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

141–150 of 282 posts

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

#141

Post by jeffbee »

vmception wrote: post #59
Retric wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Space is of no concern. You would not install solar in the Central Valley generally because it is the most productive irrigated farmland on the planet. You would however put it right on top of Edwards Air Force Base, which is large enough to supply the energy needs of the entire United States, if paved over completely with solar panels.

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

#142

Post by brianwawok »

pie42000 wrote: post #131
sib wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At what state? It’s more like 15-20 year break even by me; and I can’t sell power back to the grid.

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

#143

Post by brianwawok »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #106
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

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…

You can take increasing rates , but then you also need to take opportunity cost.

You paid say 50k cash for solar? Put that in SP500 for 6 years. It’s not 50k anymore.

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

#144

Post by brianwawok »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #27
swid wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds about right for the power only, but you also probably get a battery with it to deal with power outages… I don’t know how to price the utility of that, but it’s why I bought solar.

How long have you been able to stretch that battery out when your power is out? Don’t have a point to make or anything, I’m just curious. I hadn’t really considered that.

24kW can lost a long time if you don’t need AC. Should be days

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

#145

Post by dap »

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

I got a quote last fall in the SF Bay Area for a system:

- 6.4 kW (16x400W panels), microinverter-based (little to no maintenance expected in 25 years)

- estimated to produce 8,500 kWh in year 1

- the panels are warrantied to produce 86% in year 25. Let's use 80% as a more conservative estimate.

- up front cost: $16,500 after the federal tax incentive

- alternative: paying PG&E $.25/kWh on average (conservative estimate)

To a first approximation, the system would save $2,125 in the first year, or almost 13% of the initial investment. In year 25, we'd expect 6,800 kWh. At the same energy price, it'd be saving 10% of the initial investment. (This doesn't take into account inflation, changes in energy prices, and I'm sure other things. This is all very different if your local utility doesn't offer net metering, too.)

The system breaks even in year 8, similar to what others in this thread have reported. But you can also look at it as a pretty low-risk investment returning 10-13% per year for 25 years. That sounds pretty good to me.

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

#146

Post by tkojames »

brianwawok wrote: post #143
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can take increasing rates , but then you also need to take opportunity cost. You paid say 50k cash for solar? Put that in SP500 for 6 years. It’s not 50k anymore.

I got solar in northern California with new roof that needed to be replaced. I got 30 percent tax credit on the roof as well. Paid for the roof in cash but took 10 year loan out for the solar panels at 3.0 percent. Break even at this rate is about 4 years already a few year in. With inflation right now I feel like I got good deal borrowing the money. Right now my loan payment plus then 10.00 monthly connection fee is less than my average monthly bill before 2019. Not sure I would do it with needing a new roof though. But everybody experience will be different.

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

#147

Post by dap »

brianwawok wrote: post #143
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can take increasing rates , but then you also need to take opportunity cost. You paid say 50k cash for solar? Put that in SP500 for 6 years. It’s not 50k anymore.

You do, but it seems pretty good even taking into account opportunity cost? My calculations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31105389

Someone else said it better in a different subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31105120

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

#148

Post by offmycloud »

Their math seems off. I really don't see how you get to 97% renewable when the state was burning natural gas to generate 2.8 GW of non-renewable power and had about 1.1 GW of nuclear at the time. There might be some funny math here where they assign all of the "dirty" power generated in the state to exports and can claim that that California is running on renewable power.

Source: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

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

#149

Post by throwaway48375 »

jeffbee wrote: post #141
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?

Space is of no concern. You would not install solar in the Central Valley generally because it is the most productive irrigated farmland on the planet. You would however put it right on top of Edwards Air Force Base, which is large enough to supply the energy needs of the entire United States, if paved over completely with solar panels.

There's plenty more empty space in the adjacent area.
Post reply on HN