I would encourage people to go look at satellite view of random "rich" neighbourhoods in Pakistan, and note how many solar panels there are on rooftops. Here is the first one I scrolled to in Lahore [1], and one in Karachi [2]
Pakistan's grid prices tripled or more since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, because the extremely mismanaged and poorly designed electricity system+economy could not handle the energy price shock. This spiraled into rich people just buying rooftop solar systems, which exacerbated the grid problems even more.
According to this interview [1] and a recent Economist podcast blackouts were a huge driver of the decision of those that could afford it to go for solar and batteries. Now the utilities are in a death spiral. Customers disconnect, prices rise, more incentive to go for solar and storage as prices continue to fall while price of unreliable grid energy rises.
Chances are this spiral can happen everywhere, not just where supply is unreliable.
This is a problem that started because the IMF forced Pakistan to get rid of energy subsidies after Pakistan over invested in tradition fossil fuel burning power infrastructure.
This meant that Pakistan started charging such high unsubsidized prices that it was cheaper for those with money to buy cheap solar panels and batteries. This drop in demand exacerbated the oversupply issue and meant that the unsubsidized price had to go even higher creating a feedback cycle.
You are very defintly confused here,;) or there, in Pakistan where some of the rulling class will brag about never getting utility bills, but the reality is that every built thing, down to the roads is there for them, but at root the main concepts of fuedal societies are intact, and going solar, fits in quite well, as it can be set up as distributed systems that will literaly conect into a larger grid, based on alliegences.
The adoption of electric cars and especialy trucks/tractors/farm/industrial will follow quickly and allow fossil fuels to be reserved for strategic use.
The real kicker will be batteries that have decadal life spans allowing for predictable,
"one time" infrastructure investments that can the become self supporting through use "fees"
Pakistan has the highest per capita slavery except for communist countries with forced labor regimes, in the world. Their country is built on the backs of slavery.
As someone from India — who has written this kind of comment against India and Pakistan in forums, with poor reception, and later realised it was rightly so — some more detail and nuance, possibly with some easily readable sources, would help a great deal - mostly for the people who want a picture of that because slavery is a very evocative term.
Price of Chinese PV panels and inverters and batteries have dropped so much and there has been financing schemes available where you get the installation for free and pay per usage cheaper than what the utility company charges and it is more realiable.
It appears that the recycled street numbers each appear on different blocks.
Street 6, for instance: I've found it twice so far.
But they're still distinct, in that one Street 6 is within Block M 3 B, and another is within Block M 7.
Which appears to suggest that blocks are more important at identifying an address than a street name is, and if that's the case then that works just fine.
And indeed, a distinct address appears to be something like this: Plot 15, Block M 7 Lake City, Lahore, Pakistan. Plug that into Google Maps and you'll see what I'm seeing (and note that the string doesn't include a street name at all).
It does seem weird to my wee little Ohio-trained brain to identify a building by what block it is on more than the street it is facing, but then: Canadian post codes and Hungarian addresses also look weird to me, and also work fine in the places where they're used.
That's correct. In Pakistan, typically cities are broken up into housing societies. Each society is broken up into sectors/blocks, which are typically indexed by the alphabet(A, B, C, ...), but occasionally, one will see block M7 or sector B2 etc. In each such sector, each house has a unique numbered address.
Some larger societies are first broken up into "phases" and then into sectors/blocks.
Street numbers are typically not required in an address, but are often provided as helpful guidance.
Not a great system, but still better than Calgary's system (where I studied), which might be the worst system I have ever seen. You can't navigate at all without a map.
In Calgary, the streets are numbered and it's super easy to navigate between "16th St NW" and "18th St NW". Certainly easier to understand than "Go from St. Catherine's Street to Peel" in Montreal.
Where they are not numbered, they at least have the name of the community. Edgemont, for example, has no numbered streets but the name usually starts with "Edge", making it clear what part of the city you are going to.
I don't think it is perfect but I have also lived in Tokyo where the system is literally impossible without a GPS because the locations are not as neatly arranged as here.
> I don't think it is perfect but I have also lived in Tokyo where the system is literally impossible without a GPS because the locations are not as neatly arranged as here.
Even GPS and being a native speaker of Japanese isn't enough to successfully navigate somewhere in Japan sometimes often enough that it's super common for businesses to include detailed access instructions on how to get to their business.
The amount of times I've seen my wife not even be able to read a place name here makes me wonder why they don't just do something slightly more sensible. A recent funny one was when city hall sent her some mail advertising some seminar and she couldn't read the name of the train station on the pamphlet, so she called city hall and enquired about it and the person she talked to couldn't read it either.
A society is a business entity. They have some control over all houses in an area. Most societies are large. Hundreds or thousands of houses/buildings.
The administration of the society is usually done by the original developers. They decide how big the plots of land are, decide the rules houses must follow in their design. The houses themselves are built by the owners of the plots.
They society collects monthly fees typically. It is usually responsible for trash pickup. Richer societies will arrange water supply and even backup electricity plants. Larger societies create commercial areas and parks within their bounds as well.
They are not always gated as the parent states. Only the ones rich enough to hire security.
