Brazil's Grid Caps Power From Wind and Solar, Threatening Renewable Projects (reuters.com) 41
Wind and solar energy producers in Brazil have warned they are reconsidering future investments there after the national grid operator repeatedly capped how much energy they could deliver in the past year, which squeezed their profits. From a report: Brazil has made big strides encouraging companies to invest in wind, solar and other renewable power generation sources, offering generous financing and subsidies. But all the electricity they generate has taxed the grid.
More than a dozen executives and industry representatives said renewable energy investments were less viable under the National Electric System Operator's (ONS) current "curtailments" policy, which temporarily caps how much power ONS accepts from wind and solar plants.
The pressure has been most acute in northeast Brazil, a hot spot for renewable energy investment. There are bottlenecks in transmission lines carrying electricity to Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and elsewhere in the more populous southeast region. ONS has managed the grid more cautiously since August 2023, when a power outage in the northeast spread over most of the country. That has meant more curtailments when electricity generation exceeds consumption or there is a lack of transmission capacity. ONS has said curtailments were not excessive, and were necessary for safety. The operator said its data shows only 3% of electricity generated was lost to curtailments last month.Volt Robotics, a power sector consultancy, analyzed ONS numbers.
The pressure has been most acute in northeast Brazil, a hot spot for renewable energy investment. There are bottlenecks in transmission lines carrying electricity to Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and elsewhere in the more populous southeast region. ONS has managed the grid more cautiously since August 2023, when a power outage in the northeast spread over most of the country. That has meant more curtailments when electricity generation exceeds consumption or there is a lack of transmission capacity. ONS has said curtailments were not excessive, and were necessary for safety. The operator said its data shows only 3% of electricity generated was lost to curtailments last month.Volt Robotics, a power sector consultancy, analyzed ONS numbers.
Supply v Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is not sufficient demand for the energy at the time it is available, there is no reason for the grid operators to purchase it. They are limiting their purchases to the amounts needed to meet the demand.
Sure, the grid operators could (if they have the funds available) invest in storage to hold the energy until there is a demand, BUT...
The suppliers could also invest in building storage so that they can sell to the grid when there is demand. They are threatening to limit their investment in further increased generation... so put some of that unused money into building storage.
Re:Supply v Demand (Score:4, Insightful)
The suppliers could also invest in building storage so that they can sell to the grid when there is demand.
Storage is more expensive than generation. They aren't gonna build storage if they lose money doing so.
They are threatening to limit their investment in further increased generation... so put some of that unused money into building storage.
Businesses expand by reinvesting profit.
If there is no profit, there is no "unused money" to invest.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses expand by reinvesting profit. If there is no profit, there is no "unused money" to invest.
They do have money to invest in building further generation, they have money that they could invest in storage.
Storage is more expensive than generation. They aren't gonna build storage if they lose money doing so.
Selling energy when someone wants to buy it earns more money than offering (but not selling) energy when no one is buying it.
The price of storage is dropping fast as technology improves -and China is trying to control the market for it by selling it cheap, like they have done with cheap solar panels.
Every grid scale energy storage system which has been built to date has been profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
They do have money to invest in building further generation, they have money that they could invest in storage.
Changing the return on investment changes the amount of money available. Investors expected they could spend $N dollars on panels and sell the electricity for $M. They're now finding out either $M is smaller than they expected or $N needs to be larger. Some investors decide the new $M/$N isn't worth it and they will buy something else.
We're on a journey of discovery to find the best ways to build and operate large scale solar power. We have to expect we will hit some snags. How much storage should we build?
Re:Supply v Demand (Score:4, Informative)
>Storage is more expensive than generation. They aren't gonna build storage if they lose money doing so.
well, if well used, storage will quickly pay itself, so while you have to do a initial investment, it is false that is more expensive than generation
examples:
- Elon Musk batteries in Australia, while a initial investment was high and low capacity of the batteries (compared with the production), the batteries charge when there is excess energy, so cheap energy and discharge a small percentage when the energy is more needed. The rest of the capacity is reserved to stabilize the network, so on emergencies the price spikes. Buying cheap and selling high price is the best business you have. It works soo well that there are plans to increase the capacity and other countries want to build similar setups
https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
- Portugal hydro storage network. When Portugal and Spain solar and/or wind are high, prices drop and Portugal pump water up to several hydroelectric, storing energy while it cheap. On high demand hours, Portugal pump out that water, use the energy and sell it to Spain a much higher prices. The system pays itself
https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
Go check those links several days and you will see that trend (the day average is harder to see, must be hourly consumption)
but for both to work, both had good electric network and interconnects, countries with weak networks it is hard to do this, so first step is always to improve the network, drop the old star network (with big energy producing in the center) and build more peer2peer ones (with disperse energy production, closer to the consumer too) and increase the interconnects with other countries. The Portugal+Spain setup works well because both invested in creating good interconnects. While france is much bigger and connects with the rest of Europe, interconnects between Spain and France are much weaker (mostly blocked by France, to avoid the cheaper energy from the Iberian countries, to protect their nuclear power prices, that they sell to the rest of europe)
Re: (Score:1)
interconnects between Spain and France are much weaker
That is nonsense.
