Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

solarpowerworldonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 282 posts

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#41

Post by gameswithgo »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #32
kelnos wrote: post #7

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%?

April 3rd was a sunday, and probably a very sunny one, with temperatures in ranges where a lot of people don't really need AC nor electrical heating. What do you do when it's not sunny, very cold/hot, no wind, and businesses and factories are open? Somehow we talk a lot about solar, and not enough about nuclear.

No post body was provided.

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#42

Post by Cyclical »

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #26

Disclaimer: this comment is not about environmentalism or even the environmental impact. I’m not wading in those waters with HN. 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 hi…

I'm having trouble understanding how you can separate the cost/benefit analysis of renewable energy from environmentalism. The entire point is that the reasons for hitting these goals are not purely economic (in the short term - long term, running out of fossil fuels in a fossil fuel economy does not tend to be good for the economy.) The sentiment that aiming for full renewable supply is too expensive to be worth it feels like it misses the mark on why we're doing it.

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#43

Post by bcrosby95 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #15
jimbob45 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame that they're not getting better publicity as a result of this. Our main complaint about the internet companies is that they pocket the money meant to speed up networks for their subscribers. This is exactly what utility companies ought to do to prepare for the future.

They’re doing it because they went bankrupt over $30B in liability from not preparing in this fashion. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/business/energy-environme... > PG&E sought bankruptcy protection in January 2019 after accumulating an estimated $30 billion in liability for fires started by its poorly maintained equipment. One of the blazes, the 2018 Camp Fire, killed scores of people and destroyed the town of P…

A large part of why they're doing it because they're guaranteed a certain percentage return on investments. There's ways to fix this problem without a $25bil investment, but you won't make nearly as much profit on that.

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#44

Post by jeffbee »

pydry wrote: post #17

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.

Sounds big but California built over 2GW/8GW-h of battery capacity last year, so I think we're on pace. Nothing fancy, just a lot of batteries in cabinets.

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#45

Post by IvyMike »

kelnos wrote: post #7

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%?

"The CAISO is one of the largest ISOs in the world, delivering 300 million megawatt-hours of electricity each year and managing about 80% of California's electric flow." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Independent_System_...

Right now, 3PM in California, the CAISO demand shows around 21GW of demand. http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/index.html

Note that CAISO's peak, ever, was 50GW. (PDF) http://www.caiso.com/Documents/CaliforniaISOPeakLoadHistory....

The "installed capacity" of 80GW I believe is the number if you add the theoretical max of all hydro, solar, wind, gas peaker plants, etc. But each source will never simultaneously be at max, so we never get close to this 80GW number. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo....

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#46

Post by jjtheblunt »

selectodude wrote: post #14
kelnos wrote: post #7

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%?

CAISO doesn't cover the city of Los Angeles, but that's about it.

> but that's about it

isn't that the major consumer?

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#47

Post by danans »

haliskerbas wrote: post #8
pmalynin wrote: post #2

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

It depends on a whole lot of factors. In a sunny place like CA with good solar incentive programs, assuming good southern to southwestern exposure, they are cash positive after about 6 years [1]. In Wisconsin, 11 years [2]. In Washington State, 15 years [3]

1. https://www.energysage.com/solar-panels/ca/#:~:text=For%20Ca....

2. https://www.energysage.com/solar-panels/wi/#:~:text=In%20Wis....

3. https://www.energysage.com/solar-panels/wa/#:~:text=In%20Was....

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#48

Post by gxt »

haliskerbas wrote: post #8
pmalynin wrote: post #2

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

Even if only just break even after 20years, it is an acceptable cost for freedom of mind and autonomy.

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#49

Post by ajross »

samkater wrote: post #35
jweir wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not pay market rate for electricity. Texas does allow consumers to pay market rate for electricity, you may have heard about last winter people getting bills in the several thousands of dollars when prices spiked. CAISO was 97% renewable for only a moment, not the entire day. The 3rd was a Sunday, not a peak day. And the average price for energy for the day was $30.77 (day head) $27.1 (real time) for TH_SP15_G…

My understanding, to put it in AWS EC2 pricing terms, is that we do not pay the market "spot" rate for electricity (variable, often less than what you might pay elsewhere, but could spike up) - which is what Texas allowed. Typically we pay the "on demand" rate which is fixed. Large energy users probably negotiate "reserved" pricing. My point being, we pay the market rate, those massive hikes are just built-in over a…

That only works if the demand curve (the price the market will bear at given levels of shortage) and the cost curve (the actual price to produce the energy) match up.

In fact they never do, especially in this market. Texas producers weren't spending 100x (or whatever) more to produce that electricity, that spike just reflected the amount that customers who "had to keep the lights on" were willing to bear. In fact total utility costs are basically flat. They didn't hire 100x more employees or work 100x more hours to get things running again. They didn't have to build 100x more substations, etc...

And that's why spot pricing is a disaster for consumers. It creates a perverse incentive for producers to reduce supply.

Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3

#50

Post by shiftpgdn »

jweir wrote: post #10
pmalynin wrote: post #2

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

You do not pay market rate for electricity. Texas does allow consumers to pay market rate for electricity, you may have heard about last winter people getting bills in the several thousands of dollars when prices spiked. CAISO was 97% renewable for only a moment, not the entire day. The 3rd was a Sunday, not a peak day. And the average price for energy for the day was $30.77 (day head) $27.1 (real time) for TH_SP15_G…

You should keep in mind that only one provider allowed end users to pay spot rate and ERCOT revoked their license to operate after the freeze where power rates went to $4000/MWh. The average Texan (excluding people in East Texas who are on the Eastern power grid, and people in Austin) buy their energy on a 12 month contract from an intermediary who THEN negotiates a flat rate or gambles on beating the sold contracts on spot.
Post reply on HN