[martinald]

Because the only reason that solar is still generating power at negative prices is because they are getting subsidies to do it. Otherwise they would disconnect themselves apart from in extreme scenarios (control system down or something), and I bet when you are paying many tens of thousands of euro an hour you'd get someone to fix/manually turn it off sharpish.

Looks like there are a multitude of schemes of various vintages in Spain, which tl;dr basically give you a guaranteed price per MWh you generate. So imagine you get a 100eur/MWh subsidy for a (legacy) solar plant. The market price is €-20/MWh. You will still continue to produce power until the price reaches -100MW/h. Even worse are some contracts for difference (poorly thought through) which give you a guaranteed price regardless of what the market is at. So even if the price was -1,000eur/MWh the government or grid operator would still give you your €50/MWh (and the subsidy would be 1,050/MWh!).

The problem is if you reform this (and it is happening worldwide) solar is much, much less appealing. Because suddenly your solar plant which was getting (say) a guaranteed 70/MWh all year round suddenly does not make money for 6 months of the year at least at peak sun hours.

On top of all this, you have a lot of domestic solar in places like Spain. The grid operator _cannot_ control these assets in nearly all circumstances. They will continue to dump power into the grid regardless of the market price. This again will change but it requires an awful lot of work to retrofit invertors with remote control capability OR a lot of public backlash for charging end customers who bought solar in "good faith" now getting hit with peak time negative prices (so they change their behaviour).

I think my core message would be _any_ negative power prices is a sign of market failure. Acceptable in rare extreme occurrences, but the fact most of europe has highly negative prices very frequently is telling you the grid and market design is not able to handle what is going on.

[Maxion]

> Because the only reason that solar is still generating power at negative prices is because they are getting subsidies to do it.

This massively simplifies reality.

E.g. in Finland where I live we also have issues with negative power prices. A few years ago we had some really low prices. It turns out, a fair bit of wind power producers never opted to add to their windmills any remote shutdown possibility, nor did they have the ability to monitor prices and react to them automatically. I.e. they just kept generating no matter the price, and had offers in at the network level at the lowest permissable price.

Since then, when they lost a non-insignifcant amount of money by running at negative prices, they've started installing control electronics in windmills and building IT systems and prediction algorithms to be able to react to this.

In the EU it is not as simple as "turning off when the prices are negative" since producers offer a certain capacity to the grid in an auction system the day before. You have to predict the weather + overall demand and set your offer accordingly.

[eldaisfish]

I used to design wind turbines for a living. Any wind turbine made in the last fifteen years has the capability for remote shutdown. This is not an option, this is basic functionality.

Please can you share a source that explains your info?

[martinald]

I don't think it's right at all at least to any systemic level. It's because Finland has a load of nuclear (~50% of all generation esp after the EPR opened) and also a lot of wind power.

Nuclear is not well suited at all to being curtailed, I also suspect it would be worth paying negative prices to avoid it to a certain level - the French reactor cracking problems (earlier design though) are hypothesized from what I read to becaused by a lot of demand curtailment putting stress on the various metals as they heat and cool frequently because of reducing output.