logo
How Weather Impacts Operation And Dependence On Renewable Energy

How Weather Impacts Operation And Dependence On Renewable Energy

Forbes4 days ago

As the demand for renewable energy increases, so do risks for weather impacts and grid stability. ... More Weather impact arbitrage is a strategy to reduce these risks.
When 55 million people suddenly lost power in Spain and Portugal in late April, many instinctively assumed the outage must have been caused by the weather. It made sense. Extreme weather events can significantly disrupt renewable energy infrastructures – and the Iberian peninsula's grid is 80% powered by renewables.
Turns out the weather wasn't the culprit this time. Conditions were pristine on April 28 – balmy temperatures, no precipitation – and the Iberian grid was back up and running by the next morning. In fact, some groups are saying the nice weather contributed to an overabundance of renewable energy causing line congestion and ultimately system instability. A month later, people are still debating the cause of the worst European outage in recent memory. A joint expert panel established by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity has launched an investigation into the root cause.
Here in the U.S., solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower and other renewable sources are becoming important parts of more energy conversations. Taken all together, these sources accounted for about 90% of the U.S.'s new installed capacity in 2024, according to a report by the World Resources Institute. The same report notes that renewables make up 30% of the country's large-scale power generating capacity and supply nearly 25% of all electricity.
Given renewables' prospects, operators are taking more interest in how weather will affect the energy sources' future. Renewables, of course, depend on weather to physically generate power. Their performance also depends heavily on operators' ability to protect energy sources from all kinds of weather.
For example, hydroelectric plants are affected by intense droughts that reduce water availability or heavy rainfall can overwhelm systems. Heavy gusts of wind can damage wind turbine blades and put mechanical stress on turbine systems and severe weather make up 80% of solar farm insurance claims.
Even small weather events can progressively reduce solar output by 1% annually according to a 2024 National Renewable Energy Laboratory on weather and solar system performance.
But rather than viewing weather fluctuations solely as operational risks to be mitigated, sophisticated operators can use advanced weather intelligence to leverage weather impact arbitrage.
Arbitrage in the traditional sense is a trading strategy where investors take advantage of price discrepancies for the same asset in different markets. Cross-regional energy trading exemplifies this approach, as operators with superior weather intelligence can anticipate production surges or deficits across different regions before they're reflected in market prices.
My position for weather impact arbitrage involves capitalizing on discrepancies but in broader terms. It is leveraging energy assets and operations to capitalize on weather patterns across different geographies and timeframes. By understanding weather variations with greater precision, energy operators can make more informed profitable decisions about when to generate, store or consume energy, and optimize operations for time, financial or efficiency savings.
Here are a few of many examples of how weather impact arbitrage would benefit the energy industry.
Consider strategic maintenance scheduling that moves beyond simply avoiding severe weather to identifying periods when the revenue opportunity cost is lowest based on long-term weather pattern analysis. Or routine work that is delayed or rescheduled based on weather intelligence. For example, using wildfire forecasting to plan or revise work in an area with a high probability of ignition could help prevent catastrophic physical and financial outcomes.
Energy scheduling using weather intelligence can optimize output. For example, through high-resolution forecasts of solar irradiance, operators can anticipate fluctuations in sunlight caused by cloud cover, storms, or atmospheric haze. With granular forecasting, they can protect assets during a severe weather event in a specific area of the field for the necessary time to maximize energy generation. This foresight allows them to better manage energy storage systems and optimize production.
Excess renewable energy, such as wind and solar, can cause grid congestion. This is one of the causes considered for the Spain and Portugal outage. When this happens, transmission operators will enact dispatch down or curtailment measures. Dispatch down events can cause energy prices to plummet during extreme oversupply conditions. Grid operators must also pay the renewable energy provider a downward dispatch fee that can cost thousands of dollars per megawatt per hour. Energy operators who use a combination of seasonal forecasts, predictive and real-time forecasts have better insights and can strategically plan for dispatch down probabilities.
Dynamic line rating for grid balancing in increasingly becoming a global strategy for grid stability. In the U.S. the upcoming regulation FERC 881 addresses the continuing influence of weather on transmission line capacity for better dynamic and responsive line capacity management. Current calculations without DLR are based on conservative estimates of worst-case weather conditions and do not adjust in real-time to actual weather conditions. Conversely, hot conditions limit the ability to dissipate heat, increasing the risk of overheating, sagging, and potential damage to the lines. Both scenarios affect market prices, grid stability and optimizing renewable integration.
Battery storage operators can develop algorithms that charge and discharge based not just on price signals but on proprietary weather forecasts that predict price movements before they occur. Large energy consumers with flexible loads could time their consumption based on weather forecasts, reducing usage during weather-induced supply constraints and increasing it during weather-driven production surges.
Weather Impact arbitrage depends on utilizing weather intelligence including hyperlocal weather forecasting capabilities with greater accuracy and longer lead times than traditional models. This also requires the integration of weather intelligence directly into existing systems with other data sources, such as pricing, asset locations, service areas and operations. Ensemble forecasts informed by advanced algorithms such as AI and machine learning further leverage weather arbitrage strategies.
It is time to stop viewing the weather only as a risk. Weather impact arbitrage could fundamentally transform renewable energy economics by positioning weather intelligence not as a defensive tool but as a source of competitive advantage and value creation in an increasingly weather-dependent energy landscape.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