Spain is exporting solar power and Portugal is exporting wind power to Norway, Germany, Poland via: France obviously.
And they import solar and wind power from Germany, Denmark, Netherlands and water power from Norway.
France earns a lot of money on transimission fees.
Stupid idea that France needs protection. The amount of power they can export depends on market demand, and not the price of the power produced by their nukes.
It is not call
Re: (Score:2)
>Spain is exporting solar power and Portugal is exporting wind power to Norway, Germany, Poland via: France obviously.
?!
you can't push electricity to Norway nor Poland, they are too far... Norway don't even need energy, it is also a renewable energy exporter.
if you want, see it as a group of buckets with pipes interconnect them. Fill one bucket and it will slowly fill the other buckets around. The size of the pipes are the interconnects. the wider they are, faster you can transfer more energy.
Price is se
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps you want to google the European grid?
To far ... lolz.
Re: (Score:2)
you are probably talking about this: https://entsoe-grid-map-viewer... [netlify.app]
this is the real setup of the simplified map of the electricitymaps.com map, while the latest do have current values in the grid, the former have the details of all grid cables and voltage
nothing in that map show a connection between portugal or spain and norway or point to any iberian energy reaching norway. you inject the energy in the grid and it is consumed were needed, it is not a tcp/ip connection, where it is "consumed" only by the
Re: (Score:1)
You are mixing up Transport grids with distribution grids.
you inject the energy in the grid and it is consumed were needed,
That is a distribution grid.
nothing in that map show a connection between portugal or spain and norway or point
Obviously. As it is transported via France and Germany and Denmark.
FACEPALM
Did you think Portugal has a direct power line to Norway? Just Lolz.
You are likely american, sorry: pun intended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No idea why you link a web site no one knows. And if you
Re: (Score:2)
that is the problem, the transport link between spain and france is weak, so iberian countries can not inject enough energy to increase the central europe offer and help lower the price.
there is no contradiction at all. Saying that Portugal supply energy to Norway pushing too much, cutting the spain/france links would have zero effects in norway, way too low amount of energy, too many centrals, interconnects and distance to see any effect. When the Balkan countries had a energy problem and blackout in the r
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry you are wrong.
Up to you.
Nothing there is false and in no way contradicts what the wikipedia or other sites say, it is the SAME data
It contradicts completely what you say. There are on first glace without counting: 100 links from Portugal to Norway.
So? Are you blind? Or bad in reading maps?
Re: (Score:2)
if i create some 1w link between portugal and china, they are connected.... but that doesn't mean that any energy will ever arrive there. no matter if they are physically connected if the distance is so long that all the energy is wasted. yes, iberian countries help fill the european grid bucket, but that still doesn't mean that iberian energy ever really reach norway.
if all other countries stopped producing and consuming, leaving only portugal producing and norway consuming, almost no energy would arrive t
Re: (Score:1)
That is simply: wrong.
Get a physics book.
Re: (Score:2)
The suppliers could also invest in building storage so that they can sell to the grid when there is demand.
Right. But that involves some risk. And lowers the ROI on the storage investment. So the suppliers don't want to do it.
The grid operators don't want to take the power now because there's no demand now. They don't want to build storage because there might not be demand in the future. Or the storage fills up and then they'll be in the same position they are in now. Not taking any more power from the suppliers.
The wind and solar industry needs to study the workings of today's baseload and peaking suppliers,
Re: (Score:3)
Brazil already has a lot of storage, in the form of hydroelectric dams. Shutting off a dam when there's lots of other renewables makes sense right up until the dam is full. At that point it's a choice of which renewable resource wastes energy, the dam via spillway or the solar and wind by disconnecting them.
This will happen in other areas eventually. It's cheaper to build a solar array that collects on a sunny day twice what's needed on the average day, rather than to build lots more storage. That means
No, the opposite of Supply v Demand (Score:3)
This has nothing to do with supply v demand. This isn't about how much money people are willing to pay for a certain supply. This isn't even about operators wanting to purchase something. This is about a regulator specifically applying caps on two forms of power in order to ensure that other forms of power remain profitable.