Thanks for the insights and apologies for the late reply. So it's somewhat similar to a development in the US - developer buys the land. But in this case, its the homeowner paying for and building the house vs the developer (like in the US).
You have an inbuilt assumption about the purpose of a street name. Compare it with addresses in Japan [1], where some streets don't even have names. I don't know anything about Pakistan, but i wouldn't be surprised if the street name is solely to differentiate within some small geographic area. Looking at street view[2] from a nearby real estate development supports this
This was a bit painful for me when I first moved to Tokyo, since the building I was supposed to move into was newly build, and not on Google Maps yet. I had to ask a very nice old lady where １９番１５号 was supposed to be, and it took 20 minutes of us searching to find the place.
First thing I did upon finding it was to add it to the map lol
I'm guessing: fewer people buying from the power companies/grid => the fixed costs of these companies are pushed onto the poorer customers, who already couldn't afford much.
But there is a bit more. Almost all power plants in Pakistan are built with state-backed dollar-denominated loans (reason govt incompetence+corruption). This means if grid demand goes down, power plants don't go out of business like they would in a market based system. Instead, they keep collecting dollar-denominated interest paid by the state, even if they produce zero power.
The state mitigates this by increasing electricity prices (in rupees). I have forgotten how this helps.
The reason power plants in Pakistan probably require this kind of financing is because Pakistan doesn't have the industrial capability to make the equipment that you need to build a power plant, so, dollars are a requirement.
Power companies in Pakistan also don't have easy access to international money markets, and thus, it makes sense for the government to back those strong currency loans as a subsidy on infrastructure.
This is not exclusive to Pakistan, this is the routine of infrastructure financing on developing countries. J.P. Morgan is not really eager to lend money for PakiPower Incorporated, but it is willing to lend to the government.
It is unfortunate that the government of Pakistan and their investors (China and the IMF) made poor investment decisions. They should feel free to go back to debt holders to renegotiate the debt, or default on it and hand the stranded assets back to creditors. The death spiral is of their own making, and will only accelerate as solar PV and battery cost declines continue. Electricity consumers will simply go off the grid. Such is the risk of unsophisticated investors not understanding the market in which they invest. Capital being at risk is an inherent component of investment.
My condolences and sympathy to the people of Pakistan caught in the mess. The global energy transition will be volatile.
Who owns the distressed fossil generation collateralized debt? China. Where is Pakistan importing cleantech from? China. There is some IMF debt in there as well, for accuracy.
> default on it and hand the stranded assets back to creditors
I doubt the debt is secured by the power assets. If anything, maybe China can assume ownership of the entire powerplant if Pakistan cannot pay. They have done that many times in Africa. See: "debt-trap diplomacy". Also, it is terrible advice to tell a country to default on external debt. See: Argentina!
Usually there are three parties in these agreements.
1. State of Pakistan
2. Someone with dollars (the investors)
3. Local businessman who are willing run the power plant.
The three parties come to an agreement on what the minimum returns should be on the investment. Say 10% annual. Then the investors give money to the businessman, who then import the power plant equipment and start operating it. The state-run electricity distribution companies buys from the power plant as needed and pays them the unit price set by the State of Pakistan. Part of this is converted into dollars at some pre-agreed rate and transferred to the investors.
In all this, if the total returns to the investor are above 10%, then all is good. However, if the grid demand has fallen, and the distribution company didn't buy a lot of units from the power plant, then the State of Pakistan has to step in and give the investors the difference to make up the 10% returns.
State capitalism like you described totally undermines the price system by replacing profit-and-loss–guided entrepreneurial calculation with political allocation of resources, thereby rendering economic calculation increasingly impossible and eroding the coordinating function of the market process.
Yes, but nobody has found a more effective way to build infrastructure in poor countries. State capitalism as described is how infrastructure development happened in Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.
The fact that infrastructure was built under state capitalism does not demonstrate the superiority of central planning, only that capital accumulation occurred despite intervention, often financed by prior scarcity, foreign savings, or coerced transfers; absent market prices and entrepreneurial profit-and-loss, the state cannot know whether the infrastructure created was the most value-productive use of scarce resources, only that concrete and steel were poured.
I think it demonstrates the increased variance of central planning. The Congo Free State was also centrally planned, and so was the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, Suharto's mass murder of suspected PKI sympathizers, etc. But the expected outcome for poor countries is that they stay poor and don't develop into industrialized export giants the way my laundry list of countries did.
Higher variance isn’t a redeeming feature when the mechanism that generates it lacks rational calculation in the first place. Central direction can occasionally coincide with growth in poor countries because initial scarcity leaves many wasteful paths that still raise output, but that doesn’t establish a positive expected value
I’m not arguing that centralized or state-capitalist systems “never work” in the sense that nothing gets built, or that output can’t rise. Clearly roads, ports, power plants, and factories were constructed in many of the cases you listed.
The narrower point I’m making is about economic rationality. Without market prices for capital goods generated through profit-and-loss entrepreneurship, there is no way to know whether those projects were the best use of scarce resources, or merely a use that happened to raise output from a very low baseline.
In very poor countries, almost any large capital investment will increase measured output because there are so many unmet needs. That means growth can occur even under badly misallocated investment. The fact that development happened does not tell us whether it happened efficiently, or whether alternative decentralized uses of those same resources would have generated more value.