BlackRock removed from Texas boycott list after quitting climate groups
BlackRock removed from Texas boycott list after quitting climate groups

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

BlackRock removed from Texas boycott list after quitting climate groups

By Ross Kerber (Reuters) -Texas on Tuesday removed BlackRock from a list of companies seen as boycotting the energy industry, a step the New York asset manager won only with steep cuts to its climate ambitions. Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar said the decision reflected BlackRock's retreats from industry climate groups like the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. He also noted how the firm has lowered its support for shareholder environmental resolutions and backed a new Texas Stock Exchange. BlackRock "has acknowledged the real social and economic costs, both here in Texas and globally, that come from limiting investment in the oil and gas industry," Hegar said in a statement. The delisting will make it easier for Texas state agencies and funds to do business with the top asset manager. It could also help BlackRock answer claims brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over its environmental record. BlackRock representatives did not immediately comment. Hegar had added BlackRock and various European managers to his list in 2022 under a state law passed the prior year in response to Wall Street's embrace, at the time, of environmental and social investment priorities. Faced with the political pressure, various BlackRock rivals had also left industry climate groups and cut back on their support for shareholder resolutions, which called for changes like emissions cuts or limits. Democratic leaders and climate activists have accused the companies of going soft on their support for environmental matters they once touted. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Scaring Putin is the only route to a just peace
Scaring Putin is the only route to a just peace

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Scaring Putin is the only route to a just peace

