Live data from Hacker News

Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

reneweconomy.com.au

141–150 of 191 posts

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#141
post #132
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not always valuable. If you get free electricity for an hour, some days of the week, then your giant biofuel plant spends a lot of time sitting idle. It's not obvious that your mostly-idle plant is a better business than a much smaller one which runs all the time. The costs of building and maintaining the thing are real too. (Not to mention needing to design the plant to ramp up to full production in minutes…

> It's not obvious that your mostly-idle plant is a better business than a much smaller one which runs all the time. This process is usually not profitable because of the energy cost it requires. This is why I am proposing it as a way to absorb energy surplus. But I am only talking about what would happen if you got electricity at zero cost. At negative costs, even crazier things would happen. The reality, is that, t…

Could you please show the calculation of what it costs to build and maintain such a scrap metal radiator thing, and how much money you would have made with such a device over the last 12 months?

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#142

I'm not a fan of most reporting of these negative price events. First, they rarely explain why the price is negative. As the article explains, solar can switch itself off, so it's nothing physical about solar that can cause negative prices, as all solar can switch itself off before it goes negative it would bottom out at zero for those reasons. In most cases I've seen so far, contractual agreements with gas, coal or…

I agree. Negative prices make perfect sense in electricity markets, and journalism does a bad job at explaining it.

Supply and demand must always be in equilibrium in real time with electricity (forgetting storage / batteries for a second). If there is more supply than demand or vice versa, then you have instability in the grid and can have blackouts. Those electrons have to go somewhere. This is in contrast to virtually any other good where you can store the good in a warehouse and smooth it supply intertemporaly.

Thus, if there is a big drop in demand or it's simply too sunny / windy of a day, there can be too much supply.

To incentivize reducing supply quickly enough, sometimes prices have to go negative. This is in part because some supply simply cannot reduce quickly (e.g. nuclear) and are still happy to operate in zero price situations bc either they have no marginal cost of generation (solar, wind) or the cost of reducing generation and increasing it back up is high (nuclear, coal).

Thus, there simply might not be enough plants that have the characteristics where they can scale down quickly AND have a marginal cost of generation such that they would turn off when prices go to zero (e.g. combined cycle natural gas plants can turn on and off very quickly and don't want to be on when the price falls below the cost of the gas used to generate electricity, but Australia doesn't have enough of them to absorb a supply decrease as prices fall). Alternatively, the subsidies that you mention shift the break even point into negative prices territory.

Either was, negative is needed to incentivize solar and wind to turn off or else there would be a blackout from oversupply.

Thankfully, this all gets solved with energy storage and all the slow, dirty systems that stay on will be priced out by more nimble renewables and rapid energy storage. Bc then that excess supply is stored and arbitraged to higher price times (when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing). Then prices should always be positive (so long as there is available storage). If the storage is full though, prices could again go negative. Without a place to put those electrons, they quickly go from a good to an externality. It's almost like how we'll pay a musician to perform, but if your neighbor is blasting music at 3am. Without someone willing to consume and pay for those electrons, they literally are just causing trouble for all the other electrons that we do want to consume.

It in part why you can't simply just create significant generation and hook it into the grid anywhere without working with the grid operator. AC power, dude. We don't control where those electrons flow directionally. So you adding too much power somewhere can really destabilize the system.

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#143
I'll add my ideas to the others for using the excess power:

1. drill a big storage hole of some kind. Surely Australia could use a gigantic underground reservoir 2. install a plant next to the solar farm and make compressed gases from the atmosphere

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#144
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at that levels of output. With large enough machines it's "we're going to spend X to spin everything down, do maintenance checks, spin back up" vs "we're going to pay you X/2 so you take the output and we can keep going". The X may be spent on extra workers, on extra maintenance, on replacement for posts that wear out faster, etc. It's the cost of unusual operation. And once you're generating there's no great way…

This makes me wonder how do you stop generating with a solar farm that is made of PV panels. They're entirely passive, right? The light hits them and they output electricity. How do you stop them? I guess the process is somehow invertible, and once reached a certain static charge each panel stops absorbing energy? In which case you're sort of already dumping the (non)produced energy in the environment- as heat, on ea…

Photons excite electrons. If a photon doesn't have enough energy it will be reflected.

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#145

I'm not a fan of most reporting of these negative price events. First, they rarely explain why the price is negative. As the article explains, solar can switch itself off, so it's nothing physical about solar that can cause negative prices, as all solar can switch itself off before it goes negative it would bottom out at zero for those reasons. In most cases I've seen so far, contractual agreements with gas, coal or…

In South Australia (SA) there's a few market-specific reasons why floor prices (here -$1000/MWh) occur:

1. Older wind farms have PPAs (essentially a swap) that have no floor. They make the strike price regardless of the market price, so they bid at floor to ensure dispatch.

2. System strength constraints [0] usually limit the amount of wind and solar in SA when there is a lot of intermittent generation (SA is never 100% wind and solar because of this). Because of the way constraints are implemented, these generators are incentivised to bid at floor to ensure maximum dispatch. If everyone bids their capacity to floor, everyone gets turned down 'equally'. If you bid above floor (say at your marginal running cost), you get turned down more (and probably off completely).