That’s also why I don’t find higher variance persuasive as a defense. Occasional success doesn’t validate a mechanism that lacks systematic feedback. Without prices and profits, planners can’t distinguish luck from competence, or learning from error. Things such as malinvestment and moral hazard result. You only know concrete and steel were poured, not whether society is richer than it otherwise would have been.
So my claim isn’t state capitalism always fails, nor is it a moral argument about atrocities. It’s that infrastructure success alone doesn’t answer the calculation problem. Growth from scarcity is compatible with irrational allocation, and therefore doesn’t establish a positive expected value for centralized direction as a general development strategy.
They surely were not the best use of scarce resources. However, I don't know if you've ever tried to run a business in a poor country. It turns out that the decentralized economic systems they have are also not economically rational, systematically failing to provide functioning market mechanisms that support long-term investments such as highway systems, reliable electric grids, municipal water treatment, etc., even when those things would be highly efficient uses of scarce resources. Rather, generally speaking, they systematically squander their resources in order to stabilize the existing socioeconomic power structures.
Generally speaking, if you invest your money in a historically kleptocratic country, you can expect your investment to get confiscated if it's profitable, and possibly even if it's not, which is what happened to my retirement savings. Even if you make your investment at a time when the country is governed by non-kleptocrats, you will probably lose it after the next coup or election in which new kleptocrats come to power.
In that environment, where private investment in long-term infrastructure projects is irrational and languishing in poverty for many generations is the normal state of affairs, state capitalism frequently works.
I don't think moral arguments about atrocities are somehow orthogonal here. Power plants and electrical grids are often worthwhile investments, not because building monuments to Westinghouse is a pious sacrifice that pleases the electrical gods, but because they promote human welfare by providing material abundance. That's how we measure whether society is richer, not, as you say, by the amount of concrete poured. If human welfare is your yardstick, the possibility of economic catastrophes like the Holodomor greatly diminishing human welfare must necessarily weigh on the negative side of the balance. The inhabitants of Auschwitz and the Congo Free State were not enjoying even the material abundance they had enjoyed previously.
So we know that central planning carries risks to human welfare that decentralized systems do not. However, it also has opportunities to promote human welfare that decentralized systems do not. The variance is larger. I don't think we know enough to measure the expectation.
Sure, running a business in kleptocratic hellholes is a nightmare. Confiscation risks kill private investment, especially for big infrastructure that needs stable property rights and enforceable contracts to make sense.
But that's not a bug of decentralized markets; it's the poison of political interference and weak institutions, which state capitalism only doubles down on by swapping entrepreneurial discovery for bureaucratic fiat, still without solving the calculation problem or providing systematic feedback beyond "stuff got built."
Look at Hong Kong in your list: it boomed precisely because of its hands-off, free-market approach with top-tier economic freedom rankings, unlike more interventionist tigers that rode credit-fueled waves but crashed in '97 or stagnated like Japan post-bubble.
Atrocities are the dark side of concentrated power touted as enabling opportunities, jacking up variance with no way to gauge if human welfare gains beat the unseen costs of foregone innovations.
Without prices and profits guiding resources, we're left guessing expectations, but history shows freer systems deliver sustainable abundance when institutions let them, not coerced escapes that often loop back to poverty or worse.
This is the right way to think about the problem if you're faced with the problem of what country to start an electric power company in. But it's not very helpful if you're faced with the problem of how to govern Pakistan, which is certainly not a hellhole but does suffer major corruption problems. The political interference, weak institutions, concentrated power, and official corruption are largely givens; you can work to change them incrementally, but you can't just import the government of Hong Kong. Even if you could, you couldn't convince investors that the reforms would stick this time, for real.
Perhaps, if you could obtain political power that you could retain stably for decades, you could make pretty big changes there, but only at the cost of further concentrating power, creating opportunities for even greater corruption profits for whoever can wrest power away from you. Nobody has ever held power for decades in Pakistan's history. Even Nawaz Sharif didn't make it to 10 years in power over his three (non-consecutive!) terms. If you simply liberalize economically without eliminating the confiscation risks that kill private investment, private investment will not magically materialize without the private investors, who are sensibly investing their savings in a 7-11 franchise in Cleveland, Ohio.
So, what can you, hypothetically governing the country, do under these constraints?
A proven strategy is public investment, like Airbus, like the military contracts that sustain Boeing, like the Hoover Dam, like the Rural Electrification Administration, like federally guaranteed student loans, like the interstate highway system, like Volkswagen, like Tupolev, like Rosatom, like Industrias Aeronáuticas y Mecánicas del Estado, like the Apollo Program, like Huawei, like Westinghouse's nuclear power division, like the ARPANet and NSFNet. Certainly the money won't be invested as wisely as if savvy entrepreneurs like Warren Buffett were directing it, and neither Warren Buffett nor Juan Perón is going to do a good job at investing in unforeseen innovations; but, even if most of that investment is wasted like Project Huemul, it can still dramatically augment the economic productivity of the country, under circumstances when private investment is unavailable. Often such productive capacity will eventually make the country more appealing to private investors, but that can take a long time.
