Can’t they sell the surplus to neighbouring countries?
In fact we have to pay the neighboring countries to take the excess power in order to lighten the load on the grid. Switzerland and Austria will then use the power to pump up water to store the energy.
In fact we have to pay the neighboring countries to take the excess power in order to lighten the load on the grid. Switzerland and Austria will then use the power to pump up water to store the energy.
Why is Germany building a ton of coal plants then?
Negative pricing just means power isn’t needed or wanted at that time of day. During the winter when it’s not sunny, power will still be needed.
Does solar in summer meet their energy demands? I was under the impression that it didn’t.
Negative pricing from solar occurs mid-day. It doesn’t mean all other power plants are turned off. Some power like nuclear or coal have thermal inertia, and so they aren’t worth trying to shut off for a few hours - it would cost them more to shut down and heat back up than to just pay the negative price to stay on. So this negative pricing just indicates that more solar is online than ever before, and the market is ripe for diversification of energy sources (or storage) to take advantage of price differentials. If other sources phase out, solar may meet the full summer demand for a few hours each day. Then eventually with batteries solar can meet the full demand for a few months straight. But it will never meet winter demands, especially with electrified heating.
We’re not.
Bringing back online != Building a ton
I’d say that this a weird way to put it. We just have too few other sustainable plants - mainly wind - in our mix.
Yo, businessinsider, suck my dick.
When nuclear power was first adopted, it was championed as being “too cheap to meter”.
That was never going to happen, and society will allways need people maintaining power infrastructure.
So there should be two charges on your power bill, one for power usage and a static one for use of power infrastructure.
That split system is how it works where I live. Obviously it’s quite difficult to have competition for the infrastructure. So I can choose who delivers power (well, I mean it comes from the same grid. But different companies buying power from the same spot market charge you different amounts 🤷) but the infrastructure is a monopoly. Not only do we pay a fixed fee for the infrastructure, but also a transfer fee (and taxes, and also taxes on the taxes)
So in the end I pay more for the infrastructure part than the power consumption.
this is like a bitcoin miner’s wet dream.
Thanks for giving us a bank’s perspective, Business Insider.
This statement brought to you by Greed® and Capitalism™
This is great! No shortage of electricity in Germany thanks to green energy!
“people are no longer paying for things they don’t need! this is a disaster!”
As predicted. The EU policies on solar will drive the same excess in every country. Germany is also going for hydrogen with a large hydrogen network already built and excess electricity would be a great source of power for green hydrogen production (which is vehemently inefficient, but if it’s free…)
One of the nuke plants I work at put in a hydrogen electrolyzer two years ago for this reason, and they are doubling it’s size next year because it worked so well. Their “problem” is different than solar. Nukes constantly put it the same amount of power, so they feed the excess into the electrolyzer when demand is low, but it’s basically the same idea. Electrolysis id inefficient, but if you’re producing more energy than you can feed into the grid you may as well do something useful with it.
Same reason I think carbon capture is worth looking into. It should not be a primary solution. I know some fossil fuel groups are behind it today. But in the not too distant future we are going to have excess green energy. Capturing carbon is worth seeing if we can scale to the point of being one of our tools. People are quick to scoff at the idea. Much like I’ve seen with hydrogen. But I’d rather try many options to reverse change that might not be perfect. Instead of hoping we transition power sources and that alone was enough.
The 2 go well together. Hydrocarbons are an excellent carbon store. Carbon also stabilises the hydrogen, so it doesn’t leak through the walls of your containers. Lastly, it can actually to replace oil in things like plastic production.
In a pinch, you can also burn the result, to get energy back.
This is HORRIBLE! How will the JOB CREATORS (who keep laying off thousands of workers) make any MONEY for IMPROVEMENTS to give us CHEAPER and better product?
