Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power

Germany Has Too Many Solar Panels, and It's Pushed Energy Prices Negative (businessinsider.com) 305

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Markets Insider: Sunny days in Germany mean gray clouds for solar profitability as the nation's dive into renewables has left it with too much energy. According to a note from SEB Research, in the past 10 days, solar producers have had to take an 87% price cut during production hours. In fact, when production peaks, prices have slid well below zero. On average, the price received was 9.1 euros per megawatt-hour, significantly under the 70.6 euros paid during non-solar-power hours. "This is what happens to power prices when the volume of unregulated power becomes equally big or bigger than demand: Prices collapse when unregulated power produces the most," the Swedish bank wrote on Tuesday.

Last year's record wave of solar installations are what's driving Germany's price "destruction" as inventory outpaces consumption. While total solar capacity topped 81.7 gigawatts by 2023's end, demand load only reached 52.2 gigawatts, noted SEB chief commodities analyst Bjarne Schieldrop. The difference between the two actually widens even more in the summer, a season of peak production and lower demand. This also means that consumers are not necessarily benefiting from the low prices, as they typically consume more energy in non-solar hours. Unless new installations are spurred on by subsidies or power purchase agreements, oppressed profitability could eventually halt Germany's solar expansion, Schieldrop said.

Instead, focus is likely to move onto improvements that will make more use of the energy produced, such as investments in batteries and grid infrastructure. "This will over time exhaust the availability of 'free power' and drive solar-hour-power-prices back up," Schieldrop wrote. "This again will then eventually open for renewed growth in solar power capacity growth."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Germany Has Too Many Solar Panels, and It's Pushed Energy Prices Negative

Comments Filter:
  • by ozduo ( 2043408 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @10:41PM (#64495069)
    Solar farms and some domestic users are being charged during peak hours to take their electricity rather than being paid
    • Does the existence of decoupling laws in many US states prove that electricity is so overproduced that prices would easily go negative without said decoupling laws that allow bureaucrats to set rates, not supply and demand?

      • by sfcat ( 872532 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @02:29AM (#64495317)

        No, its a consequence of how the grid works. Too much energy is just as bad if not worse than too little energy. This creates highly volatile pricing in a free market because you can't just eat an extra GW as a loss and send the actual electrons to a ground (its just too much power to do that with). But consumers don't want this so the utility locks in long term supplies (and consumer prices) in most cases. Solar and wind are excluded from these things for various reasons including practical ones like not being able to control the sun and clouds. When you ignore the engineers and overbuild variable load supply (that you can't control) you end up with wildly swinging prices for these reasons which includes swings into negative prices as well as large price spikes.

        The decoupling laws have to do with making people pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining the grid itself (not costs from power generation). If anything decoupling laws make this worse because they force more variable load onto the grid. But they prevent others from having to take an unfair share of the costs of maintaining the grid itself, at least that's the argument.

        • you can't just eat an extra GW as a loss and send the actual electrons to a ground

          Can't you just automatically disconnect panels until production matches demand? A PV panel that is not connected anywhere does not send electrons to the ground and does not produce any power.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          you can't just eat an extra GW as a loss and send the actual electrons to a ground (its just too much power to do that with).

          Not true, except for nuclear. Solar, wind, water, etc. can idle on short notice. Nuclear cannot.

        • by qbast ( 1265706 )
          No, it's the consequence of too much inflexible power supply (in Germany's case coal, in other cases might be nuclear) that have to be run at pretty high technical minimum. Calling PVs supply something 'you can't control' is an obvious nonsense considering that oversupply problem gets resolved precisely by dialling down PV generation. This is something that can be done instantly and they can be turned back on also instantly. Good luck trying to do any quick regulation on coal plants where even hot start ta
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @07:22AM (#64495699) Homepage Journal

          None of that explains why volatile pricing is an issue.

          I'll help. For some industries it can be a problem, because electricity is a big part of their costs and they want predictability. For them, they can buy contracts at a fixed rate, or they can improve their processes to match 48 hour advance pricing information.

