You must log in or register to comment.
There is literally limitless energy available to us. But as long as the people in charge benefit from people believing the supply is limited, people will be made to believe the supply is limited.
There literally was limitless energy available to the literal ancient Egyptians, as well as literally 19th century literal London.
Why did it take fossil energy to literally reach our present state?
That limitless energy is presumably also literally available to you, why aren’t you literally using it now and why are you limited?
Well, not “literally”, since the sun will one day stop working (it will take a while, though) plus even it is not a limitless source of energy.
But yeah, in practice at the moment given the amount of energy our society consumes is there is limitless energy available to us.
Just not “literally” 🤪
Won’t someone PLEASE think of the prices?!
How can the price go negative? There’s always going to be maintenance costs that have to be covered if nothing else.
Power grid stability.
Over generation and under generation can destabilize a power grid.
Thats why when there’s over generation it can sometimes go negative because that power needs to go somewhere so they’re willing to pay people to consume it.
The system is overloaded so there is no need for more power, in fact putting more power into the system has a negative effect. So there is no value to putting more power in the system and it may actually have a cost.
What negative effect do you have in mind?
More generation than load makes voltage go up. More voltage has varying effects on equipment, ranging from no problem to exploding in a shower of molten metal.
The system still has physical hardware that has to be maintained, the company has to charge it’s customers to pay for this maintenance at the very minimum. As well as any other cost to deal with the excess power, although I don’t see why that couldn’t be mitigated by simply disconnecting excess panels from the system. That price should never be negative. It makes no sense. A negative price would mean they’re paying their customers. For what?
Livin where it was an actual thing - they actually “paid” in the form of counting returned power as borrowed. So when you powered the grid, supplier counted energy you supplied and then promised to return the same amount when you needed.
They backed off of it but my friend caught that version and he was pretty hyped about it. Even when his solar panels will die, he’s gonna be set for at least next decade on that payment lol.
Because its deterrent for people to supply electricity when its not needed.
I have a 10kWp system, sometimes I have to pay for the electricity I create and I dont use. There’s no maintenance costs in my system
Who are you paying when that happens?
Also, the panels never wear out or get damaged or have to be cleaned or anything? This isn’t me trying to make a point against solar, I’m just questioning how there could ever be absolutely no cost to having it. More in the sense of an electric company rather than private owners.
The idea is there such an abundance of energy that they are willing to pay you to consume some of it to keep the net stable at 50 (or 60) Herz.
In practice, there are always taxes and surcharges that the final prices is not negative, but is lower than the surcharges themselves.
Too much energy is not good for the system, so there must be a way of compensation.
Can they not just cut off some of the panels with some sort of breaker when the output exceeds consumption/storage?
It’s like a dumpster filling up, where you have to pay a waste management company to come haul that stuff away, at least if people can’t find a way to take it off your hands for free.
Here in Sweden our electricity provider gives us a real time view of consumption and prices. When we charge the car during peaks of overproduction we get paid and the amount on our bill goes visibly down. It usually happens like 5-15 times a year during summers, and occasionally also because of excess winds on the farms year around.
prices do not actually go negative if the solar parks are correctly installed.
the issue is simple: the solar parks forgot an “off” switch, so they continue to push energy into the grid, even when there’s no demand. so that destabilizes the grid which is bad, so the grid produces “negative electricity prices” which just means they pay someone else for taking that energy out of the grid to stabilize it, and they’ll also charge the solar parks for pushing more power into the grid than the grid can handle.
honestly, it’s just a construction mistake. the solar parks should obviously have a simple “off” switch to stop pushing power into the grid. they just forgot it during installation, end of story, no big deal. this is probably not going to be a permanent phenomenon, i’m very sure.
I actually never thought about that. Is there any damage to the cells if they’re bombarded by photons but not discharged?
nope. there’s a thing called open-circuit voltage but they don’t take damage.
I mean yes, but what’s genuinely problematic is the variability of the sun. Since it doesn’t shine at night, you have to store the energy generated during the day somehow. What about winter, especially in parts of the world where it lasts a very long time? How can we transfer the energy generated in, say, the Sahara desert to Svalbard? Solar is great for generating electricity, but storage and transport of said energy is not completely resolved, yet.
That isn’t really a problem for where many people live though, nor for very long, so some modest storage medium and transmission lines (which likely already exist to many places dark in the winter) coupled with wind or whatever else makes sense locally would be just fine for those locations where it is a problem. There’s no need to transmit from the Sahara to islands at the poles either, there’s so much sun to go around, and so many places to gather it.
Mirrors in space
Musk is this you?