That sounds exactly like what a power company would say
Nevertheless I am paying premium prices to charge my EV on public chargers in germany…
Practically free solar power on the grid does not make the chargers and the infrastructure needed for them free. Tho yeah you’re probably overpaying for it on days with high renewable power generation.
Negative pricing during peak solar hours has also been happening in California. Longer-term negative pricing has been happening for more than a decade in the Columbia River basin, due to high wind (and wind subsidies per MWh) and high hydroelectric flows.
It’s pretty simple. Negative pricing creates a strong incentive for energy storage. We need more energy storage to support more renewable energy. This was inevitable. I’d love to see a future where people driving their EVs get a pop-up alert: FREE CHARGING AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT 35 minutes. And the charging network gets paid to take up excess load.
I’d like a future where EV’s aren’t a part of it and worrying about such frivolities as “personal transportation” is a foreign concept.
All of transportation cannot be shared or multi-passenger because some trips are to places where nobody else is going. Perhaps in dense cities, which will take at least 50 years to rebuild in a walkable way in the US. But people will still want to enjoy natural places - lakes, rivers, mountains, deserts, forests, and snow, and there won’t always be rails built to access those places. Electric mountain bikes with a 500 mile range maybe? Personal transportation will always be around.
Ok but if you are in the middle of nature where is this mythical charging station that is going to ping your cell-phone that you should charge your bike in the next 35 minutes? It better not be in the national park you are visiting. I’d also say that in America, removing cars from our national parks and replacing them with rail would be a huge boost to accessibility, and preservation. Hiking/biking trails can and should still exist, but in that world Electric Cars have no place.
There already aren’t gas stations in these remote locations. Why would there need to be EV chargers??
The thought of having rail service small campsites is comical.
If we did move to a world where cities are dense enough that public transit did replace cars for most people, cars would still be a viable rental for when leaving the city.
National parks are great opportunity for sharing rides, rail, or bus. I think Yosemite valley should be 100% free from personal vehicles. I’m talking about climbing a mountain and starting at the trailhead at 6am. Mountain biking or paddle boarding or surfing. Going fishing or hunting in a place nobody else goes. Maybe you’ve never experienced real solitude, but ridesharing and transit isn’t going to get those experiences. There is not a future free from personal transportation. Even in a post apocalypse anarchy, people will build off grid solutions to drive electric ATVs and bikes and buggies and whatever else.
Personal transportation is great, but it won’t be Electric.
Why Are they talking like it’s a bad thing?
Germany’s political economic system is capitalist. In order for that type of system to exist there must be a surplus that can be extracted in the form of profit. If the cost of energy is negative (or even low) there is no surplus profit and thus the system falls apart.
this is why the current gov in sweden is trying to run wind mills into the ground. got rid of the solar panel subsidiary. and has been campaigning hard to building nuclear power plants under the guise of ‘clean and stable energy that can be produced on demand.’ - and it will somehow lower electricity prices despite the country producing a surplus and prices remain high because the surplus is sold to the rest of europe at a premium and to increase demand locally and thus prices for a double tap on the market.
but sure. let’s build more nuclear. that will totally fix the energy prices and satiate demand by relying on imported fuel based power instead of free and infinite power produced by nature itself. i’m sure.
Because it is a bad thing for the financial interests that Business Insider serves.
In isolation, it’s very obviously a bad thing, because it makes solar less profitable and might slow down the switch to renewables.
In a wider context, it can still be seen as a god thing as it means there has been a significant pivot to solar already and luckily it’s also a very solvable problem. There just needs to be more energy storage.
Won’t energy storage help drive prices back up too?
It’s a sign of a grid stability issue. A power grid needs to balance input, output and losses. An imbalance in either direction is bad.
A negative price means the grid is worried about a collapse. They are willing to pay sinks to come online NOW, or for production to go offline.
The solution isn’t less renewables however! It’s more storage, and better smarts on the grid. Most grids are poorly designed for renewables, and their loads characteristics. That needs to change rapidly.