In this situation, you aren't faced with the choice between state capitalism and regular capitalism. You're faced with the choice between state capitalism and no capitalism.
Thus, state-guaranteed loans to build power stations.
Catlover76 asks in a [dead]ed comment, "And China, right?" It's a reasonable question. It's debatable whether the infrastructure of the parts of China I didn't mention was built by state capitalism or by a straightforwardly Communist system of production, so I only mentioned the more clear-cut cases.
I heard that they are trying to restructure the billing in this way for next fiscal year (July 2026- ), but its really difficult to find a non-regressive scheme. Electricity per-unit prices in Pakistan are set by the government, they vary depending on how much you consume [1], and they play a pretty significant role in government popularity.
[1] There is a price for the first 50 units you consume, then a higher price for the next 150 units, etc. Similar system to income taxes.
Grids in Germany if you're not a "typical household/office" with therefore atypical grid usage bill for peak power and energy separately; the billing related peak power is measured by averaging power over 15 minute chunks, and taking the worst one of a year.
Alternatively it's also practical for such solar situations to bill for market rate price of the energy in each 15 minute chunk separately; this doesn't correctly attribute transformer and other transmission equipment expenses between solar houses and non-solar houses, but it's still handling the grid tie solar load on the grid's power plants during periods of very little sun.
> averaging power over 15 minute chunks, and taking the worst one of a year.
What an interesting metric. Wouldn't even a very cheap and small battery (definitely small enough to keep inside an appartment) provide enough smoothing to, like, halve this peak number? You could rig it to not even output energy until you are beyond the current year's peak usage... How much money would you save this way?
I just feel this number is so prone to small mistakes (grandma plugs in the wrong things at the wrong times) and hacks (like the above) that the relationship between users' reward/punishment and the grid's health seems wildly disproportionate.
> market rate price of the energy in each 15 minute chunk separately
I am currently on a plan with 5 minute market rates, can buy and sell in (sell prices can go negative - as can buy, actually), all automated. At least I feel we am working with the grid, not against it, and we make a small net profit (before depreciation).
> relationship between users' reward/punishment and the grid's health seems wildly disproportionate.
It's still much closer to the real costs for the grid operator than $/kWh. The fundamental problem that rooftop solar has revealed is that people think they are paying for the electricity, but they are not. Electricity is dirt cheap. Most of what they are paying for is the maintenance of the grid, and simple usage based billing crushes the system because of freeloader problem once rooftop solar is added.
Long term, the likely thing you pay for will be the size of the main fuse that connects you to the grid. Because that's the thing that scales with the costs you impose on the operator.
Actually the local cost is not the fuse size, but how much smaller the first transformer after you could be if you weren't there.
Though it's often more fair to determine such for each user; then take those as a relative scale, then split the transformer's actual TCO by the determined share sizes between the users. Because the first user needs the transformer to it's peak size; the second only by the instantaneous-added peak size, which is lower as they won't use it peak at the same time.
> the first user needs the transformer to it's peak size; the second only by the instantaneous-added peak size
Of course, how does the electricity company determine which user was first in this situation. A tariff that depends on the order of connection may not be practical for domestic situations, although it may be OK for very large users, e.g. factories, data-centres.
Using fuse size seems a more reasonable and fair proxy for cost, assuming the same load patterns as the rest of the users. Then again, consumers with EVs might argue that their load pattern is different to the average user (e.g. filling up with off-peak electricity). Also consumers with air conditioning might argue for special treatment given their usage correlates with solar output (except where it does not).
You don't; you let the second one pay more than what the marginal cost was, in order to make the first one not pay so disproportionally.
That only has to happen once there is a second one, though.
Punishing a mere "large enough to not worry about popping it" fuse by billing shared infrastructure based on it (not just billing the stub line from the main in the street to the fuse/meter box in one's home in relation to what wire gauge is needed based on the fuse choosen) is pretty stifling.
If e.g. your furnace fails in the middle of the winter and the repair guy tells you it needs replacing, you might want to get some space heaters and run them for a few days until your actually-wanted new furnace/heatpump/whatever can get delivered, instead of having to get installed whatever the HVAC guy has in the local storage, because if you wait more than on the order of 12 hours, you'll start to get frost damage from pipes and such.
Having to be beholden to an electricity company having time to upgrade your fuses on such short notice so that you can plug in the space heaters without blowing them might be a problem.
But paying say 300 bucks extra because you did that for like 3 days or so would easily be cheaper than the cost of temporarily installing an available loan furnace and then having to remove it again to make way for the actually-wanted one.
They do though bill you if you make them dig the street up to say pull a medium voltage line into your factory that previously just got low voltage from a shared street transformer, but now that you've plans to use a lot more, you'd need the higher feed. Then they bill you and if within like 10 years or so someone else orders service that can piggyback on what capex you paid for, then you'd get a proportional refund from them having to pay off part of your share.
But that's not for just getting normal basic electric service to a normal residential building in a city, that's for building a new farmhouse on the other end of some field where there never was electricity, or for getting unusual service that wouldn't be in the street if you didn't request it.
Merely sizing the transformers/substations to handle the aggregate current of the users attached is not typically handled by the above mechanism, especially because it only covers initial buildout.
