This is something that has been occasionally happening in Europe (at least in Germany, don’t know about France) for well over 10 years now. Probably more like 15.
What’s sorely needed at this point is much more storage to make this energy available when it is needed instead of when it isn’t. Before that happens, you cannot really decommission any gas or coal power plants, because you still need them during times of much less renewable production.
this is why we still need nuclear, to replace the fossil fuel baseline.
The concept of baseline power is no longer needed. Scientists wrote about that for years now. Battery storage and smart grids are growing faster and cheaper than nuclear ever could.
Greenfield nuclear is (probably) not economically relevant.
Refurbishing existing NPPs has a LCOE on-par with renewables and gives breathing room for variability issues that will otherwise be absorbed by fossil fuels until that eventual transition to storage/smart grid.
Any discussion of nuclear’s costs/profitability that does not distinguish between greenfield and existing/refurbished is agendaposting since most of the costs of a NPP are upfront.
Can storage technology reach 100% coverage by 2050? Because that’s the target for net-0 afaik.
If not, we should invest in something else to help us reach that goal, and Nuclear seems the most promising medium-term solution.
If there was enough funding or political backing anything could get done by 2050. That’s a huge amount of time. Any time someone mentions a climate goalpost like that they are pulling the cloth over your eyes
We needed to get this shit done 10 years ago. Any delay in removing all fossil fuel emissions now is just a matter of how bad we want climate change to get, rather than preventing it. Net zero by 2050 is a fucking eternity away and is a shit goal, and all the projections that get us on track to 1.5 °C of warming have us extensively using carbon capture which is entirely unrealistic.
Existing nuclear plants in France work, they can load follow to some degree, and renewables can make up the difference with minimal energy storage. But at a certain point you have to stop investing in renewables if you have minimal energy storage and your electricity solution is working.
I am going to emphasize that last part: IF you can’t get enough energy storage, and IF your energy mix is fine, you must stop investment in renewable installations. Without enough storage, the baseload+peak paradigm works, you just have to regulate it.
France’s baseline is nuclear and has been for decades.
deleted by creator
France has plenty of nuclear power.
It doesn’t help with renewable peaks in the slightest.What is needed are storage solutions and flexible usage that can utilize cheap power at peak times.
Amazing how you get downvoted with no reply even though your comment is the truth. People who claim to be environmentalists who are also against nuclear energy are seriously dumb.
Answering from a German perspective:
-
Fuel isn’t easy to source and will put us into a new dependency like gas did with russia. That’s not desirable.
-
Building a reactor takes a lot of time that we don’t have right now. We need to build that capacity and we need to build it fast.
-
Look at France and their shit show of new and old nuclear projects. The company building new reactors went insolvent because it’s insanely expensive and last year they had to regularly power down the reactors because the rivers used for cooling got too hot
-
There is still no valid strategy for securely containing the waste produced for the needed amount of time
The reason people don’t answer to that bs anymore is because it has been discussed to death with no new arguments on either side.
it has been discussed to death with no new arguments on either side
And alas, we continue to put more CO2 into the air and the planet keeps warming.
And the solution to that will not be nuclear power. Not in the near future because it takes too long to build and we need to cut CO2 now. And I’m also not convinced it’s a good long-term strategy based on the other points I’ve mentioned.
If we could magically build reactors in time with the needed capacity to replace coal and gas (which it doesn’t really btw starting and stopping nuclear plants takes way longer than necessary to react to demand changes) this would be a different discussion. But as it stands now it’s just a distraction from what we need to do: build renewable energy sources.
watch us be repeating the same excuse in another 50 years. yes, nuclear takes a long time to build but that doesn’t mean we should just not do it.
also at the bare minimum we should not be shutting down functional reactors which is happening in europe.
As I already said I do have a lot of concerns around nuclear power as a long term strategy that I do not see or at least see as less of a problem with renewable energy sources.
I don’t know about Europe as a whole but in Germany we did not shut down functional reactors. We shut down reactors of which no one knows how functional they are because no one checked that because they were scheduled to be shut down anyways.
