Sometimes we create our own problems.

Problems for Capitalism are Solutions for Humanity

Capitalism makes abundance problematic.
- Supply side Jesus says put your faith in the wisdom of the CEO.

Wasn't there a town in China that produced such a glut of surplus electricity that they didn't know what to do with it? And it was 100% solar?
- I guess the biggest bottleneck for renewables is energy storage.
  
  Pretty much. Once we got that covered there is no excuse anymore.
- Story of 2010s Germany as well.

oh no the power is too cheap. God forbid our trillions of tax dollars go to something actually useful and good for the people oh well looks like we will get the F-47 instead and pay it to private military contracts 😂
- We need more military! Cut social security!

Who is "we"? Fuck that.
- The capitalist class?

The answer is batteries. And dismantling capitalism, but batteries first
- A big flaw in German energy policy that has done a great job in expanding renewables, includes not giving its industry variable rates, that lets them invest in batteries, and schedule production more seasonally, or if they have reduced demand due to high product prices from high energy costs, just have work on the good days.
  Using EVs as grid balancers can be an extra profit center for EV owners with or without home solar. Ultra cheap retail daytime rates is the best path to demand shifting. Home solar best path to removing transmission bottlenecks for other customers. Containerized batteries and hydrogen electrolysis as a service is a tariff exempt path at moving storage/surplus management throughout the world for seasonal variations, but significantly expanding renewables capacity without risking negative pricing, and making evening/night energy cheaper to boot.
- Nah, lets squash capitalism first.
  
  Not saying we shouldn’t do both, but in reality waiting to destroy capitalism before fixing the grid just means you have too much theory and not enough praxis.
  
  Lets squash it with batteries, they are heavy for a reason.
  
  Honestly, this attitude is downright suicidal for our species right now. Capitalism took centuries to develop. Anything that replaces it will form over a similar time scale. And with climate change, that is time we do not have.

It's funny how capitalist apologists in this thread attack the format of a tweet and people not reading the actual article, when they clearly haven't read the original article.
Negative prices are only mentioned in passing, as a very rare phenomenon, while most of it is dedicated to value deflation of energy (mentioned 4 times), aka private sector investors not earning enough profits to justify expanding the grid. Basically a cautionary tale of leaving such a critical component of society up to a privatized market.
- Without reading the article, I could already see what the problem was.
  Unless you have capital to invest, you can't expand or improve the power grid. That capital can either come from the gov't--through taxation--or from private industry. If you, personally, have enough capital to do so, you can build a fully off-grid system, so that you aren't dependent on anyone else. But then if shit happens, you also can't get help from anyone else. (Also, most houses in urban areas do not have enough square feet of exposure to the sun to generate all of their own power.)
  Fundamentally, this is a problem that can only be solved by regulation, and regulation is being gutted across the board in the US.
  
  That's not the problem the article gets to. The capital is there. Capital is being dumped into solar at breakneck speed. That's the problem.
  As more solar gets built, you get more days when there's so much excess solar capacity that prices go near zero, or occasionally even negative. With more and more capacity around solar, there is less incentive to build more because you're increasing the cases of near-zero days.
  Basically, the problem is that capitalism has focused on a singular solution--the one that's cheapest to deploy with the best returns--without considering how things work together in a larger system.
  There are solutions to this. Long distance transmission helps areas where it isn't sunny take advantage of places where it is. Wind sometimes blows when the sun isn't shining, and the two technologies should be used in tandem more than they are. Storing it somewhere also helps; in fact, when you do wind and solar together, they cover each other enough that you don't have to have as much storage as you'd think. All this needs smarter government subsidies to make it happen.
  As a side note, you seem to be focused on solar that goes on residential roofs. That's the worst and most expensive way to do solar. The space available for each project is small, and it's highly customized to the home's individual roof situation. It doesn't take advantage of economies of scale very well. Using the big flat roofs of industrial buildings is better, but the real economies of scale come when you have a large open field. Slap down racks and slap the solar panels on top.
  If what you want is energy independence from your local power utility, then I suggest looking into co-op solar/wind farms. If your state bans them--mine does--then that's something to talk to your state representatives about.
- Where did op put that link?

