zlacker

[return to "The UK is wasting a lot of wind power"]
1. ZeroGr+k8[view] [source] 2023-01-12 19:48:13
>>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.

◧◩
2. SamBam+4a[view] [source] 2023-01-12 19:56:57
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. ZeroGr+gc[view] [source] 2023-01-12 20:06:42
>>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.

◧◩◪◨
4. dmurra+7O1[view] [source] 2023-01-13 09:45:52
>>ZeroGr+gc
> The article says we pay three times

It isn't true, though, is it?

The curtailment payment is instead of the regular payment, not in addition to it. Possibly also instead of some tax breaks the wind turbines got contingent on being operational - but that's only shifting costs from the taxpayers to the electricity consumers, who in the large are the same people.

Paying twice is still not as nice as paying once, but it makes me wonder what other sleight of hand the author is employing in his argument.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ZeroGr+KT1[view] [source] 2023-01-13 10:42:38
>>dmurra+7O1
The Drax report they link to (which has some nice photos of the Star Wars set from the recent Andor series) suggests when you net off the avoided support payments, that you save between 1/3 and 2/3 thirds of the cost when you curtail wind, rather than pay twice for it:

https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Drax-LCP-Ren...

[go to top]