In some of my previous posts, I wrote about some “graphs of the day” compiled by Martien Visser (a Dutch lecturer in energy transition) on his twitter account. He creates some very interesting graphs that shed some light on the challenges that intermittent energy sources will need to overcome in order to become the dominant power sources. Unfortunately, he doesn’t clearly acknowledges these challenges in those tweets, which made me wonder whether he is aware of those challenges.
The last time I wondered about this was in a graph depicting the number of negative prices on the day-ahead market, calling these “free electricity”. The same story with the graph he created to make the claim that electricity prices decrease when capacity of solar and wind increases.
In the end, it made me wonder whether he was well aware that these prices are a symptom of an imbalance on the grid, not something to cheer about?
There were however some examples in which he seems to be aware of those challenges. Like the graph of the “skewed” distribution of intermittent output (variable between very low to very high, depending on the weather), adding that we need to learn to live with this variable output.
Another example is his comparison of intermittent output in June and in December, concluding that although there is on average enough electricity is produced by solar and wind to satisfy the demand of households, but that there is nevertheless a shortage in December and a massive surplus in June.
In both cases, he seems to hint to those consequences, although it is not that clear.
The question whether he was aware of the challenges ahead was answered when reading his article Revolutie op de elektriciteitsmarkt (“Revolution on the electricity market”) on the Energiepodium website.
The article starts with the observation that the electricity market is undergoing a major change by adding more and more solar and wind to the grid. He then, still in the introduction, jumps to the first problem.
Overproduction
The goal of the Netherlands is to get 85% of its electricity from solar and wind by 2030. The installed capacity will then be 60 GW when the (current) average demand is 15 GW. Also according to the article, there is already now an overproduction about 10% of the time and even exporting to the neighboring countries will not help anymore.
That 10% figure surprises me a bit, it seems quite high, knowing that the Netherlands had a solar capacity of only 23.9 GW in 2023 (according to Statistical Review of World Energy). If 23.9 GW (plus 10.7 GW wind capacity that obviously will also grow) already gives an overproduction 10% of the time, image how much excess electricity will be produced when there is some sun and/or wind in 2030…
Which is not good news for the business case for solar and wind:
Negative prices
The article claims that the price is currently negative in about 5% of the time and Visser assumes that this number will rise considerably. This is bad news for investors because now also solar and/or wind will need to curtail their production, therefor those investments need to be earned back with less hours of production.
I agree with the impact of negative pricing. I saw this playing out in the two 100% renewable electricity models that I looked at. In those models, an overproduction was incalculated, yet it was assumed that pricing would be the same as in the current situation. My criticism on this is that the overproduction brings a different dynamic to the table: who wants to invest in solar and wind knowing that they will need to curtail production in say a third of the time (generally at times of high production)?
Visser even thinks that utility-scale solar and wind will be in need of subsidies for longer than foreseen, maybe even forever. I would even go further and say that other parts of the grid will need subsidies too. In Belgium, also gas-fired powerplants needs subsidies, as will batteries and so on.
He doesn’t believe in a European supernet. It will be extremely expensive and nobody wants those high-voltage pylons in their back garden. I have seen the latter playing out in Belgium, in which the overhead powerlines of the Ventilus project get quite some headwind.
It is not only expensive and protested, but:
Other countries are doing exactly the same
This is something that I bickered for quite some time (like for example here, here and here) and I am quite surprised that only few bring up this point. The neighboring countries of the Netherlands (and Belgium) are also betting on solar and wind. Germany is the furthest on this path and its strategy is to export electricity when there is plenty of sun and wind, this because it is cheaper to export its surplus at low (or even negative) prices than to build dispatchable backup capacity. However, the more solar and wind capacity is added in the Netherlands and its neighbors, the more difficult it will become to export the excess abroad, unless at an even lower prices. When one country has excess electricity from solar and/or wind, the surrounding countries will likely encounter the same problem. Also the reverse. When one country has a shortage due to a lack of solar and wind, the surrounding countries also will encounter a shortage.
Concluding, although the article gives a good picture of the consequences of adding more solar and wind to the grid, what I however miss in the article is the need for seasonal storage (expensive) or demand control (hard to sell to the public).
Visser generally seems more pessimistic in the article than in his tweets, and yes, he clearly realizes the issues with adding more solar and wind to the grid. That is however not clear from his tweets. Which is a pity, because it is important that the politicians as well as the public are informed on both sides of the issue.
via Trust, yet verify
July 14, 2024 at 04:45AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 