For most parts of the world, the only reason why the problem with the variability isn’t solved yet, is because governments don’t want to invest in the electricity grid. We have the storage technologies, the only thing missing is money. And it’s unrealistic to say that energy needs to be trabsported from the Sahara to nordic countries. Finland already needs to cut its nuclear reactors, because the renewables in Finland produce so much energy. Only the furthest regions north can’t use solar.
Also the other problem is political, without borders we could be transmitting power from places in daytime to places in nighttime. We already have grids that span across different timezones.
We have the storage technologies, the only thing missing is money.
When discussing large public projects whose scale is larger than anything before seen, the money is mainly an accounting placeholder for the real resources that need to be expended.
Grid scale storage has been expanding at an exponential pace, but the sheer magnitude of the materials and engineering work that needs to be done to make a dent is pretty huge.
Bloomberg projects that total cumulative installed capacity should hit 2 Terawatt hours by 2035, noting that would represent 8x the number for 2025. But when you compare those numbers to just how much electricity is produced or consumed, with 22,000 TWh per year, we’re talking about demand periods measured in minutes, not even hours, much less days.
At scales large enough to make enough of a dent to show up in global energy stats, we need to recognize that even infinite money would run into the real resource constraints of how much capacity we as a species have for pulling minerals out of the ground, processing them into useful materials, and engineering them to be useful energy storage solutions (whether pumped hydro or other gravitational systems, compressed air, flywheels, or whatever battery or fuel cell chemistries can store energy in an efficient way).
We have some technologies, but need things to improve significantly before storage can actually meet the needs for power that meets demand at any given moment in time. In the meantime, matching supply and demand in real time is a true engineering challenge, not just a monetary challenge.
we need to recognize that even infinite money would run into the real resource constraints of how much capacity we as a species have for pulling minerals out of the ground
You can store electricity by stacking rocks. You can store it by moving large volumes of liquid. You can store it with sand. If we are in danger of exhausting these resources I think problems have gotten bad enough that energy storage is no longer a going concern.
A gravity storage system that stores about 100 MWh and outputs about 25 MW is much, much larger than the 65 battery containers they’d replace. It stores basically 4 hours worth of energy in what appears to be a large steel and concrete structure 150 m tall (the equivalent height as a 30-40 story building) on a 100m x 100m footprint.
If we’re talking about storing a terawatt hour, then we’d be talking about about 10,000 of these gravity storage systems needing to be built. That’s what I mean by existing technology not really meeting the scale requirements of the problem.
Gravity storage systems all basically suffer from this problem. Water-based solutions need to be sited on favorable geography to have large scale (otherwise water itself isn’t dense enough to compete with concrete and stone and sand).
Meanwhile, storing the same 100 MWh of energy in containerized lithium batteries would basically require a 4x6 stack of 40-foot shipping containers that each can store 4MWh.
We can get there on storage, but we’re talking about decades of planning and implementation, across all technologies, before we can even credibly reach storage representing one whole day’s electricity usage. How many man hours of labor does that engineering and planning and building represent? How much steel, energy, and machinery would these projects use up?
Anyone who talks about this stuff without recognizing the scale involved is basically not serious about solving it. It’s an engineering problem that exists independently of money (and it’s also a money problem, but that part will probably pay for itself because of how valuable a solution to this problem would be).
There are many ways to store the energy without chemical batteries.
We can use thermal batteries by heating water or other liquids and then release it at night. We can use kinetic batteries like compressing springs and then releasing them at night to turn a generator. Water batteries like hydro dams where you pump the water into a reservoir during the day and then release at night to again power a generator.
deleted by creator
I addition to what others noted, this can also create an equality issue. Say you are a working class renter in a town of well-off home owners who have solar panels on their houses. They are likely as dependent as you on the grid when the sun isnt shining, but because they can sell back to the grid. They contribute much less to paying for the grid.
The grid that everyone relies on is therefore disproportionately funded by poorer individuals. Its the same problem with all the subsidies on electric cars and solar installations; you have to be decently wealthy to be able to take advantage.
There are balcony solar panels that renters can just plug into a socket
Not in America, yet, but we are getting there. Unfortunately, that still has the issue of needing to be able to afford it to be able to take advantage. Plus those have a max wattage thats way lower than what a homeowner can do.
I dont think any of these are insurmountable issues, but I also don’t want to just ignore them.
Transitioning to EVs is better for everyone in the long term. Improved technology and greater marketshare among new EVs today means more and better used EV options in the future, with the effect increasing as the economics of scale make budget models more viable.
It’s not that we shouldn’t subsidize solar and EV, it’s that we should also use incentives and regulations to make these options work for renters. We should be requiring rental properties to add outlets to parking spaces. We should be pushing policies aimed at getting solar on apartment buildings for the benefit of the tenants.
