Energy Prices Drop Below Zero In UK Thanks To Record Wind-Generated Electricity (ecowatch.com)
- Reference: 0175735819
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/12/22/2039223/energy-prices-drop-below-zero-in-uk-thanks-to-record-wind-generated-electricity
- Source link: https://www.ecowatch.com/energy-prices-below-zero-uk-wind-power.html
> Record wind-generated electricity across Northern Ireland and Scotland Tuesday night pushed Britain's power prices below zero.
>
> Wind output peaked at a record high 22.4 gigawatts (GW), breaking the previous high set [last] Sunday evening, the national system operator said, as Bloomberg reported. The record output provided more than 68 percent of the country's power.
>
> From 5:30 to 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday, the half-hourly price fell to 6.57 pounds per megawatt-hour, according to data from European power exchange Epex Spot.
>
> "Setting another clean electricity generation record just four days after the previous high shows the pivotal role wind is playing in keeping the country powered up during the festive season," said Dan McGrail, chief executive of RenewableUK, as . "This is also demonstrated by today's official figures which reveal that renewables have generated more than half our electricity for four quarters in a row."
The article adds that energy prices with negative numbers "have been recorded for 131 hours in the UK this year, an increase of 45 hours over 2023...
"Wind power was the largest source of energy in the UK from January to September of 2024."
[1] https://www.slashdot.org/~AmiMoJo
[2] https://www.ecowatch.com/energy-prices-below-zero-uk-wind-power.html
So of course expect (Score:2)
record profits from the energy companies
Re: (Score:2)
> record profits from the energy companies
How does an energy company profit from paying people to consume energy? My guess is that they take 10 pounds/dollars/pesos/whatevers from the government for some unit of energy, pay people 3 whatevers to consume that energy, then keep 7.
We should not be paying subsidies for energy to a point that it drives prices negative, that only encourages waste. If I got paid to burn more natural gas then I'd open the windows to heat the outdoors, this logic doesn't change because the energy is in the form of electri
Re: (Score:2)
how do they excess profit ? For example having a standing daily charge that is supposed to cover the costs of reading \maintaing the meter network. ok fair enough wages go , inflation etc so does that cost but it is pegged to the market price of them buying gas so in the last 2 years standing charges have gone up over 400%
English math? (Score:2)
> Energy Prices Drop Below Zero in UK
> From 5:30 to 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday, the half-hourly price fell to 6.57 pounds per megawatt-hour, according to data from European power exchange Epex Spot.
6.57 still looks like a positive number to me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's because the writer of the EcoWatch article didn't copy correctly from the source article [1]here [bnnbloomberg.ca]:
> Wind output peaked at 22,360 megawatts during the evening, breaking the previous high reached just a couple of days earlier, according to the national system operator. Half-hourly prices turned negative between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. Wednesday, touching minus £6.57 a megawatt-hour, Epex Spot data show.
They forgot the "minus" part.
[1] https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/investing/commodities/2024/12/18/uk-wind-power-hits-another-record-with-weather-warnings-in-place/
Re: (Score:2)
Details, details...
For one hour... (Score:2)
> From 5:30 to 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday, the half-hourly price fell to 6.57 pounds per megawatt-hour
First off, that negative cost doesn't take into account the massive investment in infrastructure to generate that power. The hourly price, even for that one record hour, was still 6.57 pounds. Second, it was one hour during a low demand time frame - few people were at work at that hour, most weren't even awake. Reaching 70% of the grids requirements when those requirements are at a low is no major feat.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. When I jump, for a moment I'm actually levitating!
In other news, my electricity bills are still sky high.
Re: (Score:2)
Your math is as strong as the quoting skills of the editor...
Re: (Score:2)
ACKCHUALLY...
> First off, that negative cost doesn't take into account the massive investment in infrastructure to generate that power.
The normal cost of electricity doesn't take that into account either. For any type of power plant.
> The hourly price, even for that one record hour, was still 6.57 pounds.
NEGATIVE 6.57. The article is misprint; if you go to [1]the linked source [epexspot.com] you can see that in the "Weight avg" column, for 05:30-06:00 the price was -0.66 and for 6:00-6:30 the price was -6.57.
> Reac
[1] https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-results?market_area=GB&auction=&trading_date=&delivery_date=2024-12-18&underlying_year=&modality=Continuous&sub_modality=&technology=&data_mode=table&period=&production_period=&product=30
Re: (Score:2)
> would breathlessly claim what is happening now would be totally impossible.
No, I'm the type of lone person who would have told you that the same financial investment in nuclear would have produced a massively different outcome - 24/7 clean power that didn't destroy the seascape.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, now I understand. You're one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we all understood that this was a very brief event. It still is symbolically significant. What is really interesting is that at peak output, wind provided 68% of the entire country's electric power. We are moving in the right direction.
Dunkelflaute 7 weeks ago (Score:2)
A “Dunkelflaute” period of weather has sent wind power generation tumbling in the UK, Germany and other parts of northern Europe.
