3 ms·

I don't think they were saying solar is useless, but you underestimate how difficult it is to change peak load. Well a good start is actually smart systems with

I don't think they were saying solar is useless, but you underestimate how difficult it is to change peak load. Well a good start is actually smart systems within homes, for instance to avoid heating said home when nobody is present, or timing loads like car charging and dishwashers to be on that beat. That's great, but it's been proven these smart systems are very hard to roll out, no matter how much you try to say it's cheaper in the end. Well you can ignore all this and roll out significant pricing changes to coincide with peek production anyway, and quickly be met with two problems. The first are the people who say "fossils were better my energy was cheaper", good luck there. And you will also hear a large number of people say "well this is just a further tax against the poor who can't afford these systems, nice work, joe.", and honestly, they'd be right. A big thing we need if we want this energy transition to go well is a more local view, but also we could have solutions that don't depend on daylight to ease that transition. Anyway, don't know where I was going with this but those are my two cents.

silverlyra 3y ago
now I am wondering about the net social benefit of solar power disincentivizing third-shift (overnight) production. cheaper electricity during the day makes it relatively more expensive to operate heavy industry plants 24/7. the heavy investment that goes into those plants incentives operators to drive (and staff) them 24/7, but there are hidden social costs (negative externalities) of having so many people out of diurnal rhythm. maybe massive solar power buildout, with sharply cheaper daytime electricity, would relieve people from working “graveyard shifts” – and maybe that’d be a good thing
- zdragnar 3y ago
  I worked a graveyard shift at a factory in college one summer because it was the only job that I could really find after weeks of looking. I definitely feel for the people who did it for a living. That said, the companies aren't going to just stop, they'll just charge higher prices. To stop producing in the third shift, they'll need to: - add more daytime production lines, which means buying more floor space, possibly in a different location with new logistics to work out - new capex for the new lines - higher overhead because your newly expanded production lines are idle 30% of the time - higher overhead from daily startup and shutdown times This is all for companies where it is feasible to do so. Some plants measure startup and shutdown in hours, if not days. Doing a full cycle every day would mean redesigning their entire operation, if it is even possible to do so at all. Even places like hospitals don't exactly get to choose to just turn off all the life support and lights at night.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  24/7 might make transportation infrastructure utilization more efficient. Less congestion during rush hour for example.
pydry 3y ago
>That's great, but it's been proven these smart systems are very hard to roll out, no matter how much you try to say it's cheaper I thought the opposite was proven. E.g. When Germany produced a lot of variable output electricity they varied aluminum smelting rates accordingly. That was highly effective and not generally expected. There's tons of low hanging fruit like that but if you listen to carbon or nuclear lobby propaganda theyre insistent that the only thing that can solve the problem is more lithium than exists in the entire world.
- internetter 3y ago
  I'm talking specifically on an individual level. I'm not as versed in the industrial side of things as I should be, and sure, if we as a nation (I live in the US) came together and said "let's fix the overconsumption issues" we could do it practically overnight, but the reality is that to fix every home requires an absurd upfront investment very little people are willing to fund. Systematic change is hard. We're working on it, but it's hard.

silverlyra 3y ago

now I am wondering about the net social benefit of solar power disincentivizing third-shift (overnight) production. cheaper electricity during the day makes it relatively more expensive to operate heavy industry plants 24/7. the heavy investment that goes into those plants incentives operators to drive (and staff) them 24/7, but there are hidden social costs (negative externalities) of having so many people out of diurnal rhythm. maybe massive solar power buildout, with sharply cheaper daytime electricity, would relieve people from working “graveyard shifts” – and maybe that’d be a good thing

zdragnar 3y ago
I worked a graveyard shift at a factory in college one summer because it was the only job that I could really find after weeks of looking. I definitely feel for the people who did it for a living. That said, the companies aren't going to just stop, they'll just charge higher prices. To stop producing in the third shift, they'll need to: - add more daytime production lines, which means buying more floor space, possibly in a different location with new logistics to work out - new capex for the new lines - higher overhead because your newly expanded production lines are idle 30% of the time - higher overhead from daily startup and shutdown times This is all for companies where it is feasible to do so. Some plants measure startup and shutdown in hours, if not days. Doing a full cycle every day would mean redesigning their entire operation, if it is even possible to do so at all. Even places like hospitals don't exactly get to choose to just turn off all the life support and lights at night.
ETH_start 3y ago
24/7 might make transportation infrastructure utilization more efficient. Less congestion during rush hour for example.

pydry 3y ago

>That's great, but it's been proven these smart systems are very hard to roll out, no matter how much you try to say it's cheaper I thought the opposite was proven. E.g. When Germany produced a lot of variable output electricity they varied aluminum smelting rates accordingly. That was highly effective and not generally expected. There's tons of low hanging fruit like that but if you listen to carbon or nuclear lobby propaganda theyre insistent that the only thing that can solve the problem is more lithium than exists in the entire world.

internetter 3y ago
I'm talking specifically on an individual level. I'm not as versed in the industrial side of things as I should be, and sure, if we as a nation (I live in the US) came together and said "let's fix the overconsumption issues" we could do it practically overnight, but the reality is that to fix every home requires an absurd upfront investment very little people are willing to fund. Systematic change is hard. We're working on it, but it's hard.