          For consumers, it means getting used to scheduling power consumption at different times. Most of it is automatic, e.g. your car charger makes sure you have X% in the morning, selecting the cheapest hours overnight to get there. Your AC drops the set point 1 degree when energy is cheap, so it can coast through the expensive periods.

          Personally I love it. I even do stuff like schedule backups and disk checks to happen at cheap times now. The washing machine kicks in at 60C with the luxury steam mode when I'm being paid to consume energy.

          • by fuzznutz ( 789413 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @08:12AM (#64495797)
            What most of the people here fail to understand is that if you frequent Slashdot, you are on the right edge of the bell curve when it comes to tech. It is unrealistic to expect the people who can't get pictures off their iPhone or in years past, program their VCR, to invest in and use smart home technology. The poor, who would benefit the most, are also not going to buy new $2,000 washers to save a few dollars a month on power.

            Sure, *YOU* can use smart features on your new Tesla or set up cron jobs for disk scrubs, but is the guy down the street who constantly asks for help because his computer is slow again, going to take advantage of rate shifts? I don't even tell anyone what I do for a living anymore because too many think of it as an invitation for a free personal Geek Squad.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              What most of the people here fail to understand is that if you frequent Slashdot, you are on the right edge of the bell curve when it comes to tech.

              What a lot of people here fail to understand is that their personal experience is not the same as other people's.

              In the UK we have had time of use tarriffs, i.e. cheaper electricity at night since approximately forever. So long that the old gen kit is due to be discontinued soon, because it relies on Radio 4 Long Wave and that's due to be discontinued as well.

              It

    • Solar farms and some domestic users are being charged during peak hours to take their electricity rather than being paid

      Fortunately, photovoltaic solar can be throttled back or off at electronic speeds. The panels just get a little warmer (but never more than as warm as they'd get if they were just mounted in the sun but not yet wired up, which they can stand just fine). Let their control know when the power rates are getting near zero or switching over to negative and they'll just shut down. So it's jus

      • Too much power really does feel like a better problem to have then not enough. The trick is really to just figure out how to do something sensible with it.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      It is a bit more complicated. Solar farms can simply not deliver power, the farm does not get damaged by that. hence this is likely based on longer-term contractual obligations, not on technological reasons. The only power-generation tech that _must_ sell its power at all times is nuclear or the reactor gets shut down and likely damaged. And nukes take several hours to adjust power output when it is unplanned.

      • by berj ( 754323 )

        The only power-generation tech that _must_ sell its power at all times is nuclear or the reactor gets shut down and likely damaged. And nukes take several hours to adjust power output when it is unplanned.

        People are saying this all throughout this discussion (and similar about coal). I'm curious about it. I'm sure there's a ton of complications and nothing would have necessarily been built this way, but I would have imagined that it is possible to just not spin the turbines to stop power generation from these sorts of plants. eg. vent the steam, or use it do do some other "work" rather than spin the turbine (a flywheel or governor of some sort?). That way the reactor/coal furnace can keep working (maybe at

  • AI datacenters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:00PM (#64495089)

    They just need a couple of AI datacenters and their excess power problems will be over.

    • by Sique ( 173459 )
      Those would be powering an AI on the sunny side of things.
    • Right. Even throwing hashes at an altcoin is smarter than paying to send power to the grid.

      But, seriously y'all, buy at least one $400 battery.

      We do need smarter tech for integrating grid, battery, and charging. Mine is DYI and manual, which Isn't ready for normies. And my compute loads can run on 48VDC with minimal work which is not true of an average hair dryer.

      Great systems are available in the $6K+ range but that means "not available" for 80% of households.

  • by nickovs ( 115935 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:10PM (#64495097)

    On average, the price received was 9.1 euros per megawatt-hour, significantly under the 70.6 euros paid during non-solar-power hours.

    The problem to date with solar (and wind) is that it doesn’t work all the time. This sort of timing based price differential is exactly what we need for the market to invest in developing and deploying the battery technology we need so that renewable energy sources can replace fossil fuels 24/7.

