consider the implications for a post scarcity future
consider the implications for a post scarcity future
I saw some context for this, and the short of it is that headline writers want you to hate click on articles.
What the article is actually about is that there's tons of solar panels now but not enough infrastructure to effectively limit/store/use the power at peak production, and the extra energy in the grid can cause damage. Damage to the extent of people being without power for months.
California had a tax incentive program for solar panels, but not batteries, and because batteries are expensive, they're in a situation now where so many people put panels on their houses but no batteries to store excess power that they can't store the power when it surpasses demand, so the state is literally paying companies to run their industrial stoves and stuff just to burn off the excess power to keep the grid from being destroyed.
Lol
I just love when large organizations (governments included) skimp on something for monetary reasons, and get fucked down the line.
Too bad citizens pay the damages.
Wish there was just a faster way to get citizen input.
"Hey folks, this is going to be a cost overrun for this very very good reason, please vote yay or nay in the weekly election".
Don't see how it could work now though, given that half the citizens are deeply committed to destroying everything to prove gov doesn't work.
Batteries are more than likely another type of pollution. I'm sure they can and will be recycled but just like the problem with our current capacity to recycle things it probably becomes untenable (guessing).
The state just needs to find ways to convert that energy into something else. I suggest desalinating sea water and pumping it up stream.
That’s not what I got from the article. (Link for anyone who wants to check it out.)
My interpretation was that decreasing solar/wind electricity prices slows the adoption of renewables, as it becomes increasingly unlikely that you will fully recoup your initial investment over the lifetime of the panel/turbine.
In my mind, this will likely lead to either (a) renewable energy being (nearly) free to use and exclusively state-funded, or (b) state-regulated price fixing of renewable energy.
Also, let's be real here. The Lion battery farms, defeat any sort of environmental benefit. It is a total shot in the foot, which is why governments, and solar companies don't advertise the concept.
We own the factories building the panels.
Solar cells don't really grow on trees.
The majority of panels produced in the world right now is China. Like dwarfs the other countries.
Big oil currently does not own the factories.
Well yeah, but that’s like a one-time purchase (for years) compared to coals/etc. where they can charge for the “amount” used
In the case of Spain, at least, they own the grid, so all solar energy that you sell to distributors because you have no use for it yourself, they'll only pay you peanuts for it and they will still make a devious profit.
The two solar panels companies that I got in contact with weren't interested in selling me a quantity small enough that was coherent with my needs, and they'd charge me a premium if I wasn't willing to make a contract with them to sell them specifically the excess energy.
The first factories were powered by waterwheels. Those were subjected to seasonal variations and limited geographic possibilities, what gave negotiating power to labor. Therefore the industry switched to fossil fuels, so they could run when and where they wanted, preferably near a city with excess labor force. It made it more expensive to run, but it was easier to exploit labor so more profit.
If there was room they'd put the factories as close to the coal fields as possible, and let the workers live in shanty towns.
Rent seekers always keep their hands on the tap.
To be fair, having a mismatch between when energy is available and when it is needed is going to be a problem under any economic system, since it's a fundamental inefficiency that must be worked around with additional effort and resources
You gotta recharge your phone battery sometime though - and if electricity had a different cost for nighttime vs. daytime, you can bet that people would choose the day option whenever possible.
(I chose a mobile device here bc it doesn't need any "extra" battery or technology beyond what would already normally be at hand.)
In places like Spain, there are different energy plans and some do include "Peak" and "Valley" price variances. Peaks are high demand, like when cooking dinner, "Valley" are the opposite.
Most places in the US have peak and off peak hours with different pricing already. Certain smart thermostats can take advantage of this for running your AC and such.
You can adapt to these inefficies, sure, but doing so still takes more planning and effort (in this case in carefully timing one's phone charging, and in avoiding power using activities like that during non ideal times) than if there was no mismatch of availability and demand. It lessens the impact of the problem, but does not entirely remove it.
Like turning them off... Which is fine. Turning off solar panels is literally built into the systems and can be automated
Sure, but you're not getting as much output from your panels as you could in total that way, making them less efficient overall. I'm not saying you can't run a power grid on this stuff, just that the adaptations to use them in a grid effectively have costs, and those costs are not exclusive to capitalism
Enter nuclear fusion… unlimited energy always and forever.
It's pretty easy to imagine fusion being great - but it's still just in our imaginations. No one has yet been able to build a working fusion power plant. There has been progress over the decades that people have tried, but its still a way to go yet. So although we can imagine that it could produce clean and plentiful energy, we just comparing sci-fi tech to current tech. The future reality might not be so great, and the current reality is that fusion power isn't possible at all.
To illustrate my point, lets imagine solar power from a 'theoretical' point of view, like fusion is described. Solar power uses no fuel; gets its power from sunlight. There is enough energy coming from the sun to meet the whole world's energy needs with just reality small amount of area. Solar power produces no waste biproducts... So if we just imagine the benefits of solar power, it sounds pretty much perfect. In in reality though, although solar is very good, it is still far from perfect. Construction, maintenance, and disposal of the panels are where the costs are. And so to compare to fusion, we'd need to know what it would take to build, maintain, and disposal of the fusion power plants. Currently we can't do it at all - so the costs are basically infinite. But even if our tech improves to the point where it is possible... it's hard to imagine it will be easy or cheap - especially because there will be radioactive waste. (Radioactive waste not from the fuel, but from the walls and shielding of the reactor, as it absorbs high-energy particles produced by the operation of the power plant.)
