←back to thread

193 points leymed | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
fuoqi ◴[] No.44359889[source]
[flagged]
replies(7): >>44359974 #>>44360016 #>>44360080 #>>44360349 #>>44361806 #>>44363227 #>>44363325 #
matsemann ◴[] No.44359974[source]
But the quote literally spells out it was market forces, not some instability in solar generation?

Your other comment probably got flagged because it started with a huge straw man and had multiple unwarranted jabs in it.

replies(2): >>44360082 #>>44360400 #
fuoqi ◴[] No.44360082[source]
Temporary negative prices have been caused by the renewable generation which exceeded the grid demand at the time, which then evolved into the nasty feedback loop caused by the reaction of renewable generation to those conditions. You simply do not get such situation with traditional generation, it's the direct consequence of the intermittent nature of renewables and its high ratio in the total generation.

Also, have you read after the market part? Please watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G4ipM2qjfw if the last quote is gibberish to you. It discusses somewhat different issues, but the point still stands.

replies(4): >>44360700 #>>44361095 #>>44361265 #>>44363222 #
floatrock ◴[] No.44361265[source]
So an incredibly cheap source of supply exceeded the demand, and the market rules and some trips caused cascading failures.

Why is the problem the cheap source of supply rather than the market rules and incentives that made everything act the way it did?

Your comment suggests move back to good ol' expensive fossil generation instead of looking at how to bring the market rules up to date with evolving technologies.

replies(3): >>44361412 #>>44361873 #>>44361885 #
1. mousethatroared ◴[] No.44361885[source]
Because the law mandates that renewables must be bought. Thats why prices fall negative.