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

81–90 of 282 posts

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

#81

Post by incomethax »

Retric wrote: post #70
vmception wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm catching on. Is there not enough space in central valley for this? is there too much loss transporting that electricity to population centers?

In theory moving electricity 1,000 miles can have minimal transmission losses. Unfortunately California’s grid lacks the infrastructure to support significant long distance transmission.

Sort-of. Transmission for HTHV lines (745kV single circuit cost $2.5-4M/mile with ~1% line loss; 345kV single circuit will cost ~$1.5-2M/mile with 5% line loss). For 1MW solar capacity you typically need about 4 acres. 100GW of solar would require 400k acres of land - and come at a cost of about $3 billion for the panels, not to mention the price of land or entitlements. Add in cost of substations and transmission you’re realistically looking at a $10+ Billion project. Which while doable would not profitability compete with other grid solutions. If panels drop by another 30% and power densities improve the grid will naturally tend towards that direction.

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

#82

Post by notch656a »

JamesBarney wrote: post #74
ajross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The economic reason people should be paying 100x the cost to supply is to incentivize people to build spare capacity.

Generally agree although there is something a bit sinister about a market where you don't really know the price until after you've bought the product. IMO giving a utility provider blank check is like raw-dogging cheap hookers every night and then being surprised when your luck runs out.

If people WANT this kind of contract I hope that their consent is an informed one. I'm not one to stop people from engaging in their own reckless behavior.

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

#83

Post by ajsnigrutin »

strainer wrote: post #66
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need forms of storage for that. The conundrum can be turned on its head - "What do you do when you have nuclear and the businesses and factories are closed ?" You either simply waste nuclear capacity that you've paid and waited years for to be built - or you need forms of storage to make use of it. Both Nuclear and Renewables really want storage, they will compete for it. If you can only make use of 60% of a nucl…

If there's too much power, it will be dirt cheap, and you'll charge your electric car then, which will maybe become affordable by then. Also with smart grid you'll regulate water heaters, ACs etc.

Still better to have too much power than not enough... Especially if eg. Russia decides to close the gas pipe, or if americans decide to "bring democracy" to another middle eastern state and that disrupta oil delivery.

We've sidetracked nuclear for decades now... The best time was decades ago, and the second vest time to build some new ones is now.

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

#84

Post by renewiltord »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #40

> More than 15,000 MW of grid-connected solar power capacity and almost 8,000 MW of wind are now online. > The system currently has more than 2,700 MW of storage, most of it in lithium-ion batteries, and that number is projected to grow to about 4,000 MW by June 1. Storage should be in MWh I assume? Anyways, those batteries can hold 11 minutes of peak solar power production. But by June 1st, battery capacity is set t…

It's battery storage as a power source so it's about its delivery capacity. 2.7 GW of storage means when the time comes it can deliver at 2.7 GW.

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

#85

Post by malchow »

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

Solar in California is often breakeven after 4 to 7 years. Enphase enables microgrid systems, and the IQ8 can keep your house powered even when the grid is down, and even without batteries –– something never before possible.

https://enphase.com/sites/default/files/2021-10/IQ8SP-DS-000...

Worth nothing that PG&E is working with CA Democrats to try to kill rooftop solar. They want renewables, but only if distributed using their (badly operated and overpriced) grid. [1]

[1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/02/11/coalition-received-1-...

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

#86

Post by svachalek »

cge wrote: post #55
jeffbee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There have also been the intentional blackouts of a sort, if I recall correctly, but those were to mitigate fire risk, not because of capacity, and aren't particularly related to electricity generation .

Yup, thanks to poor power line maintenance burning down big swathes of the state, we established the totally modern, first world solution of shutting off the power when it's hot and windy.

But massive unintentional blackouts like say, Texas, nope not here.

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

#87

Post by rubyist5eva »

cge wrote: post #55
jeffbee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There have also been the intentional blackouts of a sort, if I recall correctly, but those were to mitigate fire risk, not because of capacity, and aren't particularly related to electricity generation .

Thanks for the extra context - went back and refreshed my memory and you are both correct. These are the articles I remember reading about CA blackouts from:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-wildfires-power-out...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-heat-wave-1.5687895

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

#88

Post by sib »

danans wrote: post #47
haliskerbas wrote: post #8

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

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.energysag…

Yeah, so far, with the rooftop system we put in about 1.5 years ago (Los Angeles), we are tracking to ~5.5 year payback period, so this feels right.

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

#89

Post by Mvandenbergh »

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%?

That is all the capacity added together before de-rating. Capacity is de-rated based on how likely it is to produce during a system load peak. So a nuclear plant might be counted as 75% of nameplate to account for outage risk. Renewables are de-rated a lot and by how much changes over time as they make up a larger share of the connected capacity.

California de-rates solar by less than, say, the UK since Cali has a lot of air conditioning load which is coincident with insolation whereas summer days are the low-load periods in the UK.

The capacity before de-rating > capacity after de-rating > highest anticipated load > actual load on a normal day.

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

#90

Post by Aachen »

outside1234 wrote: post #77

And this doesn't measure the 100% renewable power being consumed when the house is being powered by a solar panel... ... in any case, great progress, let's get to 100% California!

What percentage of industries and cars are electric currently? Is 100% also continuous during winter? There's a long way to go after "100%" unfortunately :/
Post reply on HN