60 points
*

This is idiotic. The fact is your electricity transmission system operator has to pay a lot of money to keep the grid stable at 50 or 60Hz or your electronics would fry. With wind and especially with solar power, the variable output is always pushing the frequency one way or the other, and that creates a great need for costly balancing services. Negative pricing is an example of such a balancing service. Sounds good, but for how long do you think your electricity company can keep on paying you to consume power?

permalink
report
reply
0 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Having knowledge in power electronics i can confidently say the DC output of solar is easily and regularly inverted in phase with grid. In fact, DC is often used for undersea cables switching AC to dc then back to AC, All at extremely high voltage and varying demand(up yo 600kV/600MW but varying by installation).

Wind turbines go online after the blades start spinning and connect to the grid in the same way as any other generator, controlled by internal electronics. Power is regulated through blade feathering and can be turned off as supply exceeds demand. This, other than for maintenance reasons, is why you might see one turbine spinning while the next is standing still. This capability actually means the grid is MORE stable with wind power.

Any further fluctuation is managed in the same way as conventional power generation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points

Amazing! Every word of what you just said is wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

You’ll need to be more specific.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

To start the frequency of the electricity isn’t the issue. Second all modern electronics use switching power supplies which don’t care about frequency. That’s two incorrect things just in the second sentence that they literally said was fact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

People also don’t realize that too much power is just as bad as too little, worse in fact. There’s always useful power sinks: pumped hydro, batteries, thermal storage, but these are not infinite.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Solar panels are easily disconnectable. Unlike conventional power plants it does not have spinning rust, that can walk away entire building.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Stupid question but can we not like, make toggleable solar panels? Like if I Just pull the plug extracting power from a solar panel does it explode or break or something?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

Not really. You can discharge into the ground, but for large installations even the ground has a limited (local) capacity.

Edit: explain yourselves, downvoting cowards

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This whole thread has way too many people who see the price as some kind of made up number that dictates how people behave, rather than recognizing that the price is a signal about the availability of useful real-world resources.

Even if the prices were strictly mandated by a centrally planned tariff that kept the same price throughout the day, every day, we’d still have the engineering challenge of how to match the energy fed into the grid versus taken out of the grid.

The prices are just a reflection of that technical issue, so solving it still needs to be done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Why isn’t this as easy as storing some of that excess energy in a home battery and letting the rest down in a wire into the ground? Then if it’s smart enough it could only give back energy when needed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

While water in pipes is often a metaphor for electricity, it’s not particularly useful here. You can’t ground out part of a charge. Energy storage is the solution though. Batteries are good, pumping water up back up into dams to be regained from a hydro plant when needed is ideal, as I understand it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Well, that’s what they’re doing some places. The batteries assets are not in private homes usually though, they’re by themself or run by power-consuming industries. Batteries are expensive though, and they degrade quickly if you use them wrong. In the EU, ENTSO-E defines the market rules, trade systems and messaging systems that energy companies and asset owners play by. Sometimes the revenue-generating asset is a battery, sometimes it’s a hot water boiler, wind park, factory, hydro plant etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The easiest solution is to send the power somewhere else where it can offset the use of fossil fuels. This solution is fraught with political hurdles, subject to market forces (due to privatization) and often grid compatability issues(looking at you Texas). It is, however, a time tested and common method for mitigating excess production.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Sure, but for all the times my electricity goes negative for half an hour, the monthly bill indicates that is vastly outweighed by all the times that it isn’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

pay a lot of money to keep the grid stable at 50 or 60Hz or your electronics would fry

Absolutely not. Please don’t make things up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You’re answering the wrong questions. I don’t think people are assuming that it’s simple to manage the power grid (if so, they shouldn’t be…) but rather why are we locked into a system that lets business profit motive be responsible for the continued existence of the ecosystem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

sounds more like we should just change away from a shitty system that needs to be a specific frequency. If only there was an alternative…

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What alternative are you suggesting?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

high voltage DC, it was a bad idea in the past due to the difficulty of changing voltage, but Buck boost converters exist now, as due inverters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Higher frequency and voltage tolerance

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Just have few percent of spare capacity. If suddenly it will become too sunny, you can just disconnect solar cells. If not sunny enough, then connect them back.

Obviously I’m talking only about day - the only time when solar panel output can fluctuate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Scientists: Hi here is a physical, technical, materially real limitation of most renewables that most of you should know about by now.

