There conclusion is shit, but doesn't the electrical grid require the amount generate and consumed to be effectively the same? I could see the difference being more of an issue as renewable become more prevalent, and we unfortunately cannot just turn off the sun when we don't need it.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Negative electricity prices primarily incentivise investments into energy storage, this is thus not a problem except in the very short run.

The OP hints at what the real "problem" is: lack of opportunity to extract profits due to inability to control and create (artificial) scarcity, which is at the core of capitalism.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah, it's a bit ragebaity. Afaik the solar panels can be "turned off" (disconnected from the grid/open load) just fine, and there absolutely needs to be a way for this to happen automatically (a proper smart grid).

The big power plants are another story.

The first reauui found is kinda interesting

even conventional diesel generators have this issue https://www.cat.com/en_US/by-industry/electric-power/Articles/White-papers/the-impact-of-generator-set-underloading.html

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/14/1028461/solar-value-deflation-california-climate-change/

I'm not sure I'd call their conclusion shit. It's harder to get people to build solar if they have to pay people to take the power or trigger the emergency shutdowns.

They end with a discussion on how to fix it, not some claim we shouldn't do solar because it can't turn a profit. Batteries, shifting demanding use to be during peek solar production hours, or sharing power better between grids and the like.