2d ago

Sometimes we create our own problems.

244 comments

It's funny how capitalist apologists in this thread attack the format of a tweet and people not reading the actual article, when they clearly haven't read the original article.
Negative prices are only mentioned in passing, as a very rare phenomenon, while most of it is dedicated to value deflation of energy (mentioned 4 times), aka private sector investors not earning enough profits to justify expanding the grid. Basically a cautionary tale of leaving such a critical component of society up to a privatized market.
- Negative prices are only mentioned in passing, as a very rare phenomenon
  Negative prices are occurring more and more frequently. The cause is baseload generation: it can't be dialed back as quickly as solar increases during the day, and it can't be ramped up as fast as solar falls off in the evening. The baseload generators have to stay on line to meet overnight demand. Because they can't be adjusted fast enough to match the demand curve, they have to stay online during the day as well.
  The immediate solution is to back down the baseload generators, and rely more on peaker plants, which can match the curve.
  The longer term solution is to remove the incentives that drive overnight consumption. Stop incentivizing "off peak" consumption, and instead push large industrial consumers to daytime operation.
- Without reading the article, I could already see what the problem was.
  Unless you have capital to invest, you can't expand or improve the power grid. That capital can either come from the gov't--through taxation--or from private industry. If you, personally, have enough capital to do so, you can build a fully off-grid system, so that you aren't dependent on anyone else. But then if shit happens, you also can't get help from anyone else. (Also, most houses in urban areas do not have enough square feet of exposure to the sun to generate all of their own power.)
  Fundamentally, this is a problem that can only be solved by regulation, and regulation is being gutted across the board in the US.
  
  That's not the problem the article gets to. The capital is there. Capital is being dumped into solar at breakneck speed. That's the problem.
  As more solar gets built, you get more days when there's so much excess solar capacity that prices go near zero, or occasionally even negative. With more and more capacity around solar, there is less incentive to build more because you're increasing the cases of near-zero days.
  Basically, the problem is that capitalism has focused on a singular solution--the one that's cheapest to deploy with the best returns--without considering how things work together in a larger system.
  There are solutions to this. Long distance transmission helps areas where it isn't sunny take advantage of places where it is. Wind sometimes blows when the sun isn't shining, and the two technologies should be used in tandem more than they are. Storing it somewhere also helps; in fact, when you do wind and solar together, they cover each other enough that you don't have to have as much storage as you'd think. All this needs smarter government subsidies to make it happen.
  As a side note, you seem to be focused on solar that goes on residential roofs. That's the worst and most expensive way to do solar. The space available for each project is small, and it's highly customized to the home's individual roof situation. It doesn't take advantage of economies of scale very well. Using the big flat roofs of industrial buildings is better, but the real economies of scale come when you have a large open field. Slap down racks and slap the solar panels on top.
  If what you want is energy independence from your local power utility, then I suggest looking into co-op solar/wind farms. If your state bans them--mine does--then that's something to talk to your state representatives about.
  
  Transmission is tough. But the solution from too much solar investment driving down profits would be to invest that same money into storage. That seems like a natural follow up.
  Imagine your profit if you can charge your storage with negative cost power!
  
  It's one of the solutions, yes.
  But let's look at this more broadly. The idea of combining wind/water/solar/storage with long distance transmission lines isn't particularly new. The book "No Miracles Needed" by Mark Z. Jacobson (a Stanford Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering) outlined the whole thing in 2023, but was the sum total of the author's insight that he had had over a decade prior. Dumping all the money in one was never going to get us there.
  Capitalism does sorta figure this out, but it takes steps of understanding as it focuses on one thing at a time. The first step dumps money into the thing that's cheap and gives the best ROI (solar). Then there's too much of that thing, and the economics shifts to covering up the shortfalls of that part (be it wind or storage or whatever). That makes it better, but there's still some shortfalls, so then that becomes the thing in demand, and capitalism shifts again.
  It does eventually get to the comprehensive solution. The one that advocates in the space were talking about decades before.
  The liberal solution--the one that leaves capitalism fundamentally intact--is to create a broad set of government incentives to make sure no one part of the problem gets too much focus. Apparently, we can't even do that.
  
  Wow, someone actually explaining the problem correctly. I'll also mention that part of the fix should be on the demand side. Using your home as a thermal battery can load shift HVAC needs by hours, and with a water heater, it works even better. That's not even talking about all the other things that could be scheduled like washer/dryers, dish washers, EV charging, etc.-
  the real economies of scale come when you have a large open field.
  And before anyone bothers you about the impact of turning fields into solar farms, I'll add that we (the US) already have more farmland dedicated to energy production (ethanol corn) than would be necessary to provide our whole electricity demand.
  
  And before anyone bothers you about the impact of turning fields into solar farms, I’ll add that we (the US) already have more farmland dedicated to energy production (ethanol corn) than would be necessary to provide our whole electricity demand.
  Oh hell yes. 40% of the corn is grown in the US for ethanol, and it's a complete and utter waste. Even with extremely optimistic numbers the amount of improvement is close to zero. It might be the worst greenwashing out there; sounds like you're doing something, but its benefit is likely negative.
  We have the land. That's so not a problem.
  
  It doesn’t take advantage of economies of scale very well.
  You missed my point; I was talking about being entirely off-grid there. So unless the homeowner in question also has a large industrial building with a flat roof, we're back to where I said that they didn't have enough generative capacity to not be reliant on a power grid, at least in part.
  If what you want is energy independence from your local power utility,
  No, I want energy independence period. Not just from the local utility, I want independence from a co-op as well. I want to have my own well so I'm not relying on someone else to deliver water. I want enough arable land to grow most, or all, of my own food. This isn't compatible with living in a city. (And part of the reason I want to generate my own power is so that I can use all electric vehicles.)
  
  You missed my point. What you assumed the article said was completely off base.
  No, I want energy independence period. Not just from the local utility, I want independence from a co-op as well.
  Then what you're asking for is a more fractured human society. This kind of independence from others is an illusion and is not compatible with how humans have evolved.
- Where did op put that link?

244 comments