And I’ll repeat again: discussing if this was a mistake is such a moot point it literally doesn’t matter now. It’s done. Discussing this again and again just takes up everyone’s time and energy without any productive outcome.
Answering from a German perspective:
The german solution was to build more coal power and shutter nuclear power and then pretend that by using accounting sleight of hand you had a “net-zero” carbon solution. But that’s bullshit.
The german solution was to build more coal power
No, that wasn’t the solution and it’s not what happened, coal is in decline in Germany since the 90s with a rather steep decline since 2018.
That is true but that isn’t a constructive way of arguing about what we should be doing now to benefit the future. You can have the right of saying “told you so” if you need it so badly. I don’t really care. We need to solve this problem though and arguing about the chances nuclear could have had in the past is just distracting.
Fuel isn’t easy to source and will put us into a new dependency like gas did with russia. That’s not desirable.
Sure, but it’s very little fuel when compared to coal, gas or oil. Raw Uranium is just 14% of the total energy price for nuclear energy, which means that doubling the price of uranium would add about 10% to the cost of electricity produced in existing nuclear plants, and about half that much to the cost of electricity in future power plants. For Coal/Gas plants, the fuel cost is the main cost by far.
Btw, Russia is not the main producer of Uranium. First is Kazakhstan, then Namibia, Canada, Australia and Uzbekistan
Building a reactor takes a lot of time that we don’t have right now. We need to build that capacity and we need to build it fast.
For sure, and likely they won’t help or help marginally to reach 2035 goals, but they can definitely help to reach “net-0 by 2050”. Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in five years or less (42 months for Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) ACR-1000, 60 months from order to operation for an AP1000, 48 months from first concrete to operation for a European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) and 45 months for an ESBWR)[47] as opposed to over a decade for some previous plants.
Look at France and their shit show of new and old nuclear projects. The company building new reactors went insolvent because it’s insanely expensive and last year they had to regularly power down the reactors because the rivers used for cooling got too hot
The cost of building new power plants is mostly impacted by delays and overruns, which are often caused by policy changes. For instance, Canada has cost overruns for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, largely due to delays and policy changes, that are often cited by opponents of new reactors. Construction started in 1981 at an estimated cost of $7.4 Billion 1993-adjusted CAD, and finished in 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion. 70% of the price increase was due to interest charges incurred due to delays imposed to postpone units 3 and 4, 46% inflation over a 4-year period and other changes in financial policy.
The costs of decommission are included by law in the price of the energy, and the Nuclear Power Plant owners are required to set aside that money in order to smoothly decommission the plant with no extra costs.
There is still no valid strategy for securely containing the waste produced for the needed amount of time
There are secure enough strategies to contain the, honestly small, amount of spent fuel we produce today. It’s just that it’s scary and no one wants a nuclear deposit in their backyard, but in reality it’s still orders of magnitude safer than dumping millions of tons of pollutants in the air with coal power plants.
How many people do you think will die in 2025 due to Nuclear Energy? How many per MW/h? And I remind you that Germany closed all Nuclear Plants before closing all Coal Powered Plants.
I’m not sure why you are spending so much time comparing nuclear to coal based plants. If you wanted to make a compelling argument there you’d need to compare it to renewable energy sources. I totally agree that we need to phase our coal based plants as fast as possible.
The price for the fuel isn’t so much the issue but availability or rather dependency on outside powers. I didn’t say that we would depend on Russia directly. But the way the world is changing right now you never know which nation goes haywire next. I’d much prefer the option with less reliance on other states for our power sources.
The delay and cost is definitely subject to policy and policy changes. But today no-one can guarantee that we wont do those and in effect have a delayed and very expensive project on our hands. I’ll remind you of Stuttgart 21 or the BER or any other bigger projects Germany has been dealing with as long as I can remember. I have no faith that a reactor would magically be built without any of the issues those projects have.
I have yet to see a convincing strategy to explain humans in a few thousand years what we buried in these tombs. It just doesn’t seem plausible. And even if we find a few suitable places are we sure we will find more when those have filled up?