Ughh, no, negative prices aren't some weird "capitalism" thing. When the grid gets over loaded with too much power it can hurt it. So negative prices means that there is too much power in the system that needs to go somewhere.
There are things you can do like batteries and pump water up a hill then let it be hydroelectric power at night.
- negative prices aren’t some weird “capitalism” thing.
  lmao.
  
  🙄 It's not like the need to get extra power out of the system magically goes away if money doesn't exist.
- Except the grid overload thing isn't even an issue with renewables, since wind can be shut down in a matter of 1-5 minutes (move them out of the wind) and solar literally just be disabled. Any overload they produce would be due to mechanical failure, where you can cut them off the grid since they're in the process of destroying themselves anyway (like in those videos where wind turbines fail spectacularly). Otherwise renewables are perfect to regulate the grid if available.
  In a hypothetical grid with an absolute majority of many badly adjustable power sources (like nuclear) you'd have to work with negative prices to entice building large on-demand consumers or battery solutions. So far nobody was stupid enough to build a grid like this though.
  tl;dr, this whole problem indeed is about economics and therefore may very well be a "capitalism thing". Renewables do not overload the grid.
  
  That's also a pretty naive take on it.
  First of all, you can indeed shut of the renewables easily. But that means that adding renewables to the grid is even less profitable, making renewables less desired to be built.
  Hence in for example Germany a law was passed that prevented renewables being shut down in favor of worse energy sources, but that then leads to the issue we mention here.
  It's a tricky situation with renewables. But on the other hand, society is slowly adapting to using them & improving the infrastructure to handle such issues, so we'll get there eventually :).
- But it doesn't say "it can generate too much energy and damage infrastructure", they said "it can drive the price down". The words they chose aren't, like, an accident waiting for someone to explain post-hoc. Like, absolutely we need storage for exactly the reason you say, but they are directly saying the issue is driving the price down, which is only an issue if your not able to imagine a way to create this infrastructure without profit motive.
  
  Yeah mate. The people writing here are economists not engineers, and that's the professional language for what they're talking about in their field. It's like if a nuclear engineer said "oh yeah, the reactor is critical" which means stable.
  I hear the point your making and the point OP made, but this is how really well trained PhDs often communicate - using language in their field. It's sort of considered rude to attempt to use language from another specialty.
  All of that context is lost in part b.c. this is a screenshot of a tweet in reply to another tweet, posted on Lemmy.
  The way it's supposed to work is the economist should say "we don't know what this does to infrastructure you should talk to my good buddy Mrs. Rosie Revere Engineer about what happens."
  
  Economists think in terms of supply and demand. Saying it drives prices down or negative is a perfectly good explanation of a flaw in the system, especially if you're someone on the operating side.
  
  this feels like someone just looking for an argument.. having negative pricing is a problem, and yes there are solutions like hydro and battery... hopefully this encourages that infrastructure to be created!
- I feel like having a colossal battery pack could help with that problem.
  
  Colossal is an understatement
  
  Absolutely. The hydro thing is really just a water battery, it's just stored in potential kinetic energy instead of chemical energy. But sodium cells are starting to look like a good option for chemical energy too.
  
  It can, but people need to build it.
- Yep, and the cost difference between those times should make this very cost effective.

