21–30 of 282 posts
Solar? Hydro electric? (I wonder if roof top solar is included here).
Also, note this was over a very short period of time. And there's still night time, when solar doesn't operate, except for whatever got stored into batteries.
Then why is it so damn expensive. Honestly one of the reasons I can’t wait to own a house is to purchase enough solar panels and batteries to give a huge middle finger to PG&E and go off-grid
I’ve been trying to do the math for my own home, are solar panels actually cash flow positive, once you account for efficiency decrease overtime etc.? It always seemed like one barely breaks even in 2 decades
The grid operator cited is the California Independent System Operator. How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that operator? In the article they mention 23GW from wind and solar. A quick search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation capacity was 80GW (which I assume has only gone up). So this 97% is a bit misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total CA electricity usage... it's less than 30%?
My interpretation is that this was a low demand moment where that 27gw was more or less equal to the demand (e.g. a demand trough not a renewable output spike).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My interpretation is that this was a low demand moment where that 27gw was more or less equal to the demand (e.g. a demand trough not a renewable output spike).
So the title should be - CA generated 97% of electricity from renewable energy for a brief moment on April 3?
The grid operator cited is the California Independent System Operator. How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that operator? In the article they mention 23GW from wind and solar. A quick search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation capacity was 80GW (which I assume has only gone up). So this 97% is a bit misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total CA electricity usage... it's less than 30%?
> Rooftop solar advocacy group Save California Solar said although this milestone should be celebrated, California’s renewable energy progress is better measured by conditions on a hot August summer day than a cool April spring day. Renewable peaks typically occur in the spring, due to mild temperatures and the sun angle allowing for an extended window of strong solar production.
It’s difficult to see this as a net positive given the financial hardship brought about to even make this headline a reality (note that even the headline is misleading and requires context).
It’s a bit like the person who goes out and purchases a vehicle, spends countless hours away from his family working on it, takes out additional loans to modify it, crashes it, repairs it and then wins 2nd place at the local meetup. You have to ask yourself, at what point was this worth it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve been trying to do the math for my own home, are solar panels actually cash flow positive, once you account for efficiency decrease overtime etc.? It always seemed like one barely breaks even in 2 decades
Sounds about right for the power only, but you also probably get a battery with it to deal with power outages… I don’t know how to price the utility of that, but it’s why I bought solar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Powe... Looks like California should start building one of these 3.6GW 40GWh batteries since at this rate routine 120-150% renewable power days dont look so far off and it'll take about 6 years to build.
Then why is it so damn expensive. Honestly one of the reasons I can’t wait to own a house is to purchase enough solar panels and batteries to give a huge middle finger to PG&E and go off-grid
If you want to do solar for the environment, fine - I won't fault you - but if you are doing it to save/make money, there are better places to invest.
The grid operator cited is the California Independent System Operator. How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that operator? In the article they mention 23GW from wind and solar. A quick search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation capacity was 80GW (which I assume has only gone up). So this 97% is a bit misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total CA electricity usage... it's less than 30%?
Renewables never reach capacity, well your solar might for a peak moment, but then it will drop as the sun drops.
For example - you have a 200 MW wind farm, you might only be able to produce 10MW at that moment. The capacity is 200MW, the generation is 10.
Also the 3rd was a Sunday in spring - no office workers, less demand, not a heating or cooling day in a lot of California, ie a lower energy day than say a week day in summer where the temp is 105 in the Central Valley.