Slashdot Mirror
It's Been So Windy in Europe That Electricity Prices Have Turned Negative (vice.com)
An anonymous reader writes: It's been very windy across Europe this week. So much so, in fact, that the high wind load on onshore and offshore wind turbines across much of the continent has helped set new wind power records. For starters, renewables generated more than half of Britain's energy demand on Wednesday -- for the first time ever. In fact, with offshore wind supplying 10 percent of the total demand, energy prices were knocked into the negative for the longest period on record. The UK is home to the world's biggest wind farm, and the largest wind turbines, so it's no surprise that this was an important factor in the country's energy mix. "Negative prices aren't frequently observed," Joel Meggelaars, who works at renewable energy trade body WindEurope, told Motherboard over the phone. "It means a high supply and low demand."
...electricity pays you!
Am I doing this right?
Negative prices for energy are a pure fiction. If this were actually the case, the utility would pay you to use electricity. The reality here is that there are government subsidies or other government interference that is artificially distorting the market and that offset, minus the reduction in cost due to a glut in supply, may have netted a negative price for electricity temporarily. But all those wind turbines and other "green" systems are not free, thus if you have:
Some cost for green systems/total energy developed from those systems = positive cost per unit energy
That cost has to be paid by someone.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
It's not about subsidy, it's about keeping the grid voltage constant.
You're paying people for the service of using up energy, and keeping the grid stable. Negative electricity prices are really a symptom of not having enough storage capacity on the grid.
My $0.02 anyway...
This reminds me of the time I went to buy cinder blocks at Home Depot. The guy told me the more I bought, the cheaper they are. So I told him to load them up on my trailer until they're free.
#DeleteFacebook
Then there are days, usually in winter, when the island has the opposite problem: it creates more energy than it can use or store. Just as Eigg Electric has to manage its deficiencies itself, it has to manage its surpluses. Fortunately, it has a system for that too: when there is a surplus of power, electric heaters in the community hall, pier lobby and two churches automatically turn on. This keeps these shared spaces warm all through the winter and requires “virtually no central heating in the system at all,” says Booth. “We don’t charge for it because the whole community benefits.”
Before too many people jump in blaming this on subsidies, they should read this:
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
My understanding is that basically if you have energy sources which can't be quickly or cheaply shut down, and supply exceeds demand, the price can turn negative so that the grid can dump the excess power.
Slight correction, but the UK isn't home to the world's largest windfarm - that's actually Gansu in China - but it is home to no less than six of the world's largest off-shore farms, including the largest of those, The London Array.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
But if prices are negative, why don't they just feather the wind mills? No point in producing energy and paying for it, might as well shut them down if there's too much supply and too little demand.
Everybody knows everyone is using coal but the US because of the Paris treaty.
turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy
so only took them years to get this effect for a minor limited time ..how long will wind farms spin to pay back £1.2billion lol
But think of the 200% profits once the wind mills start turning in the opposite direction!
#DeleteFacebook
But if prices are negative, why don't they just feather the wind mills? No point in producing energy and paying for it, might as well shut them down if there's too much supply and too little demand.
EU and German law requires wind and solar to take priority over all other sources, so that last thing you are allowed to curtail is wind. Wind is only 15% total annual generation in Germany, if they want much higher penetration, they will need to curtail wind a lot more, which will make the cost of wind rise.
How many birds were harmed in the making of this energy and did the producers of this clean energy face the same kinds of fines an oil or coal company would have for killing the same amount of wildlife? That would certainly offset any negative energy prices.
If only the electrical grid had some capacitance. I feel like Tesla's power wall is a really good way to start that. Not storage on the grid, but a good start.
time to mine bitcoin free power makes it good for profit
Is storage not an option?
No. It's crazy expensive whichever method you advocate, and there are many. This is why traditional base load power systems match supply with demand. There has always been an incentive to store because it would greatly simplify many difficult problems. If it were feasible it would have been done long ago.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
This is written up as if it's a great thing but in reality this is a symptom of the problematic non-load tracking nature of wind and solar. Adding more storage is a bandaid. Bandages tend to work, but the underlying issue remains.
Because the electricity providers typically have deals with large users of electricity (like aluminium smelters for example) that give them preferential rates, but require them to use electricity exactly when the generators want them to.
"The trees are really sneezing today" - Calvin
Electricity prices have gone negative?
Not to worry, once they switch to "clean coal" that'll all be fixed.
In fact, maybe they could just run the wind turbines on coal and then there will be plenty of jobs for every coal miner in Europe!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Storage is generally difficult on a large scale -- batteries are expensive. One of the most effective means of storage is simply to pump water up a hill -- very efficient, but I think it's only economical if you have the right geography. I believe this works great in parts of Scandinavia, in the alps, etc.
