Yeah what MIT is actually saying here is that because solar creation is too efficient it is actually creating an economic situation in which switching to solar costs more than the profit that would be made from it.
That wouldn’t be an issue if they just allowed Chinese solar panels but without Chinese production it’s an economic issue with capitalism.
No that’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying that generating loads and loads of power when no one needs it is leading to power companies having to charge people for feeding into the grid to stop them from doing so, instead of paying them.
Solars biggest problem is that without batteries it’s basically useless now, and grid scale batteries don’t exist, and there’s no real outlook where they are.
Yeah what MIT is actually saying here is that because solar creation is too efficient it is actually creating an economic situation in which switching to solar costs more than the profit that would be made from it.
Not only that, but it reduces the profitability of other forms of generation too.
The major issue is of course capitalism, because everything has to make a profit. But what they really want is to socialize the losses encurred by solar onto us so they can continue to profit.
Our options are to either subsidize, or behead all the private energy company execs and subsidize it without profit.
There are a ton of non-private energy cooperatives around the US that do actually invest heavily in solar because of this though, so maybe as time goes on the “third position” is that power co-ops win out in the marketplace because they don’t have a profit motive/burden
Addendum:
It’s insane that systems like MISO and ERCOT exist. Both of those systems but the reliability of the grids of 60% or more of Americans in the hands of a closed “free market” of energy trading to help stabilize the grid. It’s absolutely amazing that it has continued to function at all, and that system is the exact issue that prevents wide adoption of solar due to the negative prices causing the whole market to start collapsing in on itself until they get bailed out by a State or Federal entity.
If power coops can generate more than they need then they could aggressively expand by swallowing up whole neighbourhoods on the basis of being able to provide power at a lower cost than the grid.
If you can work out a model for it you could even take on new clients and offload the infrastructure cost to banks via loans to buy more panels for each participant. The coop essentially providing all the panels to a new participant on the guarantee of them staying in the coop for x amount of time. This isn’t even a loss if things go wrongly because the coop still owns all the panels even if a participant runs off or breaks contract or something.
The difference with co-ops is that they don’t necessarily have to participate in the fake energy markets if they have control over the grid in a region.
So they don’t have to do the ridiculous negative price energy thing that everyone else does to keep the market functioning as both an economic entity and a grid management system.
They just need to measure usage and charge based on operating costs. It doesn’t matter if energy prices would have technically been negative for a few hours, because their motivation isn’t market price, but just operating cost. You measure usage from co-op partners, then send them a monthly bill based on how much your costs are. It’s incredibly simple.
The confounding factor is the MISO and ERCOT markets that you may need to interface with (say there’s a disaster and the co-op needs power from another provider). To interact with those you need to basically destroy any logical system of pricing and management that you may have.
Basically this meme is doubly wrong because a monopoly would actually be better than the current status quo in a lot of the country. Duke sucks, but their monopoly allows them to do basically whatever they want without having to worry about copetition or weird market rates for energy that are also meant to be grid management signals, since they run those two departments separately.
The same thing happened with Ma Bell. It turns out that for large scale systems/utilities like water, power, telecom, etc. (I’d even include web services infrastructure now), having a single central body managing and developing it is good. Breaking up those monopolies just sets us back decades and creates an unmanageable chaotic market system that should have been replaced by a non-profit centrally managed one.
We know this works. It’s why we don’t really do militias anymore and even the national guard is basically subservient to the central governing body of the military.
Here in the UK if I had £8000 in panels and batteries I would replace 100% of my electricity usage for a household that has VERY high usage and 6 people in it. Excess can be sold back to the national grid, but if I was doing a coop then it would be many houses operating together to share load and further drive up the efficiency of that.
I don’t know why you think “it hasn’t been done”. Individual households have been doing it for years and groups can do it more efficiently.
These costs are made back in savings within a decade.
To do this in a coop fashion you’d just be taking the debt burden of installation into the coop, locking people into a contract within the coop for payments at cost for x number of years and then running the installation, panel and battery costs through loans with the bank. You could start with your own house, then link up with your neighbour, then add their neighbours, and so on and so forth. The “grid” is you wiring up between neighbours among yourselves. There is nothing stopping you from running a cable between houses over fence boundaries if both neighbours agree to it. All you’re doing is linking up the battery network. The advantage here is that households that already have full batteries would still be producing power that’s filling up the batteries of other households. The larger the surface area of your solar network the more efficient you can make it so the more households added, the better.
Oh and if I could order Chinese panels at their prices (I can’t) the cost of this would go down by 70%. The biggest barrier to going solar is tariffs that exist for energy industry protectionism.
Even if you were in a cashless planned economy, dumping excess watts into a grid when they’re not required would be creating negative value. Solar plants would avoid that by curtailment or diversion, but this is still defined as a problem that needs solutions like load shifting and storage.
That is the obvious solution to variable demand not correlated with variable output, yes, so is MIT saying that “the problem with solar is that we aren’t building enough storage capacity to manage peak usage that occurs outside of peak production times”?
That’s not an accurate way to paraphrase what MIT Technology Review is saying.
Yeah what MIT is actually saying here is that because solar creation is too efficient it is actually creating an economic situation in which switching to solar costs more than the profit that would be made from it.
That wouldn’t be an issue if they just allowed Chinese solar panels but without Chinese production it’s an economic issue with capitalism.
