Live data from Hacker News

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

solarpowerworldonline.com

121–130 of 282 posts

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

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It may be still better to run nuclear plants then. We'll need data from modern nuclear designs, (especially the small ones) but renewables are not exactly free to run. Storage degrades, solar degrades, lithium needs to be mined, turbines mean lots of mechanical parts, etc. We may learn that running just the renewables common today is even more uneconomic.

The maintenance burden you suggest for wind turbines is exaggerated. Compared to a gas car there are way fewer moving parts in common wind turbines, and some designs with no moving parts are being tested: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/dutch-wind-wheel-genera...

Additionally, battery degradation appears to be primarily related to high speed charging. In decade old battery packs that were not charged at extreme rates like 2C or above, you rarely see significant degredation. Grid scale operators will almost certainly manage their battery farms to limit the C rate to optimize battery life and long term profits.

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

#122
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

If only we weren't spending $105 billion high speed rail no one will use, we might have been able to scrounge up $10 billion for solar.

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

#123
post #29
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

Every time I do the math, any money I would spend on a solar system, would be better invested in an energy utility and just collect the dividend to pay my electric bill. 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 provider space seems quite volatile, where investors risk being wiped out (ala Griddy's investors), severely reduced in value (eg: PG&E),

PG&E: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4441976-formerly-bankrupt-p...

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

#124

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…

not all california energy is produce in california california fo example pays to nevada if don't remember wrong to, shut down their panels to make their output higher than it is for example, or like this articule say pay other state to buy their electric excess output meaning the technically could be true article: California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to…

Shame only one period in this entire reply.

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

#125
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$0.35 would be a bargain. It's more like $0.40 / kWh, it's complicated depending on which rate plan you have and what time of day / year you're using power. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-ra... Meanwhile my neighbors 30 miles away are paying half that rate to SMUD. https://www.smud.org/en/Rate-Information/Compare-rates As a bonus, SMUD doesn't generally kill people and burn down cities.

Presumably the Sacramento utility district doesn't serve high risk fire areas, so their customers don't have to subsidize people that choose to live on the wildlands-urban interface.

They also have never had to pay out dividends unlike PG&E, or been forced to optimize for what will deliver the most value to their shareholders.

https://www.pgecorp.com/investors/shareholders/dividend_hist...

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

#126
post #112
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 Texas spike was not what customers were willing to bear, the Texas spike was set to the max price by the regulator because they thought the pricing system wasn't working.

> Texas spike was set to the max price by the regulator...

IIRC, a member of ERCOT who resigned claimed high-ranked state politician(s) pressured the regulator to do set the max price - so it wasn't the independent judgment of the regulator that the system was working; or that this was the solution.

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

#128
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

California already has some big long-distance transmission lines. Path 65 (aka Pacific DC Intertie) is a 3.1 GW line connecting the hydroelectric dams of Washington and Oregon to Los Angeles. Path 27 (Intermountain DC) is a 2.4 GW line connecting LA to a big-ass coal plant in Utah that is being shifted to wind+solar+natgas+hydrogen. Path 66 is a set of AC lines that combine for 4.8 GW from Oregon to Southern Californ…

Yes, but not of the places you listed are where you would put solar to supply California. If anything they will likely be used to move excess solar power out of California.

The map of solar production shows a compromise between building it in the most efficient place vs where demand and incentives is located. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Stat...

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

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

If I were a billionaire, I could spend 10 billion project with a massive reduction in fossil fuel emissions. Or I could spend over 4 times as much to buy a social media site. Decisions, decisions.

One sounds like an expense, the other sounds like a transfer from one pocket to the other while allowing for shifting the public perception any way desired while retaining unparalleled access to capital.

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

#130
post #67

Earlier 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…

No, we can make engineering calculations, however those calculations don't support the strawman you're promoting.

What happened in Texas was a direct and utterly predictable result of market policy that did not value resiliency vs spot price. Let's just pause to take into full scale the failure of the TX energy market during that emergency: gas turbine producers, facing the highest spot rates they will likely ever see, couldn't produce into the grid because the grid was designed &()*(&)BN dumb. End of story from the technology side for all this sophomoric lazy lassie faire libertarian blather.

California has its issues, but compared to the scale of demand is a very effective power grid. I grew up in KS. If the institutions there had even 1% of the exogenous problems faced by CA providers they'd turn into a clown circus on fire real fast.

Post reply on HN