Europe storm leads to negative electricity prices
By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
It almost hurts a little that “specialist for renewable energies” (own claim on Twitter) Prof. Volker Quaschning gets mentioned here so often. This is simply due to the absurd tweets the man continuously puts out.
His latest prank has to do with the storm Sabine, which earlier this week swept across Germany. It supplied a lot of energy in the form of wind, which made the wind turbines rotate strongly.
Even in the otherwise regulated electricity market, the laws of the market cannot simply be levered out. Supply and demand determine the price. If supply is higher than demand, the price falls.
In the case of electricity, even money might be included with the product when this electricity is purchased, meaning negative prices. Electricity is an extremely perishable “commodity”, it must be consumed at the moment of production. However, the “expert” Quaschning does not blame this oversupply and the negative prices on the volatile wind power plants, but rather on nuclear power and coal. They deliver very reliably and not wildly fluctuating like wind power.
Prof. Volker Quaschning tweeted in response to the negative electricity prices from overproduction which Germany saw during the recent storm:
Sturm und viel Wind sorgen wieder für negative Börsenstrompreise. Ein klares Zeichen, dass Kohle- und Atomkraftwerke zu unflexibel sind und nicht als Backup für erneuerbare Energien taugen. Wir brauchen darum einen schnelleren #Kohleausstieg. #FridaysForFuture #Scientists4Future pic.twitter.com/w7CRrEruoq
— Volker Quaschning (@VQuaschning) February 10, 2020
In English: “Storm and lots of wind are again causing negative stock market electricity prices. This is a clear sign that coal-fired and nuclear power plants are too inflexible and are not suitable as back-up for renewable energies. We therefore need a faster #coal exit.
A logical train of thought actually would have been to realize that highly volatile power sources such as wind and the simultaneous provision of base load are difficult to reconcile. Unfortunately, the energy source gas is also being massively fought by people like Quaschning, although it is more flexible and at the same time more CO2-friendly. In any case, however, it is only a crutch that might have to supply a great deal of energy, namely when we have the well-known lulls in wind and sun.
Every wind turbine and every photovoltaic system needs a backup. And anyone who has ever wondered why the wind countries of Denmark and Germany have such high electricity prices knows the reason. We are paying for a double power infrastructure. The prices will not decrease with an increasing share of renewable energies, but rather will continue to rise.
8 responses to “Green Energy Professor’s Solution To Volatile Wind Energy: Install Even More Wind Turbines!”
I live in a village in western France. At the edge of the village there are 7 wind turbines, I can see 5 of them from my house (they are about 1,2 – 1,6 km distance). After a good ‘blow’, such as last week-end, I often see one or more stationary with a white van at the base. Technician in attendance.
The wind turbines are 2mw ENERCON machines. Do other makes of turbines have a similar propensity to fail?
The same company are planning to build 5 or 6 more to the north of the village with VESTA machines. Does anybody wave experience of this make? Not far from here is a 10 year old wind farm using vESTAs, which seem to need a good wind to get them turning. Have any of you noticed the same problems.
John M de France, this isn’t a response to your question regarding the propensity of wind turbines to malfunction and need repairs, but readers here might find this commentary from France interesting.
Who would have thought that political boffins and fanatics would cause higher prices?
When Socialism fails, we need more Socialism.
When the EU fails, we need even more Ever Closer Union.
When Windmills are inflexible, we need more windmills.
When there are increasing numbers breaking the law, we need to relax the rules.
When children are skiving off school, we need to give them days off.
When Scientists are telling the truth, we need to sack them and besmirch their name.
The world is upside down, as explained by Melanie Phillips.
These dingbats have ambient intermittent sources of electricity as their end game. Anything that gets in the way of total ambient energy needs to go. If dispatchable generation does not have the response capability to cope with the variation from ambient sources then they need to be replaced. Loads that cannot be controlled up or down in response to intermittent supply, like most industrial loads, need to go.
I have debated the issue of base load in Australia with intermittent ambient energy supporters and they simply view loads like aluminium smelters as incompatible with intermittent supply and should no longer be operated in Australia.
Do they think our civilization can continue without Aluminium or any other metal production that requires a continuous power source?
Do they think an intermittent electricity supply is acceptable, even to those homes and shops/restaurants with freezers or electric ovens, remembering that our gas stoves and heating will be ripped out by 2050 and only gas free homes will be permitted from 2025?
Do they think that transport, private and for supermarkets, are optional?
Of course not! They just parrot what the ‘wise’ tell them! 🙂
By then, Scientists will have invented the magic fairy dust required.
The obvious solution is intermittent electrical service for the working class, middle class and seniors. They can adopt a less extravagant lifestyle. A smart grid could accomplish this. Much of the world already has this.
The upper class and bourgeoisie can use the surplus energy to charge their EV’s.