I'm personally very excited about how it does seem to be finally making progress if slowly, but realistically, I'm less convinced that it'll be the solution to all our energy needs than many are. The physics of the process itself is very efficient, sure, but the kinds of machines needed to harness it are literally among the most expensive and complicated things built by humans, and they don't even produce net energy yet. Granted, the cost of such things should be reduced once they are industrial machinery and not exotic scientific instruments loaded with experiments, but I'd bet that the reactors themselves will still be incredibly expensive and complex (and therefore have expensive maintenance). This doesn't say good things about the actual cost of the resulting energy, even if the fuel is quite abundant. We could get abundant energy with a similarly high if not quite as much fuel efficiency with advanced fission reactors and fuel breeding, but the cost of those kinds of plants has been relatively prohibitive, and the costs of renewables has been falling. I could certainly see it possible for fusion to reach net energy, only to get used only on specialized roles or for base load power because solar panels end up being cheaper. In a sense this has already happened. It is theoretically possible, if not practically desirable, to use fusion energy in a power plant already, by detonating fusion explosives in a gigantic underground chamber full of water to heat it up, and harnessing the steam. Such ideas were considered during the cold war, but never developed, at least in part because it was calculated that they wouldn't be cost competitive compared to other power options.
not exactly but for all practical purposes might as well be
Solar power is just really inefficient nuclear fusion
Giant rubber bands.
You're welcome
It's definitely a problem with the grid, since too much supply is at least as big a problem as too much. Hopefully we'll get things like molten salt batteries so we can soak up this excess and decarbonise heavy industry.
If the excess energy cannot be stored, it should be used for something energy intensive like desalination or carbon capture.
Or just fill debts. Overclock every air conditioner freezer and industrial coolant system for those hours, store that not-heat. Do cpu intensive processes, time industrial machinery to be active during those hours, Sure, desalination, but pumped hydro(even just on a residential scale, more water towers, dammit!) or... Anything.
OR we could just decline to build them because they're... Sometimes too good to make a profit off of?
Or heck, have fun with it. It's leftover
Like a Phase Plasma Rifle with a 40-Watt range.
Even simpler than that - set your house to heat or cool based on the timing of the cheap energy (as explained by Technology Connections)
Heck pumping water uphill for all I care. The more potential energy the better.
Yes we need more long time energy storage. It helps to balance the energy grid and it helps for days when not enough energy is produced. Batteries aren't really the answer, but pumping water uphill might be.
Both of the statements in that screenshot are just so inane.
Frequency has to be maintained on the grid. It’s the sole place where we have to match production and consumption EXACTLY. If there’s no battery or pumped storage storage available to store excess energy, the grid operators have to issue charges to the producers, in line with their contracts, to stop them dumping more onto the grid (increasing the frequency). The producers then start paying others to absorb this energy, often on the interconnectors.
It’s a marketplace that works (but is under HEAVY strain because there’s so much intermittent production coming online). When was the last time you had a device burning out because the frequency was too high?
Turning the electricity grid into some kind of allegory about post-scarcity and the ills of capitalism (when in fact it’s a free market that keeps the grid operating well) is just “I is very smart” from some kid sitting in mom and dads basement.
Your explanation works very well, but completely falls apart in the last paragraph.
Solar power production clearly is (at least in part) a post-scarsity scenario, given we literally have too much power on the grid.
Furthermore, calling the power market anything like "free" is just plain wrong. A liberal approach to market regulation here would have led to disaster a long time ago, for the reasons you described at the beginning of your comment.
The market "works" because of, not inspite of regulation.
And negative prices are a good thing for consumers, not market failure.
But too much power on the grid isn’t “here, have at it”. It’s fried devices and spontaneous fires breaking out. The grid can’t “hold the power”, only pumped and battery storage can, of which we have nowhere near enough. The grid literally cannot work if other producers put more electricity on to it.
If you have smart meter, you can literally be paid to use power at that point.
A liberal approach to market regulation here would have led to disaster a long time ago, for the reasons you described at the beginning of your comment. The market "works" because of, not inspite of regulation. And negative prices are a good thing for consumers, not market failure.
Regulation of a market by the government is liberal politics. A laize faire approach is conservative lol.
Additionally, this has been a known issue for decades. If only there had been investment in handling it...
Isn't there any kind of economic activity that could make use of this excess energy, even if it isn't very profitable?
You can pump water uphill back into reservoirs so that you can use it to generate hydro-electricity later https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station
Yes. Desalination or hydrogen separation via electrolysis
Both uses are productive, one generates fresh water, the other can be a form of energy storage.
Both are extremely energy intensive for the yield, making them unprofitable, but are extremely useful things to do with a glut of electricity.
