51–60 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tot…
Article doesn't get into this level of detail, but I'd be interested in how they define "renewable". Does it include hydropower, which is renewable but has strong non-carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences? Is burned trash "renewable"?
Cal ISO's web site is at https://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx On there you can dig in and find what sources are counted as renewable.
Is this why Calfornia energy is so expensive and constantly having blackouts?
No, because California isn't constantly having blackouts. There was one really infamous (among habitual Fox News viewers) capacity-related blackout in late 2020, in which fewer than 1% of customers were disconnected for less than 1 hour. That was precipitated by the sudden shutdown of Diablo Canyon, a nuclear power station. California hasn't had a capacity-related intentional disconnect since then.
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%?
I'm also confused by the scales here. How are they praising the use of 15,000 MW (15GW) and 8,000 MW (8 GW) in one sentence, in an article about 97% of California's energy being used, and saying they need 100 GW in the next sentence and being sad they can't put it on rooftops. In an article showing a photo of a solar cell field in a vast, desolate, arid region of central valley.
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%?
> “If California is to have any hope of getting to 100% renewable energy on an August day in the future ... it will take 100 GW more energy produced by solar. Halting the progress of rooftop solar makes that goal impossible" I'm also confused by the scales here. How are they praising the use of 15,000 MW (15GW) and 8,000 MW (8 GW) in one sentence, in an article about 97% of California's energy being used, and saying…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “If California is to have any hope of getting to 100% renewable energy on an August day in the future ... it will take 100 GW more energy produced by solar. Halting the progress of rooftop solar makes that goal impossible" I'm also confused by the scales here. How are they praising the use of 15,000 MW (15GW) and 8,000 MW (8 GW) in one sentence, in an article about 97% of California's energy being used, and saying…
In California August requires a lot more electricity due to AC than April. Seasonal demand differences can be huge, and why a lot of maintenance for nuclear reactors etc take place in the spring and fall.
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.