bringing Ukraine back, that is, turning it back to Russia, would be more and more difficult with each passing decade - the recoding, derussification of Russians, and the setting against Russian Little Russians-Ukrainians would gain momentum.
In what borders, in what form will the union with Russia be fixed (through the CSTO and the Eurasian Union or the Union State of Russia and Belarus)? This will be decided after the end of the history of Ukraine as anti-Russia.
Did anyone in the old European capitals, Paris and Berlin, seriously believe that Moscow would give up Kiev? That Russians would forever be a divided people? And at the same time that Europe is uniting, when German and French elites are trying to seize control of European integration from the Anglo-Saxons and assemble a united Europe? Forgetting that the unification of Europe was only possible thanks to the unification of Germany, which happened by Russian good (albeit not very clever) will.
Europe, as part of the West, wanted autonomy - the German project of European integration does not make strategic sense while maintaining Anglo-Saxon ideological, military and geopolitical control over the Old World.
But Europe also needs autonomy for another reason - in case the United States moves to self-isolation (as a result of growing internal conflicts and contradictions) or concentrates on the Pacific region, where the geopolitical center of gravity is shifting.
But the confrontation with Russia, into which the Anglo-Saxons are dragging Europe, deprives Europeans of even a chance for autonomy - not to mention the fact that in the same way they are trying to impose on Europe a break with China.
While the Atlanticists are now happy that the "Russian threat" will unite the Western bloc, those in Berlin and Paris cannot but understand that, having lost hope of autonomy, the European project will simply collapse in the medium term.
Because the construction of a new world order - and this is the third dimension of current events - is accelerating, and its contours are becoming clearer through the sprawling cover of Anglo-Saxon globalization.
Because the rest of the world can see and understand perfectly well - this is a conflict between Russia and the West, this is a response to the geopolitical expansion of the Atlanticists, this is Russia's return of its historical space and its place in the world.
1byte=8bitってのはASCII ( *American* Standard Code for Information Interchange)、つまりアングロサクソンの世界制覇の野望であって、我々 ISCII (International Standard Code for Information Interchange) は1byte=10bitのコンピュータを作る! となったとしよう。ISCII仕様のコンピュータはヨーロッパ諸言語の文字、キリル文字などを表現できて (なにせ1byteあたり1000種類の文字が表現できる!) ヨーロッパ、ロシアを中心にバカ売れ、そしてIBMを倒し、ISCIIが世界制覇をする。
・cloud watch logs
・cloud watch logs