Shitforbrains shitter leftie: must be capitalism

permalink
report
reply
5 points

If the technical limitation is “it drives down prices” then it is about capitalism, yes.

How do you even manage to not get that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That isn’t the limitation though, it’s the consequence. The phrasing of the tweet is extremely memable, but thinking about it for 5 seconds should make you realize that negative prices mean they REALLY need to get rid of it. Because having too much energy in the grid is a problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The negative prices indicate instability in the whole energy system, that’s not necessarily a capitalism thing. Don’t get me wrong I hate capitalism and love sun and wind energy, but many people are ignorant about the fluctuations and the fact that energy storage is not a solved problem right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But the original post doesn’t say “it is unstable and has a problem of storage” but “it drives down prices”

No matter the reality of things, the post is concerned by the very capitalistic issue of making money out of it. It might not be the main issue, but it is for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

i mean yeah capitalism is a materially real limitation here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

That’s not what they were saying, they were saying that it’s not economical to have an abundance of electricity when people need it the least, and little or no electricity when people need it the most. It would be one thing if utilities could sell solar electricity at peak demand hours for a higher price, to make up the difference, but that’s just when solar generation is slowly down significantly or stopped entirely.

And, yes, I know that battery storage could theoretically solve this, but battery technology is not currently capable of providing electricity for the entirety of the time we need it. New technologies are being developed right now with the goal of achieving long term grid storage, but they are still in the R&D phase. I’m confident a suitable storage technology, or multiple technologies, will eventually come to market, but it’s going to take a while.

Regardless, it is likely we will always need some kind of on-demand power generation to supplement renewables and maintain grid stability, and I think nuclear is the best option.

But we shouldn’t act like the problem is that utilities are just greedy. Many utilities aren’t even for-profit companies, as many are either not-for-profit cooperatives or public entities. Sure, there are also many for-profit power utilities as well, maybe even some with connections to the fossil fuel industry, but generally power utilities are not some great villain.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

abundance of electricity when people need it the least

Isn’t peak consumption around middle of the day for most countries?

it’s not economical

Mfw electricity being cheap to generate is not economical

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Isn’t peak consumption around middle of the day for most countries?

I can’t speak to other countries, but in the US peak electricity demand generally occurs in the early evening.

Mfw electricity being cheap to generate is not economical

Cheap electricity is great for consumers, but not necessarily for producers. Some people might say, “well, screw producers,” but even if you take profit out of the equation, electric utilities need to be able to at least cover their expenses, and you can’t do that if the amount of electricity you’re generating relative to the demand is so high the price actually goes negative (meaning the utility is actually paying the consumer). Again, that’s good for consumers, but I’m sure you can see how that’s not a sustainable business model. And, like I mentioned before, it would be one thing if utilities could make up for this by selling for a higher price during peak, but by that point the sun is either setting or already set, depending on the time of year, so there’s just no solar electricity to sell, at any price.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Cheap electricity is great for consumers, but not necessarily for producers. Some people might say, “well, screw producers,” but even if you take profit out of the equation, electric utilities need to be able to at least cover their expenses, and you can’t do that if the amount of electricity you’re generating relative to the demand is so high the price actually goes negative (meaning the utility is actually paying the consumer). Again, that’s good for consumers, but I’m sure you can see how that’s not a sustainable business model.

Fully agreed: let’s eliminate business from the issue, and create national, for-service electric grids, that produce the cheapest renewables at all possible times in the most efficient way possible, disregarding hourly profit and taking into account exclusively the cost in €/kWh produced over the lifetime of each energy source.

Suddenly it’s obvious that the problem isn’t with renewables, but with organising the electric grid as a market

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

No, peak generation in most countries is in the late afternoon when people come home from work, the ac kicks on, people start to cook + do other things around the house. You typically see a double- peak, one in the morning and one in the evening, although it varies based on the seasons. I’m an engineer who works in renewable energy and the stated problem is real- solar generation doesn’t line up very well with grid demand. You can work around this with energy storage but that is an expensive solution

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I mean, “economy” fundamentally is the allocation of limited resources, if something is limited at a point when it’s needed, then economical doesn’t sound like the wrong word to use? (I’m aware economical means cheap, BTW)

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

For the longest time I thought people who had solar panels had a battery on their property somewhere, they’re panels would charge battery and they would only switch to the grid if their battery ran out.