The phenomenon – which translates roughly as “dark wind lull” – describes periods when wind speeds plunge, leading to little to no generation from turbines.
On Tuesday Nov 6 2024, it meant wind farms were only able to meet 3-4pc of the UK’s electricity demand during the morning and evening peaks, with gas-fired plants instead fired up to me
Re: (Score:2)
> On Tuesday Nov 6 2024, it meant wind farms were only able to meet 3-4pc of the UK’s electricity demand during the morning and evening peaks, with gas-fired plants instead fired up to meet around 60pc of demand.
Yes, that's how it's supposed to work. The UK has enough CCGT capacity to not require any wind power. But gas is expensive, so the gas-fired plants only get spun up when needed.
I downloaded the data for the UK's total power output for the past year into a spreadsheet and went through the numbers:
When wind is generating 10GW+, CCGT averages 5.82GW
When wind is generating between 5GW and 10GW, CCGT averages 7.15GW
When wind is generating less than 5GW, CCGT averages 10.59GW
[1]https://www.gridwatch.templar.... [templar.co.uk]
[1] https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Proves wind power is wrong (Score:2)
I don't know why but somehow this is wrong and bad. One thing I do know is that this would NEVER have happened if we stuck with good old electricity generated by BRITISH coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but they should celebrate by doing something frivolous & wild... like putting the heating on.
Yet again, UK has found a way to make "cold, wet, & windy" an advantage. It also made then the best sailors in the world. Well, that & British food & British women.
Re: Proves wind power is wrong (Score:2)
At least give Bill Burr credit if youre going to use his material in a half hearted attempt to be funny.
Won't someone consider... (Score:2)
... The conventional energy producers?! How are their CEOs supposed to own an island, or afford their yearly mega-million-dollar bonuses if we're using solar?
Negative prices (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably means that there would be a natural market for storage. A grid scale battery owner could make money absorbing the power and then make money again selling it when its needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Regular over-capacity on the production side is the base for various storage and "absorption" products to be economically feasible. We are not yet at that point, but getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
Finland is already seeing a huge increase in both announced and under way large scale battery storages. That is because so much of the power comes now from wind that the prices have huge variation, so the expected pay back time is quite short.
Re: (Score:2)
An alternative view is that wind should include building and bear the cost of these batteries so that it doesn't create price fluctuations that make cryptocurrencies look stable by comparison. Or add mining rigs to soak the excess energy when it's particularly windy so the grid remains unaffected by the erratic spikes.
Would you also argue that nuclear plants create a natural market for companies to process, store, or otherwise handle any waste products they create? I don't think anyone would make that ar
Re: Negative prices (Score:3)
If we want market pricing to solve clean energy problems, just charge an appropriate price for pollution. This should never have been considered to be "free". They are stealing from all of us, and for generations.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not charging for pollution, but spending the proceeds to mitigate it. 1/3rd of the price of our fuel and electricity consists of excise (not counting VAT or levies that are supposed to pay for maintaining and extending the grid). But little of that money is being spent on cleaning up emissions... even if they knew how to achieve that.
Re: Negative prices (Score:2)
Charging the end user a tax for pollution doesn't alter the producer's behavior. It far cheaper to avoid creating pollution than to clean it up.
Re: (Score:2)
I am talking about charging the polluter, not the polluterâ(TM)s customerâ¦
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the exact same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all.
Re: Negative prices (Score:2)
As long as the price difference between the daily peak and daily minimum is sufficently large enough to justify the capital investment and operating cost of grid scale storage. Obviously if energy prices were negative continously then nobody could make money at generation or storage. But conceivably excess energy would make certain industries viable, like opening up high grade steel foundries with arc furnaces.
Re: (Score:2)
> Probably means that there would be a natural market for storage.
I see a market developing for energy waste. Electric resistance heaters are real cheap, cheaper than batteries to obtain and maintain, and if people get paid to heat the outside air then expect that to happen.
> A grid scale battery owner could make money absorbing the power and then make money again selling it when its needed.
Sure, there's income on both recharge and discharge of a battery but a battery has capital and operating expenses that nichrome wire does not.
Proof you can't store electricity economically (Score:1)
The maintenance/cost per cycle of any current storage system is too high to profitably store electricity. You can't get any more proof than this*. If greedy corporations can't make a profit when they are paid to take the electricity then the technology is just not up to the task yet. If you want to use unreliable renewables you have to stop subsidizing their power when the spot price is negative. You have to get demand to match supply by doing things like letting rich** people agree to pay the spot pri
Re: (Score:2)
> The maintenance/cost per cycle of any current storage system is too high to profitably store electricity.
This is a strange claim, since commercially successful grid storage systems have been in operation for decades, for example pumped storage for off-peak nuclear plant output (e.g. Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Facility 1972); or Hornsby in Australia, which paid back its construction costs in just two years.
At present grid storage capacity in the US is growing exponentially, doubling roughly every two years, because companies are making profits with it.