3. The market operator (AEMO) also routinely intervenes in the market, directing gas generation to remain on for system strength. AEMO strangely implements this with two separate prices [1]. One for dispatch (accounting for the intervention) and one for payment (an estimated price without intervention). It's often the case that the dispatch price is at floor, again incentivising everyone to bid at floor to ensure dispatch, while the payment price is at or above $0/MWh.

This usually results in a very delicate market where a large amount of capacity is bid at floor (-$1000/MWh) and the next bid is usually at or above $0/MWh. A reduction in demand (hello rooftop PV) causes the price to fall off a cliff. The other thing to remember here is the settlement price (the actual price that is paid to generators) is an average of the six 5-minute dispatch prices over a half hour which can distort 5-minute price signals (there is a rule change fixing this coming into effect in 2021).

Negative prices are definitely useful, but in this case I think these issues distort the signals. I'm not sure what the solution is, there is some talk of a market redesign [2] (but I'm not sure that's a great solution either).

[0]: https://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/South-Australia-System-...

[1]: https://aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Stakeholder_Consultation/C...

[2]: http://www.coagenergycouncil.gov.au/publications/post-2025-m...

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#146
post #8

I'm in SA and I'm currently looking at getting solar panels and maybe a battery because we have the highest cost of electricity in the country. I'd like to know why we have the highest when the price seems to be going negative every other day?

Historically it has been expensive because S.A. was always reliant on a lot of gas and imports.

More recently though - if consumers have been willing to pay that much, then the private monopoly that runs the distribution network and the private companies that run the generators and retailers don’t really have much incentive to drop prices...

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#147

I'm not a fan of most reporting of these negative price events. First, they rarely explain why the price is negative. As the article explains, solar can switch itself off, so it's nothing physical about solar that can cause negative prices, as all solar can switch itself off before it goes negative it would bottom out at zero for those reasons. In most cases I've seen so far, contractual agreements with gas, coal or…

> In most cases I've seen so far, contractual agreements with gas, coal or nuclear (who struggle to switch themselves off quickly without hurting themselves) have been the reasons for negative pricing and the grid wasn't actually at 100% renewable at the time of the curtailment. In other words, solar switches itself off, while other, dirtier plants get fined (negative price!) for demanding that they be allowed to still run.

No contracts or fines are necessary. The plant is making the power and dangerous or expensive things will happen if nobody takes it. So they pay for it to be disposed of.

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#148

I'm not a fan of most reporting of these negative price events. First, they rarely explain why the price is negative. As the article explains, solar can switch itself off, so it's nothing physical about solar that can cause negative prices, as all solar can switch itself off before it goes negative it would bottom out at zero for those reasons. In most cases I've seen so far, contractual agreements with gas, coal or…

I agree. Negative prices make perfect sense in electricity markets, and journalism does a bad job at explaining it. Supply and demand must always be in equilibrium in real time with electricity (forgetting storage / batteries for a second). If there is more supply than demand or vice versa, then you have instability in the grid and can have blackouts. Those electrons have to go somewhere. This is in contrast to virtu…

So extrapolating from what you said, these negative price events should incentivise energy storage solutions. Which arguably seems to be a good thing for the network. I suppose it should not be a surprise that the use of a thing incetivises the infrastructure necessary to make it more efficient, but it still does surprise me ;-)

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#149
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tl;dr: the Australian grid is working on a faulty system because of politics. This is not a technical limitation there.

I'm not sure I understand, in what system would this not happen? You can say that the goverment should store the extra electricity but that's not as easy as it sounds. Most things need very specific geographical or technical conditions for pumped hydro, compressed air energy storage, boreholes, hydrogen, molten salts. So in what system wouldn't this happen?

If you have a way for consumers to bid for zero-price electricity, there are many things that can increase demand now and give reduced demand later when prices are higher. Everyone has a domestic freezer. If the freezer is smart, when prices reach zero, it can switch on and decrease the temperature another 10C. When prices are higher, it won't need to run as it warms up slowly. Similarly with domestic hot water - just run the temperature up another 10C. People are creative: if you given them intermittent free electricity, they'll find a use. The main problem though is that this reduces demand when prices are above zero. While this is good for the environment, it's not good for the electricity industry.

Re: Solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices

#150
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why waste energy on a system that's designed to grow increasingly inefficient over time (Crypto PoW mining), when you could simply store the energy or use it on something that is helpful to the local community, as in food or manufacturing?

Because the whole premise is that you don't really have a way to store or use that energy in other ways. Then converting it into cryptomoney makes sense- then you can use that crypto to buy things which are helpful to the local community- even things that are produced on the other side of the world, where your energy could never reach. An interesting thought is that of using that crypto exclusively to buy energy when…

Depends of your investment. You could always deploy on those sites old miners where the ROI is already paid off - so it's always better than them being thrown away.
Post reply on HN