I see this posted a lot as if this is an issue with capitalism. No, this is what happens when you have to deal with maintaining the power grid using capitalism as a tool.
Power generation needs to match consumption. Always constantly the power grid must be balanced. If you consume more than you can generate, you get a blackout. If you generate more than you use, something catches fire.
Renewables generate power on their own schedule. This is a problem that can be solved with storage. But storage is expensive and takes time to construct.
Negative prices are done to try and balance the load. Its not a problem, its an opportunity. If you want to do something that needs a lot of power, you can make money by consuming energy when more consumption is needed. And if you buy a utility scale battery, you can make money when both charging and discharging it if you schedule it right.
That's not renewables being a problem, that's just what happens when the engineering realities of the power grid come into contact with the economic system that is prevalent for now.
- Capitalism does solve it. Eventually. It takes the information in steps and gets to a solution that experts were talking about decades before. This is not a good way to do things.
  It tends to overinvest in the thing that has the most immediate ROI. That's been solar. Wind/water/storage/long distance distribution are all important pieces of this, too, and this has been known in climate and civil engineering fields for a while. Solar can't do it all by itself.
  A sensible system would even out the investment in each. The wind often blows when the sun isn't shining, so you don't need as much storage to do the in between parts. Water not only provides an easily adjustable baseload (nuclear does not adjust very well), but it also doubles as storage. In fact, if we could link up all the hydro dams we already have to long distance transmission, we wouldn't need any other storage. Though that isn't necessarily the most efficient method, either.
  What capitalism does is invest in solar, find that causes negative prices, and then invest in the next best ROI to solve that. Perhaps it's storage. That results in a lot more storage than would otherwise be needed than if wind/water/long distance distribution were done alongside it. Or maybe the next best ROI is wind, but there are still lulls lacking in both sun and wind--as well as periods where you have too much of both--so you still need storage.
  And what capitalism really doesn't want to do long distance transmission. It's not just big, but it's horizontal construction. That means rights to the whole route have to be purchased. It means environmental concerns along the entire route have to be thought out. It means soil has to be tested for stability and footings made to suit for the entire route. Capitalism almost has to be beaten into submission for anyone to build anything horizontally. (See also: trains and highway systems, both of which came with substantial government investment and incentives).
- I can't ragebait if you people are being logical 😒
- Also, fwiw, you can curtail wind turbines incredibly quickly. They're the quickest moving assets on an electrical grid typically. So you are using them to balance the grid quite often. You can just pitch the blades a bit and they slow or stop. it's not really a tech problem, but a financial one like you said.
  I'm not sure much about solar curtailment, other than the fact that they receive curtailment requests and comply quite quickly as well.
  
  Wind turbines like solar and BESSs are inverter-based resources (IBRs), so any of them can curtail quickly.
  
  I'm not sure much about solar curtailment, other than the fact that they receive curtailment requests and comply quite quickly as well.
  Here in the EU, the DC-AC transformers are mandated to shut down if the grid frequency is out of bounds.
- I see this posted a lot as if this is an issue with capitalism. No, this is what happens when you have to deal with maintaining the power grid using capitalism as a tool.
  The framing of it as the problem being that the price is going down rather than that excess power is feeding into the grid is what makes it an issue with capitalism. The thing you should be questioning is why MIT Technology Review is talking about some consequence of the problem that only exists because of capitalism instead of talking about the problem itself.
  And before you downvote/object with some knee-jerk reaction that I'm being pedantic, consider this alternative way of framing it:
  The opportunity is that solar panels create lots of electricity in the middle of sunny days, frequently more than what's currently required, so it is necessary to develop new flexible sources of demand so that the excess energy doesn't damage the power grid.
  That's pretty vastly different, isn't it?
  
  I don't like using the term capitalism because it is too vague. Political corruption protecting oligarchy/big corporations is the problem.
  Inflation resulting from start of full war on Russia and resulting oil/diesel price spike forced the wrong policy of higher interest rates. The theory in the past is that increasing austerity on consumers reduce their driving, and preventing business investment also reduces expanded demand for scarce FFs.
  In the dynamics of energy disruption, high interest rates are the biggest cost obstacle for renewables and less new renewables is more oil/FF extortion power. At 2000 sun hours/year, $1/watt solar installation, could get a 16 year payback = 100% overall profit at 3c/kwh price. 2c/kwh at 3000 sun hours/year. Every 2% in interest costs, increases required price by 1c/kwh.
  Protection of existing assets/supply scarcity is not affected by higher interest rates. New oil wells do have a big upfront cost, but they also have a huge power and maintenance requirement that is paid for with the product taken out of the ground, with ROI protections if renewables can be suppressed, including with high interest rates.
  Political corruption favouring scarcity over abundance is the problem. Cheap energy or steel is a huge competitive and life quality advantage. Use cheap inputs for more productivity and happier life with cheaper cost.
  
