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."

41 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. In Communist Europe... by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...electricity pays you!

    Am I doing this right?

    1. Re:In Communist Europe... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Yes, you're doing this left!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:In Communist Europe... by brad3378 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder if it would be cost effective for utility companies to get into the cryptocurrency mining business? Surely it would help avoid situations like this where they actually lose money (temporarily) by adding green power to the grid.

      If they had 40 foot shipping containers filled with cryptocurrency mining computers that could be moved around by truck and plugged into the grid as needed, it might help offset costs. Obviously it would be smarter to use electric car fleets to absorb the extra capacity, but maybe this would help too?

      Even if it only helped to make bitcoin mining less cost effective in coal powered regions of the grid, it might still be worth doing.
       

      --

    3. Re:In Communist Europe... by tsqr · · Score: 2

      I wonder if it would be cost effective for utility companies to get into the cryptocurrency mining business?

      Wonder no more. This "record longest continuous negative power prices" lasted for a mind-boggling five hours. How much cryptocurrency can be mined in five hours?

    4. Re:In Communist Europe... by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

      Skipping modding this just to point out how fucking retarded trying to get into mining now is.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    5. Re:In Communist Europe... by tsqr · · Score: 2

      According to the poster who floated this idea, it's the size of a 40 foot shipping container.

    6. Re:In Communist Europe... by just+another+AC · · Score: 2

      I like your thinking here but mining turns energy into money which is sort of contra to the ideals of employing renewables in the first place.

      Whoever told you that? The goal of renewable energy (as a tech) is to have energy that won't run out (and green energy, energy that wont harm planet)

      Also they were turning energy into a debt (negative prices). So for the power company it would be better to turn it into nothing, and better again to turn it into money (that could be used for further investment)

      But for consumers it would have been great.

    7. Re:In Communist Europe... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Hey look another article thats all like HEY AMERICA YOURE NOT DOING THIS AND WE ARE, and ignores the obvious things like the north american power grid designs, the scattered population centers over a large area, and so on.

      If the population density is so low in some areas then they should have plenty of room to put up wind turbines locally

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  2. Misleading Headlines Again... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Misleading Headlines Again... by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, this really is talking about negative energy prices. The suppliers are paying people to use electricity in order to keep the grid voltage stable, since production has to match demand.

      Really this is a symptom of not having enough energy storage on the grid. They were generating so much energy that they could no longer store it, and needed to pay someone to burn the energy off.

    2. Re:Misleading Headlines Again... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The suppliers should invest in Bitcoin mining rigs.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Misleading Headlines Again... by mellon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually nuclear has the same problem. It's a fairly expensive base load, but when demand drops prices still go negative, because you still need the grid to absorb the excess. You can't just ramp up and ramp down on a dime: that's why they call it base load. Your base load should always be less than total demand.

      In fact what this news is pointing to is that the smarter we can be about using power when it's available, the more efficient we can be. Run your hot water heater and your home heater or air conditioner when prices go negative, turn it off when they go positive, keep the temperature under control but don't be stupid about it, and you need a lot less base load capacity.

    4. Re:Misleading Headlines Again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure. But then you need to pay a LOT more to turn the turbines back on when the wind eventually dies down.

    5. Re:Misleading Headlines Again... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      If this were actually the case, the utility would pay you to use electricity.
      That is actually what the "utilities" are doing.
      http://www.eex.com/

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Misleading Headlines Again... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Can they just turn off some turbines?

      Actually, no, they can't, and that's the crux of the matter. Fossil fuel or nuclear turbines take a fairly long, involved process to spin up or down. And they feathering windmills can take a while depending on the windmill type and most place have laws that they have to turn off the "dirty" power first.

    7. Re:Misleading Headlines Again... by Strider- · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually nuclear has the same problem. It's a fairly expensive base load, but when demand drops prices still go negative, because you still need the grid to absorb the excess. You can't just ramp up and ramp down on a dime: that's why they call it base load. Your base load should always be less than total demand.

      Exactly this. During the California power crisis a decade or so ago, our public utility up in British Columbia made out like bandits. During the day time, power was at a huge premium in California. So, BC Hydro would run their hydro-electric power plants flat out, as hard as possible, unsustainably draining their reservoirs. At night, they'd turn the dams off, let the water build up behind the dams again, and buy dirt cheap nuclear power from California. The reason is that the older designs used in current Nuclear power plants can't reliably ramp up or down to meet real daytime/nighttime peaking.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    8. Re:Misleading Headlines Again... by mellon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your utility made out like bandits because Enron came up with a scheme to banksterize the power grid, not because there was an actual problem.

