4 ms·

This is also an important problem that might start showing up with energy overabundance. If we too regularly have these periods of 0 or negative electricity pr

This is also an important problem that might start showing up with energy overabundance. If we too regularly have these periods of 0 or negative electricity prices, the economics of supporting the infrastructure collapses. Projects go bankrupt and generators get abandoned to fall into disrepair. I suspect that like modern individuals now struggle with unintended consequences of calorie abundance, civilization will also struggle with unintended consequences of electricity abundance.

greedo 3y ago
True electricity abundance (like posited by fusion reactors) will enable an incredible amount of new advances and technology.
- oezi 3y ago
  We will see electricity over-abundance in the text 5 years for all months around summer. The build-out plans in the world are crazy in the medium term.
- anonporridge 3y ago
  Of course it will. But the economics still has to balance out. Zero and negative prices would have to be subsidized to maintain economic viability, which just means the actual price is hidden.
  - greedo 3y ago
    It's not a zero sum world economy...
    - anonporridge 3y ago
      I don't understand how you extracted that from my comment above. We obviously live in an insanely positive sum world. That doesn't mean systems can run sustainably at a loss.
      - greedo 3y ago
        Energy abundance doesn't mean at a loss. It just means that excess energy that would go to waste can be used very cheaply, for all sorts of stuff that never would have been able to be accomplished before. Take CO2 extraction. It really isn't feasible, partially due to cost. But with free energy, it becomes more feasible (ignoring all the technical hurdles). Recycling becomes more efficient, all sorts of processes that are better for the environment but currently expensive will become possible.
- adrianN 3y ago
  Fusion is not a path to energy abundance. There is zero reason to believe that fusion will be cost competitive with other sources of energy.
ianburrell 3y ago
There are plenty of things that we need that can run when electricity is cheap. Producing hydrogen or liquid fuel for long-range transport or long-term storage. Pulling carbon dioxide from the air either in direct capture or weathering. Desalinization for fresh water. The big question is how to pay for those since they have capital costs and running them means that the power won't be free.
otherme123 3y ago
The first to collapse will be nuclear reactors, because they cannot deal with such low prices. Only the cheaper energies can. Even is you are half the year at a prize of 0, if the other half compensates you are fine. That's what drives eolic and solar, as they think "OK, in that scenario we would break even in 12 years instead of 6. Not bad either". Gas can adjust to produce only in the positive half of the year, and also "we would break even in 20 years instead of 10". Meanwhile, nuclear reactors and specially new nuclear projects, have to take in consideration than half of the time they will be producing at zero, and the other half barely covers the costs (mainly amortization). They are in a "at those prices we would never break even" scenario. The key point is that the sources in the margin (i.e. with less profit margin) are the ones to collapse first, while the most efficient ones keep going on with less profits, but profits nonetheless.
_aavaa_ 3y ago
Those negative prices are cause by the existence of gas, coal, and nuclear since they do not wish to curtail their production due to ramp-up/ramp-down costs. Add storage and/or get rid of the inflexibility and the negative prices disappear.

greedo 3y ago

True electricity abundance (like posited by fusion reactors) will enable an incredible amount of new advances and technology.

oezi 3y ago
We will see electricity over-abundance in the text 5 years for all months around summer. The build-out plans in the world are crazy in the medium term.
anonporridge 3y ago
Of course it will. But the economics still has to balance out. Zero and negative prices would have to be subsidized to maintain economic viability, which just means the actual price is hidden.
- greedo 3y ago
  It's not a zero sum world economy...
  - anonporridge 3y ago
    I don't understand how you extracted that from my comment above. We obviously live in an insanely positive sum world. That doesn't mean systems can run sustainably at a loss.
    - greedo 3y ago
      Energy abundance doesn't mean at a loss. It just means that excess energy that would go to waste can be used very cheaply, for all sorts of stuff that never would have been able to be accomplished before. Take CO2 extraction. It really isn't feasible, partially due to cost. But with free energy, it becomes more feasible (ignoring all the technical hurdles). Recycling becomes more efficient, all sorts of processes that are better for the environment but currently expensive will become possible.
adrianN 3y ago
Fusion is not a path to energy abundance. There is zero reason to believe that fusion will be cost competitive with other sources of energy.

ianburrell 3y ago

There are plenty of things that we need that can run when electricity is cheap. Producing hydrogen or liquid fuel for long-range transport or long-term storage. Pulling carbon dioxide from the air either in direct capture or weathering. Desalinization for fresh water. The big question is how to pay for those since they have capital costs and running them means that the power won't be free.

otherme123 3y ago

The first to collapse will be nuclear reactors, because they cannot deal with such low prices. Only the cheaper energies can. Even is you are half the year at a prize of 0, if the other half compensates you are fine. That's what drives eolic and solar, as they think "OK, in that scenario we would break even in 12 years instead of 6. Not bad either". Gas can adjust to produce only in the positive half of the year, and also "we would break even in 20 years instead of 10". Meanwhile, nuclear reactors and specially new nuclear projects, have to take in consideration than half of the time they will be producing at zero, and the other half barely covers the costs (mainly amortization). They are in a "at those prices we would never break even" scenario. The key point is that the sources in the margin (i.e. with less profit margin) are the ones to collapse first, while the most efficient ones keep going on with less profits, but profits nonetheless.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

Those negative prices are cause by the existence of gas, coal, and nuclear since they do not wish to curtail their production due to ramp-up/ramp-down costs. Add storage and/or get rid of the inflexibility and the negative prices disappear.