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.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    ok just so we’re clear here, you wouldnt ramp up or down nuclear power output, unless you’re doing maintenance. It’s at or near 100% power output, always. Most plants sit at a capacity factor of about 80-90%

    You would however, ramp down wind turbines, or dump solar, or even store that solar since you’re in a peaking cycle.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Solar and wind are cheaper and potentially more plentiful, more distributed than nuclear. Renewables are going to be the primary source of power; nuclear and every other type of generation will augment the renewables.

      What you’re saying is what nuclear has been, not what it will be.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        potentially, that’s always an option, but unlike something like oil where it’s a generic concept, energy is kind of an ethereal concept. I see it much more likely that if nuclear plants get sufficient development time and funds, that they will pair nicely with renewables as you can buy the electricity wholesale at price, but the versatility of the pricing will offset the increased cost as you can subsidize it using cheaper renewables.

        Allowing you to minimize energy storage and some amount of renewable production as well.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if grids ended up using solar primarily for day time production consumption and short time storage (evening consumption time) and then used nuclear as the primary producer for power consumption over night, along with wind somewhere in the mix. But this would require nuclear power to be built in the first place.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          wouldn’t be surprised if grids ended up using solar primarily for day time production consumption and short time storage (evening consumption time) and then used nuclear as the primary producer for power consumption over night,

          Exactly. Nuclear carries us overnight, renewables meet our needs during the day.

          Negative rates aren’t caused by excess solar. Negative rates are caused by excess overnight demand. Overnight demand is too high, necessitating the continuous nuclear output to be set too high. The sum of the continuous nuclear and the daytime solar exceeds daytime demand; rates go negative to correct.

          The solution is to remove nighttime demand. Now the continuous nuclear output can be reduced. This is exactly opposite of what the grid needed before renewables, but it is the only viable approach moving forward. The other half of the solution is to add daytime demand, perhaps the same demand we removed from overnight; perhaps an entirely new way to turn power into profit.

          (Nuclear plants won’t actually reduce their output. Coal plants will go offline, and nuclear will take over their customers.)

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.