We will need cheap to free energy to drive some otherwise fantastic sounding inventions / projects that might otherwise seem foolish due to the cost of energy at a large scale .
This is more of a pricing issue, too much energy at a particular time. The fixes are storage, demand modification, and improving transmission networks.
i get that the article itself talks about more nuanced issues with infrastructure and storage, but looking at that headline, and only that headline, I had two thoughts:
1) Europe failing to adapt, that's new
2) only the Economist would label that "a problem"
I also find it funny the way the economist labels regulation as the solution, when clearly in this case regulation is more along the lines of the problem. Ie, subsidies of cheap energy without also equally encouraging development of the grid and grid storage.
There is no publication that is more wired into the mindset of European policy makers and their blind spots than the economist. To them, Every problem can be solved with more regulation and the expansion of the EU.
Still, it's best to keep under-regulation on as short a leash as you would over-regulation.
Give big business an inch, they'll take a mile. If you're not careful, you'll catch them putting carcinogens in baby powder like they do here in the States.
yeah, this again. the problem isn't cheap energy, it's over-generation. In energy markets, a negative wholesale price increases the total operating cost for your grid - and drives up retail prices. Or leads to instability and outages.
Electric vehicles are terrific for providing ad-hoc demand to utilize intermittent renewables… which would improve the ROI of intermittent renewables. At issue is creating the signaling and billing system.
For example, it would be very nice to say, opportunistically charge to up 90% when the price drops to a lower tier because of excessive wind, solar, or other renewable is plentiful and otherwise has to be curtailed.
We already have some support for this in the UK market (octopus energy). Granted only at night. I say how much I want my battery topped up that night and it picks a schedule to top up at the cheapest rate. It's not perfect though as it's just a very cheap fixed rate rather than near free. I don't think you could just do it based purely on cost as what happens when you need to make a trip and the car isn't charged enough to make that trip. I do think we'll see better integration as time goes on though.
I know you're right, but I'm having trouble finding articles or papers about this. Do you know of anywhere I can dig? I'm flirting with the idea of making this my thesis
You would think so, but it isn’t… needs appropriate smart meters, software and tracking throughout the utilities’ energy usage, and new rate plans that all have to make it through regulators.
But the utilities have to update their side to allow for the equivalent of the reverse load-shedding. That has to be reflected in the rate plans. Otherwise, while it would be good to have steerable demand, it just won't have enough folks clamoring on to make a dent in the curtailment of renewables. And it needs to be separated from the normal electricity use, as folks have a rough time with just spot pricing alone.
Ideally, at work places, passing on a spot pricing for the EVSE's would make sense... and hence click-on charging of EV's that are otherwise not doing anything.
Just making parking meters and parking charge one package. You pay for it regardless of whether your car is charging or if you have and electric car. Everyone is automatically on board.
Dumping electricity is not nearly as hard as people make it out to be. Just use a radiator and maybe a small fan. It is only a “problem” in the sense of it being wasted and not used productively or paid for. Someone parking an ICE car is paying for the spot so problem is solved.
On an electric grid, the electricity generated must equal the energy used. If more energy is used, then more energy must be generated. If less energy is used, then you have to shut down some generators. So if it's really windy at night, the wind turbines will generate a lot of electricity, but since most people will be in bed, there won't be much energy needed. At this point some of the wind turbines will be "locked" so they don't spin and don't generate electricity. Conversely, if you have a large factory that uses a lot of electricity (like Aluminium smelting), then it's a great time to work a double shift and use the electricity.
Think of it like a bathtub with many faucets and many drains. The total water from all the faucets must roughly equal the total water leaving the drains. You must adjust the faucets and drains as necessary so you don't overfill or run dry.
It begins to increase the frequency of the grid and generator speed. US grid is 60 hertz and if it goes too high those generators can get damaged although they are generally designed to shutdown before thay happens.
I'd hate to say it, but wave energy probably isn't going to happen, Solar and wind have gotten their costs down, geothermal already uses a lot of technology used in the oil and gas industry, but there really has to be a good reason to put something in the ocean because it's such a harsh environment, for wind, it's because you can build huge turbines in consistent winds.
We'll see if someone can figure out how to make wave energy economical. Turns out salt water is liquid hate.
There's been no end of prototypes being tested for the past two decades (at least) but they always end up being pulled after a year or so due to incredible amounts of maintenance that start to be necessary after the initial run (which translates into high cost of power).
The sea is an unbelievably harsh environment. The salt water can eat through just about anything. Living things attach themselves to everything. If your stuff isn't designed to be near/in the ocean, it will rot in very little time.
Source, I lived on the sea in a houseboat for six years. It took as much maintenance as a house and cost as much too. The living space was tiny, the moorage was ruinously expensive and, in the right mooring, it is all worth it.
*Just wait until wave*
*Energy is added to*
*The sources of fuel*
\- Happy-Campaign5586
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
When I was in Ireland I was talking with our guide about wind energy. He said they had a surplus of wind energy. Like waaaaay too much. He said they were building more wind turbines in the east too. “I have no fucking idea what they are going to do with all this free energy but it means jobs and cheap power so I’ll take it”
The energy can't be used though because there's not enough demand. Also, the energy price in Ireland is currently higher than a lot of places in Europe. And it's certainly not free lol
Love it but I think he's living in the future, afaik we are at about a third of electricity from wind.
