Is Solar Really the main Reason for Negative Electricity Prices?

Sunlight based gets all the consideration, however another clarification is in any event as significant.

Notwithstanding during extraordinary advancements like “The day after Thanksgiving” and “The online Christmas sales extravaganza”, it is uncommon to see anything sold at a negative cost. Low costs, beyond any doubt. However negative costs are uncommon. You possibly observe this when a merchant is extremely urgent to dispose of something. 1-800-GOT-JUNK made $200 million in income a year ago getting paid to pull away garbage. Turns out all that stuff in your storage room isn’t extremely valuable all things considered — it has a negative cost.

This Spring, California power generators have been doing the power showcase identical to calling 1-800-GOT-JUNK. Among March and July, there were more than 100 hours in which discount costs were underneath zero. These negative costs have gotten heaps of consideration, and the talk has generally ascribed negative costs to California’s increase in sun oriented age.

Sunlight based is to be sure piece of the story, yet another clarification is at any rate as significant. In the course of the most recent decade, hydro, not sun based, has been the essential driver of negative power costs in the United States. The year 2017 is no special case. Spring 2017 was among the rainiest ever, and it is this blend of hydro and sun oriented that has pushed costs beneath zero.

Note: This figure was developed by Lucas Davis (UC Berkeley) utilizing hourly discount costs from SNL Financial. The hidden information are finished for NYISO, MISO, PJM, and ISONE, yet begin in 2009 for CAISO, and in 2010 for ERCOT so there may have been negative costs in those business sectors before those years. Likewise, for 2017 information is just accessible until mid-August, so the rate is determined over just piece of the year.

Expanded sun powered age is certainly part of the clarification for what’s occurred in California in 2017. Sun powered limit in California, including both circulated and utility-scale frameworks, has become from under 1GW in 2007, to 14 GW today. Additionally, the planning of negative costs in 2017 solidly at sun based. Negative costs topped in March and April among early afternoon and 5pm, on radiant days with large amounts of sun oriented age.

Make it Rain

However, for me the huge shock in the figure above is 2011. Despite the fact that it didn’t get as much consideration, there were more than 100 hours during 2011 with negative power costs in California. In any case, why? In 2011 there was only a small amount of the sunlight based age that we have today. So what pushed costs underneath zero?

The appropriate response is hydro. The two wettest years in the most recent decade? 2011 and (most likely) 2017. During simply the initial 5 months of this current year California has just produced 22 million MWhs from hydro, about equivalent to average hydro age for a whole year. On the off chance that the remainder of 2017 matches hydro age from a year ago, 2017 will finish up being the second most noteworthy hydro year in the most recent decade.

Updated: June 12, 2019 — 1:55 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *