10 ms·

You are totally correct. US, France, Japan and UK all decided to extend the filetime of their nuclear power plants. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nucl

You are totally correct. US, France, Japan and UK all decided to extend the filetime of their nuclear power plants. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower/u-s-to-extend-nuclear-reactor-lifespans-in-bid-to-revive-industry-idUSKCN1U61YH https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower/u-s-to-e... Wind is cheap because when the wind blows, everybody is trying to sell their wind produced energy at the same time and the country often overproduces. In Germany, we even see negative prices when the wind blows; The price is low not because it does not cost a lot, but because it is heavily subsidized (wind is 60% of subsidies in Germany, for only 18% of the production) and needs to sell fast otherwise the fines and costs for overloading the network are massive.

beat 7y ago
Negative prices? You'll pay me to take electricity off your hands that I can sell later? That's the best argument for the battery storage market I've seen yet... (And really, it makes sense. Generate surplus when the sun is shining or wind is especially strong, run from storage when demand exceeds supply, build both until there's enough. As long as the costs are less than current baseline systems, which seems possible, then it wins.)
- fingerlocks 7y ago
  Negative prices are not uncommon. Happens nearly every spring in the Pacific Northwest when the mountain snowpack melts, flooding the rivers and surging the output of many hydroelectric dams. The negative prices are factored into the annual revenue, and consumer prices are sort-of averaged over the year which is why you never see it on your electric bill.
  - glennpratt 7y ago
    I live in Portland. Last time I toured Bonneville, no turbines were operating on the East side. The ranger told us there was sufficient solar and wind at the time and they shutdown to protect aquatic life. Assuming that's true, I assume they'd also shutdown to protect thier pocket book.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  They won't pay you, unless you're literally running part of the power grid. > Generate surplus when the sun is shining or wind is especially strong, run from storage when demand exceeds supply, build both until there's enough. That's the idea, but the battery capacity required would be enormous: https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiewende-need https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiew... > As long as the costs are less than current baseline systems, which seems possible, then it wins. Batteries don't seem likely for a cost-effective replacement, but alternatives may develop down the road.
  - snowwindwaves 7y ago
    It is unfortunate that link didn't pursue non worst case scenarios, like being able to import some power, or have some non renewable generation used just enough that it was economic to exist at normal energy prices, with the biggest payoff being the avoided cost of energy storage for October and November. that link is kind of unrealistically dismissive.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      The question is, can you really go fully renewable with battery storage? If power can be sourced elsewhere but it comes from nuclear or fossil fuels (as in the case of Germany and France), it would be a sham. If everyone went renewable, everyone would also have the same problem of seasonal variance. If you want to go "mostly renewable" and do the buffering e.g. with natural gas as it is currently done, that's of course a far more plausible scenario.
- zaarn 7y ago
  Essentially you don't get paid to take the energy of their hands; you get paid to use energy so the grid doesn't overload. Crashing the grid is expensive as it means you won't be able to sell power (at 52Hz or so the grid operators start disconnecting larger power sources like nuclear power, above and the grid may have to be collapsed). So it's in the best interests of the power generator sites to sell energy at a loss if there is too much in the grid to push consumers (ie, big production plants) to burn more energy. In the other direction, if there is not enough, the grid operators will disconnect power consumers, so in that case it's in the best interest of generators to prevent people from consuming power, thus raising the price dramatically.
- rstuart4133 7y ago
  Negative electricity prices happen in Australia fairly regularly. The last time was just a few days ago: https://www.abc.net.au/news/11489188 Interestingly is isn't generally caused by renewables. It's caused by those "base load" generators: coal and if Australia had any, nuclear. Base load actually means "can't vary their output quickly". If you can't vary your output and you ramp down your output too early, you missing out on selling power. Too late, and the price plummets and have to sell it at loss - or worse pay someone to absorb the energy released by your boiler cooling down. But renewables have made this worse by unpredictably flooding the market with cheap power. They don't really care if the price drops to near zero as the wind and sun cost them nothing. But jeeze it must hurt to be selling electricity for less than it cost you to dig the coal out of the ground. I'm pretty sure that's one of the things driving the early retirement of coal and nuclear.

beat 7y ago

Negative prices? You'll pay me to take electricity off your hands that I can sell later? That's the best argument for the battery storage market I've seen yet... (And really, it makes sense. Generate surplus when the sun is shining or wind is especially strong, run from storage when demand exceeds supply, build both until there's enough. As long as the costs are less than current baseline systems, which seems possible, then it wins.)

fingerlocks 7y ago
Negative prices are not uncommon. Happens nearly every spring in the Pacific Northwest when the mountain snowpack melts, flooding the rivers and surging the output of many hydroelectric dams. The negative prices are factored into the annual revenue, and consumer prices are sort-of averaged over the year which is why you never see it on your electric bill.
- glennpratt 7y ago
  I live in Portland. Last time I toured Bonneville, no turbines were operating on the East side. The ranger told us there was sufficient solar and wind at the time and they shutdown to protect aquatic life. Assuming that's true, I assume they'd also shutdown to protect thier pocket book.
gridlockd 7y ago
They won't pay you, unless you're literally running part of the power grid. > Generate surplus when the sun is shining or wind is especially strong, run from storage when demand exceeds supply, build both until there's enough. That's the idea, but the battery capacity required would be enormous: https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiewende-need https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiew... > As long as the costs are less than current baseline systems, which seems possible, then it wins. Batteries don't seem likely for a cost-effective replacement, but alternatives may develop down the road.
- snowwindwaves 7y ago
  It is unfortunate that link didn't pursue non worst case scenarios, like being able to import some power, or have some non renewable generation used just enough that it was economic to exist at normal energy prices, with the biggest payoff being the avoided cost of energy storage for October and November. that link is kind of unrealistically dismissive.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    The question is, can you really go fully renewable with battery storage? If power can be sourced elsewhere but it comes from nuclear or fossil fuels (as in the case of Germany and France), it would be a sham. If everyone went renewable, everyone would also have the same problem of seasonal variance. If you want to go "mostly renewable" and do the buffering e.g. with natural gas as it is currently done, that's of course a far more plausible scenario.
zaarn 7y ago
Essentially you don't get paid to take the energy of their hands; you get paid to use energy so the grid doesn't overload. Crashing the grid is expensive as it means you won't be able to sell power (at 52Hz or so the grid operators start disconnecting larger power sources like nuclear power, above and the grid may have to be collapsed). So it's in the best interests of the power generator sites to sell energy at a loss if there is too much in the grid to push consumers (ie, big production plants) to burn more energy. In the other direction, if there is not enough, the grid operators will disconnect power consumers, so in that case it's in the best interest of generators to prevent people from consuming power, thus raising the price dramatically.
rstuart4133 7y ago
Negative electricity prices happen in Australia fairly regularly. The last time was just a few days ago: https://www.abc.net.au/news/11489188 Interestingly is isn't generally caused by renewables. It's caused by those "base load" generators: coal and if Australia had any, nuclear. Base load actually means "can't vary their output quickly". If you can't vary your output and you ramp down your output too early, you missing out on selling power. Too late, and the price plummets and have to sell it at loss - or worse pay someone to absorb the energy released by your boiler cooling down. But renewables have made this worse by unpredictably flooding the market with cheap power. They don't really care if the price drops to near zero as the wind and sun cost them nothing. But jeeze it must hurt to be selling electricity for less than it cost you to dig the coal out of the ground. I'm pretty sure that's one of the things driving the early retirement of coal and nuclear.