There is, but you have to set it up and link it with the central control system of your grid, similarly to how power generators have an automatic generation control to balance the network.
Yes there is. So consumers (with the right kind of smart meters) are paid to use energy and we are slowly moving from pilot plan into small scale production of hydrogen. But there’s nowhere near enough and the grid will literally fry itself unless producers stop pumping more onto the grid (during windy and sunny days, in areas with high penetration of intermittent production.
Central heating
in fact it's a free market that keeps the grid operating well
Like how in Texas's even freer market the power grid is even more stable than in evil communist California.
No idea about the US. My frame of reference is an integrated European market in general and the Nordic integrated spot market in particular, which uses Swedish hydro and Danish wind on top of nuclear, biogas and wood pellet market.
Seems to work well enough: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1961..latest&country=USA~DNK~SWE~NOR
Usually too low frequency is issue, I can't imagine why even double frequency can damage PSU.
Well, you have to handle excess power produced, you can't just dump it on the ground.
If the grid produces too much power in excess of what's being consumed, parts of it need to shutdown to prevent damage.
That's why the price can go negative. They'll actively pay you to use the power so they don't have to hit emergency shutdowns.
As we build more solar plants, the problem gets exacerbated since all the solar plants produce power at the same time until it's in excess of what anyone needs. Unlimited free power isn't very helpful if when it's producing it's producing so much that it has to be cut from the grid, and when demand rises it's not producing and they have to spin up gas turbines.
That's before the money part of it, where people don't want to spend a million dollars to make a plant that they need to pay people to use power from.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/14/1028461/solar-value-deflation-california-climate-change/
They go on to talk about how getting consumption to be shifted to those high production times can help, as can building power storage systems or just ways to better share power with places further away.
Government should invest in more energy storage so the excess can be used later, like at night
Problem is that storing electric energy at a large scale is really difficult, with lots of engineering and research effort going into finding solutions. Investment into storage is good, but it's still an area of active research how to even do it.
Everything is a cost.
It could quite easily be cheaper to pay people to use energy than it is to store it. Once that equation changes then hopefully they start buying storage.
This is interesting in the UK because the government agrees on a set a price it will pay wind farms for energy.
If power is expensive the wind farms lose out and get paid less than the value of energy. But when wind power is high and prices low they get paid the guaranteed price at the goverments expense. The government even tells them to turn of the turbines and they still get paid.
Bare in mind peak wind can last weeks rather than solar hours. But this system is one of the main reasons UK is a world leader in wind.
People struggle with the economics of losing money being the optimal solution and they want some magic situation where nothing is wasted at 0 cost but provides all demand exactly when required. Nothing works like that.
We could do so much good with excess power generation if we wanted to. We could produce hydrogen. We could electrolyse CO2 out of the air. We could filter the plastic out of ocean water. We could analyse space radiation. We could run recycling plants. We could flood the bitcoin market. We could run a desalination plant. Why does this have to be a problem?
Because we're not doing those things at the moment?
Having a solution available doesn't make it not a problem.
Something having a problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing, and not all problems are bad things, they're just things that need figuring out.
People too often think that identifying an issue with something means that it's being argued that we should abandon it or that it's unfixable.
Solar is not a perfect technology, because there are no perfect technologies. It has solvable problems are or will need to be addressed as we keep using it. That's fine and normal.
Well, you have to handle excess power produced, you can't just dump it on the ground.
Thats literally what a "ground" is electrically. The ground.
We literally design electrical systems to do exactly this, all day long. You can literally "dump power into the ground."
No, you can't.
The ground in a circuit doesn't dissipate energy --- the energy gets dissipated elsewhere. That's what ground is: it's what we call the electrical part of a circuit where the energy has already been dissipated (I'm being a little casual with my electricity, but I think it's a valid statement nonetheless --- ground is defined as the zero potential).
You can try this out by plugging a wire from hot to ground in your house (please don't do this). The energy gets dissipated in the wires. This is bad, because it is a lot of energy dissipated very quickly. Best case you throw the breaker. Worst case you burn down your house.
It's weird that that's possible as such an easy solution, and all those electrical engineers never thought to use it, instead putting in load banks and all sorts of contrivances to heat metal in an emergency, or find complex ways to hide excess production in normal load and balance production by managing the generators.
Even weirder that the people who run solar grids opted to pay people to take excess power rather than just dumping it on the ground, although a lot of them have also taken to heating metal instead, or water for smaller home setups.Yes, you can technically connect your generator directly to the ground. This isn't something people want to do because it can damage equipment.
It's why that heating metal trick is used as part of the emergency shutdown rather than as part of load regulation, and they don't want to use it because they have to make sure the right bit of metal melted.None of this has anything to do with people needing to react to excess current in an electrical grid, and not just let it be a situation that happens. It requires intervention was the point of the phrase.
As a professional engineer who literally designs solar power plants for a living, this is not how electricity works. It is true that solar inverters can throttle their output by operating at non-optimal voltages, but you can't just dump power into the ground without causing major issues to the grid infrastructure.
