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.
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 :).
Except no, all we need to do is just not allow these companies to impose laws and regulations that stop us from innovating. That’s exactly what’s Happening Here. They’re not improving to be a better service, they’re not making cheaper better energy. They’re using coercive legal systems to stop cheaper better energy from being created. Your entire premise is utterly flawed.
My premise of how things currently work, so what the current incentives are for more renewable energy is completely flawed?
Sure, make renewable energy not profitable and see what happens…
I get what you WANT the world to be like, but it ISN’T like that right now, and it’s good to have aspirations on how it should be. But can we just accept what it is, and what implications that has for how things work?
If you can get your dream up & running overnight, go for it. Until then making sure green energy is profitable is the way forward for it, whether we like it or not.
You keep saying that’s the way the world is, yet we know across the board that the way it is is being rolled back as we speak. In multiple countries and multiple States laws are being put in place to drag back progress so that these companies can be profitable. The way it is was people were able to create their own energy. So why isn’t that being defended by your premise? You say there’s no investment but look people are investing right now. How is investment being helped by governments paid for by special interest making it so people can’t do those Investments? Again your premise is utterly flawed.
I agree that the grid should be a public utility, it’s just that the energy production makes some sense to be privatized (and have some pressure to use the public grid) because distributed supply (rooftop solar) allows for lower losses and with regulation changes could allow for less overprovisioned residential lines (have lower amperage service rates to incentivize people with solar to flatten their net power usage) and for car parking lots to have solar shading.
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 :).
sounds like a great argument for nationalization.
I don’t understand why it’s profitability is my concern. Or anyones.
Because that’s what makes companies invest in renewables. If it’s not profitable, no new investments, and our world goes to shit (even more).
Caring only about profit is the exact reason why it’s going to shit. That is in no way the answer.
It may not be the answer, but it is the current reality. If we want more renewable power right now, it needs to be profitable.
You can wish it’s different, we all do. But reality is what it is, so that’s why you should care :).
Except no, all we need to do is just not allow these companies to impose laws and regulations that stop us from innovating. That’s exactly what’s Happening Here. They’re not improving to be a better service, they’re not making cheaper better energy. They’re using coercive legal systems to stop cheaper better energy from being created. Your entire premise is utterly flawed.
My premise of how things currently work, so what the current incentives are for more renewable energy is completely flawed?
Sure, make renewable energy not profitable and see what happens…
I get what you WANT the world to be like, but it ISN’T like that right now, and it’s good to have aspirations on how it should be. But can we just accept what it is, and what implications that has for how things work?
If you can get your dream up & running overnight, go for it. Until then making sure green energy is profitable is the way forward for it, whether we like it or not.
You keep saying that’s the way the world is, yet we know across the board that the way it is is being rolled back as we speak. In multiple countries and multiple States laws are being put in place to drag back progress so that these companies can be profitable. The way it is was people were able to create their own energy. So why isn’t that being defended by your premise? You say there’s no investment but look people are investing right now. How is investment being helped by governments paid for by special interest making it so people can’t do those Investments? Again your premise is utterly flawed.
Its not tricky, energy shouldn’t be privatized.
and that’s how you get laws preventing me from giving power to my neighbors when their breaker panel is getting replaced or the grid is down.
Not really, its how you stop paying entirely arbitrary prices for a monopoly.
Also what you’re suggesting is illegal in some areas, and that’s without true public utilities.
I agree that the grid should be a public utility, it’s just that the energy production makes some sense to be privatized (and have some pressure to use the public grid) because distributed supply (rooftop solar) allows for lower losses and with regulation changes could allow for less overprovisioned residential lines (have lower amperage service rates to incentivize people with solar to flatten their net power usage) and for car parking lots to have solar shading.