Electricity prices in France turn negative as renewable energy floods the grid

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 6:24 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #180

bryanlarsen wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say the cost of pollution for a tonne of CO2 is about $100. Using some silly and outdated assumptions, solar power is listed at 41 g CO2 / kWh and therefore has a pollution "cost" of 0.4 cents. The cost of a kWh from a solar panel ranges from 0.5 - 4 cents, so adding the two together is still way under the cost per kWh of nuclear power whether or not you add the 12 g CO2 / kWh carbon footprint of nuclear power.

Solar power is not base load.

Neither is nuclear. You're commenting on an article where France is turning off their nuclear power plants because they have too much solar energy. If they're turning them off, they're not baseload generation.

Post by littlestymaar » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:06 PM UTC

digdugdirk wrote: post #64

littlestymaar wrote: post #45

Econ 101: with a marginal cost equal to zero, a competitive electricity market (with a price driven to marginal cost because of competition) cannot be sustainable because electricity price it cannot pay for the fixed costs. Solution: we must stop electricity pricing based on energy produced (which made sense when using fossil fuel) and switch to a pricing mechanism where you pay for available power because that's whe…

I'm intrigued. But with an electrical grid that requires a constant match between electricity generation and consumption, how would you ensure the stability of a thing when its controlling mechanism (pricing) is its own derivative?

I don't understand your question. But let me clarify something the grid requires constant match between generation and consumption power to match.

Re: Electricity prices in France turn negative as renewable energy floods the grid

Re: Electricity prices in France turn negative as renewable energy floods the grid