    • by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:25PM (#64495113)

      Alternatively, excess power can be used to produce synthetic alkanes.

      • by 3247 ( 161794 )

        Alternatively, excess power can be used to produce synthetic alkanes.

        First, produce hydrogen (which is also the first step in producing alkanes). However, electrolytic converters are expensive and it does not make economic sense to not run them 24/7 yet.

    • by fintux ( 798480 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:44PM (#64495143)
      Exactly. The title is absolutely wrong, there is not too much renewable electricity generation, just not enough infrastructure around it. Germany produces massive amounts of electricity with non-renewables, so they actually need more renewables (but mostly better grid and grid scale energy storage). Also, what can be done to get rid of negative energy prices if that is desired? Well change the auctioning system. There's no rule of physics that if there is excess energy offering, the price must be negative, it just comes from the way the auctioning has been crafted, though like pointed out by the parent post, this is not a bug in the system, it is a feature.
      • There's no rule of physics that if there is excess energy offering, the price must be negative, it just comes from the way the auctioning has been crafted, though like pointed out by the parent post, this is not a bug in the system, it is a feature.

        That's true in the sense that there's no rule of physics saying that price must go down when supply goes up, but that's how markets generally work. What's the alternative you propose for determining who should stop supplying power to the grid when there's an excess of generation?

      • Exactly. The title is absolutely wrong, there is not too much renewable electricity generation, just not enough infrastructure around it.

        We need more batteries and I don't think that's such a hard problem, but what do I know? A gravity battery [wikipedia.org] can be erected pretty anywhere. Look at the photo of the "Energy Vault 60 meter prototype in Castione-Arbedo".

        What I see common near large urban areas as a real estate investment in my lifetime are large monthly rental storage unit buildings meant only to last a few decades. These large buildings are only meant as semi-profitable investment until the buildings are demolished and replaced with much more

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @03:54AM (#64495429) Homepage Journal

        The reason for negative prices is that when there is more energy than demand, it pushes up the frequency of the grid. The grid needs to maintain very close to 50Hz, so they pay people to consume the excess.

        It's only a problem if you view negative prices as an issue. You could look at them as a huge opportunity and a massive win for consumers.

      • Exactly. The title is absolutely wrong, there is not too much renewable electricity generation, just not enough infrastructure around it. Germany produces massive amounts of electricity with non-renewables, so they actually need more renewables (but mostly better grid and grid scale energy storage).

        It's not wrong, you are merely choosing a different perspective. There actually is oversupply. You can stipulate if not for x then y but nonetheless given present day realities oversupply exists.

        Present day ESS and grid infrastructure technology have similar issues with diminishing value and are not by themselves an economically feasible means of preventing the need for massive oversupply in the absence of a significant mix of dispatachable generation.

        Also, what can be done to get rid of negative energy prices if that is desired? Well change the auctioning system. There's no rule of physics that if there is excess energy offering, the price must be negative, it just comes from the way the auctioning has been crafted, though like pointed out by the parent post, this is not a bug in the system, it is a feature.

        There are real costs to oversupply. For markets of ph

    • by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @12:16AM (#64495175)

      The problem to date with solar (and wind) is that it doesn’t work all the time.

      The actual problem isn't that. And it isn't one that we need some sort of new battery technology to solve. It's a lack of will to do things other countries are already doing.

      China just recently brought up their first 10MWh sodium install [cnevpost.com]. Yes, fucking salt, which we have a lot of. US had a company that was developing this. [aquionenergy.com] Guess what happened? [seattletimes.com]

      Most of the western nations lack conviction to actually make change. They are afraid to actually invest the money required to have a working renewables system. Not because, we lack the technology. It is that no democratically elected official wants to be the guy that puts millions of fossil fuel workers/voters out of a job.