This is how it works in Japan for the newer rate plans for consumers now (replacing the previous method of charging you based on the size of your main breaker), but checked in 30 minute increments rather than 15.
The steps are pretty coarse - on my rate plan there are just 3 steps: 0-10 kW, 11-15 kW, 15 kW+. You're not going to surpass peak 10 kW in an apartment anyway.
It's legacy tactics; against the hacking the comparable thing for internet connections has historically been iirc 5 minute chunks and then taking the 95th percentile (like, charging not the highest, but the one 5% away from the highest). Not sure about the 5 min aggregation tbh.
The 15 minute chunks are due to the German and much of the European grid market being in that chunk size.
I don't think it's necessarily impossible to get that billing model as a household; it's just not an interesting one to have as it's not competitive for the usage patterns of a household.
It's good until a Wednesday afternoon your home system dies and you have no electricity until Monday. I guess more people would prefer to pay a $10 or $20 monthly fee just in case.
> I guess more people would prefer to pay a $10 or $20 monthly fee just in case.
The grid becomes an insurance policy. In that case it is justified to ask for the insured party to pay their share of the system costs; both an energy fee and transmission/distribution/generation capacity fee.
I think most places the service is priced under the assumption that usage is enough to pay for the grid…
I’ve only ever rented though. Are connection fees something that homeworkers think about?
Possibly we will have to see changes to account for this sort of stuff at a more granular level, as the grid becomes more dynamic. But, that’s a future we should be actively looking to design for, as the energy supply mix is going to change whatever anybody thinks about that. Can’t beat energy falling from the sky, on price…
Is the €30 usage fee going directly to the producer of electricity, or is part of it a variable transmission fee that goes to the network operator?
My monthly electricity bill in Sweden, averaged over a year to 1600KWh/month, is approximately €90 production, €50 transmission fee, €25 fixed connection-size fee (25A, 400V), €70 national electricity tax and €50 VAT for a total of €285/month.
We'll be moved to yearly-peak-based transmission tariff in 2027 (European law), but for now I don't need to worry about plugging in the car to chargeon cold days or taking shower when someone is cooking.
Both, currently; notably it's mostly not what goes to your local grid, but rather mostly to the larger scale grid.
It's about a 60/40 to 70/30 split between production/"grid-usage-fee" ("Netznutzungsentgelt").
It basically pays off the grid stability provision bids for fast-response power, and the transmission itself.
It'd likely be helpful if the peak part could be regulated in a way that's more condusive to match the actual impact you create on transformer sizing, not the worst-case impact you might have.
Because there's a difference between a mostly-uncorrelated peak of shower+cooking vs. the car+cold day, because your neighbours don't shower the same time, but the several hours of charging do often overlap and the cold is the same across a neighbourhood that shares a local substation.
But yeah, for the most part, transformer size isn't that large of a contributor to overall electricity provision expenses, so I don't expect that to be a significant problem by that 2027 law.
its easily fixable, utility company can charge fee for fixed cost those who connected to the grid, and if all rich decided to disconnect, then they disconnect neighborhood eliminating fixed cost.
Previously, pretty much everyone (not just 'rich people', although, well, 'rich' is relative here, of course...) had diesel generators, which were not connected to the grid, since that would be seriously expensive, plus syncing would be pretty much impossible anyway.
With solar, you can feed back into the grid much more easily, to the point that this is the default. This sort-of doubles the load on the grid (not exactly, but you get the idea), since both 'consumption' and 'production' need to cross the same wires.
This is a problem even in, like, Germany, where the grid operator can send a "kill signal" to local solar inverters to shut down. In Pakistan, I can't even imagine...
The following isn't a grid problem (more of a demand issue), but maybe they're referring to this:
> But 45 percent of Pakistanis live below the poverty line, according to the World Bank, putting solar panel systems well beyond their reach. The pool of customers for the national grid has gotten smaller and poorer, and the costs of financing old coal-powered plants have increasingly been passed on to those who can least afford it. [1]
Because storage is incredibly expensive and thus, for every GW of installed solar capacity you need and an exact another GW reserve capacity from other sources for the rare times when the sun doesn't shine (like, for example, during the night or during large spells of bad weather).
Besides being intermittent, solar and wind are not really dispatchable, that is, the grid operator doesn't have many levers to control the power output of a plan, and thus this imposes more stress on the other dispatchable power sources.
Some of those backup sources are not very flexible and take a long time to turn on and off, like coal based, and a lot of nuclear plants. Others, can be brought up online, ramped up and down faster, like gas turbines and hydro.
But other than gas turbine, most other firm sources economics are based on a predictable demand and a minimum duty cycle. A nuclear plant is very capital expensive, have an excellent capacity factor, but, it can't pay itself and its investor if it is not going to be run most of the time.
Base load is cheaper, because you dilute fixed costs, peak load is more expensive, because you sell less units to dilute your fixed costs.
Despite whatever the renewable lobby says, experience has shown over and over, that after a certain proportion of intermittent generation in a grid, large frequency excursions, deteriorated economics and frequent load shedding events are rather the norm than the exception.
AC grids are stupidly complex beasts. Most politicians, journalists and investors that drive our current discourse on the grid don't have even the most basic pre-requirements to understand it.
