[usmeteora]

I think the issue is, many regions in the U.S. operate on real time energy pricing markets. Generation companies get paid for what they produce based on these energy prices. When prices go below zero, they have to pay to produce.

The only groups that can afford to do this, are one's who can use clean energy government subsidies to bid in their cost of production at below zero, and essentially pay to produce energy on the power grid.

If you think clean energy should get a preference on the powergrid for dispatching energy, that is fine, and many places in Europe do it well and reliably. However, in this case, real time energy markets are probably not the best reflection of what incentives are truly at play.

An example of this is that clean energy gets an unfair advanatage in that it's weaknesses are not exposed. It is good to provide an economic incentive for the generators to need to perform better.

An example of this is wind plants in NY. They get energy subsidies for producing power, but not necessarily producing power on the power grid. So they can create energy, and never supply anyone with it, and get subsidies per MW for this. You might think the best way for them to double their income by

1. getting subsidies and

2. actually getting paid back the real time energy price on the power grid

would be by supplying power when it's needed by buying batteries and putting that energy they create (when the wind is blowing at night for example, when noones needs it) into the power grid when demand is high, at maybe 5pm on a hot summer day when everyone has their ac cranking, but it turns out that costs money? And they are already getting free money. Some power plants are starting to do that, but they could have easily done that a decade ago.

I believe we should have clean energy, and do what it takes to get there, that's why I specialized in Electric Power, but I think the way it's currently set up in the real time markets creates some preverse incentives that hinders optimisation in the field.

While clean energy is nice (solar panels, wind turbines) they could use alot of improvement on their efficiency and integrate batteries into their substation design. Many do not because it is too profitable as it is.

It's also important to note the people getting paid these subsidies are venture capitol firms funding these clean energy substations. They are not green tree hugging people, and most of the companies have an incredibly diverse portfolio that does not reflect a loyal dedication to clean energy cause. The profits they receive from these government funding go back to VC firms to be reallocated to...well.. whatever they see fit and many times it has very little to do with powergrid stuff at all, much less clean energy. This is free money for venture capitalists...think about that.

It's a very interesting market because people's idea of ethics and moral rightness are able to blind some very basic abuses in the system that degrade the performance, reliability and overall amount of clean energy produced on the power grid.