5 ms·

> Negative grid prices are the consequences of power plants which cannot shut down in times of oversupply, that is mainly coal and nuclear. Riddle me this, the

> Negative grid prices are the consequences of power plants which cannot shut down in times of oversupply, that is mainly coal and nuclear. Riddle me this, then: Why did negative energy prices emerge along with renewables[1]? The problem isn't coal/nuclear, because the variance in demand is far lower than the variance in output of renewables. Furthermore, both coal and nuclear plants can be adjusted to react to seasonal variance. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-negative https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-...

Gibbon1 7y ago
The reason is shows up with renewables is that the marginal cost of production for renewables is zero. And nuclear and coal plants have high shutdown/startup costs. One of these is a negative the other is not.
- whalebird 7y ago
  The marginal cost of renewables isn't zero, producing it causes more wear and tear than not producing it. Furthermore, if you pay negative prices as a result of a renewable surge, that might as well be considered into the marginal cost. Even if the marginal cost was zero, you gave coal/nuclear as the cause for negative energy prices, even though they didn't exist before renewables came into the picture. You may claim that the situation is better with the renewables in the mix, but you can't claim that renewables aren't the ultimate cause of negative prices in this case. Similarly, you may claim that coal/nuclear are slow/expensive to regulate, but then must also concede that wind/solar can't be regulated up at all and couldn't provide a stable supply without e.g. natural gas, or a buffering solution that currently doesn't exist (at scale) and isn't priced into wind/solar.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > The marginal cost of renewables isn't zero Please provide a citation that renewables have a non-neglible marginal cost. > Furthermore, if you pay negative prices as a result of a renewable surge, that might as well be considered into the marginal cost. With a lot of imagination. > couldn't provide a stable supply without e.g. natural gas Alright, we'll keep those nuclear power plants that run on natural gas for now. > or a buffering solution that currently doesn't exist (at scale) We've got a way to build things that don't exist yet. It's called "engineering".
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
_ph_ 7y ago
Actually they didn't. Even before renewables, excessive energy production had to be taken care of. In Belgium, all highways got street lights to use up the excessive nuclear energy at night. In many places, electricity was promoted for heating at night.
- whalebird 7y ago
  The negative prices paid on EPEX did not exist until 2007 on the German/Austrian market[1], which clearly coincides with the green energy rollout in Germany.

Gibbon1 7y ago

The reason is shows up with renewables is that the marginal cost of production for renewables is zero. And nuclear and coal plants have high shutdown/startup costs. One of these is a negative the other is not.

whalebird 7y ago
The marginal cost of renewables isn't zero, producing it causes more wear and tear than not producing it. Furthermore, if you pay negative prices as a result of a renewable surge, that might as well be considered into the marginal cost. Even if the marginal cost was zero, you gave coal/nuclear as the cause for negative energy prices, even though they didn't exist before renewables came into the picture. You may claim that the situation is better with the renewables in the mix, but you can't claim that renewables aren't the ultimate cause of negative prices in this case. Similarly, you may claim that coal/nuclear are slow/expensive to regulate, but then must also concede that wind/solar can't be regulated up at all and couldn't provide a stable supply without e.g. natural gas, or a buffering solution that currently doesn't exist (at scale) and isn't priced into wind/solar.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > The marginal cost of renewables isn't zero Please provide a citation that renewables have a non-neglible marginal cost. > Furthermore, if you pay negative prices as a result of a renewable surge, that might as well be considered into the marginal cost. With a lot of imagination. > couldn't provide a stable supply without e.g. natural gas Alright, we'll keep those nuclear power plants that run on natural gas for now. > or a buffering solution that currently doesn't exist (at scale) We've got a way to build things that don't exist yet. It's called "engineering".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

_ph_ 7y ago

Actually they didn't. Even before renewables, excessive energy production had to be taken care of. In Belgium, all highways got street lights to use up the excessive nuclear energy at night. In many places, electricity was promoted for heating at night.

whalebird 7y ago
The negative prices paid on EPEX did not exist until 2007 on the German/Austrian market[1], which clearly coincides with the green energy rollout in Germany.