I don’t know much about it, but this seems like a pretty viable solution and I still can’t believe this isn’t how it works.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

that requires specialized equipment other than the battery. you need to generate AC from the DC of the panels and battery, and the easiest way to do that at the right frequency and phase is to follow the grid. that’s why most solar installations stop providing power without a grid connection; you need a wave to sync with.

if you want to be truly independent you need your own wave forming equipment. and not the cheap stuff either, like the 12V inverters for cars that give out square waves. that’s fine for like a drill, but plug a computer into that and there’s a chance it fries. it won’t charge, at least not for long.

also you need extra safeguards to not fry electrical workers when they disable the grid and your power comes flowing the other way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah you can do that. Not everyone does

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

A thing you can use which gets forgotten often in the conversation is “natural” / physical batteries, or better put stores of latent energy. Essentially, “push heavy thing up hill, make it come down later”.

I know little about it, but you can release the kinetic energy stored in heavy objects at higher altitudes basically whenever, using say a dynamo on the wheels of a wagon of heavy rocks you previously pushed uphill.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

There have been proposals for technology like this. Putting a motor above an abandoned mineshaft and suspending a weight. Charged by raising the weight, discharges by lowering against a load.

The issues is the capacity ends up being pretty tiny, not really at a grid level.

You’d need a TON of motors to get to something a grid could actually use to stabilize, and by then the economics don’t work out. Let alone the actual space requirements of that many motors

Additionally, a lot of the advantages of batteries come from local storage, where you don’t need to transmit the energy long distances anymore, and these “natural” batteries tend to take up a lot of space.

A better and more accessible form of “natural” energy storage are already in most homes. Heat pump water heaters in homes could do things like make the water extra hot during solar hours, when power is cheap, so they can make it until the next morning without turning back on.

Or with better building envelopes (insulation) we could run more cooling during solar, maybe even make a ton of ice. Then later in the day, when solar drops and the grid load peaks, you can still cool the building with ice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The physical battery idea has been a thing for decades in the form of a pump storage plant where during times of excess electricity, they pump water up a hill, and when power is needed it works like a hydroelectric power plant. The problems with these however is that in order to get a meaningful amount of power and longevity, you need a lot of water and space to build one of these which makes them massive and expensive up front. I have one near me, but I also live near one of the biggest lakes in the world, which helps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I really like your response. Right behind you about energy storage.

Whoever cracks that nut is an instant billionaire in my opinion. The first cheap, effective, and practical storage technology is going to change the world. But we’re not there just yet.

I’m curious on your statement about nuclear. While I do think nuclear is a great energy source, I’m not sure I agree on the on-demand part.

Our current nuclear plants take hours or even days to start up and wouldn’t provide enough reactivity for a highly renewable grid. Are you referring to a future Small Modular Reactor technology? One with a significantly faster startup and ramp rate?

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

So what they are saying is that our current financial system is too focused on short term gains to cope with short term losses?

Sigh, when I grew up, I was allways taught to save money so that I have a buffer to fall back on. This concept seems to have completely gone out the window for busniesses lately.

I dislike the talk about how capitalism is bad as a general concept, but when seeing stuff like this I do agree with it in parts.

Ok, so let’s solve the issue.

There is too much electricity, so generating power to transmit to the network will cost us money.

This has an easy solution, just don’t transmit it to the network.

Build a battery facility where you store the power instead, infact if the price of electricity is negative, use the power on the grid and charge your batteries as well, I mean, when the electricity cost is negative, you are being paid to consume power.

Then when the sun goes down, and the electricity price goes up, you sell the charge you have in the batteries.

Depending on your location you could even set up a pumped storage system, where instead of batteries getting charged, you use the cheap excess energy to pump a resarvoir full of water, and release it when you need the power.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

This has an easy solution, just don’t transmit it to the network.

It’s the base load providers that don’t like this. Coal and nuclear don’t like to ramp down. They can’t shut down easily and their installation keeps costing money but stops bringing in money in that period. They’ll go complain to daddy government how unfair it is.

Until batteries start replacing them by being cheaper.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

That’s really not an easy solution at all. It’s simple, conceptually, but it’s a huge series of projects. And expensive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I know that, but with long term planning its fine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Early adopters will profit the most, it’s a non-issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Why are individuals expected to have an emergency fund yet corporations get money from the government?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

This is generally the right idea of a solution, but it’s a difficult engineering problem.