I’m not sure why you are spending so much time comparing nuclear to coal based plants. If you wanted to make a compelling argument there you’d need to compare it to renewable energy sources. I totally agree that we need to phase our coal based plants as fast as possible.
Because Germany decommissioned their Nuclear plants before they did so with coal plants (or gas plants, which they keep building)
The price for the fuel isn’t so much the issue but availability or rather dependency on outside powers.
Sure, but price is a function of availability and demand. The price is low because it’s pretty available and the demand is nothing like that of oil, LNG or coal. Plus Canada and Australia have some of the biggest reserves in the world (3rd, 4th) and they are western democracies we can rely on. Also, Uranium isn’t bought JIT, but it’s bought years in advanced so that it can be enriched and stockpiled, this means that it doesn’t feel the price fluctuations that much.
I’d much prefer the option with less reliance on other states for our power sources.
As for renewables, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but most solar cells right now come from China, if they were to stop selling tomorrow (for one reason or another) we’d be kind of screwed anyway. Maybe a good mix and diversification is the best answer here. And yes, I know that you don’t need China to keep operating your solar cells, but they are kind of needed right now to make the transition, new cells will be needed to replace old ones, and we also need batteries, which they are now leading production of. Unless we move manufacturing back (which we should do, but that’s a decades long process we can’t possibly rely upon) we are still reliant on an external state to undergo the ecological transition.
I have yet to see a convincing strategy to explain humans in a few thousand years what we buried in these tombs. It just doesn’t seem plausible. And even if we find a few suitable places are we sure we will find more when those have filled up?
Maybe it won’t really be necessary, some 4th gen nuclear reactors promise to be able to use spent fuel for their reaction (also Thorium, which is extremely more abundant than Uranium). These are now like fusion reactors, which are permanently 20 years away, but we are building them right now. Some of these plants will go online this decade afaik, and if they deliver, many more will surely follow next decade.
Using spent fuel should shorten the estimated containment time from tens of thousands of years to 300 years, which should be enough to just say, bury them and leave.
The delay and cost is definitely subject to policy and policy changes. But today no-one can guarantee that we wont do those and in effect have a delayed and very expensive project on our hands. I’ll remind you of Stuttgart 21 or the BER or any other bigger projects Germany has been dealing with as long as I can remember. I have no faith that a reactor would magically be built without any of the issues those projects have.
This is an issue we might be able to fix without hoping for magical technology. Also because it doesn’t touch only this argument, but pretty much everything happening in the country. We can’t just say “Germany can’t make any big project” and leave.
Because Germany decommissioned their Nuclear plants before they did so with coal plants (or gas plants, which they keep building)
Yeah but that is done. There is no way to reverse that. The thing we need to talk about now are options to coal based plants which are nuclear and renewables. So if anything we need to discuss the pros and cons of those two. Noone here is saying that the coal plants are a good thing.
Unless we move manufacturing back (which we should do, but that’s a decades long process we can’t possibly rely upon) we are still reliant on an external state to undergo the ecological transition.
Germany had one of the biggest sectors for photovoltaic cells. They are closing and I agree we should be moving production back to europe. Right now there might be enough knowhow left so it does not take decades to do so.
Using spent fuel should shorten the estimated containment time from tens of thousands of years to 300 years, which should be enough to just say, bury them and leave.
If we can actually use spent fuel. That’s a big if I don’t want to gamble on. Also 300 years is still a very long time. 300 years eralier society was so much different than now, we can’t possibly predict what’s going to happen in the next ~10 Generations of humans.
This is an issue we might be able to fix without hoping for magical technology. Also because it doesn’t touch only this argument, but pretty much everything happening in the country. We can’t just say “Germany can’t make any big project” and leave.
My point isn’t “do nothing instead of nuclear power” though. My point is that many smaller projects seem way more likely to succeed in the bigger picture even if some of them fail or are delayed, which is what reneweable energies are suited to. The success of the transition is also about people being able to trust into the success of the project. And I don’t think many people have a lot of trust into germanies ability to bring big projects to a successful end. I’d like that to be different, I do, but that’s just not what I have experienced in my lifetime.
Kazakhstan isn’t exactly any better than Russia. They’re Russia’s little puppet.
There is still no valid strategy for securely containing the waste produced for the needed amount of time
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
Sure but if we succeed at mitigating cimate change effects to a reasonable degree, civilization will survive for centuries, during which a reactor that uses itmight become available. It’s a minor problem blown out of proportion, as opposed to CO₂ emissions, which are the opposite.
Even if this were true this doesn’t help with the very real issue that we can’t build the nuclear capacity fast enough whereas renewable energy can be built fast, is already being built, and doesn’t have that problem that needs wishful thinking for it’s solution.
Why do you not include city-scale energy storage as wishful thinking? Unlike nuclear reactors, that amount of storage doesn’t exist.
Yeah I’m not convinced that just burying the stuff deep in a hole will do what I think is responsible. That shit stays dangerous for multiple thousands of years. That’s such a long timeframe that we cannot predict what’s going to happen to our society. It is very realistic that we lose the knowledge of the location or even the dangerousness of that stuff. Imagine future people stumbling into this and actually getting something like a curse from an old pharao by weird invisible forces that make you sick.
Another thing about this is that locations that are “good” candidates for this kind of storage are extremely rare. Germany has been looking for a suitable place for the last few decades and didn’t find any yet afaik. And the few places we might have are booked to be filled with all the old waste still sitting in intermediary storage.
Unless we have a reliable way of finding suitable storage places before we start producing more waste it will put us in the same situation we are in now, just worse.
-
You can absolutely reduce coal and gas without batteries. Hydro is a thing, nuclear also exists. Maybe it’s cheaper and more environmentally-friendly to disconnect some solar and some wind from the grid during excess peak production and keep the nuclear running, than having huge storage? Also you’re forgetting about the possibility for instant demand response, imagine things like AC units in summer or heaters in winter, where they could be turned on automatically during peak production to keep your house comfier for no cost.
Happens in Norway occasionally. Even hits the headlines sometimes. Then you go into the price graph to see and the price is negative for an hour or so. Rest of the day it’s more expensive than it was 2 years ago before we sold our power to central Europe.
Let’s
Fucking
Go
Lol get rekt fossil fuel barons
The amount of subsidies they need just to mimic a fraction of our power!
I’m a Fiscally Responsible American Republican and this is EXACTLY why we SHOULDN’T transition away from Oil! Imagine all the RESEARCH into YACHTS and MANSIONS the CEOS can’t do now that prices are NEGATIVE!
Prices go negative in Texas somewhat regularly
In Texas so does the grid.
How could stupidity go so wrong?
I live here, and the best way I can describe it, is as “enthusiastically, and ignorantly, stubborn”
All the while waving a gadsen flag.
It’s part of their heritage! Like 4 years of it! Certainly nothing before the Confederacy had anything to do with it.
Doesn’t mean much when it collapses due to weather.
Or starts brush fires because their infrastructure’s horribly neglected.
Though it won’t show up as negative in the bill, not even a discount
If you have a dynamic pricing contract of course you get a discount… If you don’t, you chose not to in return for price stability 🤷
Though yeah, last time prices went negative in Germany I was still paying 10ct/kWh in just taxes and fees. Would be pretty cool if they’d have paid me for using electricity during that time, but of course that’s not how that works.
Depends on where you live. With my tariff I get paid to use energy during negative price periods.
Edit: typo.
*paid
rope gets payed out.
money gets paid.
Fixed :)
👍
Negative prices aren’t necessarily a good thing because they tend to curb investments. A Reddit comment explains it well: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1didv4q/comment/l938q2a/
Edit—I forgot the most important bit: Obviously that doesn’t mean that we should invest less in renewables, but that we should invest in large-scale battery research like yesterday.
Yea if only magic physics defying substances existed. Surely capitalism would be able to solve our problems.
You… You think a battery is a magic physics defying substance?
I mean, I don’t see capitalism beeing a way to solve the climate crisis and do belive that degrowth is going to happen (by design or desaster), but the success of renewable energy is very much a capitalism success story.
Clearly they only think bigger, better batteries are magic and physics defying. The batteries we have now are the best batteries that physics allows for, and they can’t be made more or bigger because… We already used up all the stuff for them. Yeah, that tracks.
The classic capitalist solution “make it bigger, make more of it, there are absolutely zero limits.”
Quick question, how big would a battery have to be to power a single city of >1000000 for a single day, show your work.
“Battery” does not mean “chemical battery”. Gravity batteries, for example, already do provide power to midsized population centers around the world-- they’re called hydroelectric dams.
On top of that, it doesn’t have to power the city for a day, it only has to store unused energy produced during off-peak hours while the sun is shining and/or wind is blowing.
Sorry, but you are wrong, battery means exactly chemical battery
Gravity electrical storage is not a battery
“gravity battery” BAHAHAHA. You don’t know shit about shit. How much power does a “gravity battery” store expressed in KWh/Volume. Given that number, how big would this “gravity battery” have to be to power a single city of ~1000000 for 1 day.
Thats because the majority of the cost is not in the direct cost of generation but in maintaining the grid. That’s a fixed expense that does not fluctuate and there is no way generation costs will offset maintenance costs.
It does here
Yet whenever prices for something go negative we’re never paid for taking it off their hands.
That’s cuz it’s not really negative in reality. That’s not how services work.
Negative prices mean the companies are paying people to burn energy because too much energy in the grid is also a problem!
It’s really meant for industry because a couple households turning on their hair dryers isn’t going to cut it
Lemmy and the nuclear propaganda is so funny. France recently increased the electricity prices because nuclear energy is way more expensive than solar and they will have to increase them again because half of their plants are in severe need of repair.
It’s a tricky thing, but renewables and nuclear fission plants are not two mutually exclusive things that can’t coexist. The issue with renewables is that, right now, they are not consistent enough to be relied upon 24/7, and we don’t have, right now, a good enough storage technology to solve the issue.
Without this, the only other option is to have renewables cover 30-50% of the production capacity, and another technology to provide a base capacity when renewables cannot be used. This can be hydro, if you have it, nuclear, gas or coal. Choose your poison.
There’s some promising research in using heliostats (mirrors to direct sunlight) towards a central tower to create molten salt, allowing solar energy to be stored and released at night.
It’s a cool idea, but has not worked well in practice. The plant referenced in the 2016 article you linked (Crescent Dunes) stopped operation in 2019 due to performance and cost issues. It appears to have restarted after the original owner filed for bankruptcy and sold the asset, but at a lower capacity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project
It did start back up though. And we don’t know if further research could bring the costs down. I’m not proposing it as a magic bullet, just as one potential way to get nighttime coverage.
Putting all the eggs in the solar basket has risks, too. Like a large volcano eruption that reduces the amount of light that reaches the surface for a few years would be a double whammy, affecting food production as well as electricity production (which we’d need to rely on to try to offset the food losses). If we’re instead facing brownouts or full blackouts, that’s a recipe for a complete loss of stability. I suspect less solar energy reaching the surface would also reduce total wind energy (less localized heating would mean lower pressure differentials, but I could be missing other significant parts of this equation).
I’d be most comfortable with a nice mix of energy sources combined with mothballing instead of decommissioning some capacity as renewables are able to take over more and more of the day to day energy needs so that we’re prepared to deal with an emergency like that.
I’d also like to see more food production moved to vertical farms that can be powered by electricity rather than relying entirely on the sun and weather. But I do understand that the scale of food production would make doing that with a significant portion of the food supply very difficult. But with climate change (plus nutrient depletion of the soil), keeping so many eggs in the “just keep farming” basket also doesn’t seem like a great idea.
That’s not just research, molten salt heliostats are in active use already.
they’re cool, but have weird problems, the one in mojave, had issues with literally vaporizing birds, which might be worse than traditional wind turbines. Considering you can see them.
The mirrors are incredibly susceptible to dust and debris, being in a desert doesn’t help all that much, so they have to be regularly cleaned. The actual mechanism of heat conversion works, but you can just do the same thing with electric resistive heat and solar, or wind, as heat storage so meh. Though it probably doesn’t work quite as well.
Geothermal too is possible
I’ve read the Broken Earth trilogy. Geothermal power will lead to fifth seasons, just you wait.
This!
Problem is not producing electricity, problem is producing electricity ON DEMAND. That is something only Fossil fuels can do for now.
Nuclear can absolutely produce power on demand, once the reactors are up and running. I just wish we would have invested in molten salt reactors that cannot meltdown back when we invented them in the '60s. Of course you also can’t make weapons with those reactors, or the isotopes that we need for modern medicine.
We can’t entirely get rid of nuclear power because of the aforementioned isotopes, but I would be very happy to see all the for profit reactors shut down permanently. You cannot safely run a nuclear reactor when you care about profit.
Oh and those molten salt reactors are why China is probably going to start selling nuclear waste disposal services to the rest of the world in about a decade once they turn the ones they are currently building on.
Nuclear can absolutely produce power on demand
so slight correction here, they don’t produce power on demand, unless we include energy storage, but that’s the storage not the plant, nuclear plants are explicitly designed to be a base load service. Which is incredibly well suited to be paired with cheap renewables like solar.
Nuclear plants often have a capacity factor of close to 100%, and sometimes even over it. Though usually it’s 80-90% for most plants. Gas plants are often 40% ish, hydro is even lower, 20-30% is really common for hydro, especially if it’s stored. Though actual hydro plants can realistically run for most of the year, and will more than likely have a more considerable capacity factor, probably somewhere around 60% or higher.
I have high hopes for EVs being used as a decentralized buffer via V2G. I’m thinking of something like you either buy an EV outright and you have no obligations to participate in V2G, but can sell electricity that way if you wish. Or, the government subsidizes your car to a certain extent but you have to give maybe 20% of your battery up as a buffer as long as it’s connected to the grid.
France’s nuclear plants load-follow to some degree, so it’s not just fossil fuels.
The nuclear bros are carrying so much heavy water for fossil fuel capital.
it’s expensive because france is skill issuing with the EPR and EPR2 reactor which are incredibly complex and technically complicated PWR plants.
Nuclear energy while traditionally expensive, is incredibly rip for government subsidies considering most of the build cost is up front construction, which can also be eased with much simpler plants (non EPR plants) And also have a skilled manufacturing base capable of actually fucking making the thing lmao.
even if fuel is cheap it’s still has an upfront cost per production and can be manipulated based on demand to ensure prices never drop and always go up.
or i mean, super, nuclear is obviously what society needs, because energy supply is a natural monopoly and nuclear uses fuel you can burn based on demand and guaranteed awesome profit as a private entity unlike infinite energy resources that produces surplus energy and only benefits society and not the shareholders and owners who are the only ones who obviously matter.
even if fuel is cheap it’s still has an upfront cost per production and can be manipulated based on demand to ensure prices never drop and always go up.
sounds like capitalistic free markets to me. I see nothing unusual here.
unlike infinite energy resources that produces surplus energy and only benefits society and not the shareholders and owners who are the only ones who obviously matter.
i realize this is sarcastic, but who do you think owns solar and wind plants?
Article is paywalled, but love the headline. Imagine a future with energy as an essentially free resource. We have a LONG way to go, but just the fact that we are moving in the right direction gives me a glimmer of hope for the future.
For a long time nuclear power was going to make electricity so cheap it wasn’t worth billing. Turns out they were right, the reactor is just 92 million miles away
is this end consumer prices? This sounds more like we’re totalling in french energy exports, (france exports a LOT of nuclear energy, as well presumably, renewable)
I’m not French nut usually the price of transmission is omitted, netting in a positive cost for end consumers. If it was really negative, there would be businesses just burning energy to make money.
Battery business should be good in the future though.
yeah, the only case where power companies would pay people to consume power would be the event that they are over producing, and have nowhere for it to go, which would be actively harmful, nuclear plants will lose money if you aren’t selling energy, but it doesn’t make sense to buy that energy yourself, you would just let it burn. Or maybe the government would subsidize burning it, i don’t know. Generally this kind of thing happens in a really unstable electricity market. It’s not that ideal.
Energy storage is going to be a huge business though, i think batteries are probably going to be common than people think, compared to things like thermal storage, though i guess it all depends on how expensive batteries are in comparison more than anything.
French government make electricity price scale on the most expansive one. So with the war in Ukraine, the price of gas plumed up, and so do every electricity bill that was never so expansive, by far.
The “liberalization of energy market” force everyone to buy electricity from courrier that don’t do anything; they do not produce or invest, they just buy and sell electricity. This firms take all the money between the price and the cost. This severely threat the electricity production, that is still made by the former public firm (ex « Électricité de France » ); even if it’s electricity is the cheapest, and it’s the firm that invest the more in renewable energy.
yeah that sounds about right, we have a similar structure here in the US with power co-ops, and generation sellers, and then end consumers. In our local case we have generators, running through a co-op. Which is running through another co-op which is then being sold to end consumers.
Gotta love modern economics.
I wonder if people will soon realize that that rage they have for scalpers is just directed at the amateurs and that the upper class is full of people doing pretty much the same thing just in less obvious ways.
Your employer (if you work for a private for-profit company) pays you x for your labour and then takes the proceeds of the labour and sells it for y where y is (generally) much higher than x. A business is profitable when the sum of all y is higher than the sum of all x.
If it’s a non-profit, then the difference between y and x must be put back into the business in some way, which could be an investment into an expansion of its scope or it could be a raise for some or all of the workers (payroll is not profit, it’s an expense). And that could mean just the CEO gets a raise, because some of the leeching is via different pay levels for different people that isn’t based on just the difference they are directly making to the income.
Public services can vary. If the service is profitable, then the profit goes into the budget of the government entity(s) that run it, as determined by legislature. So everyone is acting as the middleman there. If it’s not profitable, then it’s covered by taxes, at cost. There’s still varying salaries but it’s subject to government oversight, so things shouldn’t get as unbalanced as they would in the private sector, at least in theory. Though even in the public sector, there’s this assumption that promotions should come with big raises, regardless of how the workload changes, so you can still have people at the top making orders of magnitude more than people at the bottom.
Negative? Sounds like music to the crypto-miners. Heck, can I get paid for shorting two wires together?
Usually in addition to electricity itself you pay for using the power grid per kWh. IIRC here in Finland it’s around 0.07€/kWh. At one point due to some error the price of electricity went down to like -0.20€ and we were indeed paid to use electricity. Though we paid back with more expensive electricity a while after.
^oh ^no!
Paywalled article
Short way of saying “I use the wrong browser”
You don’t like Floorp?
Am I the only one that doesn’t understand how something could fall into a negative price range? Like does that mean the power companies have to pay the people using power? And how is power being that cheap a problem in any way? Isn’t cheap accessible power what we’ve been striving to achieve??
Just a note to say that this is the electricity market breaking down - don’t celebrate it! France has had low-carbon energy since the 70s when they built a load of nuclear power. The have started building renewable plants rather than updating the nuclear plants. Electricity cannot be stored in the amounts that we use it. So many statistics about wind/solar quote power act like we can use it all… but an installation battery that could store a country like France’s worth of energy for 12 hours (solar never works at night) would be the biggest megastructure humans have built*. During a period of high pressure a whole country might get little wind for a week. Also, check out this map if you visit regularly the low carbon energy solutions are nuclear or hydro… the only countries that reliably don’t burn fossil fuels use these. [edit: clarity, *edit: Not quite-about 100mx100mx50m, approximately the same size as the Great Pyramid of Giza, but made of flammable material - I got confused with something that could provide a week or two for windless anticyclones]
