SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As technology within the energy space evolves, solar farms have become a key production source across the world. For example, solar farms in the United States produce energy and a whole lot more, and solar farms in Britain have expanded to deliver impressive amounts of energy in their own right. Unfortunately, one solar farm — the largest in the region — and the energy it produces have supposedly proven too much for what the area's power grid can safely handle. Thus, the North Devon-based Derril Water solar park has been temporarily shut down until September, without any warning or input from those behind it, in the hope of keeping the local grid intact.
Per The Guardian, the order to shut down the Derril Water solar park came from the National Energy System Operator, which ordered National Grid to pull the plug for the remainder of the summer. Concerns of a possible thermal grid overload, involving the movement of excessive energy through a system that generates too much heat and can damage key components, backed the order. This comes after issues with the North Devon power grid were highlighted back in 2023, though the necessary improvements scheduled for installation at the end of 2025 have been pushed out to this September at the earliest.
As reasonable as the rationale for temporarily shutting down the Derril Water community solar farm may seem, it comes with major consequences. Energy production and the livelihoods of those involved monetarily with the solar farm are at stake.
Even though the reason for the Derril Water solar farm's shutdown is tied to grid issues, the consequences of its stoppage fall on those with no responsibility for the grid itself. The first issue the shutdown presents is a lack of solar energy production. Not only is this a negative due to a loss of clean energy accumulation, but this translates to a serious dip in revenue, with estimates placing the lost funds at around two million pounds.
With that amount of money lost, those invested in the solar farm will feel the effects of the shutdown in their wallets. Roughly 9,500 individuals will likely lose out on dividends paid to them for their financial investment into the solar farm in the near future. The Derril Water volunteer board of directors told The Guardian that most of those individuals are understanding of the situation and know that the issue lies with the power grid and not the farm itself. Still, there is plenty of frustration going around, especially since grid operators and insurance companies aren't expected to pitch in over the lost revenue.
As effective as they can be, solar farm shutdowns of some kind are occasionally deemed necessary. Sometimes it comes down to solar energy technology, like in the case of California's $2 billion solar plant shutdown, or it can be a connected grid infrastructure issue. In this situation, the North Devon grid seemingly couldn't handle what the Derril Water solar farm could provide.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 02, @08:51PM (14 children)
First, a "thermal grid overload" is overvoltage. That means that there would be times during the day when the solar farm system is feeding in enough power to drive that portion of the grid above safe voltage levels. One effect is that components are heated more than planned for resulting in thermal damage and errors (for electronic components in the system). I don't know whose fault it is from the story. Could be grid-level lack of "inertia" and/or longer term power buffering, or something wrong with that particular solar farm. But I can see a community project automatically drawing the short stick, if a grid-level problem requires someone to sacrifice.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Gaaark on Sunday August 02, @09:12PM (4 children)
I have no idea, but wouldn't a 'battery farm' be teh proper response? During the day, charge the batteries. At night, let the batteries go wild feeding the grid.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday August 02, @09:34PM
And a "battery" here can be lots of different storage media [energy.gov].
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday August 02, @09:36PM (2 children)
I'd be very much in favor of mechanical batteries, such as pumping water uphill above an existing hydro dam, or China's big building that lifts a big weight with excess energy, letting it drive generation as it is lowered during times of need.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Sunday August 02, @10:22PM (1 child)
While pumped hydro is energy efficient, iron oxide batteries are on the cusp of being financially comparable without the geographic restrictions.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday August 02, @11:09PM
Yeah, pumped hydro is just a target of opportunity.
I wonder about long term cost of operation and maintenance between iron oxide and the big weight lifter: https://www.autonocion.com/us/tower-china-wind-farm-power/ [autonocion.com]
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Rich on Sunday August 02, @09:36PM (3 children)
Well, obviously, the plant wants to feed more power than the grid has capacity to distribute to somewhere useful. We occasionally have that in Germany with "negative electricity prices". I guess it can happen when it's either really sunny in the South, or there's a lot of wind at night in the North. Because of politics and NIMBYs, they didn't keep up with the grid connection between the sectors.
