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.

  • frezik
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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/

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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”.

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.