This is all true except for the fact that storage is not incredibly expensive anymore, which invalidates every single conclusion you reach. Storage is now reasonably affordable, and the trend suggests it will soon be incredibly cheap.
The largest battery systems in operation are primarily designed for short-duration grid support rather than long-term, multi-day backup. They can even bridge a single windless night.
And this is talking about short term mismatch between supply and demand in a 24 hour cycle. If you consider the need to account for the yearly seasonal generation variation (which is far more dramatic as most of the developed world is situated on high latitudes) battery storage becomes even more problematic due to the absurd capital expenditures for a resource that you'd have to charge with a dramatic production supply during the summer months to slowly discharge during the winter.
People have been misled with the convenient lie of LCOE for too long, when what really matters are the true system costs. We don't even have in place the supply chain to sustain this, and I am not even talking about Lithium or Cobalt, I am talking about plain old Copper.
Then, there are the capital requirements for recycling and decommissioning, as the useful life of such systems is unfortunately not something to write home about.
Think about it. We have spent too much time and money on solar and wind, money that could have been spent on nuclear power. The clock is ticking, replacing our grid with solar may be the wet dream of big finance, but it is not a reasonable solution, it is about time we stop wasting our time with it.
I don't know why you're even talking about nuclear when that's not something an individual can do at their scale. It's not relevant to this conversation. But everything you've just said about it is wrong.
LCOE, when LCOE is calculated correctly, is absolutely the right measure and absolutely includes the true system cost including storage to bring it up to a similar level of availability and decommissioning (incidentally decommissioning is way higher cost for nuclear than batteries so it's weird that you try to cite it).
Even if we switch gears from talking about individual generation to grid scale generation nuclear done safely is simply too expensive. Solar and battery storage are cheaper than it in sunny places today, they were cheaper than it in sunny places a year ago, and their price is and has been consistently falling exponentially while nuclear's price stays about constant.
Those prices are including the absolutely massive subsidies that are given to nuclear, in every form from government investment in the technology to government absorbing the vast majority of the insurance cost by not requiring they are insured to anywhere close to even a small fraction of the full amount of damage they could cause in a worst case disaster.
The only fantasy here is that nuclear is somehow going to suddenly buck the trend of staying at about constant price and start falling in price even more exponentially than solar and batteries have been to catch up. Spending money on nuclear only serves to prolong the climate crisis by taking away money from actual scalable solutions like solar that can outcompete with fossil fuels on cost.
You don't build storage for yearly cycles, you build it for daily cycles (which is affordable today) and overbuild solar to account for seasonal variation in generation and demand. Note that even things like nuclear have to be overbuilt for seasonal variation in demand, and to account for the fact that there is maintenance and sometimes some of your plants are down.
I was obviously talking about grid scale, that's what matters.
I have solar Li-ion and hybrid inverters at my home, basically because I foresee more frequent blackouts in the future. Part of the cost of my system is generously paid by poorer consumers, because I still have net-metering in my country (talk about subsides).
Nuclear power is one of the most insanely regulated industries due to the misinformed work of science denier green militants and populist politics. Talking about subsides ignoring all the red tape nuclear is a common tactic behind the propaganda of big finance and big green corrupt interests.
LCOE is absolutely the right measure only in two cases:
1) You have a financial interest on selling intermittent power
or/and
2) You're hopeless ignorant about both the physics and the economics of a power grid.
> I was obviously talking about grid scale, that's what matters.
As demonstrated by the fine article, it is not the only scale that matters.
> Nuclear power is one of the most insanely regulated industries due to the misinformed work of science denier green militants and populist politics.
Nuclear power is a highly regulated industry for two very very good reasons
- It's incredible destructive power if you cut corners. See chernobyl and then realize that it was far from a worst case and every nuclear power plant has the capacity to do 1000x worse than that if enough corners are cut. No other form of energy, not even fossil fuels with global warming, comes close in terms of potential downside per kwh generated. And humans inevitably cut corners in the absence of a strong regulatory regime.
- It's incredible destructive power if weaponized, potentially resulting in species ending wars.
You're showing your own ignorance with regards to LCOE.
Which will make the problems of the rich disappear and the problems of the poor and the state ... worse. (because the costs of the state are paying off loans for expensive generation, costs which they recover from the poor)
The state can default on the loans too. It sucks and it will make future financing more difficult. But it remains an option. No such thing as risk-free lending.
... which would cut off imports in a non-self-sufficient state (Pakistan is a country that if it ever were isolated internationally, the people would just start dieing). For the poor the situation is simple: either they pay the loans or they lose everything they have and probably even die of hunger.
A lot of muslim and African states are in that boat. If the US, yes, the international monetary system is under US control, frankly because nobody else will pay for it. If the US ever decides not to cover Pakistan's debts starvation is exactly what will happen in Pakistan.
Idk there have been other examples of bigger sovereign defaults - Argentina (multiple times), Thailand, Mexico - that didn't have anything like that effect. I'm not an economist or an expert on this topic. But investors losing their money due to changing market conditions is pretty common.
It’s not reasonably affordable by any real “middle class” metric and the impact a reliable grid has on the industrial and commercial base of an economy is being undervalued by an utterly laughable degree during these discussions. Westerners and rich folks take it for granted as a fact of life at this point.