Aside from improving the grid, I guess solar should add batteries, so it is changed from more or less random to baseload capable over night or at least grid-stabilizing. (Also avoids the issues that sent Spain into the recent blackout). But it's not easy to get to working technical solutions in an economic environment with many players, of which some have very opposing interests. E.g. Once you have baseload-capable solar, and given how cheap that stuff got, you'd end up with 100% PV generated electricity, against which no one can compete - in summer. Who's going to take over from November to February? What incentives do you give to them to be on standby 2/3 of the year? E.g. for TFA's UK the big nukes at Hinkley Point and Sizewell would end in an economic catastrophe. They couldn't pay back the interest on their construction cost even at the ridiculously subsidized guarantee prices they got promised when they only have like 30% capacity factor.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday August 03, @03:56AM
Presumably the issue here is that there's not enough transmission line capacity from these cells over to somebody that can be paid to use the energy. At which point there aren't very many good answers, although building more transmission line capacity should be a priority, or at least having something in the are that can store or use the energy productively.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday August 03, @09:44PM (1 child)
Nuclear only becomes even half affordable if it can sell its power at its high cost all the time. If you had nuclear only, your grid would have to be scaled to not just the peak usage (often twice the "base load") but also additional costs to cope with generators in maintenence.
If a grid has a 24/7 demand for 20GW, average of 30GW, and a peak demand for 45GW you'd have to have at least 50GW of nuclear on line, effectively doubling the already high price.
Proponents of nuclear say "you should just use nuclear for the 'base load'" and let others deal with the expensive peaks.
You can use the exactly same argument for solar and wind
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 04, @11:41AM
Or use that battery storage we keep hearing about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03, @12:36AM (1 child)
Unbunch your panties. Sheesh.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday August 03, @01:45AM
How dare someone be interested in something on MY internets, amirite?
This is a moderately large screwup on someone's part. Normally, it'd be the party that's being told to stop doing that, the solar farm. Here the National Energy System Operator (national grid authority) is apparently taking care not to assign blame. Might be a reason for that.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Monday August 03, @02:02AM (2 children)
Wouldn't the farm be designed in separate sections? You would turn off sections to avoid overload.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 03, @03:27AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Monday August 03, @11:21AM
They should be able to move away from the maximum point on the MPPT curve to reduce power production as needed, but let me guess, the MPPT handled by controlled by proprietary software, so that's not possible?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PhilSalkie on Sunday August 02, @11:50PM
Options for the grid operator should be:
Incentivize users to take that power (negative pricing, subsidizing home batteries)
Upgrade their transmission capacity to handle the connected generation equipment
Pay the solar farm to restrict its output (the other side of negative pricing.)
You know full well they wouldn't think of telling a nuke plant to stop generating with no compensation - ratepayers pay for those whether they're running, stopped, or being decommissioned.
If they've agreed to let the solar park connect, they should be contractually required to handle the power that's generated.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Monday August 03, @12:20PM (1 child)
I was speaking to a guy who is married to a Dutch lady and has just been to the Netherlands. Apparently there nowadays "everyone" has solar panels and "noone" pays for electricity any more. In fact, they have a surplus. You can feed it back to the grid, but because of the surplus they pay you to take it away! So his brother-in-law has build a swimming pool in his garden heated using a heat pump to use up the surplus electricity.
Darn Eurocommies! Will they never learn?!
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by isostatic on Monday August 03, @09:40PM
Balcony Solar, in summer an 800W panel in Amsterdam will generate about 4 or 5kWh a day, and many apartments will have two.
Better to use it to charge a plug-in battery though.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rich on Monday August 03, @01:06PM (6 children)
Following my reply above in which I predict that PV/battery will steamroller every other energy source in Summer, I decided to run a few numbers to figure out how this would play out with the winter gap. Very simplified numbers, but the ballpark should be hit.
If the investment for the constant 3200MW is £50bn (Hinkley Point C), ~4.5M people can be supplied, with a cost of $15000 per person.