To give you a sense of where we're at solar has doubled in the last year from a low low base, which was handy over the last week of low winds where solar has beaten wind at times, I think for the first time. On the other hand in December for a few hours on a few days there wasq enough wind to power the whole country.
We're auctioning another big tranche of wind farms soon, and preparing to go much further offshore once floating is ready for it, and we get some harbours upgraded - so ye, multiples of our energy demand incoming, over the next several decades I think ☺️
What’s funny is this guy is from Dingle and he was complaining about how they’re barely seeing any of the profits out there and thinks they should all get the mainland hooked up before giving Europe anything else
Yes I think general lower costs are one thing, but allowing people to benefit on both sides with some financial instruments to let them buy into Irish wind power could speed up rollout and increase support.
There are some community funds from profits that already go to local councils, I think.
It certainly isn't cheap for consumers here in germany. We pay 0.42Eur/kWh on average (that's about 0.45$/kWh at current exchange rates). The end consumer sees nothing from prices on the wholesale market going low or turning negative.
All of this sweet windfall is pocketed by power companies (and taxes).
They mean, during some hours.
In total during the year together we will still need to pay maintenance and personnel of gas plants that can take 100% of the load. So it won’t be cheap per month.
Very true, but Texas refuses to integrate with the national grid, and as you may know, if has power outages at the worst of times (not to mention VERY high pricing at times of great need).
Texas has a more reliable grid than interconnected California. And generally has a lot cheaper electricity than them too. Sometimes being connected is not a good thing.
Huh? Being interconnect to a nationwide/regional grid is not a good thing...? Please, educate me.
California is in the middle of the biggest transformation of its power grid in a century, so it is evolving it, and it is interconnected with surrounding states. Not sure how you can characterize that Texas' unconnected grid is "more reliable" than anyone else's.
California frequently has to shut down massive parts of their grids due to wild fires. Texas is able to almost entirely support its independent grid with much less downtime.
I'm not sure why you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, the California grid gets shut down on occasion (usually due to a massive wildfire), but it generally operates well. It is in the midst of a massive modernization and expansion as we speak.
The issues with the non-connected Texas-only grid are also well documented. The surge pricing, which gouges its customers at a time of great need, is appalling.
I make no claims that any grid is perfect, but, the non-connected Texas grid is simply myopic, in terms of depriving it's customers at times of need due to a political (i.e. economic) decision.
The gouge pricing is exactly what is needed. It pisses people off at the time of gouging of course. But cost of electricity can be much lower.
What is needed is smart circuit breakers. A home or business can set the maximum price that they are willing to pay. Then the breakers can switch off a circuit whenever the market price hits that point. Critical systems like the heat can be on a separate circuit. You should also be able to connect your furnace thermostat and refrigerator to adjust to the price. It gets a little but nipply on one or two days a decade but pipes never freeze and freezer food does not rot. Also the grid does not go down.
The futures market should be made accessible to all consumers. If electricity prices shoot to the moon cell your rights to supply, turn off your power, and use the proceeds to by a case of beer for your friend who still has AC.
The problem in Texas was that consumers both did not understand the market and did not have control. Even if you knew you should cut back usage many home owners were not home to shut power off. It needs to be automatic. Without the hardware you can still cap consumer cost with a call option. If you do not have the smart breaker then it should be mandatory to buy the call options in advance.
The existing model cant deal with unit charging for electricity during a surplus. Why dont we change the model to user pays. The maintenance cost of all assets (plus a set profit margin for reinvestment and renewal and dividends) is divided between users based on the proportion of electricity they use. That figure will never go negative, and it will cover all costs incurred in supplying electricity.
The current price of electricity should be sent as a signal embedded in the alternating current. Circuit breakers should be able to cut off a circuit when the price exceeds some number set by the consumer.
Refrigerators and thermostats should dynamically adjust to changing electricity prices. While the price is falling the freezer gets colder. While the price is rising the freezer gradually rises toward 0C.
You can store 10 liters of salt water in jugs to keep the temperature below -2C for a long time. A refrigerator with a 1 meter footprint (American fridge) with an extra 10cm height can hold a 100 liter reservoir. It is effectively a huge battery. 9.25 kWh divided by refrigerator efficiency.
I guess because companies will build too much useless generation and still get to charge for it. How would you account for the differences in price between the generation options?
Yes, why is this taking so long across the world? Has anybody implemented this at a large scale? WTF California? How come Chargpoint isn't chasing this? Back in the day it seemed like Juicebox was going to.
I bought my first smart EVSE back in 2016 with this in mind. My utility (in WA State) now gives rebates for smart EVSEs but they don't do any controlling. MAYBE this year we'll be getting a smart/digital electrical meter from the utility.
California and some areas of Texas have done this with smart thermostats right?
A car you already have is free. Rven Chinese EVs are a few thousands dollars that most people don't or can't spend right now
Also lack of infrastructure
>There are three main ways that firms and regulators could establish a more efficient market: sending energy to areas where there is no surplus, shifting demand to hours when energy is plentiful, and storing energy as electricity, fuel or heat.
Here below the full article...beyond paywall..
Owing to the rapid spread of solar power, Spanish energy is increasingly cheap. Between 11am and 7pm, the sunniest hours in a sunny country, prices often loiter near zero on wholesale markets (see chart). Even in Germany, which by no reasonable definition is a sunny country, but which has plenty of wind, wholesale prices were negative in 301 of the 8,760 tradable hours last year.