A chance for @bradorsomething, son of Gondor, to show his quality!
When we refer to the grounded conductor (the neutral), it does have a reference to the ground potential of the building receiving power. But the current generated by the power plant seeks the least resistive path back to its source, and the grounded conductor provides a path back to the generation plant that carries no voltage potential for electricity to draw towards or away from - the wire simply accepts the flow of energy to or from the power plant, to complete the circuit without changing the voltage potential.
There is also a grounding wire, which is green or bare, which is present in building in the US to allow anything electrified by stray wires to complete the circuit and trip the breakers in the panel. This wire joins to the grounded conductor (the white colored neutral) at the main panel where the utility provides power… utilities use the neutral as their ground, so current completes the circuit back to the power plant through the neutral.
When I say “the circuit looks for a path back to its source,” I’m playing a little fast and loose here… the current seeks the most potential to complete the circuit pathway. This path is almost always the return path to the power plant.
Join us next week, when I explain that lightning doesn’t care much about our wire at all, because at that scale it’s like the ocean caring about a moat at a sand castle!
If you could do that there'd be tones to research going on about how to extract the energy stored in the ground as the storage capacity would in many orders of magnitude greater than we have now. We'd also be probably capturing the energy released in thunderstorms.
My favorite solution for storage of excess power is closed loop pumped hydro. Two bodies of water of different elevations are connected by a generator/pump. When there is too much power, the pump moves the water to the higher lake. When the power is needed, the water flows through the generator to the lower lake.
This is like the gravity generators they're looking to use old mines for.
It's exactly like gravity batteries, but do get fooled with fancy renders and inspirational music.
That's my second favorite solution. One of the cons of the mines is they tend to be too remote from urban areas. But if that's not a factor then you're golden.
This could also be made more "local" with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage and not reliant on the difference of elevations.
Hydrogen fuel cells also. Use the excess to make hydrogen which is simple to store and then use it as a fuel to burn when you have demand. These have started to be put at the bottom of wind turbines so they don’t need to be stopped when the wind is blowing but there is no grid demand.
All these systems help balance the grid too meaning these renewables can be used as base loads instead of dirtier base load generators like coal or gas fire stations.
pumped hydro is pretty slick but incredibly dependent on geology and ecosystem.
Thermal storage is a similar vein, you can even use water, we do use water for this even. Compressed air as suggested, i believe there's a mine somewhere in the US that's used a compressed air storage plant. And of course, motion, flywheels go hard i hear, but i find those to be less preferable, even if high energy density. I imagine those would work better at scale.
I get the sentiment in here, but the poster is missing an important point: there is a reason some group of lunatics (called the TSO or Transport System Operator or in some cases other power producers) are willing to pay for people to consume electricity when there is too much of it; They are not doing it for the sake of being lunatics, the electrical system cannot handle over or underproduction. Perfectly balanced (as all things should be) is the only way the grid can exist.
The production capacity in the grid needs to be as big as peak demand. The challenge we face with most renewables is that their production is fickly. For a true solarpunk future, the demand side needs to be flexible and there need to be energy storages to balance the production (and still, in cold and dark environments other solutions are needed).
In off-grid, local usages we usually see this happen naturally. We conserve power on cloudy low-wind days to make sure we have enough to run during the night (demand side flexibility) and almost everyone has a suitably sized battery to last the night. The price variability is one (flawed) mechanism to make this happen on a grid or bidding zone level.
Thank you, it's very valuable to correct that misinformation.
It seems like an easy mistake to make as the original post being replied to is framing it explicitly in terms of economics.
It's just a bit of shitshow of weird communication. How hard would a tweet like "A problem with solar panels is that they produce too much electricity during the middle of the day, putting strain on the grid and requiring increased power consumption".
That's not as sensationalist but I'm also not a headline writer. It just seems like this shitty piece of journalistic malpractice was made to stir up outrage
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/14/1028461/solar-value-deflation-california-climate-change/
It's MIT, they're not exactly a clickbait source.
The reply is what makes the excerpt seem inflammatory. It's an article about the economics of solar power, so the excerpt is a fair representation of both the article and the real issue it's discussing.
It would be sensationalist if they said "critical problem paying for solar power comes from negative prices, threatening future of solar adoption"
Framing it as though it were a condemnation of solar turns a statement of fact into something different than what it is.
Solar panels already turn off when grid voltage is too high
This has me thinking
The resurgance of sand batteries has been interesting. While not great for converting back into electricity, it's great for heating and cooling which is a massive portion of our energy consumption. They can also store quite a ton of energy with crazy efficiency, especially when paired with heat pumps. And from what I've been able to deduce, they aren't dependent on beach sand and can use rougher or man-made sand reliably.
First if we could get enough large buildings and neighborhood/home installation sand battery heating & cooling infrastructure operating with heat pumps. Then when during high times of energy production we can dump the energy into the sand battery infra and help keep the grid stablizied and keeping our heat & cooling overall percentage of use down.