      That is the problem. It's not panels or batteries. It is the lack of determination, pure and simple. The US is so backwards, they're yelling about which bathroom someone does or doesn't go into, all the while tornadoes tear apart the nation to the point no one can afford insurance or some people just cannot find insurance full stop. You've got the UK so worried about "people coming into our nation" so bad, they literally shoot themselves in the economic foot. You got French people so far up their own goddamn ass, they want to actively piss off farmers, WHO FEED THEM. No one in western nations has the spine to do what is required, they're all too busy fighting fights that literally mean nothing. And they're too busy blaming everyone, for every problem, never wanting to actually just DO SOMETHING. China just continually shows how laughably behind the times all these "rich" nations are. The tech is there, there's just no willingness to put in the time and money. We don't have to strip mine Indian territory or rely on conflict minerals. We don't have to have arguments about nuclear reactors or what kind of EV pickup truck I'll drive. Or some fucking guy who can't keep his dick in his pants and wants to be President.

      There is so much these Americans and British and French and Germans want to bitch about that's just bullshit. And worse, they don't anything about any of it. They just want to bitch. We can do it all with renewables starting right now and in fifteen to twenty-five years from now, be done.

      But no elected official wants to rug pull the fossil fuel industry. They are too afraid and they're afraid to admit it, so how about a $128,718,290 Trillion dollar wall and some bombs in Israel to commit genocide instead? That's the problem. You think it's panels and batteries? No that's not the problem. That's not the problem by a long shot.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MacMann ( 7518492 )

        We can do it all with renewables starting right now and in fifteen to twenty-five years from now, be done.

        No, it won't be done in 25 years. It won't ever be done. That's because windmills and solar PV cells wear out and need replacement. We can debate how long they last but I'd rather not, it's something like 25 years but how long exactly they last is not all that important. I know that a solar PV system rarely goes out of commission all at once, it just fades away over time. This fading could be from solar damage, breakage here and there from hailstones, or whatever. They will eventually need replacement

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          They will eventually need replacement, so the process will continue indefinitely

          That is literally with ANY fucking infrastructure. Shock. Things don't last forever. Who fucking knew?!

          A nation could afford a big push to deploy a bunch of solar panels for a short time, but can this be done indefinitely?

          Yes. The US drop trillions on wars without blinking an eye. You can prop up a 1GWh solar for $860M. $100B is something like getting flipping close to a TWh of power. And that's not even a percentage of what the nation drops on bombs alone. Shit, the US has spent more bombing fucking schools in Gaza than is required to build a few 500MWh+ solar plants. Boy do you vastly underestimate cost of keepin

          • Well put.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Oh, and here's a great report that debunks your claims about solar panels needing a lot of energy to produce: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/... [fraunhofer.de]

          Bottom of page 49. Energy payback term is between 1.3 and 2.1 years for solar panels in Germany.

      • You got French people so far up their own goddamn ass, they want to actively piss off farmers, WHO FEED THEM.

        I agree with your points in general, but I wouldn't exactly call the current EU agriculture subsidy system the pinnacle of a society having the conviction to do the right thing even when it's hard. It's closer to the example you provide of the American politician afraid of killing fossil fuel jobs: prioritizing the interests of a minority because making changes leads to highly-visible discontent from that noisy minority.

      • by zazzel ( 98233 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @03:46AM (#64495411)

        China just recently brought up their first 10MWh sodium install [cnevpost.com]. Yes, fucking salt, which we have a lot of.

        And if I scale this installation (picture in the link you provided) up 10-by-10 (kinda huge now, eh?), I will have 1 GWh capacity, or enough to store the output of ONE halfway recent NPP over ONE hour. The installation looks like it could fit on 50x50 meters, so we'd be talking 500*500 = 0.25 km^2 / 1 GWh.

        Germany's electricity consumption (gross) is about 577 TWh/a (before moving to heat pumps for heating btw), and if we wanted to store 1% of that, we'd need 5770 GWh storage capacity, or 1440 km^2 / 0.4% of Germany's land (using the design shown).

        Ofc our TOTAL energy consumption is about 3500 TWh/a. And maybe we'd have to find storage for more than 1% of our electrical consumption.

        I'm not ruling that out, that sodium-based batteries are feasible, but probably not with this kind of land & resource use.