Nobody in their right mind thought Putin would come to the latest round of peace talks in Istanbul with any seriousness. And so it has proven. His demands are straight out of Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko's negotiating playbook: demand the maximum, present ultimatums and do not give one inch. Putin's terms for a final settlement are no different from his diktats from the start, including international recognition of Moscow's occupation of the four regions he considers Russian territory, and a guarantee Ukraine never joins any international alliances. Even Putin's pathways to a temporary ceasefire require withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all of the four regions, demobilisation of the armed forces, cessation of international military aid and electing a new government. In other words: total capitulation, with Ukraine surrendering its sovereignty, partitioned, isolated, disarmed and a Russian puppet government in Kyiv. That doesn't mean negotiations shouldn't continue in the hope of achieving less punitive terms. The Ukrainian government has already signalled it would be ready to accept the temporary occupation of territory Russia has already captured. But it is hard to see how Putin will climb down from his maximalist position without significant changes on the battlefield or to the economic situation. President Trump tried a softball approach with Putin, extending the prospect of major economic benefits through a return to normalisation in US-Russia relations. Putin hasn't bought that even though he has ham-fistedly attempted to mollify Trump and encourage him to abandon Ukraine with his disingenuous ploy of engaging in negotiations. Trump obviously sees right through that. He said he was 'p----d off' by Putin's proposal that Ukraine should be placed under external administration with elections overseen by the UN. The US now needs to try a different approach. Trump can say he did everything he could to end the bloodshed in the first months of his presidency but Putin's intransigence now demands different tactics. What would those tactics be? Continue to hold out an olive branch while doubling down on US military backing to Ukraine and pressuring European allies to do the same thing. It was Biden's faltering leadership that allowed most West European countries as well as the US to do the least they could get away with. That needs to change and we've already seen how Trumpian hectoring can compel Europeans to boost their own defence spending, both in his first term and even more in his second. Renewing US commitment to Nato would also help encourage European leaders. It would send a powerful message to Putin too, whose overriding strategic objective is dividing the West. We need to move on from providing Ukraine with just enough to defend themselves but never enough to prevail. The effort required to drive Russia back out of Ukraine is probably too much to expect, but the point would be to enable Kyiv to do even more damage to Russian forces to compel Putin to reconsider his current calculation that he can grind Ukraine down and outlast the West's support. Among the most harmful constraints Biden imposed on Ukraine was forbidding use of US-supplied weapons to attack Russian sovereign territory. That was the consequence of his fear of Russian escalation, both against Ukraine and Nato countries. It allowed Putin to continue to shield the Russian population from the conflict, keeping it limited to a 'special military operation'. Kyiv didn't play ball though, firing home-made drones into Russia and even mounting the first invasion of its territory since the Second World War. The latest breathtaking drone attack on Russia, which destroyed a large chunk of its strategic air force on the ground shows what can be done. Some say the US and European countries should distance themselves from that, dreading Moscow's retaliation. But irrespective of the diplomatic position they choose to take, they should do the opposite, by giving Ukraine what it needs to carry out further strikes to undermine Russian military capability, drive the war home to the population and humiliate Putin. Trump should start to do real economic damage to Russia. Much can be achieved by more effective military action to increase weapons and equipment loss rates, potentially forcing Putin to transition the economy to a full war footing. The half-hearted sanctions against Russia have not been good enough and European countries have paid more to Russia for hydrocarbons than they have given in aid to Ukraine. We need to turn the screws by tougher measures against the Russian energy sector, finally detaching Moscow from the international banking system and disrupting the ghost tanker fleet that has allowed oil revenues to surge. A bitter blow would also be landed by seizing the entirety of Russia's $330 billion of frozen assets in Western countries to pay for the war, or at least plan to do so subject to negotiations. Putin showed yet again in Istanbul that he doesn't eat carrots, so Trump now needs to propel him towards a proper deal by applying a very large stick. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

US proposes interim step in Iran nuclear talks allowing some enrichment
US proposes interim step in Iran nuclear talks allowing some enrichment