The duck curve is a rounding error when discussing energy storage.
The storage needed to turn solar into a reliable (as any comparable fossil fuel power plant) dispatchable source of power, plus the cost of the solar in the first place, costs less than other sources of dispatch-able power (like gas) in sunny places per kwh.
It also scales down better (though not perfectly).
Either you can afford it (both storage and solar), or you can't afford power at all, or you don't live in a sunny place.
Ignoring sunk capital costs into other energy infrastructure of course. If you already have a working nuclear power plant you're not going to save money by randomly turning it off and switching to something else, for instance.
Well, I certainly can’t make a couple weeks of battery storage pencil out vs. a fossil fuel generator at this point.
The math actually gets worse once you get into combined cycle natural gas at scale.
You I suppose could make an argument that load curtailment is cheaper than planning for the current grid reliability everyone has gotten used to over the past 50 years, but it would be a societal shift.
Seasonal energy storage is what is interesting to discuss, and of course is where that last 2% of grid reliability comes from. It’s also the most expensive part of running a grid. The first watts are basically free, the last are very expensive.
I’d love to be proven wrong within the next decade though! I just personally don’t see the battery storage price going down at the same rates it has been simply due to structural raw material input cost reasons - short of a breakthrough in chemistry. I think we are getting close to the maximum savings achieved by economies of scale with current technology.
You shouldn't need a couple weeks of battery storage - if you're in a sunny place. For example Las Vegas should be able to reach 97% uptime of constant energy supply (greater than your typical fossil fuel plants uptime) by building ~17 hours worth of storage and ~6x the amount of power needed in the nameplate capacity of the solar panels. Even a slight bit of curtailment, the kind already done on western grids, to reduce load when the weather calls for a bunch of clouds, or uncorrelated energy production (e.g. wind, which won't necessarily go down on the odd cloudy day, or for on-grid cases just transmission lines to solar somewhere else, or a backup generator), pushes that much further to 100%.
Seasonal energy storage is uninteresting, you just overbuild the energy production instead. This is already done for every existing type of energy production to account for seasonal variation in demand.
If batteries became cheap enough where you could do days instead of hours affordably it pushes this sort of calculus into less sunny places as well, and there's every reason to think that they will become that cheap (perhaps not cheap enough to make weeks reasonable though).
> Seasonal energy storage is uninteresting, you just overbuild the energy production instead. This is already done for every existing type of energy production to account for seasonal variation in demand.
It’s the only thing that is interesting, considering you just hand-wove that last 3% of reliability away with vague “backup generators” and “transmission lines to other places”. Both immensely expensive items if they are idle 97% of the time.
I’m not interested in the least about having my grid availability at 97% - in a cherry picked location ideal for solar.
I’m totally fine overbuilding nameplate capacity for my solar field - already plan to by about 8x due to where I live. Panels are cheap! At least that problem seems more or less solved.
The issue is I have no realistic means to store that energy for even days much less weeks when the sun doesn’t shine. A small wind turbine can help a bit, but doesn’t get rid of the need for a backup generator.
The same holds true at grid scale currently - which is both a more important topic and more interesting to discuss than some rich tech bro being able to brute force his off-grid solar+battery install.
Someone needs to back that last 3% with something like a combined cycle natural gas plant. That amount of capital investment sitting idle is exceedingly expensive. The only thing you are saving much money on vs. running it all-out is fuel costs - you still need to staff it.
A national grid sounds pretty neat, but would both be crazy expensive and is so politically untenable that I don’t expect to see it seriously even discussed in my lifetime. Just a small amount of time spent in the rural areas of the country made me realize how utterly impossible it would be due to NIMBY.
Again, to me at least that last 3% is where everyone hand-waves and makes it someone else’s problem. At some point though you run out of other people’s power.
I do wish we had not destroyed our nuclear industry into irrelevance, as 50 more years of experience and hands-on construction knowledge pushing that tech forward might have had us in a far different place today!
And fwiw I do hope I’m wrong. Perhaps energy storage gets to the point we can keep a fully reliable inexpensive grid for the common folks and industry to rely upon. I’ve certainly been wrong before!
You understand that fossil fuel and nuclear plants are typically less reliable (have a lower availability factor) than that right? Every form of power generation has downtime, and needs balancing with other types or accepting that downtime. Solar tradeoffs low mechanical complexity for higher environmental dependence, but ends up with similar (in fact less) downtime here under unfavorable assumptions (100% of energy coming from a single point source of solar, constant energy load not your typical lower energy from consumption energy at night, no ability to shed load with price signalling or curtailment).
The last 3% is left alone because it's the fair comparison to other energy sources... tilted in the direction of favoring the other energy sources.
> It’s the only thing that is interesting, considering you just hand-wove that last 3% of reliability
The 3% issue doesn't come from seasonal variation, it comes from short term weather patterns where you might have a week of heavy cloud cover. Seasonal variation is trivially solved by simply increasing the multiplier on nameplate capacity (and the 6x for Los Vegas includes that increase). It's always going to be easier to generate an extra 25% energy than to store 25% of your energy produced in summer and use it in winter.
