[jillesvangurp]

The real problem isn't curtailment but misaligned incentives that subsidize curtailment. In short, wind providers are being payed royally (many billions) to NOT produce wind energy. There's no incentive for them to be more efficient. Worse, because of the incentives, energy companies are just installing wind wherever they can without regard for the local infrastructure and demand. They get guaranteed pricing regardless of whether their energy is used. Not their problem if they have to throw double digit percentages of their energy away. They get paid anyway.

[pjc50]

It's not a question of "efficiency"; as the original article points out, they're at the mercy of the transmission market. It's not their problem because .. it really isn't their problem and they can't solve it.

> installing wind wherever they can without regard for the local infrastructure and demand

Alternatively, installing it where the energy and topography is, and the local planning environment allows it. We wouldn't be in quite such a bad position if the Tory government hadn't banned onshore wind in England.

[pyrale]

> they're at the mercy of the transmission market

There is no such thing as a transmission market. The grid is a regional monopoly, and it doesn't "market" its capacity.

The issue here is that when too much power runs through a line, if you don't turn it off, it does [1]. Building more lines isn't exactly fast, or cheap, and it wasn't really a major focus of the people setting up subsidies for new production.

> It's not their problem because .. it really isn't their problem and they can't solve it.

It's not their problem because their subsidies scheme means they will get paid anyway.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....