It’s pretty funny. The article says that this is where money is being spent next (it implies it’s government funded), but the author acts like that’s a bad thing.
Unless new installations are spurred on by subsidies or power purchase agreements, oppressed profitability could eventually halt Germany’s solar expansion, Schieldrop said.
Instead, focus is likely to move onto improvements that will make more use of the energy produced, such as investments in batteries and grid infrastructure.
It’s wild. This guy is suggesting that they subsidize solar installation, in the exact same article where he’s saying there’s too much solar. Either the article is disingenuous or he’s an absolute idiot.
Solar production is quite variable. This time of year there is often excess production, but in fall or winter there can still be shortages. So it may still be worth subsidizing more production, though there might be a debate as to how much subsidy should go to storage vs extra solar production. Another possibility is to come up with non-capital intensive ways to turn cheap electricity into something useful but I’m not totally sure what that would be.
Either the article is disingenuous or he’s an absolute idiot.
Or maybe you didn’t realize this was an analysis of the situation and an outlook on possible future development based on his economic expertise rather than a call to action.
No, it’s not wild or pretty funny. The author says that if energy prices are negative then there’s no incentive to build up more generation capacity and more incentive for storage capacity. If the government still wants more generation capacity then it has to provide incentives i.e. subsidies.
It’s pretty funny. The article says that this is where money is being spent next (it implies it’s government funded), but the author acts like that’s a bad thing.
It’s wild. This guy is suggesting that they subsidize solar installation, in the exact same article where he’s saying there’s too much solar. Either the article is disingenuous or he’s an absolute idiot.
Solar production is quite variable. This time of year there is often excess production, but in fall or winter there can still be shortages. So it may still be worth subsidizing more production, though there might be a debate as to how much subsidy should go to storage vs extra solar production. Another possibility is to come up with non-capital intensive ways to turn cheap electricity into something useful but I’m not totally sure what that would be.
“oppressed profitability” is a fucking brutal turn of phrase.
They’re not mutually exclusive.
Or maybe you didn’t realize this was an analysis of the situation and an outlook on possible future development based on his economic expertise rather than a call to action.
No, it’s not wild or pretty funny. The author says that if energy prices are negative then there’s no incentive to build up more generation capacity and more incentive for storage capacity. If the government still wants more generation capacity then it has to provide incentives i.e. subsidies.
Wow, two of them.
Two of what?