We do not yet have effective and economical means of storing energy in grid scale quantities that are readily deployable near where that power is consumed.
It's a huge problem actually, the biggest one facing renewables like solar.
This is the entire reason why countries like China are investing hard into ultra-high-voltage transmission lines.
While regions like Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia have immense wind and solar potential, getting that electricity to the population centers is challenging.
Selling electricity to Eastern Europe, to Northern Africa, hell even to the Middle East is an option if Europe is truly operating an electricity surplus.
Power being priced negative is awesome. We need more of it imo, make energy so abundant that it makes processes that were previously too energy-intensive viable, and enables a massive increase in both residential and grid storage capacity.
My opinion is that Na-ion batteries are the way for bulk grid storage and apartment/home storage nya.
They use hyper abundant materials and are now reaching the point of decent endurance, and if you arent bothered by them being heavy (as is the case for grid and residential storage), they're fairly comparable to Li-Ion without the usage of relatively rare Lithium.
The problem with energy storage isn't a lack of incentives, it's a lack of solutions. There are currently no proven, grid scale, economical, and robust energy storage solutions.
There are lots of storage solutions that work within limited geographical areas (ie. Pumped hydro). But past that it's a crap shoot.
Batteries are absolutely nowhere near the capacity or longevity needed for grid scale storage.
The largest battery storage system in the world is primarily used for grid leveling and emergency power. And would be depleted in minutes under its maximum load.
It gets even more absurd. The southern states blocked building large power lines to transport cheap wind energy south. Now they struggle because the chea renewable energy cannot go there. So while there is plenty of renewables in the north the south still runs coal plants to provide local energy. But then the people in the north have to pay for "network fees" because the South couldnt take their energy.
Because of this it was suggested to split the German energy market in two, where the south which fought against renewables would have to pay the actual electricity costs instead of leeching of the North that properly build up renewables. This was fought teeth and nails because the South of Germany is like Texas but with an even worse superiority complex.
Fuck that title. No such thing as too many solar panels. The only thing that is bad is how the energy is used or if it's wasted. Free energy should mean algae production which would mean carbon negativity. Negative energy price should mean negative carbon emissions, get on it.
My guess is that in a climate like Germany's, solar isn't consistent enough to provide the steady baseline power that coal plants can.
One of the complexities of power infrastructure is that demand must be met instantaneously and exactly. Coal and solar typically occupy different roles in a grid's power sources. Coal plants are slow to start, but very consistent, so they provide baseline power. Solar is virtually instantaneous, but inconsistent, so it's better suited to handle the daily fluctuations.
So, in a place like Germany, even in abundance, solar can't realistically replace coal until we have a good way of storing power to act as a buffer. Of course, nuclear is a fantastic replacement for coal, but we all know how Germany's politicians feel about it...
We also know building nuclear takes 20 years and costs more than building thrice the capacity in renewables + Germany has no long-term nuclear storage, only temporary one's a la Simpsons.
You are correct that when you build one new plant every 25 years it takes a long time to spool the industry, the skills, the testing and the manufacturing capability up to build new nuclear.
In countries that regularly build new nuclear it takes 5 years, comparable to any other power source. When France when through their mass-conversion to nuclear in the 70s (following the oil crisis), they put 2-3 new nuclear plants into operation every year.
All new western nuclear is in “production hell”. We don’t build them often enough to retain the skill set or for industry to dare invest. So they become massive state-run enterprises.
If we were serious on solving our climate crisis we would build nuclear power plans en masse.
