If you want to be pedantic, hail falling on solar panels isn't free and happens sometimes. But adding up these kinds of cost requires a large dose of pedantry, because the costs are so small compared to the cost of operating devices that have moving parts.

(Pedantry is fun, of course. I love it.)

▲

_aavaa_ 7 months ago | parent [-]

My comment wasn't so much about being pedantic, though insurance would cover the hail and you're paying for that regardless of output amount.

I was more taking umbrage with referring to curtailed solar and wind as "waste". It isn't waste any more than the sunlight falling on a plot of land without a solar panel is waste; neither have a real marginal cost associated with them.

Unlike say the coal plant that chooses to go into negative prices rather than turn down its output.

▲

Gibbon1 7 months ago | parent [-]

Will just say a mini-mill would be happy to use otherwise unused solar to power their electric furnaces.

▲

Arnt 7 months ago | parent [-]

Uhm, doesn't that need to keep the furnaces at an even temperature? I don't know much about mini-mills specifically, but devices generally age quickly if you heat and cool them repeatedly.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. In terms of money, the LA Times is complaining that the investment in solar is close to 100% efficient, just not 100%. 0.x% of panels break every year because of hail or other random wear and tear, so if they produce saleable power 90% of the time that's an investment where 0.0x% of the money is wasted. Like, wow. I wish my biggest problem could be that small.

	▲	Gibbon1 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Electric furnaces are batch operations. Melt 10-100 tons of steel in 30 minutes, pour and reload with scrap. I believe they already chase the cheap power. But yeah oh noes efficiency isn't 100% stop everything, I wish I had such problems. What if I told you my car sits completely idle 98% of the times. Seriously I drive it for half an hour per day.