Grid services
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Zuidplas Grid Study
A constraint model for a node three developers had already written off. Two of the four options were viable.
Projects
Eighty-four assets. These are the ones worth explaining.
Each one is reported monthly against the case it was underwritten on. Where a project has underperformed, the entry says so.
3.1GW
Solar commissioned across 42 sites
2.8GW
Onshore wind, 18 farms, 6 of them repowered
940MWh
Storage energised, sited against measured curtailment
96.4%
Fleet availability, 2025, unsmoothed and third-party verified
- Netherlands 19
- Spain 16
- Denmark 11
- Germany 10
- Portugal 8
- Sweden 7
- Poland 6
- Ireland 4
- France 3
Zeewolde storage, 320 MWh · energised March 2024
One asset in full
The system we sited on the constraint instead of the sunshine.
Every developer in the queue wanted to build next to the solar farm, where the story writes itself. The network did not hurt there. Forty kilometres north, it hurt every afternoon between two and six.
The problem
A 400 kV node curtailing 340 GWh a year, most of it inside four hours a day, and none of the proposed storage sited within reach of it.
What we did differently
Took three years of nodal price and curtailment data as the siting input rather than the resource map. The site we chose has no generation on it and never will.
Programme
22 months origination to energisation. Consent took nine of them, which was four fewer than modelled because the site had no residential objector within 3 km.
Result
320 MWh, four-hour duration. Paid back four years ahead of the underwriting case, and the node’s curtailment is down 61% on the same measured basis.
What went wrong
Auxiliary load ran 18% over model for the first winter. We had specified the HVAC against the wrong ambient profile and paid for the correction ourselves.
Have a site, a queue position or a problem with both?
Send us the constraint. We will tell you within a fortnight whether it is buildable and what it would take.
Or email hello@greenvia.com