Does this include the power that California imports from across state lines?
California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
101–110 of 282 posts
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#102[dead]
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#103This is a cool milestone, but it belies the current state of CA renewables, shown here at a very fine grain (data not current, need to go back a week): http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html To summarize, CA has to burn a lot of natural gas and import a lot of (mostly non-renewable) electricity from other states at night, and even more in the shoulder periods at morning and evening. Only untold billions…
This is inevitably the case with renewable options that don't offer on-demand capacity (i.e. not hydro). The success metric for renewable adoption must take into account the need for on-demand generation, at present the most viable and cleanest option being natural gas.
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#104Then 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…
That's not accurate. 99% of people are on fixed rate plans.
Mainly it was one company, Griddy, that sold gullible people variable rate plans.
Griddy was then banned as it failed to provide people power during this time, suggesting their users to switch.
Most Texans are on fixed rate plans via TXU, Reliant, or the many other normal providers.
It was suggested to pass a law preventing variable rate plans that gamble like that, but I'm not sure the state of that.
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#105Earlier 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…
There are currently no residential consumers in Texas on spot rate plans since the only provider had their license revoked. https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/ercot-shuts-down-wholesale-...
Yeah, after the last catastrophe. They learned a lesson.
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#106Then 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
Depends on how much power you need and your access to sun. I'm in the Bay Area, installed solar panels about 18 months ago. Break even for the panels is estimated to be about 6 years at current market rates. Now I also had to do a new roof, which roughly doubles the break even time, ignoring the fact that I'd have needed a new roof anyways.
Currently I'm not taking into consideration decreased efficiency because the panels are warrantied for 90.08%+ at 25 years. Also something not taken into account on breakeven/cash positive is the fact that PG&E rates are always on the rise. As of March of this year rates went up 9%. The more rates go up, the faster I break even.
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the minimum capacity that renewables are guaranteed to provide? Zero... same as any other technology. ie: Texas lost around 25GW of needed NatGas capacity in Feb 2021, not to mention the failed coal, wind, and nuclear that also occurred during that event. (Texas had similar shortages in 2011 and 1989.) > That's the number that matters. You need to take a portfolio view when thinking about energy supply issu…
So we can't make engineering calculations because black swan events throw all that out the window? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Power grids require serious engineering, not magical thinking, if they are to be economical and reliable. If windmills do not provide base load power, then what will? Something will, and that something will need to be built, and that something will cost money, and that somethin…
> that something will need to be built
If renewables (and batteries) are deployed at a scale where they produce enough electricity except during black swan events, then we can just keep the gas power stations around and use them a couple of days a year.
The rest of the year we can run atmospheric carbon capture facilities (or just try to capture the CO2 from the gas power stations).
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the minimum capacity that renewables are guaranteed to provide? Zero... same as any other technology. ie: Texas lost around 25GW of needed NatGas capacity in Feb 2021, not to mention the failed coal, wind, and nuclear that also occurred during that event. (Texas had similar shortages in 2011 and 1989.) > That's the number that matters. You need to take a portfolio view when thinking about energy supply issu…
So we can't make engineering calculations because black swan events throw all that out the window? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Power grids require serious engineering, not magical thinking, if they are to be economical and reliable. If windmills do not provide base load power, then what will? Something will, and that something will need to be built, and that something will cost money, and that somethin…
Agreed
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#109Then 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
Going off-grid is really expensive unless you're willing to make significant quality of life cuts when you go outside your system capacity. A string of overcast days that only produce 50% of normal, or a series of hot or cold days that drive large A/C or Heat Pump usage can put you in a situation where you are shedding load during the day so you can bridge across the overnight period.
I expect it's just probably doable in a really temperate climate like SF, where you can live without running heating or cooling year-round and try to get your other electric usage way down, but anywhere with hot summers or cold winters is going to risk battery depletion.
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#110Article 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"?
Even if California shut down all of its hydro power, the dams would stay because the state is constantly in a drought and desperately needs water.