> “backup generators” and “transmission lines to other places”. Both immensely expensive items if they are idle 97% of the time.
On the contrary both things that exist anyways. Every place that cares about consistent power already has backup generators for when nonsense happens like power poles being blown over. Transmission lines exist to allow sale of excess production. It's only at tiny scales where these things aren't pre-existing and at those tiny scales overbuilding solar and batteries even more is so much cheaper than the alternatives (like building redundant gas plants disconnected from the grid, or even just redundant diesel generators) that they win by a mile.
An understated win of the storage model here is that these generators don't have to be able to supply the entire load, they just have to be turned on in advance when the weather forecast says there might be a problem to slow the drain on the batteries.
PS. I don't know what country you're from, but it seems a bit crazy to me that you apparently used to have a nuclear industry but apparently don't have a national grid... If you have actual weeks where the sun doesn't shine and no grid... you aren't in a sunny place... so you can still brute force it of course but done efficiently a lower percentage of solar makes sense.
Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Plants are extremely reliable, surpassed only for coal. You're doing a rhetorical sleight of hand by deliberately confusing scheduled downtime with reliability.
You keep on citing dubious numbers from the Big Green lobby, but the reality is. There's not a single place on this planet where after a certain threshold of penetration solar and wind haven't made supply less reliable, haven't caused economic sustainability issues to generators and haven't made power absurdly more expensive to customers.
Not to mention the frequently forgotten issues of toxic waste in production and decommissioning, the toxic fire hazard of giant battery banks and the pathetic short useful life of intermittent power infrastructure. Not to mention the environment impact of such big land gobblers, cynically overlooked by the same folks that decided to destroy nuclear with mountains of bureaucratic red tape deliberately created to suffocate it by ignorant green politicians.
Solar may have a bigger place, in countries with plenty of sun like Brasil, the Middle East or North Africa where residential and commercial consumption peaks with air conditioning usage during peak solar production, and with long days, but even then, absent some magical storage technology that doesn't exist yet, with limits.
Pretending scheduled downtime and rare emergency shutdown of dispatchable power sources are the same as intermittent sources of power is getting to the point of a disingenuous argument. They are not remotely comparable, and they are typically not correlated outages. You simply overbuild these sources by a tiny percentage to account for such things - no one cares if 5% of your nuclear goes offline randomly. It’s not the same thing as 100% of your solar going away at exactly the same time.
Cherry picking Las Vegas - a desert - for solar is also somewhat silly. The midwestern US would be much more like a global average. I could also choose Alaska if you want silly arguments.
Seasonal also doesn’t mean seasons - it means seasonal in the mathematical statistical sense where every 5-10 years in a spot you get a week or two of both sun not shining and little wind output. No amount of overbuilding capacity will ever solve for that - you need energy storage or available dispatchable sources in the form of chemical, hydrocarbon, hydro, or nuclear.
The last 3% is almost all that matters when you are talking grid reliability for the masses and industry. Factories cannot operate without reliable sources of power, and asking every major consumer of power to have backup generation on-site is a massive amount of capital overhead. And completely untenable for perhaps 60% or more of residential consumers.
I’d love to be wrong, but watching everywhere that is getting close to solar and wind saturation is pretty telling. Basically every watt of solar at this point needs to be backed by a dispatchable power source or it’s going to end horribly. It’s great that we were able to replace burning fossil fuels when conditions are favorable - but we need to be real and recognize the costs involved here.
Investing in the natural gas power industry was the easiest layup I ever had investing since this was so predictable in the 2020-2021 green power delusion era. It was obvious to anyone that if solar projects went ahead as projected that natural gas was coming along with it.
I love solar and wind generation and want to see it spammed everywhere possible. I just hate the grifters that currently are endemic to it.
All these problems become solved if you have realtime market pricing.
Nobody would bother to install rooftop solar if daytime power was super cheap on every sunny day, yet expensive at night when their solar isn't working.
Wouldn't this model price out poor people? Doesn't that mean the most vulnerable people cant afford the services when they need them most, ie max hot/cold?
Changing the utility to a market sort of defeats the point of trying to optimize the utility.
It’s better to give welfare / benefits directly to help poor people in that situation, rather than fix prices to make energy appear artificially scarce during daylight and abundant at night.
A typical user still pays the same on average in a market.
Just they might pay more in some hours and less in others.
Some market systems have gotten bad press over huge bills (eg. Texas), but that only happens when only a small chunk of users participate in the market, whilst others are on fixed pricing and therefore don't care about usage.
When everyone participates, supply and demand make sure the price never goes super high, simply because there are enough people who will turn off stuff to save money.
This exact issue lead me to follow the grid orchestration research out of the Oak Ridge Laboratory. The building blocks already exist to enable this. An interconnected smart network of renewables can become a stabilizing force in the overall grid. Off-peak storage would still be required, but would no longer need to be "stabilizing" (turbine or other similar generator), and can be simple batteries.
Pakistan's grid prices tripled or more since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, because the extremely mismanaged and poorly designed electricity system+economy could not handle the energy price shock. This spiraled into rich people just buying rooftop solar systems, which exacerbated the grid problems even more.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@31.3611237,74.2493456,357m/data...
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/@24.8014179,67.0460688,415m/data...