In the end, we're going to need tons of solutions and strategies for storing excess production during low demand times. I'm hopeful to see where we go here, the crazy things were seeing in energy storage is extremely interesting. I'm super excited to see the advances were seeing in calcium and sulfur based batteries expand in adoption and the production lines can scale with demand.
I've been really curious about the possibility of a small DIY sand battery type system. I currently store my "negative value" midday solar power by dumping it into a water tank and using it to feed my hydronic heating system.
However as we know that results in a tank containing useless low-grade heat on a cloudy day, where a sand battery would result in a small amount of usable high-grade heat.
The cooling equivalent could actually be implemented fairly easily at home with common consumer ice machines (which are effectively heat pumps). Make ice when there's surplus, dump it in an insulated hopper with a heat exchanger for night-time cooling, recycle the near-freezing melt water to make ice the next day. Water is a lot easier to handle because it can be pumped instead of conveyed, and you get the advantage of phase change storage.
Yes, also it doesnt technically have to be sand, there are concrete mixes and even just bedrock that can be used for similar purposes. I've been looking at sand batteries myself for this reason: run the battery hot when power is cheap, let it cool when not.
This sort of thing is of course why it's useful to have a market mechanism for energy, it can encourage us to build environmentally friendly solutions.
That is of course absolutely true. But fossil fuels are still a tool of power that is used for political purposes. Of course, this also applies to the metals needed for batteries, for example. However, access to this is not so promising in terms of power, because on the one hand, as you say, you can also live and produce "according to the times of day". On the other hand, there are untapped reserves of these raw materials - such as cobalt and manganese - in the deep sea, i.e. international waters. In short, I do think that some players have an interest in boycotting solar energy and other renewable energy sources in favor of fossil fuels in order to maintain their power base - Russia, for example.
Could they not just install a series of big "resistors" that can be switched on and off to burn off overproduction when necessary?
They can, and they do. They're typically considered safety devices since they can be damaged by having excess load dumped on them, and they either are dumb, in which case they don't act like an actual load the generator is expecting and can maybe cause damage to the generator, or they're smart and can mimic the type of load the grid would actually give, but now they're expensive and need maintenance and testing in excess of what the dumb one needs.
It's something you would need for off grid solar as well, with batteries that can only take so much charge, but at the power grid level it's a much bigger task because you're in the realm of "metal explodes" power, and exploding metal is bad.
Actually there is a good amount of credible economic theory which backs the idea that localized post-scarcity markets do cause capitalist influences to wither away, and that power generation is a big fucking domino in that equation. The simple version is that maintenance of artificial scarcity is modeled as capital overhead, so there will always be an inflection point where that overhead actually exceeds the value of all other inputs. The same way eg, marketing cannot create infinite or arbitrary demand.
The other angle here is how there is often incentive for alternative commodification of abundance, which in turn incentives that abundance. This is another common model for various forms of post-scarcity capitalism. Take a YouTube video for example. The commodification of content takes the form of advertising, which effectively transfers the scarcity of one market onto another. Content is basically infinite compared to viewership time inputs. The key here is that there will always exist some forms of scarcity - and time is the big one. Art, company, leisure, physical space, etc. the model here is that eventually something like energy and physical resources might be completely abundant and effectively free, but enabled by competition over attention or leisure or aesthetic experience. You can make a strong argument that this is already happening in the post-industrial world to some degree.
The final issue is that this equation isn't unique to capitalism. Socialism mediates scarcity in more or less the same way - by transferring and meditating it across various markets using labor as the quanta of scarcity instead of capital. Indeed, many economists will argue that regulated, democratic, liberal forms of capitalism theoretically reduces to the same core basis, since "free [as in speech] labor" itself both creates the market regulation as well as provides the consumption which mediates access to capital. This is, in fact, the core thesis of "third way" market socialism, though it is obviously contentious among orthodox Marxists.
I think the best nation-states, in terms of happiness index, practice "third-way" market socialism or as close of an approximation as they can to it in all but name. I would even include the United States during the post-WW2 economic expansion.
The nordic countries, which tend to score higher on "Happiness Indexes," are Social Democracies. Social Democracy is a form of revisionist Marxism that believes Capitalism can be wielded for the benefit of all, not just the bourgeoisie.
Unfortunately, these same Nordic countries have been seeing a sliding of the Social Safety Net, similar to what has happened to America following the New Deal (though not nearly as bad yet). Additionally, Imperialism is still the dominant method by which these countries subsidize their safety nets, alongside a dependence on NATO.
US post-WW2 was almost a functioning social democracy, but not market socialism. Market socialism would be something more along the lines of the Labour-dominated era of Israel, or Socialist Yugoslavia.
Yup. The US model is occasionally referred to as "pension fund socialism" (sometimes sarcastically) in the sense that there is a welfare system which resembles a social dividend for the less fortunate, social security which resembles a social dividend for the elderly, and privileged IRA accounts, which resembles collective ownership of capital for the working class. The collective value of US IRA accounts is actually something like 20% of nominal GDP, and social security is like another 10% of GDP. Depending on how you measure it, this makes the actual collective share of the US economy proportionally larger than it was under the USSR or modern day China.