Honestly, we should be working towards getting every building to have solar and battery and reducing our dependence on the grid.
Transitioning to EVs is better for everyone in the long term.
I dont believe this (but I’m open to being wrong). I think giving the same amount of money invested into EVs to public transit and ebikes instead, we’d be better off.
incentives and regulations to make these options work for renters
Yeah, strongly agreed there. I basically just want my tax dollars to go towards equality and resilience. Instead, it seems that the best the party not 100% controlled by fossil fuels can do is enact policies that still disproportionately benefit the wealthy. I’ve heard a lot of well-off people talking about getting a $7500 dollar rebate on an EV, which seems silly when there’s a lot of people who have never even owned a car worth that much.
At least in my area, solar roofs still have to pay the usual service fee, an extra fee for grid-tie, taxes and fees on all the power they consume, without deduction for power they deliver. I know many utilities buy power at the same rate they sell it, but mine only pays 85% (before taxes). Solar people pay just fine for grid maintenance.
Is that 85% based on the flat rate, or an actively changing rate? If it’s the flat rate, thats a super good deal. The cost of generation can easily vary by 10x throughout the day, so if the average price is $0.15/kWh, they might be paying you 13 during the times it only costs 1.
I know in some places the meters are smart enough to track when the usage is occurring, though.
85% of the flat retail rate. AFAIK, no company with a rooftop solar program puts them through spot wholesale market prices. I don’t think my provider even participates in the spot market - they own all their own generation with plenty of excess capacity and essentially no net interchange. They also cap participation in net metering at 0.2% of system-wide peak demand, so there’s very little chance they’ll take much of a loss, regardless.
It’s so efficient that I can’t fit my money cog into the machine!
Here’s the article this is responding to if anyone wants to read it. Here’s the study it’s reporting on.
I’d say the tweet is at least a little bit disingenuous because the article is not arguing against the adoption of solar power, rather the focus is on what the challenges to California’s solar goals are and what possible solutions might be. The tone is “economic constraints might slow down solar, how can that be addressed?” This is all from 2021, and it looks like since then the slowdown in solar capacity increase it cites as a concern has not materialized, still lots of consistent growth since then. I haven’t read enough to know whether this is because the study was wrong somehow, or that it’s premise that solar installation costs might not continue to drop just didn’t pan out, or that the increased subsidies it suggested came through, but it’s an interesting topic.
My unscientific personal experience answer to your last paragraph’s question:
The study didn’t anticipate that California power companies would be so unbelievably corrupt and that the price of electricity would nearly double since 2021. We pay $.40-$.60/kWh while the national average is like $.12-$.16 so us Californians are willing to do literally anything to get away from the PG&E cartel. There is supposed to be a governing body that reins in the prices but it’s controlled by the Governor. In this case that’s Gavin Newsom who just happens to own hundreds of millions worth of shares in the utility companies….🤔
It’s colosally stupid to tie solar power generation to It’s economic value. We are quickly heading to a future with climate extremes without doing something different.
Well there is one problem with negative electricity prices though. It’s that you’re gonna have to pay to produce electricity, charge batteries you might not have, or disconnect from the grid. I suspect fancy new inverters allow doing the latter automatically, but people with older setups will have to either do it manually by the hour when prices go negative, or upgrade their setup.
Good news is that negative electricity prices also apply to fossil fuels so there’s incentive to reduce production there too.
It’s not stupid to acknowledge that individuals and businesses make decisions on the basis of money. That isn’t the same thing as giving climate concerns a lower relative priority. You can have climate as your highest priority, and still pursue that priority much more effectively by considering financial incentives and their effects, and to me that is what this article and connected study seem to be doing.
Nothing matters if the planet is nearly uninhabitable.
I’m not sure what your point is
Im saying its insane to worry about the economy when we are facing down making parts of the earth uninhabitable.
I see, but I’m saying that nobody is worrying about the economy here except as a means to make sure more solar power is deployed, in service of not making parts of the earth uninhabitable, and I don’t see how there could be an objection to that.
Solar panels costs continued to drop. A bit slower, but still. https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_2025.pdf#p91
Problem counter: 0
They’ve found the same is true for the wind, that the oil robbers can’t own that either… I think Maria may own the wind… I’m not sure. They call it that… the wind, that is.
I mean, a surplus in the electricity grid is actually sort of a problem, especially if you don’t have any way to store the extra energy.
we can just put a white blanket on top of the panels…
I’m ignorant of the mechanism of solar panels and electrical grids…do they just explode if they are set up and not draining power?
Because why can’t you just cut the inflow of electricity on a signal? I’d appreciate actual answers.
