this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)
Economy
1021 readers
115 users here now
Lemmy Community for economy, business, politics, stocks, bonds, product releases, IPOs, advice, news, investment, videos, predictions, government, money, politics, debate, current trends and more.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is one of the big problems with renewables. We need to over supply, to cope with variability. We also don't yet have the storage capacity to buffer it.
When the price goes negative, it's bad. It means that more power is entering the grid that is being used. This will destabilise the grid and cause a shutdown. Negative prices are basically a desperate attempt to get anyone to burn off the excess.
The solution is more storage either short term (batteries etc) or long term (hydrogen, or desalination).
There is no problem with instability. Solar can be instantaneously shut off with no ill effects. This is purely an economic "problem."
In principle it can be. The question is whether it's configured to allow for that.
The economic problem is a symptom of a grid stability problem.
Every system operator where renewable saturation is even remotely possible requires it for all large plants. It's a technically trivial problem that has no impact on grid stability.
There are no electrical connections to the grid without a shut off. Every wire is required to have a rated shut off at the most basic level.
Ok, so how do the grid controllers access that? How do you decide fairly which sites to turn off?
It depends on the supplier contract that has to be filed with RTE before you're allowed to connect and transmit power.