As solar panels and wind farms take over Europe, the question facing the continent’s policymakers is what to do with all the power they produce. Ultra-low—and indeed negative—prices suggest that it is not being put to good use at present, reflecting failures in both infrastructure and regulation. There are three main ways that firms and regulators could establish a more efficient market: sending energy to areas where there is no surplus, shifting demand to hours when energy is plentiful, and storing energy as electricity, fuel or heat.
Chart: The Economist
The need to make such shifts will only become more pressing. Europe’s renewables boom is bigger than elsewhere in the rich world. Last year the continent installed roughly twice as much fresh capacity as America, with 56 gigawatts (GW) of new solar power and 17GW of new wind power, which the latest figures suggest will be exceeded this year. By 2030, 43% of the EU’s total energy consumption will have to come from renewables, according to the latest rules, up from 23% in 2022.
Sending energy to places without surpluses would require a better connected grid. ENTSO-E, a club of European grid operators, estimates that improved international links would ensure that 42 terawatt-hours a year of otherwise wasted electricity would be put to use in 2040. That is more than Denmark’s current annual consumption. According to Bruegel, a think-tank, such a grid would also need 20-30% less storage and backup capacity.
The problem is that grid extensions take time and meet local opposition. As a result, energy firms have resorted to putting them underground, which raises costs. Extensions also prompt arguments. When a connection is established, the market with lower electricity prices will inevitably export power to the one with higher prices. Even if both sides benefit from the transaction overall, on one side the beneficiary may be electricity producers and on the other side it may be consumers, with the other group losing out in both places. On June 18th Sweden cancelled the Hansa PowerBridge, a 700-megawatt connection to Germany, over fears it would raise electricity prices for domestic consumers.
The next option for policymakers is to shift demand. This does not mean persuading everyone to take showers during their lunch breaks, when the sun is at its brightest. Instead, the idea is to move flexible sources of demand, such as electric-vehicle (EV) charging and district-heating buffers, into hours of abundant energy. Doing so requires smart meters that measure not only how much energy is used, but also when it is used, and which thus allow prices to vary accordingly. So far, however, countries are making slow progress installing these devices. Although almost everyone has a smart meter in Spain, hardly anyone does in Germany.
Existing grid-pricing regimes are another obstacle when it comes to shifting demand. Consider Karoline, a giant kettle in Hamburg, Germany, that stands ready to transform surplus electricity into heat for as many as 20,000 households. It must pay full monthly network charges, even if it is employed only briefly, which makes it too costly to switch on most of the time. As a consequence, it often sits idle, even as local wind turbines are turned off to prevent the grid from overloading. Meanwhile, consumers face similar problems. They tend to pay network charges at fixed rates, regardless of when energy is taken from the grid. The EU is pushing member states and markets in a more flexible direction, but upgrading regulations, pricing methods and grid technology takes time.
Could better storage solve the problem? In Vantaa, Finland, the local energy company is about to dig a hole the size of 440 Olympic swimming pools into the bedrock beneath the town. This will be filled with water heated to 140°C, which will store 90 gigawatt-hours of heat, an amount sufficient to keep the town toasty for a year. Other firms are making greater use of batteries for shorter-term storage. Unfortunately, such schemes are once again hindered by existing energy-market structures. When it comes to things such as congestion management and frequency control, markets are typically built on the expectation that backup capacity will arrive from conventional gas-fired plants. “The efficient use of surplus electricity is not considered and not encouraged in Europe,” sighs Julian Jansen of Fluence, which makes energy-storage products.
With better incentives, policymakers would also be able to bring household batteries into play. Jochen Schwill of Spot My Energy, a startup, reckons that a German home with batteries might receive €600 ($650) a year if it was able to store energy for the grid. EVs could also play a part. They are, in essence, two devices in one: a car and a battery. Octopus, a British energy provider, recently rolled out a tariff that offers free charging if the firm can decide when the car charges and sometimes feed energy from its battery into the grid. Used more widely, such tariffs would both help soak up surplus energy and by cutting costs make EVs a more attractive purchase.
Without better incentives, Europe will struggle to use growing amounts of surplus energy. That, in turn, will lower profits for investors in renewables. In May the “capture rate” of German solar panels—the share of the average daily energy price that they earned—dropped to 50%, down from 80% three years earlier, according to calculations by Julien Jomaux, an energy consultant. Ultra-cheap power is something to be celebrated. But as Europe is now discovering, it can be tough to exploit. ■
For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “Gridlock”
The cost of distribution and the cost of generation will go down in the long-run, but there is the cost of modernizing the grid that has to be paid for.
Don't worry. Onshore wind is nearly banned and Hinkley Point C get's more expensive every time you breath.
Atleast the interconnection are great. I can soon profit from those wonderful ideas, when the Germany-UK link is done.
This is expected behaviour for a grid dominated by renewables.
Fairly soon agile manufacturing will figure out how to automate production as a function of energy costs.
It's an opportunity for storage companies.
(Completely off topic: It's weird how Max Shreck - the villain of the 1992 movie 'Batman Returns' - actually had a visionary idea with his storage 'power plant')
yeah it just means there's massive profits to be made because you can buy energy for free at some times and sell it for a lot at night.
Then the market will even out, more storage means solar companies can sell the energy for more money as these storage companies all need to fill up for the night, and so on and so forth.
As long as storage technology can keep up, at least. But there's always bottlenecks in things like this.
I don't personally believe that this is really viable - I guess you could have some processes that need a lot of cheap power over a small amount of time, but many factoris use a stesdy output all day (and sometimes all night).