Assuming the winter gap per person is in the order of 1MWh, we could fill this gap at a battery storage kWh price at or below $15. CATL have announced the Naxtra cell target to be $19 in the foreseeable future, but installed plant costs would be higher. Assuming Wright's law for price drops with exponentially rising production, which also forces Iron Air to be competitive from the outset, the crossover point might be reached in about a decade. (This will also have to factor in that batteries just sit there, while large power plants need expensive upkeep, and in the case of nuclear, decommissioning and waste treatment).
So, batteries it will be. Governments might interfere a little, but in the end, the market forces for the sector will be too strong.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 04, @11:47AM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by Rich on Tuesday August 04, @05:13PM (4 children)
Well, data centers (aside from possibly higher cooling requirements in summer) continuously pull the same load. So Deeplearning Datacenters, Inc. writes a tender for supply, and Abundant Atomics Corp. and Pervasive Photovoltaics, Inc. submit (assuming post-crossover point battery prices). AA quotes 12 ct/kWh all year round. PP calculates with 6 ct/kWh for March-October, 24 ct/kWh for November-February. In the first round, both insist on full-year contracts.
On that calculation alone, PP would have already won. So DD asks a second time "what can you do about your quote?". AA replies: "Nothing, because if you don't fully commit, we don't get the financing, and, btw, we'll only be online 10 years from now". PP replies: "Well, we can quote you 5 ct for Summer, but then you're on the spot market in winter.". DD looks at their turbine backup (datacenters are a special case, because they need 100% backup), which produces at 8ct Natgas * 3 efficiency factor = 24ct/kWh, too. Deal closed. Eventually PP might also undercut DD's turbines, and they would switch.
Or if you look at this this way (overnight price calculation): 40 years of seasonal storage = 40 charge cycles. If the battery costs $10, a stored kWh comes at 25ct.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 05, @03:27AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by Rich on Wednesday August 05, @02:01PM (2 children)
Next to their power plant? Well, they'd be online in 10 years when the power plant is done at 12 ct cost. Meanwhile PP got FOMO, joined the game, got online in 3 years, covers their winter gap with turbines, is already cheaper and binds the customers. After 10 years they have scaled up their batteries and sell their turbines. Complete loss for AA even if the battery price crossover point is not reached and PP resort to fossil gap filling. Which really isn't a CapEx, because in the case of data centers, they need 100% backup anyway. After the crossover point PP would go straight to batteries and save the turbine cost.
Data centers are really the worst examples here, because the NPP has to go down refuel and they need turbines, whereas the battery solution is modular and if big enough can bear the entire backup requirements alone. It would only be interesting before the crossover point, and for a baseload application that doesn't need 100% backup and that can live with a day or two downtime. Or if PP are extremist greenies refusing to add gas turbines even before the crossover, and plan for going online at the same time as AA. Then it would be a gamble if the batteries are cheap enough in 10 years or not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 06, @11:52AM (1 child)
That would be the plan. IMHO now you're talking about the real problem. The enormous capital investment and lead time presently required for a fission power installation. Cut both of those considerably and its back in the game. Not saying that will happen because we wouldn't be in the present situation with an 80 year old technology if it were trending that way.
I still think demand shaping is in the game with data centers. Sure, a lot of stuff needs to be always on. But crypto and AI both can use computation power that can be turned on and off with little to no warning.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rich on Thursday August 06, @02:41PM
It's said that SMR are some kind of salvation here, but their pressure vessels aren't much different from what a VVER 440 already was. I don't see much of a change, at least as long as the requirements for containment stay the same. Also, I think any of this molten salt stuff is right out, because that's a huge mess of corrosive chemistry vs. a plain water kettle, and a magnitude harder to handle. So, very unlikely.
That's a very important point I didn't consider at all. Build four data centers, say in Germany, South Africa, California, and Chile, powered entirely on PV with just a few days of battery storage, switch between them to wherever the sun shines, and you get ~2/3 availability with electricity for free. (Or even just two, one in Quito, Ecuador, and the other in Pekanbaru, Indonesia, for 100% availability.). An LLM doesn't care where it calculates, and the effort for data shuffling to there pales in comparison to the compute needed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday August 03, @06:58PM (2 children)
Local scalable demand is going to be the next big thing.
