this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
848 points (99.2% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17390 readers
36 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's still not earning you money to spend electricity because you still have to pay the transfer fee which is around 6 cents / kWh but it's pretty damn cheap nevertheless, mostly because of the excess in wind energy.

Last winter because of a mistake it dropped down to negative 50 cents / kWh for few hours, averaging negative 20 cents for the entire day. People were literally earning money by spending electricity. Some were running electric heaters outside in the middle of the winter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

wouldn't be surprised if grids ended up using solar primarily for day time production consumption and short time storage (evening consumption time) and then used nuclear as the primary producer for power consumption over night,

Exactly. Nuclear carries us overnight, renewables meet our needs during the day.

Negative rates aren't caused by excess solar. Negative rates are caused by excess overnight demand. Overnight demand is too high, necessitating the continuous nuclear output to be set too high. The sum of the continuous nuclear and the daytime solar exceeds daytime demand; rates go negative to correct.

The solution is to remove nighttime demand. Now the continuous nuclear output can be reduced. This is exactly opposite of what the grid needed before renewables, but it is the only viable approach moving forward. The other half of the solution is to add daytime demand, perhaps the same demand we removed from overnight; perhaps an entirely new way to turn power into profit.

(Nuclear plants won't actually reduce their output. Coal plants will go offline, and nuclear will take over their customers.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

oh well if you're arguing for shutting down nuclear, it's a bit different of a story. You should probably change your phrasing to reflect that lol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I mean, long term, nuclear should probably go away, but that's a distant objective. I'm talking about the next few years, not the next century.

The next major stage is to reorient the grid away from the traditional, supply-shaping "baseload + peaker" model that benefits from increased overnight demand. That model is replaced with a demand-shaping, "use it when it's easiest to produce" model.

To get from here to there, we need to reverse the incentives that drive overnight consumption. This in turn lowers overnight demand. That reduction in overnight demand calls for a reduction in baseload supply, which reduces baseload generation at night and during the day as well. A reduction of baseload during the day means less surplus power is dumped, and more is sold.