It might be nice for future smart grid appliances (dare I say IoT...) to be able to take cues from power generation to burn a little extra juice (run the water heater, cool the fridge/freezer, turn off the gas heating and turn on electric heating if applicable, etc.).
Smart grid is one approach; lends itself to local thermal storage, car charging, running the washer/dryer/dishwasher, etc. Usually it only happens late at night, so when loads are queued up the prices remain a little more stable even if discounted.
Only on Slashdot will you find people who will tell you that renewable energy is a far-fetched fantasy, but ubiquitous driverless cars are just around the corner. Oh, and we're totally going to Mars.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Traditional base load" does not match supply with demand.
It constantly produces around 95% of its max capacity. Hence the name: base load.
That is the minimum amount of power your grid will always consume. So you build plants that can be run close to 100% 24/7 all years long. Hence the name: base load.
But now we have so much renewables, that they produce more power than the base load plants.
You are mixing up 'base laod' with either 'load following', 'balancing power' or 'reserve power' or with all three of them.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Not the actual electricity itself. The Electricity has been rock bottom cheap here in Sweden for YEARS now.
But the EL-companys lobbyists have successfully lobbied away the roof on network/electricity transportation fee's, so there is no longer any roof on that.
This means the EL-Companies are working together to charge SKY high prices for transportation of the electricity, it's technically a fee they take to repair and maintain the network, but it's also an obligatory fee to be connected to them, it's insanely high, and they just yet again warned us of much higher prices.
In fact, our network prices are so crazy high that we pay roughly 40 cents per KWH just for transportation AND taxes on transportation. Yes, that's nearly half a dollar per KWH!
So all the sensationalist BS about negative EL-prices is just headline clickbait, it has no real life implication for any citizen.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Actually it is not the voltage but the frequency (which are coupled ofc.).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I think it's only economical if you have the right geography.
Well, when you have surplus power, you spend it on bulldozers to make a really tall hill. Eventually, you have a mountain to lift water up to.
Not really. It's nothing to do with keeping grid voltage constant - voltage is a local phenomenon in the grid and is a reflection of current vector flows through the complex impedance, such that you don't need power plants to raise or lower the voltage, but instead, this is done by capacitors/inductors/variable phase shift transformers and variable ratio transformers.
Negative energy prices are a symptom of having too many power plants with no incentive to reduce output in an oversupply condition.
There are many reasons why a plant may not wish to reduce power:
- a thermal plant may already be operating at close to its minimum rated power, and may require the operator to waste steam to reduce electricity output, because the plant cannot sustain a lower steam production (in such a condition, there is a loss of revenue, but no reduction in fuel costs, so is undesirable - unless prices turn negative at which point steam waste may be judged appropriate).
- Renewable and nuclear generators which have zero, or near zero, marginal operating costs are reluctant to reduce output as it reduces revenue, without a saving in fuel costs
- Subsidised power generators (which in the UK model sell the power to the govt at a fixed price, and the govt then sells it on the open market) do not have to respond to market forces, so have no incentive to reduce power output, even in the event of negative prices.
- Some plants, such as the old UK nuclear plants, are limited by fatigue life, and therefore must avoid temperature and load changes, except for plant operational reasons, and therefore are reluctant to reduce load, even in the event of negative prices.
- Renewable electricity is legally required to hold a "privileged" position in the energy market, such that it must not be curtailed if any other source can be curtailed first. In the event that for technical reasons, renewable energy must be curtailed (e.g. very high local wind conditions resulting in local grid overload), the compensation that must be paid to the wind generators is very high (up to 10x the value of the subsidies curtailed).
So, this is the problem isn't it? Certain renewables "spiky" and without some sort of energy storage, the energy is effectively wasted. Lots of people like to say that excess energy can be stored in batteries, but really, those batteries are a pretty non-sustainable solution themselves.
This is why power companies just need to start using excess energy to split water and either store the hydrogen for use in a HFC power plant as needed or sell it for use in HFC vehicles.
It's so easy, Cal State LA is doing it and selling the hydrogen at the pump.
Mostly correct. This is old news in the PNW. A few corrections: - Spill almost never happens over the top of dams, they have spillways for this. - Forced spill due to negative prices (called lack of market spill) is the last thing to happen when prices are negative, because of the water quality issues you describe. Wind gets cut before any spill happens. - The Bonneville Power Administration (biggest energy wholesaler in the PNW) does not pay negative prices.
Isn't this this perfect scenario for using distributed computing, things like SETI@Home or Rosetta@Home etc., and having software in place to automatically launch this distributed computing on peoples home computers, in order to eat up all of that negative-price electricity? Through doing this, the kwh used in the computing can be calculated (relatively easy to approximate with modern processors - the completed work can be used as verification that the energy was used this way), and subtracted from the participants power bills (plus a bonus relief to the customer, for any error margin and as thanks for participating) - so that it's at no extra cost for the customer, and only the most marginal cost for government.