The big thing the US is missing is a healthcare dividend. Also, the welfare layer is arguably much too small, which creates much worse wealth disparity than need be. Still, this is arguably an issue of buttons and knobs rather than the structural issue many make it out to be.
Just use the extra energy to shoot random laser beams into space... Make sure the aliens know we're armed
This is a real problem but you can only have so many words in a tweet. Note that the price isn't zero but instead negative. It means there is literally too much power in the grid and it would need to be used. If a grid has too much power then it is bad. It can damage it. There are things we can build that essentially amount to batteries (or natural variants like a dam) that get charged during times of higher supply than demand and discharged during times of higher demand than supply.
No but see you can't build infrastructure to solve problems. What is this the 1700s? Go ride a train, commie!
Problems are only solved by grinding humans into a fine paste/powder, or destroying things for quarterly profits. Or doing a giant mountain of cocaine.
Yes, infra can be built, but not fast enough to keep up with all the solar panels being installed. For example: In the Netherlands our network can't keep up with the requests being put out by companies, and we've already been busy for the last 5-ish years to install new infra, but that shit can take over 10 (!!!) years before a large line has been added. Land needs to be bought, people need to be informed, plans need to be made or adjusted, local companies need to be hired, the materials bought in and build into new pylons, etc.
It's a MASSIVE undertaking. Even if you talk on a local level, where "The Last Mile" is the time-consuming problem there.
Shit takes time.
Or you ask a large company to run their machines for a bit to catch up the "overgeneration" (if that's a word).
...yes. That's why the price is negative. You're paying folks to use electricity.
Scarcity is artifically created in the modern age
My local library can only lend out x copies of each ebook at a time, so sometimes I'm in a queue for the last lenders loan time to run out
Unfettered capitalism will be the end of us.
Capitalism can work to our benefit. It's main benefit is incentivising people to get more, which seems to work well at encouraging people to be productive. The main idea is supposed to be efficient resource allocation, but that plainly does not work as it leads to wealth accumulation at the top.
Our problem is twofold. The first problem is we externalize negative costs onto society. So environmental damage, health costs, workers pensions, roads, bridges etc.
The second problem is efficient wealth distribution. Currently we focus on income rather than wealth. We should tax wealth just as much as income. We certainly should make any use of an asset as collateral a taxable event.
Some things that might help. We should look at changing taxation systems to be a formula rather than bands. The more income you get, the higher it goes. The lower your income, the lower you're taxed. Same as now but rather than having to meet a threshold to move bands, every dollar is taxed based on where it falls in the distribution curve. It would be more complex for people to get their heads around at first, but actually simpler for all calculations going forwards.
UBI would also help with redistribution and make society more efficient overall.
This is a great write up. I think the problem with economic theory discussions is it is an extremely complex and nuanced topic. Saying 'capitalism bad' is popular, but not very constructive.
I think one big point that gets bungled in these economic debates is markets. That's supposed to be the shining light of capitalism because of how efficient markets are at allocating scarce resources. The point that I think is missed, is that markets can be used very effectively outside of a capitalist system. They need to be designed for other economic systems, but they can easily handle the biggest argument with socialism; centralized control.
I feel that is a major point missing in these debates and I just wanted to give it some attention.
UBI would also help with redistribution and make society more efficient overall.
UBI is a band-aid, not a solution. It's a way to keep a broken system working for a little bit longer until it's no longer politically expedient to help those in need. It props up capitalism in the guise of giving people a leg up.
It's selling people bootstraps so they can lift themselves up by them.
The only point you have going for capitalism is the supposed productivity, but any system that has a way to reward performance can do the same just fine. There is a range of economic models between capitalism and communism, several of them very market based.
A good example which i always felt would work well with minimal systemic change is the free money system (freigeldsystem), which is largely private enterprise. The big differences are that all land and natural resources are owned by the public/the state, leasing it out to companies; and negative interest making the hoarding of wealth impossible.
These key changes give the public a large degree of power over the private sector, since they could simply choose not to lease any land to companies who are not compliant with the public needs, and largely remove the capitalist class - the owners, the profit parasites, the shareholders, the ones living off their hoarded wealth - from the system
Widespread UBI in a capitalistic system would see all prices immediately rise to extract that UBI money and go back to its old ways immediately after that.
And of course the tax system should be changed, but many millions in lobbying and campaign money is used to get it in its current state and keep it there. Everything is for sale, including the law.
We need natural batteries like solar power lifting water from a lake into a reservoir so that when we need that energy and the sun isn't making it, released water does
A cubic meter of water above your roof has the storing capacity of a AAA cell. That's why you need huge, massive damms to store any significant amount of power. But unfortunately it's not flexible enough (you need mountains nearby) or dense enough.
There are already companies making thermal storage systems to store excess energy. They heat sand up to about 500 degrees when there's excess power and then convert it back to electricity or just use the heat directly for heating water or living spaces.
There's also companies (googles do nothing but link to YouTube videos) working on scaling this down to about the size of a water heater.
What about storing energy as potential energy using some high density objects. This may work.. Right?? gravitricity Check out their work.