Right now there's not much that scales over a useful range. Bitcoin and other crypto mining, mostly.
If the price they'll pay for raw power is less than the money you'd get mining, go mine...
As a back of envelope guesstimate, couldn't you turn about 1 MWh into about one Olympic-sized swimming pool full of ice cubes? The point not being that its terribly useful, but both solar farms and warehouses go hand in hand with low rural land prices, so if you have "acres of freezers" just stockpile bags of ice and let it melt overnight while the suns down. I'm used to living in places where water is free, obviously you wouldn't do this in a desert. Retail for a bag of ice where I live is a couple bucks, mostly transport costs, but some energy cost, which could drop to $0.
Solar cement production is an interesting idea. Solar copper refining, maybe. Aluminum is a bit too exciting to intermittently solar power. Chlorine production (for bleach, chlorates, perchlorates, etc) if you're close to the sea. This has pretty high capex even if energy cost would occasionally be zero. But long term you might see an industrialization of rural areas. Industry doesn't need huge numbers of assembly line workers anymore and the cheap land plus occasionally free electricity might be very attractive compared to the infinite problems of urban life. Given fancy enough computer software integration, if I owned a fabrication plant I MIGHT be able to schedule a giant plasma cutter table or a heat treating oven to only run while electrical power is near free. Sure, I have to work next door to a solar farm because the infrastructure is hot garbage, but there are worse neighbors to have than a solar farm.
Air liquefaction and separation... I wonder about the capex on this. Could I justify building an argon plant that mostly runs 100% full blast only when power is free? I could distill welding argon all summer long, fill every compressed cylinder I can get my hands on, and maybe coast through the winter? Could anyone compete with me in the welding argon business if my electricity was mostly free? Enough people doing this will make the bottom fall out of the welding gas market and create an inadvertent bubble/boom in hydrotested gas cylinders. The equipment is not cheap nor the loans to buy it and the cost of money is constant even when the sunlight is not. OTOH maybe the world SHOULD only be distilling welding argon out of air in the summer. This may already be going on, LOL, I haven't researched.
Every hype cycle of thermal depolymerization of biowaste into crude oil includes the neighbors being horrified at the stink before the plant shuts down. A TDP plant surrounded by solar panels wouldn't have many complaints no matter the stink. TDP is pretty much hyperaccelerating the natural process of making crude oil using biowaste as a feedstock. IIRC a plant using turkey guts had to shut down as the smell was indescribable, but if there's no one around but miles of solar panels maybe thats OK, unless the clouds of flies interrupts the solar panels LOL.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday August 03, @09:38PM (1 child)
In theory, charge a trailer where there's an excess of power, and move it to where it's needed at high demand, then drain it.
You could charge where there's an excess, then discharge where there's grid capacity to take it.
For example, Fiddlers Ferry, a coal fired power station in the north west of the UK, used to get 18000 tons of coal every day. Shipping 18,000 tons of battery storage would produce about 5GWh a day, and clearly has the grid capacity as the power station was a 2GW generator.
However you'd probably get a better return on investment by improving your grid interconnect.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 04, @03:36PM
CSAs around here deliver food to various locations for later pickup. I wonder if people not in the midwest know what a CSA is. In the spring you buy a share of a farmers produce and in the fall you get paid back with food. Return tends to be a bit random as you'd expect but thats half the "fun".
If the local CSA had a vast field of solar panels, if I owned a self driving car, in the later summer/fall I could send the car out there to charge and pick up my food, while I work at home, then it comes home and powers my house air conditioner off the car battery.
I wonder if CSAs will start offering fields of solar panels as one of the farm produce items. An interesting idea.
Of course this turns into traffic jam problems. If an EV held 50 kWh and an acre of panels peaks around half a MW thats a lot of car traffic queuing up to charge at the farm if they convert just a few acres from berries to panels. Of course thats half a million bucks to install and wire turnkey acre of panels, so its a new, bigger financial problem.