It’s not “just an economics problem” despite the headline.

The “cost of power becoming negative” is phrased in an economic way but what it really means is the grid has too much power and that power needs to go somewhere or it will damage infrastructure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Yes but there are many solutions already to that problem.

The first one being to shutdown a few stations production when overproducing. The second one being a myriad of storage solutions that already exists and scale them.

It is an economic problem because we already have many ways to skin the cat, but it won’t produce shareholder value in the short term.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

“Economic problem” isn’t merely short form for “if we had a socialist system we could solve it with free money.” These solutions require us to dig huge amounts of minerals out of the ground and tear the earth apart in the process. And we’re already doing that at a rate exponentially larger than we ever have in history. Plus these are the same materials we need to build the batteries for EVs, so building them for grid storage competes with the EV transition.

And then you factor in the rapidly increasing electric demand we’re producing by switching over to EVs and that means the demand on the grid is even higher. The grid wasn’t built to be able to source power from everywhere so putting solar panels on everyone’s rooftops is making the situation even worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I know that, and to incentivice people to use the power, they pay you to do it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

This is exactly what we’re gonna see on a large scale in a few years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

a few years

Snowy Hydro cost overruns would like a word

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I’m very hopeful for flow batteries to improve to a point where they can be very cheaply installed at scale. Seems much better environmentally than lithium ion, and the drawbacks matter less for grid storage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Flow battery drawbacks aren’t drawbacks for home use, let alone grid scale.

permalink
report
parent
reply
75 points

Literal free goddamn energy from the sky and these greedy fucks are going to burn the world down because they can’t flip it for a buck

permalink
report
reply
25 points

It sounds dumb, but because you can’t turn off solar power, if it produces more then you need, you have to use it somehow or it can damage equipment. Hence the driving prices into negative territory. It’s a technical problem more than it is a financial one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

“Damaging equipment” is just nonsense. I’ve got an off-grid solar system. When the battery is fully charged the solar panels simply stops producing. It has potential (voltage) but no current until you draw power. Just like a battery is full of energy but it just sits there until you draw power from it.

All solar systems could have smart switches to intelligently disconnect from the grid as needed, some inverter already do this automatically. So it’s not a technical problem. It’s a political problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

This can cause degradation of the PN junction on the panel shortening life. The plans I’ve seen all have a resistive heater some place to dump the excess when full. Smart equipment does help mitigate most issues like moving the resistance point on the panel for lower efficiency when signaled to do so but less is not the same as none.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Concentrated solar and wind are a bit different though?

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

It is a financial problem. Technically you can just cover the solar panels. But that’s not good financially.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

Your “technically you can” is actually a huge logistical nightmare to implement.

Having electricity rates go really low is intended to incentivize people or companies to sink the excess energy to wherever they can. And also to discourage producers to produce more at that hour, if they are able to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Afaik photovoltaics are fine running open circuit, i.e., disconnecting them. Thermal solar, and wind, are (I think) much trickier (but covering things for solar thermal, like you suggest, is perhaps feasible).

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Can they not route excess electricity into the ground?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

No, unfortunately, you can’t.

Ground doesn’t typically dissipate power, rather, power is dissipated in the circuit/load — so if you just hook a wire to ground, you’re dumping gobs of power into the wire. If you do this in your home (DON’T), best case it will trip the breaker, worst case it will melt and catch something on fire.

It’s easy enough to burn a kilowatt — just boil some water. But it’s entirely something else to burn megawatt, or yikes, gigawatt scale power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Didnt Nikola Tesla try to sell Westinghouse on providing free unmetered electricity to everyone on earth and got laughed out of the room?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yes, because Westinghouse was running a business.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It is a technical problem of how can you convince electrical companies to overcome a problem they have no financial incentive to solve.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

that’s not a technical problem. that’s a weakness of the people’s resolve problem. we can, at any time, force them to do the right thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Sounds like energy companies or independent entities should invest in energy storage so they can get paid to draw from the grid.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

But then you’ve got cities like Morro Bay, CA that are trying to stop a plan to replace a coal plant with a battery storage facility because batteries are supposedly dangerous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Factorio players: hold my beer

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

you know we could just put our collective foot down and take the power away from them.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.5K

    Posts

  • 46K

    Comments