        • Well the one that is there is the fancy one. Sodium does not have the heat issues lithium does, so going upwards is also a dimension for this storage. It does not have zero heat issues, but the heat issues for sodium are easier to mitigate that vertical stacking does not come with the same cost as vertical stacking lithium batteries. But that is not the case for this sodium site because it looks nicer that way and is likely really stupid cheap to just spread it all out. Actual installs would not have some r
          • Even if you made 0.25 sq km a 0.25 cube km (and in the process made a giant brutalist skyscraper) that is still a stupid amount of land required if the current system is to 10m tall, you only scaled down by 25 times.

        • by jsonn ( 792303 )
          We don't need to store all energy as electricity. In fact, we don't even need to store most energy as electricity. Just consider that one of the largest consumer of energy is heating in its various forms. You can store heat much more easily and cheaper.
      • by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @04:07AM (#64495455)

        Most of the western nations lack conviction to actually make change.

        I don't think it's that. I think they lack the ability to even understand the issues. I trained as an EE just about the time that electricity markets in my country were 'liberalised'. Recently, I listened to an interview with a panel of industry consultants about the future of the energy market. My god. I mean, I can understand how a synchronous generator works, how to size the core iron in a substation transformer, the basics of a GW scale HVDC link, how your computer works or the universal motor in your vacuum cleaner. But the electricity market is pythonesque in its absurdity. One consultant was describing how perhaps we might have different outlets in the future linked to different suppliers for doing the various tasks we wanted (charge car, run fridge, vacuum etc). Why? Why would anyone do this? These people are paid around 3x what an EE actually earns to do EE work. This is the reason we are screwed.

        They are literally delusional. The electricity market simply needs to optimise for cost per kwh delivered to the home while keeping supply rates above a certain reliability level. It is not rocket sciences. Even better, demand is extremely predictable in the short term (and even in the long term it's not absurdly hard to estimate), and technology does not change that quickly. If you left it to EEs it would probably take an office of about 50 people per country to maintain a long term investment schedule and basically keep the lights on. If you wanted to drive some kind of CO2 reduction target, we could do that too - no problem.

        But no, rather than just having a bunch of engineers coordinating with city planners to determine where and when new capacity is required, we have to leave it to this rube-goldberg style market system, where the people who speculate about the market make an order of magnitude more than the people who physically keep the lights on.

      • by 3247 ( 161794 )

        The actual problem isn't that. And it isn't one that we need some sort of new battery technology to solve. It's a lack of will to do things other countries are already doing.

        China just recently brought up their first 10MWh sodium install [cnevpost.com]. Yes, fucking salt, which we have a lot of.

        Wow! With a capacity of 10MWh, it would easily store more energy than than the smallest pumped-storage hydroelectric power station in Germany (6MWh). (Never mind that the other 30 stations have a total capacity of 40,000MWh.) It could even store the nominal solar power (peak capacity) of Germany for nearly half a second.

    • yeah, those batteries probably pay themselves at this point. Buy solar when cheap, sell when not cheap
      • Personally I am glad our roof points east and west. My neighbors complain that there inverter shuts down at noon due to too large voltage on the line as a consequence of overproduction. For us, peak production is in the morning.
        • This will seem to be the optimum configuration otherwise there will definitely be too much generated at 12 noon, not a real problem now but when there are more solar on roofs, it will be a problem unless everyone has a huge battery to fill or EV to charge.
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:22PM (#64495109) Homepage
    Great! What a huge financial incentive to build storage systems! Of course, the German bureaucracy will throw up all sorts of obstacles...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dclaw ( 593370 )
      Same problem in the US. I saw some Karen pushing a petition to stop the building of a battery bank nearby just because... god forbid they use the land for something productive that produces zero emissions and helps the grid. ***It might catch on FIRE!!!!*** Sigh....
      • by sfcat ( 872532 )
        If its a sodium-ion battery, she might have a good reason to be afraid. Sodium doesn't just catch fire. If it encounters water it explodes as well. And what do you think a 500MW/h battery does when it explodes? The math says it would have a similar amount of force to a nuclear warhead if its large enough to make a difference to a grid. If its a Li-ion, then its fine and she needs to find something else to do with her time.
        • by jiriw ( 444695 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @03:59AM (#64495435) Homepage

