this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
858 points (99.1% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17329 readers
5 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's still not earning you money to spend electricity because you still have to pay the transfer fee which is around 6 cents / kWh but it's pretty damn cheap nevertheless, mostly because of the excess in wind energy.

Last winter because of a mistake it dropped down to negative 50 cents / kWh for few hours, averaging negative 20 cents for the entire day. People were literally earning money by spending electricity. Some were running electric heaters outside in the middle of the winter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

oh well if you're arguing for shutting down nuclear, it's a bit different of a story. You should probably change your phrasing to reflect that lol.

[โ€“] Rivalarrival 1 points 2 months ago

I mean, long term, nuclear should probably go away, but that's a distant objective. I'm talking about the next few years, not the next century.

The next major stage is to reorient the grid away from the traditional, supply-shaping "baseload + peaker" model that benefits from increased overnight demand. That model is replaced with a demand-shaping, "use it when it's easiest to produce" model.

To get from here to there, we need to reverse the incentives that drive overnight consumption. This in turn lowers overnight demand. That reduction in overnight demand calls for a reduction in baseload supply, which reduces baseload generation at night and during the day as well. A reduction of baseload during the day means less surplus power is dumped, and more is sold.