3 ms·

> Watts cost dollars. It's not that simple. For instance, when there's too much electricity on the European grid because, say, wind energy is particularly stro

> Watts cost dollars. It's not that simple. For instance, when there's too much electricity on the European grid because, say, wind energy is particularly strong that day in Germany, producers need to pay for someone else to take that electricity. It has negative cost. This is rare for now, but it does limit the rollout of renewables. I thought the example of solar energy in the Sahara was rather convincing? It's a lot of untapped potential energy, it just needs a business case. CO2 prices can make that happen. > You lose a lot of watts to heat by converting fossil fuels to CO2 and back Again, just because it's a loss in the thermodynamic sense doesn't make it a loss in an economic sense. Fuel cells are quite efficient in the thermodynamic sense, but they're not economical when the whole pipeline is considered. That said, a technological breakthrough can turn that calculation around. You can't predict that, so you shouldn't pick winners. > Reuters Fact Checkers made an attempt at science Color me suspicious with that one. At least they're pointing out that other researchers arrived at far less impressive numbers. > What market? We're talking about government subsidies for carbon capture. I'm a strong proponent of CO2 prices. That said, if the government insists on picking winners with subsidies, they shouldn't narrow themselves down too much.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> It's not that simple. For instance, when there's too much electricity on the European grid because, say, wind energy is particularly strong that day in Germany, producers need to pay for someone else to take that electricity. It has negative cost. This is rare for now, but it does limit the rollout of renewables. If you don't have any external pressure or subsidies on you, you can turn off solar/wind in seconds. Renewables never have to pay those fees, only slow to ramp plants do.
- incrudible 5y ago
  Those "slow to ramp" plants are necessary to provide the base load. The cause of the overload is the volatility of renewables. Whether it would be cheaper to curtail renewables and who exactly gets to foot the bill - I don't know. Doesn't seem reasonable to me that, say, France should pay Germany because their very stable nuclear plants can't accommodate for the volatility of renewables elsewhere. Either way, the cost is negative, or at least zero if you turn it off. It's worthless energy, going to waste.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > Those "slow to ramp" plants are necessary to provide the base load. The cause of the overload is the volatility of renewables. Sure, that's true. But what I'm saying is that negative prices don't impact the rollout of renewables because renewables never have to pay them. And in a market with lots of renewables and no distortions, prices won't go below zero anyway.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > But what I'm saying is that negative prices don't impact the rollout of renewables because renewables never have to pay them. How do you know? Do you have source on that? It doesn't stand to reason that the cost of excess electricity produced by renewables should be carried by anyone else but the producers of such electricity. It's true that these overshoots wouldn't exist if coal or nuclear plants could be regulated quickly, but it's also true that if these plants didn't exist, nothing would make up for the underproduction. > And in a market with lots of renewables and no distortions, prices won't go below zero anyway. Alright, let's assume there's zero cost to curtailment (not true, but close enough) and that excess energy is only produced because the compensation structure works that way: You still have wasted potential energy from curtailment. Increasing the rollout strictly increases that waste. Therefore, it is reasonable to put that energy into fuel production, especially considering that the best combination of volatile renewables today is natural gas, which can be regulated quickly.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > How do you know? Do you have source on that? It doesn't stand to reason that the cost of excess electricity produced by renewables should be carried by anyone else but the producers of such electricity. If they're acting on normal motives, they won't produce any excess specifically because they would have to share in paying the cost. At least with any kind of bid for production system. I could imagine a system where negative or too-low prices trigger targeted punishment, as far as I know that would be very different from what we have. For a normal market, if prices go too low then renewables can just say "okay we're offering zero power to sell right now". > You still have wasted potential energy from curtailment. Increasing the rollout strictly increases that waste. Therefore, it is reasonable to put that energy into fuel production, especially considering that the best combination of volatile renewables today is natural gas, which can be regulated quickly. Yep, all true.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> It's not that simple. For instance, when there's too much electricity on the European grid because, say, wind energy is particularly strong that day in Germany, producers need to pay for someone else to take that electricity. It has negative cost. This is rare for now, but it does limit the rollout of renewables. If you don't have any external pressure or subsidies on you, you can turn off solar/wind in seconds. Renewables never have to pay those fees, only slow to ramp plants do.

incrudible 5y ago
Those "slow to ramp" plants are necessary to provide the base load. The cause of the overload is the volatility of renewables. Whether it would be cheaper to curtail renewables and who exactly gets to foot the bill - I don't know. Doesn't seem reasonable to me that, say, France should pay Germany because their very stable nuclear plants can't accommodate for the volatility of renewables elsewhere. Either way, the cost is negative, or at least zero if you turn it off. It's worthless energy, going to waste.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > Those "slow to ramp" plants are necessary to provide the base load. The cause of the overload is the volatility of renewables. Sure, that's true. But what I'm saying is that negative prices don't impact the rollout of renewables because renewables never have to pay them. And in a market with lots of renewables and no distortions, prices won't go below zero anyway.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > But what I'm saying is that negative prices don't impact the rollout of renewables because renewables never have to pay them. How do you know? Do you have source on that? It doesn't stand to reason that the cost of excess electricity produced by renewables should be carried by anyone else but the producers of such electricity. It's true that these overshoots wouldn't exist if coal or nuclear plants could be regulated quickly, but it's also true that if these plants didn't exist, nothing would make up for the underproduction. > And in a market with lots of renewables and no distortions, prices won't go below zero anyway. Alright, let's assume there's zero cost to curtailment (not true, but close enough) and that excess energy is only produced because the compensation structure works that way: You still have wasted potential energy from curtailment. Increasing the rollout strictly increases that waste. Therefore, it is reasonable to put that energy into fuel production, especially considering that the best combination of volatile renewables today is natural gas, which can be regulated quickly.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > How do you know? Do you have source on that? It doesn't stand to reason that the cost of excess electricity produced by renewables should be carried by anyone else but the producers of such electricity. If they're acting on normal motives, they won't produce any excess specifically because they would have to share in paying the cost. At least with any kind of bid for production system. I could imagine a system where negative or too-low prices trigger targeted punishment, as far as I know that would be very different from what we have. For a normal market, if prices go too low then renewables can just say "okay we're offering zero power to sell right now". > You still have wasted potential energy from curtailment. Increasing the rollout strictly increases that waste. Therefore, it is reasonable to put that energy into fuel production, especially considering that the best combination of volatile renewables today is natural gas, which can be regulated quickly. Yep, all true.