          I'm not sure if you're sarcastic or actually think you're correct. Sodium and Lithium are part of the same periodic group. Sodium is actually right below lithium. They have very similar chemical properties. The big difference for battery technology between these two is the way the ions are stored in the battery medium when charged (Anode). With Lithium, the ions can neatly fit in between the layers of graphite, quite many of them. However, due to this, the graphite deforms a little and this limits the number of charging cycles due to deformities over time.
          Sodium ions are too big to use graphite efficiently as a storage medium. But they are still absorbed by amorphous (irregularly structured) hard carbon. Only not closely to the density Lithium is stored in graphite. This means energy storage density is lower, so the volume (and weight) of the battery goes up significantly. However, the anode also deforms a lot less, which gives Sodium ion batteries a larger number of charging cycles than Lithium ion batteries.
          Applications where weight/volume isn't a top priority but the longevity of the storage medium is (like in grid storage), Sodium-ion batteries are superior. Also, Sodium hydroxide is several magnitudes cheaper than Lithium hydroxide, which should factor in costs when you start producing at scale.

  • by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:28PM (#64495115) Homepage Journal

    Are they still burning coal and/or natural gas for electricity? If so, then they still don't have too many solar panels.

    Instead, it sounds like they don't have enough storage.

    • by shilly ( 142940 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @12:45AM (#64495209)

      Yes, this is basically a great problem to have, and there's lots of ways to tackle it:
      1. Time of use demand shifting for energy-intensive activities
      2. Better interconnectors to shift the power from places with too much to places with not enough
      3. Storage (short, medium, long)

      Charging EVs is both 1 and 3 at the same time.

      The single most exciting thought is what we might be able to do with spare power once we've got 2 and 3 in place to satisfy all our demands including from electrifying transport and power. When energy is genuinely too cheap to meter, i think we could see some truly interesting innovations for humanity

      • Can you imagine a scenario where electricity is already too cheap to meter but retail prices are administratively propped up by state decoupling laws?

        "Decoupling is a regulatory mechanism that separates a utility's revenue from the volume of electricity or gas it sells."

        • by shilly ( 142940 )

          Yes. The US is broken in so many ways, and so many of these are things that are hostile to consumers in a way that other developed countries just would not allow. The British energy market is shonky too, but not on anything like the same scale

  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:33PM (#64495127)

    This isn't a problem at all. Another BS propaganda by the fossil fuel zombified dinosaur lobby.

    • Or worse, in this case commodities traders (SEB Inc) . The /. headline is terrible, but parallels the trader report.
      Slashdotters aren't the only ones to think of the possibilities that inexpensive electricity can be used for. Maybe it's not hyper efficient to generate green hydrogen via electrolysis but at literally $0 wholesale it is economically feasible. Same thing on those days hours of curtailment, where literally they disable the solar generators from sending to the grid so it won't overwhelm.

    • by ras ( 84108 )

      This isn't a problem at all. Another BS propaganda by the fossil fuel zombified dinosaur lobby.

      Correct.

      Electricity has always been overproduced at times, well before renewables came along. That happened because coal plants can't change output fast enough to follow the rapid drop after peak usage. The solution for decades now has been Alumina plants that chew the excess production. Nuclear is worse at flowing load changes that coal. That has lead to the country with the largest proportion of it's electri

  • It's almost as if (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:41PM (#64495137)

    Hoarding power when it's plentiful and selling it when it's scarce could be profitable. Something like a big-ass battery - gravity [wikipedia.org] or chemical - could be a worthwhile investment.

  • At least on the surface it SOUNDS like they have a money-making system that's generating a surplus for their citizens? I know, a positively SHOCKING thing for a government to do in 2024, actually turn a profit on something! But is it so?

