Sometimes we create our own problems.

I don't like using the term capitalism because it is too vague. Political corruption protecting oligarchy/big corporations is the problem.

Inflation resulting from start of full war on Russia and resulting oil/diesel price spike forced the wrong policy of higher interest rates. The theory in the past is that increasing austerity on consumers reduce their driving, and preventing business investment also reduces expanded demand for scarce FFs.

In the dynamics of energy disruption, high interest rates are the biggest cost obstacle for renewables and less new renewables is more oil/FF extortion power. At 2000 sun hours/year, $1/watt solar installation, could get a 16 year payback = 100% overall profit at 3c/kwh price. 2c/kwh at 3000 sun hours/year. Every 2% in interest costs, increases required price by 1c/kwh.

Protection of existing assets/supply scarcity is not affected by higher interest rates. New oil wells do have a big upfront cost, but they also have a huge power and maintenance requirement that is paid for with the product taken out of the ground, with ROI protections if renewables can be suppressed, including with high interest rates.

Political corruption favouring scarcity over abundance is the problem. Cheap energy or steel is a huge competitive and life quality advantage. Use cheap inputs for more productivity and happier life with cheaper cost.

That's pretty vastly different, isn't it?

Not really. It's like saying toast falls butter side down, vs toast falls non-buttered side up?

Perhaps some are conditioned for an emotional response, rather than a rational one, upon hearing certain words? That's why you suggest to avoid them, even to describe the same issue?

MIT Technology Review is talking

they did talk about this many years ago. This is a very old screenshot that has been around the internet for probably a decade at a guess. You might notice the check mark because this was from a time that twitter actually vetted sources. There's nothing wrong with a publication having bad takes on occasion. That does happen now and again.

The telling part is the fact that this one single tweet keeps being reposted repeatedly, with the reply as if this is a substantive criticism of capitalism.

I'm not sure much about solar curtailment, other than the fact that they receive curtailment requests and comply quite quickly as well.

Here in the EU, the DC-AC transformers are mandated to shut down if the grid frequency is out of bounds.

You can’t store all that energy in summer because you got fuck all to do with it.

Main value of H2 electrolysis is solving (more economic return from renewables than just curtailing) this problem. Also provides exportable energy to cover winter clean power/heat needs.

Then tell me why the mechanism to control production via the solar panels themselves hasn't been implemented?

Why would you want people to tell you things that are untrue?

South Australia has run into this problem and implemented a solution.

When the solar exports in a section of the grid exceeds the local transformer's limits, a signal is sent to all of the inverters in that section to limit the export rate. The same signal can be send to all solar inverters in South Australia if the entire grid has too much renewable energy.

This signal only limits the export to the grid, so the homeowner can always use their own solar power first. The permitted export is guaranteed to be between 1.5kW and 10kW per phase.

The was a minor oversight during implementation. Homeowners on wholesale pricing would often curtail or switch off their solar inverters if the prices went negative. If the grid operator sent a signal to reduce the export rate, it would override the homeowner's command and force a 1.5kW export during negative pricing (costing the homeowner to export). No-one considered that anyone might not want to export solar all of the time.

You can do. If you don't that's when you get the fire, or more likely a whole bunch of breakers flip and you are in a black start situation.