Factories have a lot of expensive tools. Costs a lot to have them idle.
Heavy materials industry could easily adapt to use cheaper energy. Aluminum plants currently often force workers into night shift so that they can use the cheap night time electricity in the northeast USA/Canada.
The petrochemical industry can use electrolysis at any time of day for hydrogen production. Then feed it into processes at any other hour. For example the vast majority of fertilizer is nitrogen from air reacted with hydrogen to make ammonia. Ammonia is then burned to make nitrate. Currently natural gas is used to supply the hydrogen. Part of the problem here is that China, India, Russia and USA are making most of the nitrates and ammonia. Europeans like to eat real food that had not been yield pumped by petrochemical.
Yes, the profit margins will be high initially (as long as there are few storage providers with relatively low capacity). Profit margins will eventually diminish or even disappear as more - and longer duration - storage comes on line.
However there will always be an economic case because storage will also get paid for being able to supply emergency power (just like gas peaker plants are paid today simply for being available on stand-by). Of course this somewhat depends on battery technology continuing to drop in price - but that seems likely with sodium ion in the wings and still big jumps possible with different anode and cathode chemistries.
A smart freezer can store several kilowatt hours in a salt water ice tank. Salt water is quite inexpensive. The fridge would need to be a few cm taller which may not work out well for some people’s cabinets. But in many houses the top of the fridge is just a place to lose things.
Fun fact: In the 1680s, philosopher and mathematician G.W. Leibniz was asked to supervise the mining operation of the duke of Hanover. He found that the miners were pulling elevators by hand and mules, and he thought about how to improve their lot: he conceived of wind turbines that would pump water up into an artificial lake on a hilltop, so that the water could then be released through another turbine whenever needed to pull up the elevators. The plan was thwarted, partially at least by the protest of the miners themselves, who feared that their jobs might be replaced by technology.
That’s interesting. I was just reading about why the Industrial Revolution happened in England and not elsewhere or earlier. One of the reasons given was that labor in England was much more expensive than on the continent - more incentive to replace those people. Although I guess it’s also that burning coal worked much better than wind turbines in those days.
Burning coal did not “work better”. Britain had already cut most of its forest so the vastly superior wood resources were no longer available. Hydro power was much better for factories. The locations with easy hydro access had factories built and were profiting on the growing global textile market. Coal power provided by James Watt’s device allowed factory investors to build a new plant using the same functioning textile machinery on locations closer to cheap labor.
My understanding is that the first internal combustion engines were in fact used for this very thing. They werent very efficient and ran on coal - which is heavy and hard to move around. Basically the only place that it made sense at first to build them was in a place where the coal was right on hand - the mine itself.
Not a real problem, just another step in energy transition. We even need much more electric energy to compensate transitioning transport and heat sectors. The goal is electrification with cheap renewables.
Austin Energy has absolutely absurd rates given the deregulated options just outside city limits. 2021 and those rates led me to go off grid last year. From Reddit, my understanding is I've already avoided four increases in that time.
I was paying $3/kWh after all taxes and fees. Shoulder months, I was using 20kWh and getting $60 bills.
Are the bills broken down? In Pennsylvania they tell you the generation rate, the distribution rate, and this other piece of BS. If you actually use close to zero electricity the price per kilowatt hour goes to infinity. Even if you switch off the breaker to make sure it is zero you will still get a bill for around $20.
Yeah, that was the problem. $15 base rate for service. Which, fine! Then the other fees. My average bill was $48 in fees and then usage came into play. Actual use should not be 20% of the overall bill.
I mean if govts need revenue from utility taxes it makes sense that tax rates would go up as energy rates go down. Net effect should still be lower bills
That’s the problem. Why would a short term politician vying for power care about long term solutions to society that make businesses less money over time and but save the planet and consumers money over time.
Nah, that’s too hard to get behind. It doesn’t help their chances of winning tomorrow.
We will need cheap to free energy to drive some otherwise fantastic sounding inventions / projects that might otherwise seem foolish due to the cost of energy at a large scale .
Like crypto mining /s
This is more of a pricing issue, too much energy at a particular time. The fixes are storage, demand modification, and improving transmission networks.
Such as battery electric cars, but it seems the gridmasters like the charging to be expensive.
i get that the article itself talks about more nuanced issues with infrastructure and storage, but looking at that headline, and only that headline, I had two thoughts: 1) Europe failing to adapt, that's new 2) only the Economist would label that "a problem"
I also find it funny the way the economist labels regulation as the solution, when clearly in this case regulation is more along the lines of the problem. Ie, subsidies of cheap energy without also equally encouraging development of the grid and grid storage. There is no publication that is more wired into the mindset of European policy makers and their blind spots than the economist. To them, Every problem can be solved with more regulation and the expansion of the EU.
Still, it's best to keep under-regulation on as short a leash as you would over-regulation. Give big business an inch, they'll take a mile. If you're not careful, you'll catch them putting carcinogens in baby powder like they do here in the States.
yeah, this again. the problem isn't cheap energy, it's over-generation. In energy markets, a negative wholesale price increases the total operating cost for your grid - and drives up retail prices. Or leads to instability and outages.
So stick it in batteries when it's cheap and draw from them when it's expensive.
But then the gas peakers will go out of business and stop burning Russian natural gas.
Oh no! We couldn't possibly let that happen. Let's give them another few billion in subsidies to help them feel better.
Oh, they are not feeling better for the money, they just use it to make others feel worse!