  That's pretty vastly different, isn't it?
  Not really. It's like saying toast falls butter side down, vs toast falls non-buttered side up?
  Perhaps some are conditioned for an emotional response, rather than a rational one, upon hearing certain words? That's why you suggest to avoid them, even to describe the same issue?
  
  MIT Technology Review is talking
  they did talk about this many years ago. This is a very old screenshot that has been around the internet for probably a decade at a guess. You might notice the check mark because this was from a time that twitter actually vetted sources. There's nothing wrong with a publication having bad takes on occasion. That does happen now and again.
  The telling part is the fact that this one single tweet keeps being reposted repeatedly, with the reply as if this is a substantive criticism of capitalism.
- Nice comment! Thanks.
- Just to be clear this can't be solved with storage. Currently it can be but not permanently.
  For ease of argument let's say the grid runs 100% on solar with batteries that last a day. For 100% solar you need to build power for when demand is highest, winter, and supply is lowest also winter. Come summer demand is lowest and supply is highest. You can't store all that energy in summer because you got fuck all to do with it.
  It's a really weird cost saving exercise but basically when supply is massively abundant it has to be wasted. No one is going to build that final battery that is only used for 1 day every 10 years.
  Bringing it all together. In a 100% renewables grid with solar, wind, hydro and batteries a lot of electricity will be wasted and it will be the cheapest way to do it. Cheaper than now.
  Quite a few people talk about this on youtube. Tony Seba and rethinkx is the best place to start in my opinion.
  
  You can’t store all that energy in summer because you got fuck all to do with it.
  Main value of H2 electrolysis is solving (more economic return from renewables than just curtailing) this problem. Also provides exportable energy to cover winter clean power/heat needs.
  
  Hydo power can be used as storage, and can generate power on-demand. I'd recommend avoiding YouTube if you want reliable information.
- This is a problem that can be solved with storage. But storage is expensive and takes time to construct.
  true. thing is, they've seen it coming for a decade, and knew it needed to happen. It shames me that we're just now trying to pick up the storage side when we've had ample evidence the need was growing rapidly.
- Then tell me why the mechanism to control production via the solar panels themselves hasn't been implemented? I've seen several viable options, including covers that are manual or even automated and powered by the excess energy...
  
  Then tell me why the mechanism to control production via the solar panels themselves hasn't been implemented?
  Why would you want people to tell you things that are untrue?
  
  South Australia has run into this problem and implemented a solution.
  When the solar exports in a section of the grid exceeds the local transformer's limits, a signal is sent to all of the inverters in that section to limit the export rate. The same signal can be send to all solar inverters in South Australia if the entire grid has too much renewable energy.
  This signal only limits the export to the grid, so the homeowner can always use their own solar power first. The permitted export is guaranteed to be between 1.5kW and 10kW per phase.
  The was a minor oversight during implementation. Homeowners on wholesale pricing would often curtail or switch off their solar inverters if the prices went negative. If the grid operator sent a signal to reduce the export rate, it would override the homeowner's command and force a 1.5kW export during negative pricing (costing the homeowner to export). No-one considered that anyone might not want to export solar all of the time.
- Something catches fire lol what, as if they can't just disconnect the solar cells if they run out of batteries
  
  You can do. If you don't that's when you get the fire, or more likely a whole bunch of breakers flip and you are in a black start situation.

If you're describing nearly free and unlimited electricity as a problem, you may want to reconsider some things.
- It's how capitalists think about land, water, air, etc.
  ... And violently attacking people by depriving them of these needs.
- It's a very capitalist way of thinking about the problem, but what "negative prices" actually means in this case is that the grid is over-energised. That's a genuine engineering issue which would take considerable effort to deal with without exploding transformers or setting fire to power stations
  
  Oh, look! A challenge. And a business opportunity! Just get a mortgage, buy some land in the middle of nowhere and make a reverse hydro plant.
  Oh, I forgot. Banks don't loan money for stuff not already existing or net-harmful hyped-up bullshit like AI and crypto.
  