Yes this exists and it's called pumped storage hydroelectricity
I did some work at a place called The hollow mountain that does this. But seeing as it looked like an underground James Bond bad guy base and I was a rope access mook in a boiler suit, I felt like I could die at any moment by tuxedo clad hero.
It wasn't solar they used to power pump the water back up though. They just, hmm I want to say, bought cheap electricity when no one was using it.With an energy conversion efficiency of usually 75 to 80 % they are really efficient and don't have as much energy loss as other types of energy storage. It's a simple, but powerful concept and I find it beautiful. However, there is some concern regarding their impact on the local ecosystem. Not only do they need huge water reservoirs, which are artificially created and therefore might impact nearby rivers and even fish migration, but the way they are sealed with concrete or asphalt also disallows the development of riparian vegetation. From an ecological perspective they are basically dead zones.
Still, considering several alternatives, I think it's one of the better options. Although it's not cheap to build those, which is a problem in our current capitalitic society
This BULLSHIT comes up every so often, and I'm kinda tired so I'll to someone else to try and explain how the electricity grid actually works.
TLDR: All turbines on a electrical grid have to turn at the same speed. Hydro, Fossil fuels, Nuclear all use turbines. There is no way to dump energy into nothing to prevent the turbines from spinning too fast. So pure supply and demand capitalism is why we pay people to take our energy to allow our electrical devices to work.
There is no way to dump energy into nothing
Really? Nobody can think of anything to do with free energy?
Mine Bitcoin? Desalination Plant? Doomsday Device? Carbon Capture & Storage?
Nikola Tesla was a radical anarchist then, I guess? :-P
I mean, in a lot of ways he didn't care about the economics of his inventions. He wanted to transfer electricity wirelessly across huge areas and there really wasn't a way to monetise that if everyone could just tap into that.
In a communist society you could build something like that, in capitalism you're not going to find an investor to do this.
Thus, Ben Franklin wins electricity, and they made Tesla into a joke, who goes on to be a recluse, yeah? Edit: Thomas Edison rather
Prices going negative is Capitalism's solution actually. Gives the price incentive for folks to charge their cars when prices go negative, or whatever.
The electricity will still cost some money because of fees from for example the network owner and maintainer The prices would have to go pretty negative to outweigh any fees.
I hate to be the akshully guy but the big problem isn’t economics but usage. We can’t store electricity at any kind of meaningful scale so generation needs to be balanced to meet demand. Unused excess power needs to go somewhere, hence the negative prices (the market way of saying, “please somebody take this electricity it’s doing more harm than good on the grid”).
I like the system where the excess power is used to pump water into a reservoir up a mountain and when power is needed it runs it down a turbine into a lower reservoir.
Most places where this can be done, it is already being done. The low hanging fruit for pumped hydro was all picked decades ago, and at great cost to the ecosystems it destroyed in the process - turns out that drowning thousands of acres in massive man-made lakes had a bit of an impact on the plants and animals that lived there.
Not saying that the benefits weren't worth the cost, that's a whole different debate. But there's little to no opportunity to scale this energy storage tech beyond it's current footprint.
Yea there are plenty of ways to store energy using things like gravity as a battery. The crap saying we can't handle the extra energy is BS. We won't, cuz money before planet, but we 100% can.
Shutting down solar is super easy. You just need a switch. Wind is a bit more complicated, but it is basically stopping the rotor. The reason for negative prices are subsidies. So they can sell to the government or get some extra money as to be able to operate them properly.
Also we do not need to store insane amounts of electricity. As soon as your grid is large enough weather balances itself out fairly well. For the EU the worst production of solar and wind combined was still 897GWh in a day last year. The average was 1770GWh per day. So worst case it was half the average prodcution. If you go weekly it is 9335GWh and 12423GWh respectivly so even less. So you really only need a good enough grid and something like a days worth of storage. That actually ends up being pretty reasonable, as soon as you consider stored hydro and other flexible electricity generation.
Just send all that extra power for free over to the tech companies training AI to fix the problem of how much energy it consumes.
"the problem is the suggestion that we give some of this money back... ever"
I mean it is a problem, not because of capitalism but because of reality, while there can be a lot of overlap between sunny day and lots of solar energy for all the ACs running our energy usave is also significant in the afternoon when solar is winding down and the evening where its non existent and we need to balance that and transfer all the energy, copper prices are going through the roof, there are shortages in electric grid components, its nice that solar is cheap but you need to distribute that energy and at some point we will have to bite the bullet and deploy a lot of nuclear energy, last time I checked the wind/solar installations didnt even offset the energy demand increase happening that year.
Lately, quite a few people* in the UK have been enjoying negative domestic electricity prices with the recent high winds in the North Sea. They always find something to use it for, either extra laundry or using electric heaters rather than gas for space heating. I know big chunks of spinning iron are needed for grid frequency control, but if having to pay generators to curtail their output is the cost of having adequate redundancy, it should at least start with the fossil fuels.