No that’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying that generating loads and loads of power when no one needs it is leading to power companies having to charge people for feeding into the grid to stop them from doing so, instead of paying them.
Solars biggest problem is that without batteries it’s basically useless now, and grid scale batteries don’t exist, and there’s no real outlook where they are.
Not only that, but it reduces the profitability of other forms of generation too.
The major issue is of course capitalism, because everything has to make a profit. But what they really want is to socialize the losses encurred by solar onto us so they can continue to profit.
Our options are to either subsidize, or behead all the private energy company execs and subsidize it without profit.
There are a ton of non-private energy cooperatives around the US that do actually invest heavily in solar because of this though, so maybe as time goes on the “third position” is that power co-ops win out in the marketplace because they don’t have a profit motive/burden
Addendum: It’s insane that systems like MISO and ERCOT exist. Both of those systems but the reliability of the grids of 60% or more of Americans in the hands of a closed “free market” of energy trading to help stabilize the grid. It’s absolutely amazing that it has continued to function at all, and that system is the exact issue that prevents wide adoption of solar due to the negative prices causing the whole market to start collapsing in on itself until they get bailed out by a State or Federal entity.
If power coops can generate more than they need then they could aggressively expand by swallowing up whole neighbourhoods on the basis of being able to provide power at a lower cost than the grid.
If you can work out a model for it you could even take on new clients and offload the infrastructure cost to banks via loans to buy more panels for each participant. The coop essentially providing all the panels to a new participant on the guarantee of them staying in the coop for x amount of time. This isn’t even a loss if things go wrongly because the coop still owns all the panels even if a participant runs off or breaks contract or something.
The difference with co-ops is that they don’t necessarily have to participate in the fake energy markets if they have control over the grid in a region.
So they don’t have to do the ridiculous negative price energy thing that everyone else does to keep the market functioning as both an economic entity and a grid management system.
They just need to measure usage and charge based on operating costs. It doesn’t matter if energy prices would have technically been negative for a few hours, because their motivation isn’t market price, but just operating cost. You measure usage from co-op partners, then send them a monthly bill based on how much your costs are. It’s incredibly simple.
The confounding factor is the MISO and ERCOT markets that you may need to interface with (say there’s a disaster and the co-op needs power from another provider). To interact with those you need to basically destroy any logical system of pricing and management that you may have.
Basically this meme is doubly wrong because a monopoly would actually be better than the current status quo in a lot of the country. Duke sucks, but their monopoly allows them to do basically whatever they want without having to worry about copetition or weird market rates for energy that are also meant to be grid management signals, since they run those two departments separately.
The same thing happened with Ma Bell. It turns out that for large scale systems/utilities like water, power, telecom, etc. (I’d even include web services infrastructure now), having a single central body managing and developing it is good. Breaking up those monopolies just sets us back decades and creates an unmanageable chaotic market system that should have been replaced by a non-profit centrally managed one.
We know this works. It’s why we don’t really do militias anymore and even the national guard is basically subservient to the central governing body of the military.
Basically central planning good. Markets bad.
Where are they getting the power grid from? These Co-ops going to raise and spend literal trillions of dollars making the infrastructure?
You know why it hasn’t been done? Because there isn’t a plan where it works. The maths doesn’t math.
Here in the UK if I had £8000 in panels and batteries I would replace 100% of my electricity usage for a household that has VERY high usage and 6 people in it. Excess can be sold back to the national grid, but if I was doing a coop then it would be many houses operating together to share load and further drive up the efficiency of that.
I don’t know why you think “it hasn’t been done”. Individual households have been doing it for years and groups can do it more efficiently.
These costs are made back in savings within a decade.
I know you’re probably not British but you might want to see a calculator just out of curiosity: https://www.spiritenergy.co.uk/solar-pv-calculator
To do this in a coop fashion you’d just be taking the debt burden of installation into the coop, locking people into a contract within the coop for payments at cost for x number of years and then running the installation, panel and battery costs through loans with the bank. You could start with your own house, then link up with your neighbour, then add their neighbours, and so on and so forth. The “grid” is you wiring up between neighbours among yourselves. There is nothing stopping you from running a cable between houses over fence boundaries if both neighbours agree to it. All you’re doing is linking up the battery network. The advantage here is that households that already have full batteries would still be producing power that’s filling up the batteries of other households. The larger the surface area of your solar network the more efficient you can make it so the more households added, the better.
Oh and if I could order Chinese panels at their prices (I can’t) the cost of this would go down by 70%. The biggest barrier to going solar is tariffs that exist for energy industry protectionism.
When the maths do math
Is their concern inherently driven by a a capitalist profit motive?
If so, and I suspect it is, then it’s accurate enough.
Even if you were in a cashless planned economy, dumping excess watts into a grid when they’re not required would be creating negative value. Solar plants would avoid that by curtailment or diversion, but this is still defined as a problem that needs solutions like load shifting and storage.
That is the obvious solution to variable demand not correlated with variable output, yes, so is MIT saying that “the problem with solar is that we aren’t building enough storage capacity to manage peak usage that occurs outside of peak production times”?
No?
Why not?
The MIT article is pro solar and pro renewable, and does discuss storage, hvdc transmission, load shifting and subsidies to reduce costs.
Why is that? Perhaps the problems the article poses with storage solutions boil down to: