As usual, this compares nameplate capacity instead of delivered generation.
Falling solar install prices are a good thing, but they don't close down other generation types. Coal plants still have to burn even if there is a glut of electricity because of favourable solar conditions.
Solar boosters like the article author love to prove how baseline producers have to accept negative rates means that they are somehow wrong in the market, but having baseline producers run at loss or worse, close down permanently is not something that any of us want - especially in the middle of a harsh winter.
Some care is needed to have grid stability designed in - which also should give price stability - because a highly volatile generation market is not something that is good for anyone.
> Falling solar install prices are a good thing, but they don't close down other generation types. Coal plants still have to burn even if there is a glut of electricity because of favourable solar conditions.
And as such, coal plants should be deprecated for combined cycle natural gas plants that can be throttled more granularly for demand (and can also meet air regulations coal plants cannot without great expense).
> Solar boosters like the article author love to prove how baseline producers have to accept negative rates means that they are somehow wrong in the market, but having baseline producers run at loss or worse, close down permanently is not something that any of us want - especially in the middle of a harsh winter.
Negative rates are a signal, and effect all base load (coal, nuclear, hydro, etc) equally. I don't see how sending proper market signals are a bad thing.
"Negative rates are a signal, and effect all base load (coal, nuclear, hydro, etc) equally. I don't see how sending proper market signals are a bad thing."
But those market signals are not sent to the solar installations. i.e. if you produce a lot of power when it is sunny and there is a glut, the owner of the panel typically still get the same rebate.
If we sent proper market signals to renewable energy providers it would indeed be a good thing.
> But those market signals are not sent to the solar installations. i.e. if you produce a lot of power when it is sunny and there is a glut, the owner of the panel typically still get the same rebate.
> If we sent proper market signals to renewable energy providers it would indeed be a good thing.
Of course those signals aren't sent to solar installations; we value their output over that of coal plants, and their output is clean regardless of when its produced. We do send those signals to wind farms, which must curtail their output when insufficient demand exists.
In time, as more renewables come online, stationary utility storage (battery cargo containers), and fossil fuels are deprecated, the problem solves itself.
Falling solar install prices are a good thing, but they don't close down other generation types. Coal plants still have to burn even if there is a glut of electricity because of favourable solar conditions.
Solar boosters like the article author love to prove how baseline producers have to accept negative rates means that they are somehow wrong in the market, but having baseline producers run at loss or worse, close down permanently is not something that any of us want - especially in the middle of a harsh winter.
Some care is needed to have grid stability designed in - which also should give price stability - because a highly volatile generation market is not something that is good for anyone.