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: 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.