  Home owned windmills, solar panels and battery storage solves that.
  Edit: Look at this awesome diagram of how it's done for a hybrid setup that's about $400 on Amazon.
  PIKASOLA Wind Turbine Generator 12V 400W with a 30A Hybrid Charge Controller. As Solar and Wind Charge Controller which can Add Max 500W Solar Panel for 12V Battery.
  
  Couldn't solar farms just strategically disconnect some of their panels from the grid to avoid that? Solar panels are always collecting energy, but if you disconnect them that energy just goes into making them a bit warmer rather than overloading the grid.
  
  Nothing an open/close gate couldn’t fix. The real problem is how overly complicated we feel we need to make things.
  
  Sorry for the naive question, but is it not possible to send the excess electricity to the ground (in the electrical sense)?
  
  The grid is always over energized. That’s not a problem. Large solar and wind farms connect to the grid with great specificity about the maximum amount of energy they will put on the lines. The problem would be not enough energy. Batteries are beginning to solve the dispatch energy issue with renewables. As long as republicans don’t get their way and ruin renewable energy with unfair fossil fuel mandates, the grid will continue to modernize in this way and we’ll be fairly independent of fossil fuels in the future for electricity.
  
  Not an engineer but I sometimes watch them on YouTube.
  Could you not just set up a breakout point and have it arc to ground? If the power source is renewable then wasting a little when you have a full grid shouldn't be a big issue. I'm thinking something along the lines of StyroPyro's arcing plasma flamethrower should chew up plenty of excess power if you scale it up. As you ramp your total storage up toward 100% capacity I'd start shutting off inputs (disconnecting solars, etc) and then have what's basically a big old Tesla coil to vent excess power over 95% capacity.
- In fairness, capitalist expansion is predicated on generating and reinvesting profit. If you build an array of solar panels and generate a revenue less than the installation+maintenance cost of the panels, you don't have any more money to buy new panels and expand the grid.
  That is, under a privatized system, anyway. If you're a public utility and your goal is to meet a demand quota rather than raise revenue for the next round of expansion, profit isn't your concern. You're looking for the lowest possible installation/maintenance/replacement cost over the lifetime of the system, not the high margins per unit installed.
  Incidentally, this is why vertically integrated private firms that consider electricity an expense rather than a profit center have been aggressively rolling out their own privately managed solar/wind arrays. When the concern is minimizing cost rather than maximizing revenue, and you can adjust your rate of consumption to match the peak productive capacity of your grid, then solar/wind is incredibly efficient.
- thats why Westinghouse had to crush Nikolai Tesla. you can't meter wireless power.

Hear me out: a giant water balloon. Roughly the size of the sun.

You can read the Technology Review article here discussing why this is problematic beyond a JPEG-artifacted screenshot of a snappy quip from a furry porn Twitter account that may or may not have read the article beyond the caption. We need solar power plants to reach net zero emissions, but even despite their decreasing costs and subsidies offered for them, developers are increasingly declining to build them because solar is so oversaturated at peak hours that it becomes worthless or less than worthless. The amount of energy pumped into the grid and the amount being used need to match to keep the grid at a stable ~60 Hz (or equivalent where you live, e.g. 50 Hz for the PAL region), so at some point you need to literally pay people money to take the electricity you're producing to keep the grid stable or to somehow dump the energy before it makes its way onto the grid.
One of the major ways this problem is being offset is via storage so that the electricity can be distributed at a profit during off-peak production hours. Even if the government were to nationalize energy production and build their own solar farms (god, please), they would still run up against this same problem where it becomes unviable to keep building farms without the storage to accommodate them. At that point it becomes a problem not of profit but of "how much fossil fuel generation can we reduce per unit of currency spent?" and "are these farms redundant to each other?".
This is framed through a capitalist lens, but in reality, it's a pressing issue for solar production even if capitalism is removed from the picture entirely. At some point, solar production has to be in large part decoupled from solar distribution, or solar distribution becomes far too saturated in the middle of the day making putting resources toward its production nearly unviable.
- In other words… Maybe 29 word Twitter captions aren’t a great way to discuss issues?
  
