1644
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 74 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] tanja@lemmy.blahaj.zone 67 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] sexy_peach@beehaw.org 1 points 7 months ago

Nobody said it can hold power

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] DogWater@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Somehow internet populists have become convinced that liberalism = the government never does anything. Ask literally any economist and they will tell you government intervention and regulation are needed in many things.

For example, read this study on the policy views of practicing economists: https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf

You will find that most economists strongly support things like environmental, food and drug safety, and occupational safety regulations.

Convincing people liberalism is an evil capitalist ploy to deregulate at all costs is a conservative psyop, and judging from comments like the one to which you're responding, it's working.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

Somehow internet populists have become convinced that liberalism = the government never does anything. Ask literally any economist and they will tell you government intervention and regulation are needed in many things.

ah yes, the classic laissez faire interpretation of libertarian.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Aux@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

There's no post scarcity. The power available on the grid must always equal the power consumed. Or all the hell will break loose.

[-] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

That's wrong and it's simple to explain why.

If the grid allows negative prices, grid storage becomes a profitable business opportunity.

The power consumption will always go up or production will go down if prices go negative.

We are missing a key piece of the puzzle to decarbonise the grid and that's storage of the abundant renewable power we could easily create.

This is a sign the market is ready for investment in storage.

[-] nxdefiant@startrek.website 5 points 7 months ago

The person you're responding to is talking about physics, not economics.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

They're mixing the two to attempt to make a point. "Post-scarcity" is an economic concept, and I've never heard that term used in physics.

[-] nxdefiant@startrek.website 3 points 7 months ago

It's two separate statements. We don't live in a post scarcity world. Power grids have physical limitations regarding power in and power out.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Ah then it's just two non sequiturs that don't relate to each other

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

If the grid allows negative prices, grid storage becomes a profitable business opportunity.

in fact, if the price of electricity on the grid changes at all. Storage becomes a point where money can be made.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 20 points 7 months ago

Additionally, this has been a known issue for decades. If only there had been investment in handling it...

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago

Isn't there any kind of economic activity that could make use of this excess energy, even if it isn't very profitable?

[-] GiveOver@feddit.uk 21 points 7 months ago

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

[-] CertifiedBlackGuy@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Rinox@feddit.it 7 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 5 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

the grid will literally fry itself

I don't believe this is true for three reasons.

#1 it's glossing over the mechanics of how equipment will get damaged

#2 the people that own the equipment have ways of managing excess capacity.

#3 minuscule increases in grid frequency result in devices using power less efficiently, so they use more power. There's time to adjust power generation in surplus events.

[-] uis@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

Central heating

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 5 points 7 months ago

Frequency has to be maintained, and it is trivial to do so when you have excess renewables because inverters are instantly throttle-able. The reason why you’ve never heard about devices failing because frequency is too high is because it is and has always been such a non issue to shutter unneeded generating capacity.

Typically with fossil fuel plants, when the price drops below the cost of fuel for the least efficient plants they drop offline because they are no longer making a profit on fuel and the price holds. Because renewables have upfront cost to build but are free to run on a day to day basis, when there are a lot of renewables the price signal has to drop all the way to nothing before it is no longer profitable to run them.

All this means that all that happened was that for a few hours, solar production was actually enough to satisfy demand for that region. Along term, if low wholesale prices can be counted on midday then people will build industry, storage, or HVDC transfer capacity to take advantage of it.

If these prices are sustained for enough of the day that it is no longer profitable to add more solar farms, then they will stop being built in that area in favor of was to generate power at night such as wind, hydro, and pumped hydro while the panels will instead go to places that still don’t have enough solar to meet demand.

Also as an aside, the wholesale electricity market in north america is by definition about as far from a free market as it is possible for a free market to be without having exact outside price controls. It is a market built solely out of regulation that only exists at all because the government forced it to exist by making it illegal to not use it, either by making contracts off market or by transmission companies in-houseing production, or use it in any way other than as precisely prescribed by the government.

Now we can argue whether or not the wholesale electricity market is well or poorly set up or even if it should exist in the first place, but I don’t think that anyone can argue that it is a free market. At least not without defining the term free market so broad that even most of the markets in the USSR qualify as free markets.

Also, free markets and capitalism are very distinct concepts with no real relation between each other. You might argue that free markets tend to lead towards a capitalist system, but given free markets existed thousands of years before capitalism was invented I don’t think many people would say it was a very strong relationship.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Which I think reinforces my point. The Nordic states are much more highly regulated than the US, and Texas went so far as to disconnect their grid to make it even less regulated. So now it collapses at the drop of a hat, and people get electric bills in the thousands of dollars.

load more comments (19 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1644 points (96.0% liked)

Solarpunk

5393 readers
48 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS