Hi Chris, I always appreciate thoughtful challenges. It's what helps us get to better answers. From the tenor of your comment though it doesn't sound like that is really what you are after. I'll just quote the IEA directly.
"Emissions reductions provide a powerful reason to invest, but are often not the primary driver for investment in technologies that are increasingly mature and cost-competitive."
Long post you attached, but quite thorough. The dynamics and the response to the changes are amazing. Very clear that the new grid requires quarter minute by quarter minute hand holding and there are considerable risks and costs. Where is the data quantifying the co2 savings? And we should look at mining to recycling emissions in there too. the old Bentek papers were pretty convincing that there’s negative net co2 saved.
Thanks Bela for your response… but given things are neither cheaper nor save any co2, why do you have an interest in supporting this tremendous misuse of capital?
It is always the poor that suffer most from rising prices as their free cash after paying bills is lowest.
Which area does the new battery cover, what is the average consumption peak in MWhrs and how many hrs or MWhrs is the battery able to provide said peak? You mentioned 2, is that supported?
CA duck curve is correcting due to fewer panels on rooftops and more disconnection. Fewer as the market distortions their have been radically reduced (from wholesale)
I am in Texas and the move towards unreliables is entirely due to market distortions (this includes dangerous and costly batteries). Pls let me know the point of your support. You believe the cost and grid control issues are worth it because…. Why? Neither cheaper nor able to reduce co2 emission levels, so why?
This article is correct - systems need to be designed for peak load. And 100% wind and solar ideologues (which I have never been), have been too sanguine about what is required for that. The system needs to be designed in a smart way to minimise overall system costs and shave peak loads. It's why there is a huge opportunity for flexibility like VPPs and batteries, which have grown enormously. That Californian duck curve is starting to smoothen out again because of batteries (now 16GW installed, and the biggest source of electricity for a couple of hours in the evening). Texas is also rapidly ramping solar and batteries.
Very weak response. The iea is not the smartest source. Invest implies a return within a certain timeframe. How’s that going to happen with all the various subsidies? Who should pay for the connection to the grid, the grid hardening, the VAR control, the fake inertia etc (that you do not include in your story)?
Was hoping for something on them being temporary and useful for developing supply chains whereby costs can be negotiated down based on volume.
What is your response to the observation that subsidies are not sustainable and that the poor will be on the hook for the price rise when they stop?
Hi Chris, your original comment didn't invite a comprehensive response, to be fair, and the post pulling out the observations from the report also wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive treaty on everything energy transition, so there are LOTS of things I haven't included in my "story".
You are correct that the grids need hardening and actually a lack of investment in the grid is one of things that I did include above. You seem to know something about it, so you know that is a complex topic and differs between transmission regimes and is also something that is being actively discussed, especially in light of inflexible data centre loads being added (hyperscalers should pay).
And I agree that subsidies should be temporary and in many cases are being gradually (or not so gradually removed). The point of subsidies should be to enable new technologies compete with incumbents for a limited time. If there isn't a path to doing that at scale then, in general, they shouldn't be subsidised unless there are significant benefits to externalities. I don't think I follow your comment on the poor being on the hook for price rises when subsidies stop.
As I said, I'm happy to have constructive debate. But I can't comprehensively cover ever aspect of the energy system in every post, so there will always be dynamics I don't cover.
Why no comments on the total pointlessness of all these growing initiatives? Not one can compete without subsidies. What exactly is the point?
Hi Chris, I always appreciate thoughtful challenges. It's what helps us get to better answers. From the tenor of your comment though it doesn't sound like that is really what you are after. I'll just quote the IEA directly.
"Emissions reductions provide a powerful reason to invest, but are often not the primary driver for investment in technologies that are increasingly mature and cost-competitive."
Long post you attached, but quite thorough. The dynamics and the response to the changes are amazing. Very clear that the new grid requires quarter minute by quarter minute hand holding and there are considerable risks and costs. Where is the data quantifying the co2 savings? And we should look at mining to recycling emissions in there too. the old Bentek papers were pretty convincing that there’s negative net co2 saved.
Thanks Bela for your response… but given things are neither cheaper nor save any co2, why do you have an interest in supporting this tremendous misuse of capital?
It is always the poor that suffer most from rising prices as their free cash after paying bills is lowest.
Which area does the new battery cover, what is the average consumption peak in MWhrs and how many hrs or MWhrs is the battery able to provide said peak? You mentioned 2, is that supported?
CA duck curve is correcting due to fewer panels on rooftops and more disconnection. Fewer as the market distortions their have been radically reduced (from wholesale)
That's not my understanding. This post covers it well, including drastically falling drop in growth of behind the meter solar. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-solar-storage-spring-2025/
I am in Texas and the move towards unreliables is entirely due to market distortions (this includes dangerous and costly batteries). Pls let me know the point of your support. You believe the cost and grid control issues are worth it because…. Why? Neither cheaper nor able to reduce co2 emission levels, so why?
Here’s an explanation
https://substack.com/redirect/95b23740-ffd8-44af-9230-8a36eb4a0f17?j=eyJ1IjoiOHFheTAifQ.98O4hCV1zUr01B6OCqVNjscrzglEkmP8Y62vSRq2h5M
This article is correct - systems need to be designed for peak load. And 100% wind and solar ideologues (which I have never been), have been too sanguine about what is required for that. The system needs to be designed in a smart way to minimise overall system costs and shave peak loads. It's why there is a huge opportunity for flexibility like VPPs and batteries, which have grown enormously. That Californian duck curve is starting to smoothen out again because of batteries (now 16GW installed, and the biggest source of electricity for a couple of hours in the evening). Texas is also rapidly ramping solar and batteries.
Very weak response. The iea is not the smartest source. Invest implies a return within a certain timeframe. How’s that going to happen with all the various subsidies? Who should pay for the connection to the grid, the grid hardening, the VAR control, the fake inertia etc (that you do not include in your story)?
Was hoping for something on them being temporary and useful for developing supply chains whereby costs can be negotiated down based on volume.
What is your response to the observation that subsidies are not sustainable and that the poor will be on the hook for the price rise when they stop?
Hi Chris, your original comment didn't invite a comprehensive response, to be fair, and the post pulling out the observations from the report also wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive treaty on everything energy transition, so there are LOTS of things I haven't included in my "story".
You are correct that the grids need hardening and actually a lack of investment in the grid is one of things that I did include above. You seem to know something about it, so you know that is a complex topic and differs between transmission regimes and is also something that is being actively discussed, especially in light of inflexible data centre loads being added (hyperscalers should pay).
And I agree that subsidies should be temporary and in many cases are being gradually (or not so gradually removed). The point of subsidies should be to enable new technologies compete with incumbents for a limited time. If there isn't a path to doing that at scale then, in general, they shouldn't be subsidised unless there are significant benefits to externalities. I don't think I follow your comment on the poor being on the hook for price rises when subsidies stop.
As I said, I'm happy to have constructive debate. But I can't comprehensively cover ever aspect of the energy system in every post, so there will always be dynamics I don't cover.