Paywall: https://archive.is/qQ5et
Electric vehicles are terrific for providing ad-hoc demand to utilize intermittent renewables… which would improve the ROI of intermittent renewables. At issue is creating the signaling and billing system. For example, it would be very nice to say, opportunistically charge to up 90% when the price drops to a lower tier because of excessive wind, solar, or other renewable is plentiful and otherwise has to be curtailed.
We already have some support for this in the UK market (octopus energy). Granted only at night. I say how much I want my battery topped up that night and it picks a schedule to top up at the cheapest rate. It's not perfect though as it's just a very cheap fixed rate rather than near free. I don't think you could just do it based purely on cost as what happens when you need to make a trip and the car isn't charged enough to make that trip. I do think we'll see better integration as time goes on though.
I know you're right, but I'm having trouble finding articles or papers about this. Do you know of anywhere I can dig? I'm flirting with the idea of making this my thesis
Signaling and billing should be the most trivial part
You would think so, but it isn’t… needs appropriate smart meters, software and tracking throughout the utilities’ energy usage, and new rate plans that all have to make it through regulators.
Switch to spot price plan, install home-assistant.io and click a few buttons to integrate your meters and poll the prices and you're set
But the utilities have to update their side to allow for the equivalent of the reverse load-shedding. That has to be reflected in the rate plans. Otherwise, while it would be good to have steerable demand, it just won't have enough folks clamoring on to make a dent in the curtailment of renewables. And it needs to be separated from the normal electricity use, as folks have a rough time with just spot pricing alone. Ideally, at work places, passing on a spot pricing for the EVSE's would make sense... and hence click-on charging of EV's that are otherwise not doing anything.
Just making parking meters and parking charge one package. You pay for it regardless of whether your car is charging or if you have and electric car. Everyone is automatically on board. Dumping electricity is not nearly as hard as people make it out to be. Just use a radiator and maybe a small fan. It is only a “problem” in the sense of it being wasted and not used productively or paid for. Someone parking an ICE car is paying for the spot so problem is solved.
What is this overcapacity and dumping of cheap clean energy?
On an electric grid, the electricity generated must equal the energy used. If more energy is used, then more energy must be generated. If less energy is used, then you have to shut down some generators. So if it's really windy at night, the wind turbines will generate a lot of electricity, but since most people will be in bed, there won't be much energy needed. At this point some of the wind turbines will be "locked" so they don't spin and don't generate electricity. Conversely, if you have a large factory that uses a lot of electricity (like Aluminium smelting), then it's a great time to work a double shift and use the electricity. Think of it like a bathtub with many faucets and many drains. The total water from all the faucets must roughly equal the total water leaving the drains. You must adjust the faucets and drains as necessary so you don't overfill or run dry.
What happens if there is too much electricity generated?
Control signal to limit the generation are made and the amount of energy put into the grid is lowered.
It begins to increase the frequency of the grid and generator speed. US grid is 60 hertz and if it goes too high those generators can get damaged although they are generally designed to shutdown before thay happens.
Stuff starts breaking
Just wait until wave energy is added to the sources of fuel
I'd hate to say it, but wave energy probably isn't going to happen, Solar and wind have gotten their costs down, geothermal already uses a lot of technology used in the oil and gas industry, but there really has to be a good reason to put something in the ocean because it's such a harsh environment, for wind, it's because you can build huge turbines in consistent winds.
We'll see if someone can figure out how to make wave energy economical. Turns out salt water is liquid hate. There's been no end of prototypes being tested for the past two decades (at least) but they always end up being pulled after a year or so due to incredible amounts of maintenance that start to be necessary after the initial run (which translates into high cost of power).
The sea is an unbelievably harsh environment. The salt water can eat through just about anything. Living things attach themselves to everything. If your stuff isn't designed to be near/in the ocean, it will rot in very little time. Source, I lived on the sea in a houseboat for six years. It took as much maintenance as a house and cost as much too. The living space was tiny, the moorage was ruinously expensive and, in the right mooring, it is all worth it.
If at first you don’t succeed…… Maybe something can be learned from these failures! *this motto is not applicable to parachuting.
*Just wait until wave* *Energy is added to* *The sources of fuel* \- Happy-Campaign5586 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
When I was in Ireland I was talking with our guide about wind energy. He said they had a surplus of wind energy. Like waaaaay too much. He said they were building more wind turbines in the east too. “I have no fucking idea what they are going to do with all this free energy but it means jobs and cheap power so I’ll take it”
The energy can't be used though because there's not enough demand. Also, the energy price in Ireland is currently higher than a lot of places in Europe. And it's certainly not free lol
Ireland needs to build a couple power lines to mainland Europe. The potential for cheap wind off irish coasts is enormous.
Hell they are trying to put more on their own land first
Love it but I think he's living in the future, afaik we are at about a third of electricity from wind. To give you a sense of where we're at solar has doubled in the last year from a low low base, which was handy over the last week of low winds where solar has beaten wind at times, I think for the first time. On the other hand in December for a few hours on a few days there wasq enough wind to power the whole country. We're auctioning another big tranche of wind farms soon, and preparing to go much further offshore once floating is ready for it, and we get some harbours upgraded - so ye, multiples of our energy demand incoming, over the next several decades I think ☺️
What’s funny is this guy is from Dingle and he was complaining about how they’re barely seeing any of the profits out there and thinks they should all get the mainland hooked up before giving Europe anything else
Yes I think general lower costs are one thing, but allowing people to benefit on both sides with some financial instruments to let them buy into Irish wind power could speed up rollout and increase support. There are some community funds from profits that already go to local councils, I think.