  In other words... Maybe paragraphs of word salad aren't a great way to debunk an obvious truth?
  
  Nah, I see nothing wrong with an information diet composed of random people with no background sharing their pet conspiracy with 5 million people on TikTok that they learned from three minutes with ChatGPT, furry porn accounts clapping back on Twitter to an out-of-context 29-word quote from an MIT Technology Review article (reshared so many dozens of times that the quality has noticeably degraded), or a picture generated in a Russian disinformation farm showing a muscular Donald Trump rescuing crying orphans from drowning in Hurricane Helene while corrupt FEMA agents loot their houses.
  God fucking help us.
- I do like how this Twitter account, in the rush to blame capitalism, overlooked the fact that the sun rises and sets every day.
- I've known about the issue with a lack of ways to store the energy produced for about 5 years now, does it seem like we're making any steps in it recently? Also how does it work in a "green" fashion to produce all of the batteries necessary for that sorts of energy storage, I feel like that's going to be one of the next discussions about how "pure" this method is.
  
  The size of the storage problem is not well understood by most. The world production of batteries is insufficient to power germany with 100% renewables.
  A possible solution is changing consumption patterns (in jargon known as demand-response). This runs into 2 issues: (1) people need to change their behaviour, with they wont. (2) You handicap your economy, to the benefits of countries that do not care about emissions. With a good chance that the net result is more emissions.

This is what the Cabal is doing !!

Why not do something with all that power? In the past there were some projects where they pumped water upstream when there was too much power on the grid. Then on low energy times, the water was released making energy again. Or make hydrogen (I think it was hydrogen). Or do AI stuff
I also seen energie waste machines that basically use a lot of power to do nothing. Only the get rid of all that extra energy so the power grid won't go down/burn.
- Why not do something with all that power?
  Because profits are a result of deprivation not progress.
  
  Agree, but there is also profit to be made when using the leftover free power.
- Why not do something with all that power?
  This is a relatively new problem, so it will take awhile for the market to respond to make industries optimized to take advantage of this.
  I saw an article a few months ago (couldn't find it quickly just now) about a small manufacturing company (metals maybe?) that set up shop specifically to run during the excess power events. So its starting to happen, but its not going to be a perfect fit. It means spending lots up front for infra, but only being able to use it a few hours a day cost effectively.
  In the past there were some projects where they pumped water upstream when there was too much power on the grid. Then on low energy times, the water was released making energy again.
  This is already done with pump hydro. But this needs existing hydroelectric infrastructure to take advantage of. Even then there are usually holding ponds upstream and they themselves have limited capacity.
  Or make hydrogen (I think it was hydrogen).
  This is being done too at small scales right now. There's difficulties with it. Hydrogen really sucks to try store and transport. The H2 molecule is so small it leaks out through valves and gaskets that are fine for containing nearly all other gases and liquids. So this means the gear needed is hugely more expensive up front. What a few are doing is using the hydrogen to quickly make Ammonia (NH3), which is much easier to store and contain. However, the efforts doing this are still fairly small.
  Or do AI stuff
  AI aside, this is one place I haven't seen develop yet. That being: cheaper compute costs during excess power events.
  I suspect its the same problem for the manufacturing. It means spending money on expensive compute infrastructure but only able to use it during the excess power events. As in, the compute in place is already running flat out at full capacity all the time. There's no spare hardware to use the excess power. If you had spare hardware, you'd add it to your fleet and run it 24/7 making more money.
- Or use it on large scale computing for protein folding simulations, or something.
  And yeah, gravity batteries is the best I think we have, with water being the most common medium with pumped-storage hydroelectricity. But the scales of the things are kind of incongruent and... Autoincorrect actually got it right trying to correct that to inconvenient. Still really cool. I think we may need some innovations to cut down on scale issues though. Although it looks like the total power storage available is about one day worth of power for the US in PSH, I'm curious if the instantaneous output is sufficient for the grid and how spread out the storage locations are, as I somewhat doubt they're often in flatter regions. All in all, I'm not a power engineer, I just know a few and I should bug them sometime.
- We still have hydroelectric turbines that can reverse themselves to pump water to a higher elevation reservoir to store surplus energy. We call them pump-gens at my job. The problem is that, as nearby areas develop, that water gets reserved for other things, so they can't pump it back up because it's needed further downstream for irrigation or communities or whatever.
- Some hobbyists turn up the set point on their electric water heater to store the power as domestic hot water.
  