  3. Re:subsidy by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. useful dumpload needed by LeadGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When there is a surplus of renewable power in search of a load, perhaps plants should be brought on-line that draw in atmospheric carbon dioxide and split it into solid carbon and oxygen. The carbon could then be sequestered by burying into empty coal mines. Maybe someday we'll refill all coal mines with atmospheric (really oceanic) carbon and vow never to do that again.

    My $0.02 anyway...

    1. Re:useful dumpload needed by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Better yet, have "plants" brought online to do something useful, like pump that energy into batteries, pump water high up a hill, pump gas into high pressure chambers, pull trains up hills, etc, so that the energy can be used later when the pendulum swings the other way.

    2. Re:useful dumpload needed by martinX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If one of the tenets of preventing global warming is to reduce use of CO2-producing fuels, then using excess wind capacity to generate stored power to use later instead of using CO2-producing fuels would seem useful.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    3. Re:useful dumpload needed by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not when it can be done more efficiently, no. Storing electricity in pumped storage/batteries is ~90% efficient. Carbon sequestering systems, combined with carbon burning production is substantially less efficient than that.

    4. Re:useful dumpload needed by plague911 · · Score: 2

      Both of you may be correct. But both of you are using a poor decision making process. The answer is you would need to do a formal analysis to prove which would be the most efficient method to counter global warming. Both are viable options without definitive data to show the true winner.

  5. Negative pricing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  6. Cute solution to a similar problem by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Small Scottish isle with its own power grid, which often has the same problem of excess generation:

    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.”

  7. Explanation by b0bby · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Explanation by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      And just how much time does it take to feather a wind mill? Surely that should be nearly instantaneous, like an airplane propeller? Or do they have to send out a technician to climb up and turn a big wheel to feather the vanes?

    2. Re:Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depending on make and model it takes seconds to minutes. Modern wind plants can be turned off or down to a set percentage or to a set ceiling almost instantaneously.
      The energy price turning negative "enough" causes this to be set in motion, albeit not completely automatically (somebody usually decides looking at day-ahead market prices for which quarter-hours a specific turbine should be turned off or throttled). It could be automated, but right now there is really no need to and it might make the system more unpredictable depending on how many actors there are in the market.

      In any case, wind power plants don't usually get turned off if the price is just slightly negative or zero since turning them off can have other costs; in Germany, for instance, wind power plant operators are entitled to be compensated a set price per kWh produced; whenever their plant gets turned off they still get compensated for the energy they could have produced. The paperwork of compensation for these events (when the grid operator or pool operator turns off the plant) has a cost, and as such actors look at whether or not they are better off letting the turbine run or turning it off.

      The weird thing is that wind and solar and other renewables are the power generators that tend to get turned off first; coal and nuclear cannot be turned off or throttled nearly as fast and have considerable cost ramping up again (both in fuel expenditure and equipment churn); they are also often sold at a set price months to weeks in advance, so they don't get affected by so-called negative energy prices; really, negative energy prices only happen in day-ahead and intra-day markets, which coal and nuclear almost never get sold in; in a case of surplus power, these fossil fuel-based power generators rarely if ever get turned off or down. That sucks, really.

      Energy price in intraday and day-ahead markets is the knob being used to equalize supply and demand on the grid. It works reasonably well but has some interesting artifacts.

      More, better, and cheaper storage would fit into this model as well and even be compensated by it -- store energy in times prices are low or negative, and pump it back on the grid when the price recovers. Unfortunately there aren't really that many feasible and affordable energy storage options.

    3. Re:Explanation by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny

      And just how much time does it take to feather a wind mill? Surely that should be nearly instantaneous, like an airplane propeller? Or do they have to send out a technician to climb up and turn a big wheel to feather the vanes?

      They have to send a guy in a red shirt up an access tube so that he can reverse the polarity. There are usually plenty of sparks involved.

  8. Minor nit by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!
  9. Re:subsidy by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  10. We Need to Add Capacitance to the Grid by vell0cet · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. Re:Storage by Tailhook · · Score: 2

    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!
  12. discourse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    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.
  13. Re:Storage by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.
  14. We pay for the electricity network and taxes! by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  15. Re:subsidy by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    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.
  16. Re:subsidy by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  17. Re:subsidy by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  18. Re:subsidy by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  19. Re:subsidy by OneAhead · · Score: 2

    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"...