We setup a 25kw setup recently in Pakistan but ran out of money to have inverter and batteries for it. So far they have been up for a couple months, none have exploded yet.
You can cut it, but how? If you don’t have a system in place, thousands of private home will be injecting power into the grid because they don’t know any better. In extreme cases it could overload the grid. Not really explode, but cause voltage spikes, trip breakers, and ultimately (and somehow ironically) cause a blackout as the grid protection mechanisms kick in.
I Germany all new installations need to be able to be remotely controlled to prevent grid feed in when there’s too much production.
Disclaimer: hobby self-taught solar panel enthusiast, not an electrician or grid engineer.
Yeah the remote connection to the local utility would be the obvious answer.
People with Nest systems can enroll into “Energy Saver” programs that start the AC at 3pm to cool the house early for the energy spike at 5pm when many get home from work. All you get is a minor credit per year.
If that shit works they can setup a system for solar.
Yes solar panels and most renewables can be turned off easily if there is too much energy on the grid. The term for this is “curtailment”. Some energy sources can’t be turned off easily, like nuclear, large coal plants, and combined cycle gas turbines. So you will tend to turn off the easy things before the hard things.
The only major problem here is that this upsets the capitalists that own the generation; they don’t want to pay for stuff that isn’t producing money at every instance that it could be producing money. There are no real technical reasons why you can’t curtail wind and solar plants whenever you need to.
Worth noting that a large amount of “renewables bad” you’ll see is fossil fuel propaganda too, so be careful there.
Yeaaaah, I hate that. A lot of the structures that everyone says are shite seem to be propped up by “solutions” that create and perpetuate the problems they “solve.”
Would a nuclear or fossil fuel turbine power plant just tear itself apart if disconnected from load at speed? I vaguely understand that the load provides a sort of magnetic resistance on the spinning generator. Without load they would they spin too fast? Or is it a matter of there not being any easy way to dump the power by doing something useless with it like just melting sand or smth?
Can’t it go to some AI datacenter or smth?
Datacenters largely have fixed power needs; the computers are going to be running constantly, or else they aren’t making money for their capitalist overlords. What you want is something located at the solar arrays themselves, so that you can selectively switch whether the juice is going to the grid or to your power sink - and the power sink ideally should be something that also makes you money, but doesn’t need to run 24/7 to do so. Like a crypto farm.
LLM training and processing batched requests are 2 things that can be done i think. Batched requests have a 24-48h window when they need to be processed.
Don’t worry, the market will adapt to solar becoming a better product.
Isn’t that what you always tell us?
Someone should tell MIT about battery storage.
Or, if the topology allows, use the excess electricity to fill up reservoir located up high so that it can drive turbines when needed. Organic energy storage is really cool
Use excess solar to turn the wind turbines into fans and reverse global warming
I want those salt batteries to kick off for mass home storage. Less likely to explode like lithium.
Yeah but once people see the balance sheet in the red that’s a big no no. If only someone smart, like maybe went to MIT could explain how it could be profitable overall…like humans living being a profitiable side effect.
Batteries are already being used profitably all over the world.
germany is developing a lot of hydrogen options, which is a surprisingly good strategy in a lot of fields. like, steel and cement can be produced with hydrogen alone, and germany is learning how to store and transport hydrogen through pipelines quickly.
It’s kind of a ridiculous “problem” with easy fixes, that are long known.
There’s high demand on Hydrogen. It’s fairly easy to produce Hydrogen via electrolysis (storage/logistics is another issue, but that is also true for blue hydrogen…). It could also be processed further to Methane or even Gas for cars…
If there’s a will…
This is actually a solid use case for crypto mining. When supply outstrips demand, turn your excess solar power wattage into crypto instead of feeding it into the grid. 100% green, and helps stabilize the power grid to boot if you do it right.
yeah the only downside with crypto is that it has absolutely 0 meaningful use cases AFAIK and also it does not only consume energy but also requires computer chips which are also expensive to produce. (wait, that was two downsides)
I wish there was a place where smart people could gather to solve problems like this. You know, maybe invent a device that takes the electricity when it is cheap (when the invisible hand of the free market wants it) and gives it back to the grid when the price has risen because there is no longer that much sunshine.
There have been a zillion science/tech articles over the last 10 years, about possible ways to store power at scale. Because wind and solar has been creating this problem for a long time. There is not yet a silver bullet.
Well the problem isn’t a werewolf, so all the regular bullet solutions, when used together, are enough to deal with it.
the best solar and wind ad you can imagine is russian energy grid attacks and how communities had built diverse workarounds to mitigate the grid going down here and there. it also spawned local businesses to maintain these stations which greatly helps local economies.
