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

131–140 of 282 posts

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

#131

Post by pie42000 »

sib wrote: post #88
danans wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Guaranteed 15%+ ROI. Really makes you wonder why more people aren't investing in solar

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

#132

Post by nightski »

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…

Wow is electricity really that expensive in CA? Our total expenditure on electricity over 20 years is around 20k.

But in CA that site says that their net 20 year savings using solar is 44k-60k. That's insane. Their savings alone is 3 times the cost of our entire electric bill...

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

#133

Post by Retric »

incomethax wrote: post #81
Retric wrote: 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…

The US already has 121GW of solar installed the majority of that being large scale Grid solar. Which shows the transition is already happening at current prices.

A major part of that equation is there is a lot of land in the US available for under 2,000$/acre, however spending more is a tradeoff to reduce the need for longer distance power transmission etc.

PS: 10B for 100GW at 30% capacity factor for 20 years is 10,000,000,000$ / (100,000,000kW * 0.3 * 24h * 365 * 20) or 0.2c/kWh ignoring interest. So, I think you messed up your estimate somewhere if you think that’s uncompetitive.

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

#134

Post by 1123581321 »

ejb999 wrote: post #29
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

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.

Who is your utility and what part of the country? My panels are earning me about 12% per annum post tax, low risk, with insurance against capital loss (home insurance in event of hailstorm, hurricane.) I don’t see stock market investment opportunities competing.

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

#135

Post by idiotsecant »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #83
strainer wrote: post #66

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…

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'v…

No, having too much power without storage is exactly as bad as not enough. That's how the physics works. It's a zero sum game or it's lights out for the grid. It takes a lot of smart people and simulations to do a semi decent job of walking that tightrope day after day after day. Overproduction is a huge problem, as evidenced by the frequent negative power pricing of CA solar

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

#136

Post by rcpt »

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

California (rightly) prices in externalities of power generation

https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP294.pdf

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

#137

Post by bink »

outworlder wrote: post #118
ceeplusplus wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's honestly insane how PG&E is going bankrupt despite charging 35 cents/kWh. Where is all the money going??

It's incredible. Even more so if we consider that Silicon Valley Power (serving Santa Clara) charges a fraction of that and is more reliable.

Seems unfair to compare a utility covering 18 square miles to one covering 160k+ square miles across some of the harshest terrain in the country. But I agree that PG&E charges way too much.

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

#138

Post by lesuorac »

hunterb123 wrote: post #104
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…

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 li…

What was Griddy telling gullible people that wasn't the truth? As far as I've seen, they've been completely honest about their pricing.

> [Griddy] does warn customers, however, that the wholesale price is capped by state regulators at $9 a kilowatt-hour. [1]

It's not Griddys fault that Texas doesn't prepare for winter storms that hit the state once per decade. Griddy doesn't produce electricity. Griddy doesn't build power lines. Griddy did however get customers power and thats why many of them were upset about how much the state set the wholesale price at.

[1]: https://www.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2...

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

#139

Post by msandford »

ejb999 wrote: post #29
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

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.

That's a super interesting angle I had never considered!

Part of my reason for thinking about solar is that if I'm going to spend 10k on a backup generator it might be far smarter to spend that on solar. For me the invest and pay cycle doesn't address the problem I'm solving. But I absolutely learned something today.

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

#140

Post by coryrc »

bryan0 wrote: post #91
bcrosby95 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what's a better, cheaper way to fix the wildfire problem?

We don't have a wildfire problem. There have been fires for thousands of years. There are supposed to be fires.

Our problem is people build non-fireproof homes in forests and demand the government mismanage the forest by stopping fires.

Post reply on HN