Nostr Web Client

Price often condenses information and provides clarity.

For a while, solar/wind proponents have operated with two simultaneous but generally conflicting narratives.

-One narrative is that solar/wind are more environmentally friendly and should be subsidized. To the extent that they don't grow sufficiently fast, it's because we're not doing enough to artificially boost their adoption.

-The other narrative is continually remind how cheap solar/wind have become. Proponents will post charts/studies showing that solar/wind are cheaper than other types of energy, and that it "just makes sense now". In practice, a lot of caveats are often excluded.

The thing is, price usually cuts through confusion on these types of matters. Especially price over a significant amount of time and space, rather than just price in a snapshot of time and locality.

If solar/wind are indeed cheaper than other energy sources, why aren't they being built in place of others? Why isn't it a no-brainer for any megacorp to just install terawatts of them all over? For example, the percentage growth of solar power in India over the past 5-10 years is impressive, but in terms of raw numbers, way more coal power was brought online during that period than solar. The answer is often that they're *not actually* cheaper in an all-inclusive sense. And if they're not cheaper, why is that? The answer is often because they're more materially intensive, less durable, and not as environmentally friendly as many proponents argue, either. That cost (panels, turbines, batteries, maintenance, decommissioning, and replacement) is going somewhere, and usually quite materially.

That's not to say that solar/wind don't have uses (they do), but their usage is often hamfisted into places where they're not the most economic choice, and where they are not the most economic choice, it's often because they're not necessarily the most environmental choice either.

Price is often ignored or fudged in analysis, but it really does provide a powerful signal in aggregate that's worth paying attention to.

Deleted Account 5mo ago

In Australia the entire east side of the country is a network that has a spot price mostly un-tampered with except for some inter-state fees the governments charge each other for their energy investments. We have a ton of solar (and wind) and in summer our prices regularly go negative during the day (paid to consume). Solar farms get kicked off the grid to prevent over-voltage (I'm sure they mine when that happens). There is no more economic incentive to put in more solar, but there's growing incentive to add batteries for the peak in electricity consumption that comes just after the sun goes down.

Australians are lucky that the majority have their own roof (and lots of sun), rather than another apartment above them and a lot of Australians have put their own solar systems up as a solution to their own energy costs.

There was a good effort by the state governments to install smart usage meters on each house for accurate billing and now that we experience huge price spikes in the peak periods that are measured and billed accurately, battery installations are rapidly gaining pace.

It's got its merits. I'd like to see us continue with solar as a default addition to our housing infrastructure development instead of a substitute for major energy projects.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.