Boston Globe

time2 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

US proposes interim step in Iran nuclear talks allowing some enrichment

Advertisement The outline of the potential deal, which was described on the condition of anonymity by Iranian and European officials, was handed to Iran over the weekend. Officials in Tehran indicated Monday that a response would come in several days. It is the first concrete indication since President Donald Trump took office that the United States and Iran might be able to find a path to compromise that would head off a potential regional war over Tehran's ambitions to build a nuclear weapon. But the details remain vague, the two sides remain far apart on many elements of a deal, and the domestic politics for both are complex. In his first term, Trump canceled an agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama that had similarly sought to keep Iran from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. Advertisement At least in the opening years of the proposed arrangement, when new enrichment facilities to produce fuel for power plants are being built in cooperation with Arab states, Iran would be allowed to continue enriching uranium at low levels, despite Trump's post on social media Monday saying the United States would 'not allow any enrichment of uranium.' (It is possible that he was referring to what would be allowed at the concluding stage of the potential deal rather than during an interim arrangement.) The idea of a regional consortium would essentially wrap Iran in a bearhug with countries that might include the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others, allowing the production of low-grade nuclear fuel for power plants while seeking to ensure that Iran is not enriching fuel on its own for a bomb. But one key unresolved question is whether Iran's leadership will agree to an ultimate arrangement in which no nuclear fuel is produced on Iranian soil. 'We do not need anyone's permission to enrich uranium,' Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Tuesday. Israel has also been deeply skeptical of any deal that would leave Iran with nuclear capabilities. It has repeatedly suggested that now is the time for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, citing Tehran's degraded air defense systems and the weakness of its regional allies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran, however, still possesses a formidable arsenal of conventional weapons, including ballistic missiles, capable of threatening Israel, Gulf neighbors and U.S. bases in the region. Iranian officials have warned that in the event of a military strike on their nuclear facilities, they would respond forcefully, exit the nonproliferation agreement and end international inspectors' access to sites. Advertisement The wording of the new proposal, crafted by Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, is vaguely worded on many of the most important issues, suggesting that considerable negotiating lies ahead, Iranian and European officials said. For example, it is unclear that the accord meets the standard Trump said last week that he would demand, an agreement in which 'we can take whatever we want; we can blow up whatever we want.' Senior Iranian officials involved in the negotiations called the bombastic statement 'a fantasy.' Araghchi said Monday at the sideline of meetings in Egypt with officials that Iran would 'soon send America an appropriate response. Without respecting our right to enrich uranium, there will be no agreement.' He added that he was confident of a diplomatic breakthrough to avert further crises. The Trump administration's proposal, according to two Iranian officials, leaves unclear exactly what would be required in dismantling the country's nuclear program. Iran has invested billions of dollars in building its two main nuclear facilities, Natanz and Fordo, and in developing its advanced nuclear program, which it considers a source of national pride. Shuttering the facilities would be humiliating and difficult to justify, according to an Iranian official familiar with the internal deliberations. These facilities also employ hundreds of scientists, some of the country's most talented, and the government worries that many of the top ones may leave Iran if they are unemployed and waiting for the new consortium to take shape, an Iranian official said. Over the years, Israel has targeted and assassinated a number of leading nuclear scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The proposal did not specify which of the hundreds of sanctions against Iran would be removed in any final deal. Iran has told the United States that all sanctions would need to be removed in order to sign a deal -- not just those related to its nuclear program. Advertisement Iranian officials said they would not take any measures curbing their program without parallel sanctions relief, particularly diluting or exporting the huge stockpile of enriched uranium that the United Nations' atomic watchdog says would allow them to build 10 bombs if they chose to weaponize. While the outcome of the negotiation remains unclear, Witkoff's strategy is beginning to emerge. The consortium he proposed would provide nuclear fuel for Iran and any of its neighbors interested in developing civilian nuclear power or research programs. The many players would watch one another -- and they would be watched by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. group that monitors nuclear fuel around the world and is supposed to send alarms if it believes the fuel is being diverted to a weapons program. But the proposal does not make clear exactly where the enrichment facility would be located, though the U.S. has said it cannot be in Iran. Iranian officials continue to insist it must be in their territory, because they would not give up their right to enrich nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory to the treaty, though so far it has not ratified an addendum, called the Additional Protocol, that would give inspectors much greater rights to search any part of the country where they suspect nuclear activity. Although it was not noted in the U.S. proposal, Omani and Saudi officials have discussed the idea of building an enrichment facility on an island in the Persian Gulf. This would potentially give both sides a talking point: The Iranians would be able to say they are still enriching uranium, and the Americans could state that enrichment is not happening on Iranian soil. Advertisement Two Iranian officials said the country was open to accepting the consortium idea because the government did not want talks to fail. But the Iranian officials said negotiators planned to bargain in the next round of talks for the island to be one of their own: They may propose Kish or Qeshm in the Persian Gulf, though other possibilities have been discussed. Iran claims these territories and would most likely argue that this would allow it to keep enrichment on its soil. But it would also make a facility much more visible to the world than Iran's current enrichment facilities, which are underground, and in one case deep inside a mountain to protect against Israeli attack. This article originally appeared in

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store