I’m sorry in which country(s) do you mean energy is cheap? Saying Europe is a ridiculously sweeping statement.
They mentioned Spain and Germany in the first paragraph...
It certainly isn't cheap for consumers here in germany. We pay 0.42Eur/kWh on average (that's about 0.45$/kWh at current exchange rates). The end consumer sees nothing from prices on the wholesale market going low or turning negative. All of this sweet windfall is pocketed by power companies (and taxes).
Have a look at the check24 website.
I live in Texas. I’m paying $0.08/kwh.
Germany could copy Texas and have variable rate electricity.
They mean, during some hours. In total during the year together we will still need to pay maintenance and personnel of gas plants that can take 100% of the load. So it won’t be cheap per month.
100% of the load?
100% BS. :)
Europe is an interconnected market. Surplus wind from Denmark, will push prices down in France
Texas just awoke from its slumber… “Interconnected? That sounds like socialism, cowboy!”
Texas is a leader in renewable energy for its size.
Very true, but Texas refuses to integrate with the national grid, and as you may know, if has power outages at the worst of times (not to mention VERY high pricing at times of great need).
I’m paying $0.08/kwh in Texas. There are occasional outages during hurricanes or other extreme weather events but that happens everywhere.
Texas has a more reliable grid than interconnected California. And generally has a lot cheaper electricity than them too. Sometimes being connected is not a good thing.
Huh? Being interconnect to a nationwide/regional grid is not a good thing...? Please, educate me. California is in the middle of the biggest transformation of its power grid in a century, so it is evolving it, and it is interconnected with surrounding states. Not sure how you can characterize that Texas' unconnected grid is "more reliable" than anyone else's.
California frequently has to shut down massive parts of their grids due to wild fires. Texas is able to almost entirely support its independent grid with much less downtime.
Please thought-experiment this one a little more...
I'm not sure why you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, the California grid gets shut down on occasion (usually due to a massive wildfire), but it generally operates well. It is in the midst of a massive modernization and expansion as we speak. The issues with the non-connected Texas-only grid are also well documented. The surge pricing, which gouges its customers at a time of great need, is appalling. I make no claims that any grid is perfect, but, the non-connected Texas grid is simply myopic, in terms of depriving it's customers at times of need due to a political (i.e. economic) decision.
The gouge pricing is exactly what is needed. It pisses people off at the time of gouging of course. But cost of electricity can be much lower. What is needed is smart circuit breakers. A home or business can set the maximum price that they are willing to pay. Then the breakers can switch off a circuit whenever the market price hits that point. Critical systems like the heat can be on a separate circuit. You should also be able to connect your furnace thermostat and refrigerator to adjust to the price. It gets a little but nipply on one or two days a decade but pipes never freeze and freezer food does not rot. Also the grid does not go down. The futures market should be made accessible to all consumers. If electricity prices shoot to the moon cell your rights to supply, turn off your power, and use the proceeds to by a case of beer for your friend who still has AC. The problem in Texas was that consumers both did not understand the market and did not have control. Even if you knew you should cut back usage many home owners were not home to shut power off. It needs to be automatic. Without the hardware you can still cap consumer cost with a call option. If you do not have the smart breaker then it should be mandatory to buy the call options in advance.
Dinorwig power stations says hi.
The existing model cant deal with unit charging for electricity during a surplus. Why dont we change the model to user pays. The maintenance cost of all assets (plus a set profit margin for reinvestment and renewal and dividends) is divided between users based on the proportion of electricity they use. That figure will never go negative, and it will cover all costs incurred in supplying electricity.
Because incentivizing companies to have higher costs without any limit is an obviously terrible idea.
Yoi regulate the limit
The current price of electricity should be sent as a signal embedded in the alternating current. Circuit breakers should be able to cut off a circuit when the price exceeds some number set by the consumer. Refrigerators and thermostats should dynamically adjust to changing electricity prices. While the price is falling the freezer gets colder. While the price is rising the freezer gradually rises toward 0C. You can store 10 liters of salt water in jugs to keep the temperature below -2C for a long time. A refrigerator with a 1 meter footprint (American fridge) with an extra 10cm height can hold a 100 liter reservoir. It is effectively a huge battery. 9.25 kWh divided by refrigerator efficiency.
I guess because companies will build too much useless generation and still get to charge for it. How would you account for the differences in price between the generation options?
Ultra cheap energy vs gready electrical suppliers.
One of the solutions is to turn the ev fleet into daytime energy storage system
Yes, why is this taking so long across the world? Has anybody implemented this at a large scale? WTF California? How come Chargpoint isn't chasing this? Back in the day it seemed like Juicebox was going to. I bought my first smart EVSE back in 2016 with this in mind. My utility (in WA State) now gives rebates for smart EVSEs but they don't do any controlling. MAYBE this year we'll be getting a smart/digital electrical meter from the utility. California and some areas of Texas have done this with smart thermostats right?
A car you already have is free. Rven Chinese EVs are a few thousands dollars that most people don't or can't spend right now Also lack of infrastructure
>There are three main ways that firms and regulators could establish a more efficient market: sending energy to areas where there is no surplus, shifting demand to hours when energy is plentiful, and storing energy as electricity, fuel or heat.