  Now that's a good idea! I have a couple of ideas to automate that. Crank the hot water balls out during peak production hours, but cut it off at night. Something like that?
  Sounds like a deal for power companies that change prices during on/off peak hours. But wait, am I backwards? Typically peak power costs more? Anyone?

Just install a bunch of spotlights that point back at the Sun so when power prices go negative you can return all that excess energy! Come on MIT, I thought you were supposed to be smart.
- Isn't it easier just to cover solar panels with reflective material, so they stop producing energy?

"Well you see there is generations and generations of ghouls that have made their entire livelihood off the established and continued monopolization of vital resources such as water and power and for some reason the rest of us haven't gotten together and solved that clear and obvious threat to everyone and everything collectively, I know I don't get it either."

Great comments in here that understand the actual issues, instead of, ya' know, the usual.
Something I haven't seen in the thread: Can someone address the costs of keeping the infrastructure maintained? Free power sounds great, but it can never be free. Entire industries must be paid to manufacture pylons, wire, transformers, substations, all that. Then there are the well paid employees who are our boots on the ground. (Heroes to me!)
How is solar disrupting the infra costs?
- The actual issue, as stated in the original article is value deflation, aka investors not making enough money to justify energy transition to a timeline where humanity still exists in 100 years. Decoupling the issue from the political and economic aspect is disingenuous at best.
- Here in Belgium, the component related to power generation is only about one fifth of the residential power bill.
  Most are (1) connection costs (what you describe), (2) taxes, (3) subsidies for solar and wind to replace gas power generation, and (4) since 2 years, subsidies for gas power generation for when there's too little solar and wind.
- It’s called a connection fee that is levied whether or not you used any energy that month. Those fees will likely go up to make up for decreased energy distribution revenue.
- All/almost all net metering plans will still charge access and/or infrastructure fees.

As a solar punk, I have solar panels, some batteries, and all my stuff runs off USB or 12v. I don't pay utilities
- How do you heat water?
  
  Three options: 12v cup, small camp stove, and large wood stove.
  
  He shakes himself really fast in the tub

I get the sentiment but... When sun isn't shining the negative prices cause problem for baseline power producers who need to turn off their power plants to avoid the zero to negative power prices.
This causes the power prices to become volatile, since the investments for the power plants that run during the night need to be covered during the night only.
Eventually though the higher price volatility will encourage investments into either demand side adjustability or energy storage systems. This will play out in energy only markets.
The other alternative is to implement a capacity market, which will divide the cost of the baseline production across different production hours by paying producers more for guaranteed production capacity.
- Ya I'm not an engineer at all so I'm not sure how hard it is to store that much power but that always seemed like a good idea. Even for electric cars, if we designed a universal battery pack good for a few hundred kilometres that we could swap out at recharge stations I feel like that would be a smart way to do things. But again I have no idea if thats feasible or how it would be implemented.
  
  The problem with batteries is that they are costly to produce if we’re talking about ones that reverse chemical reactions. This is why I rolled my eyes at Elon suggesting we connect batteries to all our renewables. (The cost I learned from Factorio). Other types of batteries, like potential energy buffers are more practical, but also extremely location specific. There is a Technology Connections video about it. Also for example, some rollercoasters have flywheels to slowly build up rotational inertia and then release it all at once. So if we were to store the excess energy, it would probably be done so this way, but baseline power obviously just seems more practical
  Link https://uwaterloo.ca/waterloo-institute-sustainable-energy/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/magdy_salama_research_spotlight_poster_120716.pdf
  
  We didn't really have good batteries at that scale. I believe the large scale power storage is still done using water and gravity. Which is honestly pretty neat, but requires lots of land and a high location.
  