This is market regulation, the exact opposite of supply and demand economics.
I'm not saying there's no reason for it. It would be tragic if a baseload operator goes bankrupt at the expen
Re: (Score:3)
There are two issues here.
1. Fossil fuel plants want to keep generating all day because it's uneconomical for them to ramp down, so supply exceeds demand in some areas. Their inflexibility is the issue.
2. Lack of decent long distance transmission lines means some areas have excess and others need fossil fuels to avoid a blackout. The demand cannot be met with clean sources due to lack of investment in the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflexibility is not the issue. Intermittency of wind and solar is the issue. You cannot run a country on intermittent electricity. So however its done, W+S + gas or batteries, whatever, its either make it dispatchable and consistent 24x7, or its useless.
Or, if you won't put in batteries or gas, then turn down the intermittent supply so it doesn't destablize the grid.
There really are only those two options. Make it dispatchable or limit the intermittent supply. Or wait for the grid to fall over, I gues
Re: (Score:3)
Strangely though the UK grid is extremely stable. Even when electricity prices go negative, i.e. there is more production than demand, somehow it never collapses.
It turns out that if you manage your grid properly and design it to integrate renewables, there is no problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course the grid does not collapse.
Because there is not 'one' grid.
It is several grids stacked on top of each other.
The negative priced surpluses energy is pushed into the top level transport grid, and transported to the buyer.
It never touches the consumer grid, unless the buyer is on that grid.
However, buyers, assuming they are in the same country, and are high energy hungry, might be directly connected to the transport grid. Steel smelters for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you are right or not, is not the reason wind and solar are capped in Brazil. The reasons are that fossil fuels take time to ramp up and down and the regulators favor them, and because transmission is insufficient to get the energy from a wind/solar area to where it might be needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they could increase demand at the time energy is available by lowering the price, [wikipedia.org] and decrease demand when energy isn't available by raising the price.
So besides time-shifting supply, another strategy is to shape demand to fit the supply. [wikipedia.org]
Jockeying for strength (Score:2)
While the stated issues sound like just jockeying for position, like most places they presumably need additional battery on their grid to reduce transmission bottlenecks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm intrigued with what the amortization for grid batteries looks like. They don't last all that long. Anyone who's been involved with data center operations will be familiar with the issues. You need a certain amount of battery backup to handle the transition from mains to backup power, but making sure that battery is operational and able to handle the load is not a static thing.
Re: (Score:2)
wind and solar need battery's for times when there is no wind or sun
Re: Jockeying for strength (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Grid batteries have a 10-15 year life, nothing like data center batteries. Most of the money comes from ancillary services and not kWh arbitrage. Both are done, but the money is really in frequency regulation and voltage stabilization.
Generally the batteries can pay themselves off with a $50/MWh diurnal price delta over 10 years; if the cities are transmission-constrained this should easily be the case.
I've lived there (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
While there's no doubt about that there you're ignoring the potential for a legit underlying reason. Most national electrical systems are not open markets, they are regulated in order to provide stability and many regulators around the world are applying pressure on wind/solar projects for the same reason: from a purely market economics point of view they can make the grid unstable. The cost of generation for green energy is so small that they can eat nearly all of the profits of fossil based power plants.
Re: (Score:1)
In Germany plants get disconnected if the grid can not consume or transport the power.
Has nothing to do with negative price.
It is up to the grid operator to decide. Bottom line he has to pay for the disconnected energy the feed in tariff. Regardless if the plant is disconnected, or not.
The GRID is expensive Infrastructure. (Score:2)
I think this is the same difficulty with every grid system. Utility companies all NEED an operating grid, but who manages and maintains it and how is that managed over time?
Anyone can generate juice but transmission is the key and nobody gets paid enough to be interested in that investment. The long range financial risk and demand to maintain the grid always seems to be outpaced by the market demand for energy at the present moment. There is great incentive to
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very winding way of saying that competition sucks for the common good.
And that capitalism really sucks at paying for maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Its like I'm paid by the word.
The problem is intermittency and location (Score:2)
As always the problem is intermittency. And location. The generating plant for wind and solar is rarely or never where demand is. So you need expensive transmission investment to get it to the right place. This is never charged to the wind and solar operators, but it should be,
Then, the supply is intermittent. You cannot run a country on intermittent electricity, so someone has to have and invest in rapid start gas plants for when there is a calm or an evening. Again, the question is who pays for this