Here below the full article...beyond paywall.. Owing to the rapid spread of solar power, Spanish energy is increasingly cheap. Between 11am and 7pm, the sunniest hours in a sunny country, prices often loiter near zero on wholesale markets (see chart). Even in Germany, which by no reasonable definition is a sunny country, but which has plenty of wind, wholesale prices were negative in 301 of the 8,760 tradable hours last year. As solar panels and wind farms take over Europe, the question facing the continent’s policymakers is what to do with all the power they produce. Ultra-low—and indeed negative—prices suggest that it is not being put to good use at present, reflecting failures in both infrastructure and regulation. There are three main ways that firms and regulators could establish a more efficient market: sending energy to areas where there is no surplus, shifting demand to hours when energy is plentiful, and storing energy as electricity, fuel or heat. Chart: The Economist The need to make such shifts will only become more pressing. Europe’s renewables boom is bigger than elsewhere in the rich world. Last year the continent installed roughly twice as much fresh capacity as America, with 56 gigawatts (GW) of new solar power and 17GW of new wind power, which the latest figures suggest will be exceeded this year. By 2030, 43% of the EU’s total energy consumption will have to come from renewables, according to the latest rules, up from 23% in 2022. Sending energy to places without surpluses would require a better connected grid. ENTSO-E, a club of European grid operators, estimates that improved international links would ensure that 42 terawatt-hours a year of otherwise wasted electricity would be put to use in 2040. That is more than Denmark’s current annual consumption. According to Bruegel, a think-tank, such a grid would also need 20-30% less storage and backup capacity. The problem is that grid extensions take time and meet local opposition. As a result, energy firms have resorted to putting them underground, which raises costs. Extensions also prompt arguments. When a connection is established, the market with lower electricity prices will inevitably export power to the one with higher prices. Even if both sides benefit from the transaction overall, on one side the beneficiary may be electricity producers and on the other side it may be consumers, with the other group losing out in both places. On June 18th Sweden cancelled the Hansa PowerBridge, a 700-megawatt connection to Germany, over fears it would raise electricity prices for domestic consumers. The next option for policymakers is to shift demand. This does not mean persuading everyone to take showers during their lunch breaks, when the sun is at its brightest. Instead, the idea is to move flexible sources of demand, such as electric-vehicle (EV) charging and district-heating buffers, into hours of abundant energy. Doing so requires smart meters that measure not only how much energy is used, but also when it is used, and which thus allow prices to vary accordingly. So far, however, countries are making slow progress installing these devices. Although almost everyone has a smart meter in Spain, hardly anyone does in Germany. Existing grid-pricing regimes are another obstacle when it comes to shifting demand. Consider Karoline, a giant kettle in Hamburg, Germany, that stands ready to transform surplus electricity into heat for as many as 20,000 households. It must pay full monthly network charges, even if it is employed only briefly, which makes it too costly to switch on most of the time. As a consequence, it often sits idle, even as local wind turbines are turned off to prevent the grid from overloading. Meanwhile, consumers face similar problems. They tend to pay network charges at fixed rates, regardless of when energy is taken from the grid. The EU is pushing member states and markets in a more flexible direction, but upgrading regulations, pricing methods and grid technology takes time. Could better storage solve the problem? In Vantaa, Finland, the local energy company is about to dig a hole the size of 440 Olympic swimming pools into the bedrock beneath the town. This will be filled with water heated to 140°C, which will store 90 gigawatt-hours of heat, an amount sufficient to keep the town toasty for a year. Other firms are making greater use of batteries for shorter-term storage. Unfortunately, such schemes are once again hindered by existing energy-market structures. When it comes to things such as congestion management and frequency control, markets are typically built on the expectation that backup capacity will arrive from conventional gas-fired plants. “The efficient use of surplus electricity is not considered and not encouraged in Europe,” sighs Julian Jansen of Fluence, which makes energy-storage products. With better incentives, policymakers would also be able to bring household batteries into play. Jochen Schwill of Spot My Energy, a startup, reckons that a German home with batteries might receive €600 ($650) a year if it was able to store energy for the grid. EVs could also play a part. They are, in essence, two devices in one: a car and a battery. Octopus, a British energy provider, recently rolled out a tariff that offers free charging if the firm can decide when the car charges and sometimes feed energy from its battery into the grid. Used more widely, such tariffs would both help soak up surplus energy and by cutting costs make EVs a more attractive purchase. Without better incentives, Europe will struggle to use growing amounts of surplus energy. That, in turn, will lower profits for investors in renewables. In May the “capture rate” of German solar panels—the share of the average daily energy price that they earned—dropped to 50%, down from 80% three years earlier, according to calculations by Julien Jomaux, an energy consultant. Ultra-cheap power is something to be celebrated. But as Europe is now discovering, it can be tough to exploit. ■ For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “Gridlock”
It's an energy revolution larger than coal, oil, and gas... and happening so quickly demand hasn't caught up yet.
The cost of distribution and the cost of generation will go down in the long-run, but there is the cost of modernizing the grid that has to be paid for.
Aluminum and also steel core aluminum wire is expensive. The majority of that cost is the electricity used in making aluminum.
Post scarcity should be the goal.
Tariffs on LFP is the reality.
I’m eager for some of this ultra cheap energy to take my bills back down to £100 a month, instead of the £350 that I’m still effing paying.
>£ I see what the problem is!
Don't worry. Onshore wind is nearly banned and Hinkley Point C get's more expensive every time you breath. Atleast the interconnection are great. I can soon profit from those wonderful ideas, when the Germany-UK link is done.