  • Maybe Germany just doesn't have enough batteries. Or maybe they can use the extra energy to do something everyone claims is too expensive like separate hydrogen from oxygen in water and maybe even synthesize methane using CO2. I heard there is a natural gas shortage in Germany. Is synthetic fuel still too expensive when the price of energy is negative?
    • I don't think a lack of storage is a "Germany only" problem, its for virtually every grid thats getting more renewables.
  • We have negative power prices in Australia all the time because of the same reason: "too much" solar.

    This can be a problem because it can lead to grid instability - to the point where some users are forcibly disconnected from the grid. This has led to some dissatisfaction from some people as they were used to getting the feed in tariff to help compensate for the cost of their solar.

    However, the market is slowly catching up to the opportunity created by this. Anyone that has adaptable loads is able to take a

  • We see it in every place that has lots of solar capacity: Spain, Australia, California, etc. It would be incredibly fierce in the Levant and Gulf, which is why Morocco is attempting to build DC interconnectors to Europe as it would be a potentially huge profit source for them.

    It's such a great problem to have: so much power that we don't know what to do with it. Because it stimulates demand for new energy-intensive activities that can be ramped up and down quickly and provide benefit to humanity, more inter

  • Germany has less than a quarter of the solar panels it needs to be carbon-neutral. As the world moves away from burning stuff to move around and to create heat, demand for electricity will replace demand for fossil fuels, which still make up the majority of energy use by far. Moving the electricity use from fossil generation to renewables is only a small part of the task, and that's not even close to done. The world, not just Germany, needs MORE solar panels. AS MANY AS YOU CAN INSTALL.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. The negative energy prices only come from energy generation methods that need to have their power consumed NOW or really bad things happen. That is basically only nuclear. If the power a nuclear plant generates is not consumed immediately, it needs to do an immediate sast emergency shutdown (SCRAM) that will likely damage the plant and then may take weeks or months to go up again. You have a few minutes to decide, but not half an hour for something like that. And to reduce power output of a nuke in

  • by t0y ( 700664 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @01:59AM (#64495295)
    It should be: "Germany has too small storage capacity"
  • by ledow ( 319597 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @02:17AM (#64495309) Homepage

    "Oh, no, we have free electricity!"

    First world problems.

  • ....as having too much electricity.

    Use it in electrolysis plants to make pollution free hydrogen. Hydrogen has any number of uses - steel making, powering vehicles, I'm not a chemist but possibly making synthetic petrol and other liquid fuels that are far easier to store than hydrogen.

  • This is pure clickbait. So Germany needs to step up its building of renewable infrastructure & maybe needs to reform either how it does wholesale electricity pricing or hedge variable supply like every other variable commodity, e.g. if they price the electricity per day or per week, how does that work out on the balance sheet? That has little to do with meeting demand at peak times, BTW; I don't see any headlines about blackouts in Germany mentioned in the article. When they've built out more infrastruc
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. This "story" is pure bullshit. Obviously, when you transition to renewables, you want ample supply and the means at times, oversupply. This is completely expected and not a problem in any way. In time, storage and supply-adapted-consumption will nicely deal with this. Oh, and since this is solar, it can also simply be not consumed. Unlike nuclear where you either consume or the plant needs to SCRAM (and is then down for a few months while continuing to _consume_ power) and it takes hours to make unp

  • Intermittency (Score:5, Informative)

    by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @04:13AM (#64495473)

    The problem is, there is no solution to intermittency. Intermittency means that you cannot match supply and demand. So take northern Europe. There will be weeks in the summer when there are strong winds and long sunny days. At that point you will have way excess production. But, and its a big but, the wind generation will fluctuate wildly. You can see all this happening in real time here:

    www.gridwatch.co.uk.

    Then winter comes. A blocking high leads to total calm across most of northern Europe. Wind production in the UK, for instance, from about 28GW of faceplate, falls to under 0.5GW for days on end. Peak demand is after 5pm, so there is no solar. In fact, in winter there is negligible solar during December and January even during the day.