Right now gas is providing 2.3GW out of the nations 33.3GW demand (18GW domestic renewables) coal is completely off. A few days ago I saw it as low as 1GW which I'm pretty sure is as close as it can get to idle standby.
*I don't have a battery, and I have a family that always wants to use the most power in the evening peak, so I'm not one of them, but export at least covers import in the summer months
There is never surplus power with a network of a few "turn it on as needed" intensive industrial uses like haber-bosch reactors for ammonia, dessalination plants and electrolysis for aluminium or other metals...right?
Generally not, no. Most manufacturers would rather turn it off as needed rather than turn it on as needed. Unpredictable outputs require unpredictable staffing rosters, introduce more risk into plant operations and does not give confidence to customers ("we need to delay your shipment").
Desal would need very big reservoirs to be able to erratically run, but perhaps that is done off peak in some places? Aluminium is complex, you can't let it cool too much otherwise you risk the whole process solidying (no recovery, requires rebuilding entire smeltery).
fair enough, makes sense, I was trying to think outside the box of "storing" the power as pumped hydro or batteries...but I guess where they exist, these industries still welcome the negative prices when they happen :)
But it's somewhat wasteful to build an entire industrial plant that's only run at 10% capacity
Get on half hourly tariff if you can (example for the UK is Octopus Agile).
As long as you don't concentrate your usage between 4pm and 7pm, it saves a shitload of money over a regular tariff. The other day, they paid me to put the washing machine on.
My shareholders!
I dont get the argument about hydrogen not being effective and too much energy going to waste in its production, when we have to stop wind turbines during windy seasons because they generated too much electricity that what can be sold. If we have too much electricity. We can store it in hydrogen and dont mind how much goes to waste. It would be wasted anyway
Post scarcity has been true since the dawn of the agricultural revolution.
There conclusion is shit, but doesn't the electrical grid require the amount generate and consumed to be effectively the same? I could see the difference being more of an issue as renewable become more prevalent, and we unfortunately cannot just turn off the sun when we don't need it.
Negative electricity prices primarily incentivise investments into energy storage, this is thus not a problem except in the very short run.
The OP hints at what the real "problem" is: lack of opportunity to extract profits due to inability to control and create (artificial) scarcity, which is at the core of capitalism.
Yeah, it's a bit ragebaity. Afaik the solar panels can be "turned off" (disconnected from the grid/open load) just fine, and there absolutely needs to be a way for this to happen automatically (a proper smart grid).
The big power plants are another story.
The first reauui found is kinda interesting --- even conventional diesel generators have this issue https://www.cat.com/en_US/by-industry/electric-power/Articles/White-papers/the-impact-of-generator-set-underloading.html
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/14/1028461/solar-value-deflation-california-climate-change/
I'm not sure I'd call their conclusion shit. It's harder to get people to build solar if they have to pay people to take the power or trigger the emergency shutdowns.
They end with a discussion on how to fix it, not some claim we shouldn't do solar because it can't turn a profit. Batteries, shifting demanding use to be during peek solar production hours, or sharing power better between grids and the like.
Remember what Conservatives said about "not enough power"? I think that might be a lie
Solar panels are pretty far from free, and not unlimited either.
run pumps, move water
Not many thing can do opportunistic consumption, especially consumer electronics. I can only think of charging, heating(water and air) and AC. If price update period is big then washing machines and dryers.
'Unlimited' and 'free' are blasphemous to capitalists. To start off a gaslight post with them is just ensuring your pilot light remains unlit
No, it's not. It's a practical problem, not an economic one, but leave it to the tankies here to take it as an opportunity to show how many slogans they have learned.
So why was the problem expressed in economic terms? The practical problem isn't "oh noes there's a price label with a minus on it"; it's that there's a surplus of power which is dangerous.
In reality what that represents is an opportunity for someone to come in, and store the excess power, and sell it back to the grid when supply is lower -- but energy companies only want to model the flow of money going one way.
Except it'd be much less of a practical problem if the question "but who gets paid" would be taken out distributing excess energy.
I agree, if the point had been we didn't have enough energy storage at the grid scale to accommodate the excess power I would agree with that. Instead, it points out the price.
Unlimited free energy of any sort is unsustainable. Our planet is a balanced system that has evolved over eons, simply adding energy upsets this balance and probably not in ways that will ultimately be beneficial for us. We can see many negative effects already from adding massive amounts of fossil energy to the system (besides the greenhouse effect and pollution) such as population growth beyond the bounds of the planet.
Solar panels are capturing energy that would otherwise just heat the ground. It won't upset the planet's energy balance. If anything, we can use the excess to capture CO2.
The Earth has an energy balance, energy comes from the sun, and much of it is reflected back out into space. .
Here's a super simple video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE3x2wjslt0
If we capture a non-trivial amount of the energy that would've returned to space and use it in industry, that adds energy to our system and causes it to heat up -- climate change. This is not an issue currently with intentional solar capture (greenhouse effect is unintentional solar capture).
I was simply refuting a claim that clearly violates the laws of thermodynamics - that unlimited free energy is without problems.
I want to be clear, I'm not anti-solar panel. I have them on my house and it's awesome.