Make more wind!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Doesn't quite work that way. There is no such thing as an oversupply on an electric grid. Just because you have a wall wart that can supply 2000mA doesn't mean it will blow up your cell phone that only needs 500mA.
These are point prices on the energy market and works much like stock and futures markets. It's not like they go knocking at people's door to beg them to use energy, the end user still pays an exorbitant amount ($1+) per kWh at the end of the month. This is just a temporary swing in the futures of "supply cost" which is a very small chunk of the final cost, usage taxes, green buildout taxes, regulatory cost, network maintenance and energy transport costs make up the majority of the bill.
The reason for this is indeed subsidies, which you pay for in taxes. So the state subsidizes "green" power, but you can't just turn off your nuclear and other plants, that would be both dangerous and take days to recover. So you keep supplying power and as always, the only option is to turn off flexible generators (solar and wind), the problem is that you now have a bunch of money the government gives you per kWh the green energy plant "generates" but there is no demand and you can't legally keep/collect the money, so now the people that have paid for the futures of the green energy plant get paid back based on how much the plant would've generated if it were running.
So the end users are paying speculators through taxes levied on their energy bills for the energy that doesn't end up being generated.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Either direction is fine.
Those big windmills are there to combat global warming.
They are cooling fans.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
They could build a wind wall and make Mexico pay for it ...
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This is a perfect incentive for companies to install storage, to fill up during low and negative price times and sell back during high price times. Money to be made people.
$1/kWh?! That's seven times typical midwest US rates. Shudder to think of summer A/C bills...
Thanks for making it so windy so we can run our cheap wind turbines.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
When electricity prices go negative it would be a good time to produce hydrogen fuel thru electrolysis. It could be used to for clean trucking and further reduce greenhouse gasses. .
Air con is hardly ever used in this part of the world in homes. I'm at 51deg North and I'm S.W. of London. We just don't get the sort of temperatures that many parts of the USA get in summer.
51Deg North is farther north than Toronto btw.
My Electricity bill for the past 3 months was £40.00 and £3.00 for Gas.
If I want to cool the house, I just open a few windows. The cross draught keeps it cool.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
the end user still pays an exorbitant amount ($1+) per kWh at the end of the month.
I know the dollar isn't worth much these days, but are these actual prices for energy in the US or maybe anywhere in Europe? I pay € 0,18 per kWh for my electricity and I was under the impression it is not more than € 0,25 over large parts of Europe.
$1/kWh?! That's seven times typical midwest US rates. Shudder to think of summer A/C bills...
There are probably about 3 people in the whole of the UK who have summer A/C bills. A/C here is about as useful as a raincoat in the Sahara.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
not on my monthly bill...
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
the end user still pays an exorbitant amount ($1+) per kWh at the end of the month.
I know the dollar isn't worth much these days, but are these actual prices for energy in the US or maybe anywhere in Europe? I pay € 0,18 per kWh for my electricity and I was under the impression it is not more than € 0,25 over large parts of Europe.
Yes, "$1+ per kWh" seems fake. I'm paying €0.25 per kWh (in Germany) and that's with a supplier that delivers 100% renewable (wind, water, solar) power. All in all I pay about €30 a month for electricity.
I seem to remember reading about compressed air for energy storage. I wonder if we couldn't re purpose old mines for storing compressed air. If nothing else we could use manufactured pressure vessels. Although I imagine making tanks large enough to hold significant amounts of energy would be very expensive.
If I want to cool the house, I just open a few windows. The cross draught keeps it cool.
I do that in Florida, too. After the sun cooks the house to 110 degrees (43C), opening windows lets a balmy 93-degree breeze through at 90-percent humidity. And the window screens keep most of the armada of mosquitoes out.
But so much for October. During July-August, I seal everything hermetically and turn on the A/C.
I really ought to put a windmill next to the dial on the electric meter, though. Recover some of the energy from when it spins around.
Reservoirs flood a lot of land. People, plants and animals live on land. Anyone caring about the environment (which should be all of us) shouldn't be so quick to dismiss efforts to appraise constructions.
But if prices are negative, why don't they just feather the wind mills? No point in producing energy and paying for it, might as well shut them down if there's too much supply and too little demand.
Usually (always?) there are government subsidies in one form or another. The distribution companies may be required by law to accept all wind energy (and pay for it) in which case they are going to end up paying someone to take it off their hands or risk grid instability.
You are required by law to screw the nuke operators at every opportunity. it's not a subsidy.
If the distribution companies are required to buy wind power at the expense of nuclear power, then it *is* a subsidy.
One of the arguments used to advocate for wind and solar power is that they will make nuclear power less economical by reducing its capacity factor.
Granted, with a five-hour power surplus, you'll never break even on the cost and time for warming up your smelting plant, but if these periods of electricity surplus become longer, smelting alumin i um becomes a lot more investment-worthy than mining bitcoin.
At least, I'm having a hard time to imagine a future world that can make better use of bitcoin than aluminium...
And the blades of the windmill go "whoosh whoosh whoosh"
whoosh whoosh whoosh
whoosh whoosh whoosh
and the blades of the windmill go "whoosh whoosh whoosh"...
...all overhead.
Mod me redundant if you will - it was all worth it :)
not in Europe, but I can assure you that in "certain countries", electricity can be more than $1/kWh.
Think "Tiny island country, middle of Pacific Ocean with ancient big diesel generator in the hills behind the main town"
In many of these countries the local power company has total a monopoly over power generation and you not only need an (expensive) license to put up solar panels on your own house, but if you grid connect them, you'll be stung for extra fees.
The telco has a total monopoly on Internet as well as dialtone, as well as handling all the radio licensing in the country (used to be the post office) and running your own satellite link is (now) legal, but expect the licensing fee to be three times as much as buying the same (vastly oversubscribed) from the Telco which charges extortionate rates ($200/month for 2Mb/s, etc). No, you can't offset the charges by selling to your neighbours, that would be a breach of the monopoly.
"The distribution companies may be required by law to accept all wind energy (and pay for it) in which case they are going to end up paying someone to take it off their hands or risk grid instability."
And on the flipside, when the wind stops blowing, the distribution companies will use rolling blackouts rather than fire up an OCGT plant if there's any risk of it being online for less than 12 hours. (This is happening in South Australia regularly)
"- Renewable and nuclear generators which have zero, or near zero, marginal operating costs are reluctant to reduce output as it reduces revenue, without a saving in fuel costs"
I'm glad you mentioned fatigue issues on nuke plants (which are avoidable by making sure you keep things hot), but a bigger issue is that when you turn a nuke plant down substantially there's a period where Xenon-131 poisoning means you can't turn it back up again safely(*)(**)(***)
(*) During normal operation Xenon-131 is held in equilibrium inside the fuel rods. It will break down after a few hours when you turn the power down.
(**) You don't want to do this too much though, as the pressure from the generated gas is what reduces the ceramic pellets inside the fuel rods to ceramic powder after a while. Turning a system down should be done slowly if at all possible.
(***) Depends on the design but this holds true with all fuel-rod or pebblebed plants(****). You _can_ turn the power up quickly, but there's a very real risk of major overshoot and prompt criticality, which is a "VERY VERY bad thing" because your 400MW plant may go from making 200MW to making 20GW for a few seconds and boil its water (It was a steam explosion from prompt criticality which blew the roof off at Chernobyl when the operators tried to turn it up quickly after running their unauthorised experiments)
(****) Molten Salt Fuel reactors are immune to this as the xenon can come out in the sparge space, but there haven't been any of those operating since 1968 and won't be any until the planned chinese experimental one comes online in late 2018 or thereabouts (the 2017 one is a molten salt cooled pebblebed design)
"This is a perfect incentive for companies to install storage"
Europe has a number of pumped hydro storage systems. Rest assured that when this kind of event happens they're running flat out pushing water uphill, but can only do it until they're full.
The bigger problem is that windpower is highly unpredictable, backing systems can only go "so low" and powercos are not allowed to disconnect "renewables" sources.
(It's also worth noting that UK Wind and Solar is tiny compared to the "renewables" output of stations like Drax, which burns clearfelled+chipped virgin canadian and louisianan forests instead of coal. Greenwash is the order of the day)
Yes, indeed. You make a number of valid points.
My comment was directed specifically at the UK AGRs. These control output by the effect of fuel temperature on doppler broadening of the U238 resonance. To reduce power, the speed of the core coolant circulators is reduced. The resultant rise in core temperature results in a loss of core reactivity and a drop in reactor power. A control loop then controls the steam valves to the turbine to bring steam outlet temperature back to set point. After power has changed, rod control can be used to restore core outlet temperature.
The problem with the AGR design is that the RPV is inaccessible except through the rod ports and a limited number of inspection ports. This makes repair or replacement of moderator elements and structural elements impossible, and this also includes the steam generators which are integral to the RPV. For example, Heysham 1 reactor 1 suffered a fatigue weld failure on a steam generator support. Due to lack of accessibility, this failure is irreparable, and consequently, the steam generator had to be plugged, although the plant is now running on the remaining 7 steam generators. The operating regime of this plant, and 3 other plants using a similar steam generator design have also had to be tightened with stricter control of core temperatures, to prevent similar failures on the 31 remaining steam generators.