    Then you also have the occasional, once every couple of decades, whole season that are relatively calm with very low wind output.

    People here propose storage for the shortfalls. Well, the Royal Society investigated the question and decided that battery storage to meet the shortfalls was impossible. They also went back enough years to discover the existence of calm seasons. They proposed excavating hundreds of caverns, sealing them, then pumping them full of hydrogen, which would have to be stored for decades to finally deliver when there is one of these seasonal calms. Read the report here:

    https://royalsociety.org/news-... [royalsociety.org]

    People here also suppose you can use peak over production to make hydrogen. No, you can't. No large scale industrial process can manage on power that shows the daily peaked profile solar does, or the complete irregularity wind does. Don't believe me for how intermittent all this is, go look at Gridwatch and see for yourselves.

    The idea that countries can transition from gas and coal to wind and solar may be emotionally alluring for many, but its a fantasy. Its not going to happen. There are many problems, but the killer is that there is no solution to intermittency. Any country which persists to the bitter end with trying to do it will either blink, or will inflict economy destroying blackouts on its population.

    The craziest aspect of the idea is that at the same time the countries that have embarked on the net zero project propose to at least double demand. You have data centers, EVs, conversion of home heating to electricity. All this makes the problem worse, all these absolutely require reliable power. To double or more demand while closing down conventional when there is no solution to intermittency is crazy.

    The above cites the UK and northern Europe. You want something closer to home, look at what New York is planning. The net zero plans they have come up with involves using something called Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource to solve the intermittency problem. What is that? Its what it says, its something that does not exist anywhere in the world, nor is it under development, its reliable dispatchable power generated from a source that does not emit CO2. Well, maybe nuclear would qualify, but New York is of course not planning on using that to get to net zero in power generation. But whatever it is, its going to have to come into existence fairly smartly, or New York will find itself confronted, like everyone else, with a choice between having reliable power and dropping net zero.

    Again, don't believe me about DEFR, look up the presentations:

    https://documents.dps.ny.gov/p... [ny.gov]

    Need to get realistic. There is not going to be any energy transition, in the sense of life carrying on as now but with different technologies supplying power, heat, transport energy. Or perhaps one should say, there may be at some point, but that point is not now, and those currently advocating doing it right away are driven to inventing wholly imaginary

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      So take northern Europe. There will be weeks in the summer when there are strong winds and long sunny days... Interconnect to [northern] Europe has died, because the calm is area wide.

      So interconnect northern Europe to the rest of Europe, and to Asia, and across the Strait of Gibraltar to Africa.

  • Probably a misunderstanding or just ignorance on my part so I may look foolish but here goes anyway: By negative prices they mean solar panel owners have to pay money (rather than being paid) to have their solar generated electricity exported to the grid, right? If that is the case, why would the solar panel owners pay money (in return for nothing) rather than just open-circuit (i,e, disconnect) their solar panels? What am I missing?
    • by jsonn ( 792303 )
      Germany like many other places has a fixed price for owners of smaller (residential) solar installation when they export to the grid. This can result in times when there is an excess production and no more transmission capacity, at which time the price at the electricity auction (the spot market) can become negative. So yes, consumers with a fast enough reaction time will actually be paid to consume energy. Residential installation are normally not grid controlled, so you can't just disconnect them automati
  • What Germany has is that it is in transition to fully renewable. Hence storage, transition and supply-adapted consumption is still in the process of being established. This is an intermediate state and meaningless. Everybody runs into that effect sooner or later. It is expected.

  • Unless new installations are spurred ....so add to the oversupply.
  • by Smonster ( 2884001 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @09:05AM (#64495935)
    It isn't too much power. It is is not enough energy storage.
  • by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @09:19AM (#64495967)

    This price imbalance is not, as far as I can tell, being passed on to consumers that still pay the highest prices during the day and the lowest prices at night.

  • by jaymemaurice ( 2024752 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @09:28AM (#64495995)

    If industry would return, you can easily dump cheap energy into such processes such as glass and metal foundries.

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.

Working...