zlacker

>>RobinL+(OP)
Curtailment, like negative prices, seems like something that it is hard for people to have constructive conversations about.

Probably the cheapest and best option is to build more wind and not care too much if it increases curtailment.

Yes, all the things mentioned should be looked into and done when it makes financial sense but "wasting wind" is much less a thing to worry about than "burning gas", and I'd rather waste wind than waste money.

>>ZeroGr+k8
I'm not sure I understand. Sure, letting turbines spin and not use the power, while burning extra gas, isn't worse for the environment than just burning gas in the first place (though it's significantly more expensive to triple-pay for the energy), but it's better is to turn that unused power into used power.

The article wasn't decrying the existence of excess wind power, it was trying to describe the best solutions for using that power.

>>SamBam+4a
The article says we pay three times, curtail wind and then burn gas. Which is bad.

But all the solutions are aimed at reducing the curtailment of wind. Rather than reducing the gas burnt.

If the money saved by building more wind (or solar) and not having to burn gas saves more money then who cares if more wind is "wasted"?

It would be nice to use every last drop, but I dont want to actually spend money to achieve that goal when it could be used to e.g. build yet more wind, and burn even less gas.

>>ZeroGr+gc
The article is saying that more transmission lines were needed to avoid wasting 9b pounds of electricity last year. An already approved grid upgrade will cost 4b pounds, and would mostly be adequate.

Something had to get built first, and I guess they picked the wind turbines. This seems like everything working as intended to me.