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
Again, that's not what the article is about. If more wind power gets built in Scotland to serve needs in England, then increasingly more of that output will have to be curtailed because we simply can't move the energy to where it needs to be, to the point where the only thing adding more wind farms would do is to provide a tad bit more energy when there's hardly any wind to distribute. In all other scenarios, having more capacity will not translate into not burning gas!

The article describes an entirely different problem than "oh no, it's very windy/sunny and we don't know how to use all of this energy" which is not solved with better distribution, but with storage and demand regulation.

And actually, the article is in complete agreement with you that we needn't be overly worried: curtailment isn't the end of the world, but we can solve it and it turns out that some of those solutions are cheaper than just building more farms, or would incentivize building those farms closer to where the energy is needed.

>>stdbro+Rt
The article leaves an impression that curtailment is a problem that is costing us money. See most other comments here as evidence of that.

I'm explicitly calling for more curtailment, because it isn't a problem and doesn't need to be solved.

Burning fossil fuels is a problem to be solved. High electricity prices are a problem to be solved.

Both of those problems can be solved by building more wind power, which almost inevitably increases the amount of wind curtailed.

To repeat, curtailment is not a problem and does not need to be solved. It's a normal part of running a renewable grid. Any low cost renewable plan will have some predicted degree of curtailment, because it's the cheapest way to meet our energy needs.

See:

"Reframing Curtailment: Why Too Much of a Good Thing Is Still a Good Thing"

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/reframing-curtailment...

> Video Explains How Having More than Enough Renewable Energy Capacity Can Make the Grid More Flexible

>>ZeroGr+mx
Curtailment of wind wouldn't be a problem if it's just because too much wind, but that's not the case, there isn't enough transmission, and we are having to use gas, that is a problem

>>mcfedr+GF1
But by framing it as a problem of 'curtailment', it looks like a problem which gets worse and worse, the more oversupply of wind capacity that we have. In actual fact, this does not make any sense.

Building additional wind generation can never be more wasteful than the costs of its construction. If it were free, it would make sense to vastly overbuild.