  Much harder than you’d think, though there are some interesting schemes (like huge tanks filled with molten stuff, superconducting rings, giant flywheels). And there’s always a loss with storage.
  TBH having a diverse array of power sources (including a little storage) is much better.
  Also, batteries in electric cars are unfortunately extremely expensive, and extremely heavy. They’re less efficient than you’d think. Standardization and swappability (and reusing idle batteries for the grid) is a great idea, but even just focusing on the technical aspects, challenging.

If anyone is curious as to why we don't run the world off solar, from what I understand the big issue is power grid frequency. Unlike a turbine, solar has no intertia. If you take away light the power drop is instant. With turbines, they keep spinning due to their weight. This is especially important since if a large load is suddenly energized, the turbine might slow down but still won't stop immediately. Maybe in the future giant electric powered flywheels or pumpgen systems can take up the slack. Nuclear would likely also help since those are essentially giant steam turbine generators. Good video with some more info here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7G4ipM2qjfw&t=589
- Those flywheels are already being installed right now
  https://www.neso.energy/news/first-phase-stability-pathfinders-delivered

Hear me out: pump the excess solar power from the sunny side of Earth via maser into space at a geostationary microwave mirror array that reflects and focuses power back at a ground station on the dark side of Earth.

This feels like it is begging for further context.

That's exactly why i want it, but i can't in our appartment...other than a single mobile panel on our balcony and a mobile battery, which will cost about €1000 and will only allow me to partially run some electric devices.

Never forget the plot of space balls is that they figured out how to monopolize the air.
It was released in 1987.
Mel Brooks is the goat.
- I'm going to a screening of this movie on May 4th actually. :)

Sounds like economics needs redefining.
- Economists have long forgotten that society has been around a hell of a lot longer than capitalism.

Solar is at it's most cost effective on buildings that use a lot of power during the day, such as factories and office buildings.
That way, you're using most, if not all, of the power you generate, rather than selling it to the grid at a lower cost.

Gemeni then said, "hold my beer" and proceeded to blacken the sky.

People keep reposting this like it's a gotcha.
It's not
If prices are negative most of the day there is less incentive to provide the capacity that's needed during the night. The money for capex has to come from somewhere so it goes up significantly at night. And of course the negative price isn't "real", it just means power plants will shut down for swaths of the year until it's affordable to keep the remainder running. Which then means lower average capacity on days that are cloudy, or additional maintenance on systems that only run in the winter. So then people throw battery stuff around... batteries are expensive. Really, really, really, really expensive. So you have to find a way to keep capacity up that's not absurdly expensive or hard to maintain, or you have to keep all your fossil fuel plants at the ready while producing $0 in income to offset the upkeep, which...yes, gets passed to the consumer.
I know people want to simplify the national grid which spans across all continental states and connects to literal billions of devices producing and consuming power...but it's actually kinda complicated.
- The original article literally frames it as an economic problem under capitalism. Most of the article is about value deflation, not about the niche case of storing excess energy until it is profitable to sell again.
  Lower prices may sound great for consumers. But it presents troubling implications for the world’s hopes of rapidly expanding solar capacity and meeting climate goals. It could become difficult to convince developers and investors to continue building ever more solar plants if they stand to make less money or even lose it https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/14/1028461/solar-value-deflation-california-climate-change/
  Maybe take a break from the capitalist apologia to understand that this shouldn't be a problem for a society that is trying to move away from cooking the planet.
  
  Op is a tweet, not an article.
  
  "Instead of trying to solve the problem we currently have, with the systems and tools that are there, how about we forget about the problem and work on something much much harder instead".
  Don't get me wrong you're absolutely free and welcome to advocate for systemic solutions. But don't attack people working on alleviating symptoms in a practical way or I'll call you an accelerationist. "Here's how we implement socialism! Step one: Burn the planet".
- wow, its almost like the government that we pay taxes to should be what's powering the country and not private corporations that are only concerned about profits 😋

Thank you "Bred Menace 🔞" for this insightful tweet.

Obviously any business model's problems should be blamed on whatever breaks it.