this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
844 points (99.1% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17453 readers
677 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's still not earning you money to spend electricity because you still have to pay the transfer fee which is around 6 cents / kWh but it's pretty damn cheap nevertheless, mostly because of the excess in wind energy.

Last winter because of a mistake it dropped down to negative 50 cents / kWh for few hours, averaging negative 20 cents for the entire day. People were literally earning money by spending electricity. Some were running electric heaters outside in the middle of the winter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can’t copy this into other countries.

I'm currently paying $.20/kWh on a Texas grid that is heavily based on natural gas, despite being ripe for a solar/wind boom.

If you could cut my bill in half, particularly during the summer when my AC usage explodes, that would be much appreciated.

[–] endofline@lemmy.ca -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, solar energy is tempting but the "advertised prices" and "cost savings" are mostly overstretched. Right now a lot of "renewable energy" sources are subsidized in Europe for only political reasons. Subsidies for solar installations are now gone but still you don't have to have costs of utilization. You will have them in 15 - 25 years for sure and then you will be able to make a proper assessment. Regarding Texas, I think solar energy could be profitable but for sure in Alaska it won't be. Still you need to do correct calculations and check what's the outcome of that installation would be. EU "green energy" savings analysis is just misleading. Germany, the main political proponent of the green deal is the best case for this. Energy prices are only going up and up after ditching atom energy. Russian "green" gas won't save them

[–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right now a lot of "renewable energy" sources are subsidized in Europe for only political reasons.

I can assure you the same is true for fossil fuels in Texas right now, so I don't see how this is a strike on renewable energy

[–] endofline@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I heard only shale gas but good to know about oil. As far as I know, USA is not one of the main oil exporters, mostly middle east countries, especially of Arab peninsula. Venezuela, Iran, too but they are under sanctions. American oil / gas, please, correct me if I am wrong serves mostly as strategic reserves so it may be that USA that it's better for Texas to use solar energy. However, most of calculations don't track the whole lifecycle of solar panels and their environment conditions - I mean whole energy produced for the solar panels lifespan (15 - 25 years) minus the costs of production and utilization. The analysis needs to be done per each case not mandated for all because it doesn't make sense with the total costs adjusted like in Poland. I know many owners of solar panels in Poland and it's not that 'rosy' with the solar energy savings

[–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To be honest, I'm struggling to keep track of the points you are making because you brought in several tangential topics all at once without much context (shale gas vs. oil, oil exports, LCOE, Poland all in a thread about solar energy in Finland compared to fossil fuel energy in Texas). I'll just point out that the US is #4 in oil exports, by either barrels or export value (source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_exports) and the number one oil producer (source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production), so I think it is pretty obvious that the investments into fossil fuel infrastructure in the US are well and above what is necessary for a "strategic reserve" use case

[–] endofline@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 months ago

It brought it up because I know that most these analysis are just misleading at best. Once again, I know exact numbers for Poland and these are very, very poor. It's beyond my surprise that somebody says that in Finland where they have polar days and nights and almost in arctic circle (the strongest sun radiation is on equator), its energy effectiveness balance could be positive. Nobody has provided numbers so far

Here: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/07/finlands-gold-rush-navigating-the-solar-landscape/

While Finland has made commendable progress in solar development, the government has recently decided to halt subsidies for solar projects. Backing will instead be allocated to hydrogen projects.

We shall see only then how the solar panels market develops without subsidies. It can't be done without energy storage which will be beyond expensive (which is the most cases for now) and power networks / providers don't want to buy the energy back. That's the current state in Poland - I know, my father has solar panels

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

The US is the world's largest oil producer. The US, however, does not export the most crude oil, but instead exports large quantities of refined products (gasoline, diesel, etc.).

The US was the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in 2023.