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 thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

That’s simply not true. This has been well studied, and a 100% renewable + storage option is quite feasible. It’s even easier if you focus on going 95% first (that last 5% gets much, much harder).

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1009249541/

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Depends on your definition of “feasible”.

It is certainly within the capabilities of humanity to do it.

It would cost far more, and have much higher ecological impact than alternatives.

To me, that is not “feasible”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s feasible and cost effective. The academic research on this has been quite clear, but it isn’t the sort of thing that generates headlines. Nuclear just isn’t necessary.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Mildly Interesting

!mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 3K

    Monthly active users

  • 564

    Posts

  • 13K

    Comments