Comment by stdbrouw
3 years ago
Again, that's not what the article is about. If more wind power gets built in Scotland to serve needs in England, then increasingly more of that output will have to be curtailed because we simply can't move the energy to where it needs to be, to the point where the only thing adding more wind farms would do is to provide a tad bit more energy when there's hardly any wind to distribute. In all other scenarios, having more capacity will not translate into not burning gas!
The article describes an entirely different problem than "oh no, it's very windy/sunny and we don't know how to use all of this energy" which is not solved with better distribution, but with storage and demand regulation.
And actually, the article is in complete agreement with you that we needn't be overly worried: curtailment isn't the end of the world, but we can solve it and it turns out that some of those solutions are cheaper than just building more farms, or would incentivize building those farms closer to where the energy is needed.
The article leaves an impression that curtailment is a problem that is costing us money. See most other comments here as evidence of that.
I'm explicitly calling for more curtailment, because it isn't a problem and doesn't need to be solved.
Burning fossil fuels is a problem to be solved. High electricity prices are a problem to be solved.
Both of those problems can be solved by building more wind power, which almost inevitably increases the amount of wind curtailed.
To repeat, curtailment is not a problem and does not need to be solved. It's a normal part of running a renewable grid. Any low cost renewable plan will have some predicted degree of curtailment, because it's the cheapest way to meet our energy needs.
See:
"Reframing Curtailment: Why Too Much of a Good Thing Is Still a Good Thing"
https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/reframing-curtailment...
> Video Explains How Having More than Enough Renewable Energy Capacity Can Make the Grid More Flexible
> The article leaves an impression that curtailment is a problem that is costing us money.
That’s because curtailment does cost us money. Someone’s paying those wind operators to turn off the farms. We literally pay money to wind farms to explicitly make them produce nothing.
How do you reconcile these two statements?
> High electricity prices are a problem to be solved.
> I'm explicitly calling for more curtailment, because it isn't a problem and doesn't need to be solved.
Curtailment cost money, you still need pay the wind operators to the energy you told them not to produce, plus pay someone else to produce the energy that’s now not being produced by wind. That cost ultimately ends driving up the price of electricity.
You want to reduce the cost of electricity, a good start would be not paying people for electricity that can’t be used.
> Both of those problems can be solved by building more wind power, which almost inevitably increases the amount of wind curtailed.
Only if you can transport the energy. Otherwise you’re just building turbines that can’t be used, and paying for the privilege of not using them.
> Curtailment cost money, you still need pay the wind operators to the energy you told them not to produce
Why? What are the real costs? Isn't it just a simple disconnect switch? Why do the wind operators get paid for not delivering power? Is it a contractual issue?
14 replies →
The video you link is about that second scenario: intermittent high availability of renewable resources that can't be used, which is fine for the very same reason that when you're putting solar panels on your own roof you design for what you think it'll net on average, or even what you want to get out of it in fall winter and spring, not for peak power at noon on a cloudless summer day, which would be irrelevant and to call that "oversizing" would be something of a misnomer, it's well thought out dimensioning and hooray for curtailment!
The original article is about just being able to move any amount of energy whatsoever to where it is needed. If you don't improve distribution then you hit the saturation point much faster and more often than in an intermittent peak power scenario. Seeing that the original article links to multiple pages by the energy regulator/distributor about this very issue should maybe give us a hint that they, the actual experts, do think this is important enough to merit attention?
I upvoted your original post when you said that "it is hard for people to have constructive conversations about" negative prices and curtailing, but I'm starting to wonder whether you may be the common factor in some of those unconstructive conversations you've had in the past :-) Respectfully, it's not helpful to contribute to the discussion with a robotic pattern matched "curtailment is great actually!" whenever the topic is mentioned, without engaging with the arguments that are put forth.
The video specifically mentions transmission congestion as an example of "lack of system flexibility" as one of several non-oversupply reason to curtail.
Timestamp: 1 minute 5 seconds.
If the NREL is specifically making videos to dispel unhelpful myths about a topic then it's worth at least watching their short video before continuing to spreading those very same unhelpful myths.
2 replies →
How would building 100 times as much wind power in Scotland reduce gas usage in England/wales without building more north/south interconnects?
The connection isn't saturated all the time. Total curtailment is only 6%.
The graph of the day they screenshot shows the curtailment stops as soon as people wake up and start using electricity. On many days there is no curtailment.
And... You can build wind in other places, like the offshore wind near Dogger Bank they show on the map and then forget about.
Curtailment of wind wouldn't be a problem if it's just because too much wind, but that's not the case, there isn't enough transmission, and we are having to use gas, that is a problem
But by framing it as a problem of 'curtailment', it looks like a problem which gets worse and worse, the more oversupply of wind capacity that we have. In actual fact, this does not make any sense.
Building additional wind generation can never be more wasteful than the costs of its construction. If it were free, it would make sense to vastly overbuild.
1 reply →
> To repeat, curtailment is not a problem and does not need to be solved.
Agree 95%. The only valid question involving curtailment is how much must occur at each individual turbine or farm to make it a bad investment.
Curtailment is never a bad investment. If anything it’s fantastic for wind investors. Someone is paying you twice for not using your assets.
You get all the revenue, and have zero wear and tear on your equipment. In an extreme scenario you could even be paid for not turning on non-functional equipment. What a fantastic deal.
4 replies →