> There’s pretty much no way for them[renewables] to lose money if they’re connected to the grid, especially because many get outside incentives for every megawatt-hour they generate. They even submit negative bids in some cases, meaning they’re willing to pay money to stay connected to the grid.

The negative price reflects their incentive, not their willingness to pay.

If I am guaranteed $18 a MW/h for my solar farm, then I will bid -$18 (or maybe slightly less to account for costs). The state, or federal government will ensure I am paid at least $18.

Without these incentives we would not see negative prices, zero perhaps, but not negative.

For instance the IRA offers upto $33.00/MWh incentives.[1]

This is a problem if you have a power plant that must run - such as a nuke. You may end up paying that negative price, unless the market offers you some sort of make whole payment. But where does that come from?

[1]https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/inflation-reduction-act-ta...

Yes, this is a valid complaint from nuclear supporters. A better scheme would be a charge on CO2 emission, not a subsidy on renewable production, but that's politically unacceptable. Failing that, a subsidy on the capital cost of renewable installations (which nuclear fans are also asking for for nuclear, for example by loan guarantees.)