[silverlyra]

now I am wondering about the net social benefit of solar power disincentivizing third-shift (overnight) production. cheaper electricity during the day makes it relatively more expensive to operate heavy industry plants 24/7.

the heavy investment that goes into those plants incentives operators to drive (and staff) them 24/7, but there are hidden social costs (negative externalities) of having so many people out of diurnal rhythm. maybe massive solar power buildout, with sharply cheaper daytime electricity, would relieve people from working “graveyard shifts” – and maybe that’d be a good thing

[zdragnar]

I worked a graveyard shift at a factory in college one summer because it was the only job that I could really find after weeks of looking. I definitely feel for the people who did it for a living.

That said, the companies aren't going to just stop, they'll just charge higher prices. To stop producing in the third shift, they'll need to:

    - add more daytime production lines, which means buying more floor space, possibly in a different location with new logistics to work out

    - new capex for the new lines

    - higher overhead because your newly expanded production lines are idle 30% of the time

    - higher overhead from daily startup and shutdown times

This is all for companies where it is feasible to do so. Some plants measure startup and shutdown in hours, if not days. Doing a full cycle every day would mean redesigning their entire operation, if it is even possible to do so at all.

Even places like hospitals don't exactly get to choose to just turn off all the life support and lights at night.

[ETH_start]

24/7 might make transportation infrastructure utilization more efficient. Less congestion during rush hour for example.