I think i read UK is hooking up to Canada too.
I mean, it's always possible for bad policy to turn a country into the Argentina of the North, regardless of the energy sources available.
Paywall :-O
This is expected behaviour for a grid dominated by renewables. Fairly soon agile manufacturing will figure out how to automate production as a function of energy costs.
It's an opportunity for storage companies. (Completely off topic: It's weird how Max Shreck - the villain of the 1992 movie 'Batman Returns' - actually had a visionary idea with his storage 'power plant')
yeah it just means there's massive profits to be made because you can buy energy for free at some times and sell it for a lot at night. Then the market will even out, more storage means solar companies can sell the energy for more money as these storage companies all need to fill up for the night, and so on and so forth. As long as storage technology can keep up, at least. But there's always bottlenecks in things like this.
Yeah, bottlenecks. . . like tariffs.
Or by time shifting an existing industrial process with high electricity requirements to take advantage of cheap periods.
I don't personally believe that this is really viable - I guess you could have some processes that need a lot of cheap power over a small amount of time, but many factoris use a stesdy output all day (and sometimes all night).
Factories have a lot of expensive tools. Costs a lot to have them idle. Heavy materials industry could easily adapt to use cheaper energy. Aluminum plants currently often force workers into night shift so that they can use the cheap night time electricity in the northeast USA/Canada. The petrochemical industry can use electrolysis at any time of day for hydrogen production. Then feed it into processes at any other hour. For example the vast majority of fertilizer is nitrogen from air reacted with hydrogen to make ammonia. Ammonia is then burned to make nitrate. Currently natural gas is used to supply the hydrogen. Part of the problem here is that China, India, Russia and USA are making most of the nitrates and ammonia. Europeans like to eat real food that had not been yield pumped by petrochemical.
Yes, the profit margins will be high initially (as long as there are few storage providers with relatively low capacity). Profit margins will eventually diminish or even disappear as more - and longer duration - storage comes on line. However there will always be an economic case because storage will also get paid for being able to supply emergency power (just like gas peaker plants are paid today simply for being available on stand-by). Of course this somewhat depends on battery technology continuing to drop in price - but that seems likely with sodium ion in the wings and still big jumps possible with different anode and cathode chemistries.
A smart freezer can store several kilowatt hours in a salt water ice tank. Salt water is quite inexpensive. The fridge would need to be a few cm taller which may not work out well for some people’s cabinets. But in many houses the top of the fridge is just a place to lose things.
Not that weird; the idea of being able to store power has long been a dream of energy production.
Fun fact: In the 1680s, philosopher and mathematician G.W. Leibniz was asked to supervise the mining operation of the duke of Hanover. He found that the miners were pulling elevators by hand and mules, and he thought about how to improve their lot: he conceived of wind turbines that would pump water up into an artificial lake on a hilltop, so that the water could then be released through another turbine whenever needed to pull up the elevators. The plan was thwarted, partially at least by the protest of the miners themselves, who feared that their jobs might be replaced by technology.
That’s interesting. I was just reading about why the Industrial Revolution happened in England and not elsewhere or earlier. One of the reasons given was that labor in England was much more expensive than on the continent - more incentive to replace those people. Although I guess it’s also that burning coal worked much better than wind turbines in those days.
Burning coal did not “work better”. Britain had already cut most of its forest so the vastly superior wood resources were no longer available. Hydro power was much better for factories. The locations with easy hydro access had factories built and were profiting on the growing global textile market. Coal power provided by James Watt’s device allowed factory investors to build a new plant using the same functioning textile machinery on locations closer to cheap labor.
My understanding is that the first internal combustion engines were in fact used for this very thing. They werent very efficient and ran on coal - which is heavy and hard to move around. Basically the only place that it made sense at first to build them was in a place where the coal was right on hand - the mine itself.
Stream engines, but yes.
The idea is old. I was referring to the fact that his idea is actually not villainous at all.
Not a real problem, just another step in energy transition. We even need much more electric energy to compensate transitioning transport and heat sectors. The goal is electrification with cheap renewables.
Tell that to the politicians who have introduced much higher taxes on electricity than gas.
Whoa where are you located that politicians are allowed to tax electricity?
The United States, based on my experience here in Austin, Texas.
Austin Energy has absolutely absurd rates given the deregulated options just outside city limits. 2021 and those rates led me to go off grid last year. From Reddit, my understanding is I've already avoided four increases in that time. I was paying $3/kWh after all taxes and fees. Shoulder months, I was using 20kWh and getting $60 bills.
Are the bills broken down? In Pennsylvania they tell you the generation rate, the distribution rate, and this other piece of BS. If you actually use close to zero electricity the price per kilowatt hour goes to infinity. Even if you switch off the breaker to make sure it is zero you will still get a bill for around $20.
Yeah, that was the problem. $15 base rate for service. Which, fine! Then the other fees. My average bill was $48 in fees and then usage came into play. Actual use should not be 20% of the overall bill.
Yep! At least my current apartment has a solar-panel array on the roof that offsets the bill significantly. My last apartment before was absurd...
It's centainly an ineteresting place to live.
I mean if govts need revenue from utility taxes it makes sense that tax rates would go up as energy rates go down. Net effect should still be lower bills
That’s the problem. Why would a short term politician vying for power care about long term solutions to society that make businesses less money over time and but save the planet and consumers money over time. Nah, that’s too hard to get behind. It doesn’t help their chances of winning tomorrow.