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

161–170 of 282 posts

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

#161

Post by danans »

nightski wrote: post #132
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…

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...

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

Electricity in CA currently averages around 28c/kWh. Your total expenditure depends on a lot of things, including the size of your home and your loads. The average CA home probably spends around $2000/year on electricity, but that varies a lot based on location and lifestyle.

> 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...

That figure probably assumes increasing electricity prices over the 20 years, which by and large has held true due to both inflation and increasing wildfire liability.

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

#162

Post by outside1234 »

offmycloud wrote: post #148

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/P…

It was only 97% for a brief Sunday afternoon - not at night not even a major portion of the day

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

#163

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

offmycloud wrote: post #148

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/P…

> assign all of the "dirty" power generated in the state to exports

Hilarious, how to lie with statistics 101.

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

#164

Post by SamBam »

rogers18445 wrote: post #154
rtkwe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy is pretty perfectly fungible so it makes about as much sense credited to the state as it does to the wider grid. If you just look at CA it generated 97% of its energy needs in state from renewable energy at that time. That it was connected to a larger grid so it was generating excess power dirtily doesn't really change that math.

In that case the metric of how much power the state requires in the context of renewable energy is useless. Instead state the % of overall energy production in the state being renewable.

Disagree.

"97% of some state's energy production was renewable" doesn't tell you much, because they could be a state that hardly burns any fossil fuels.

"California managed to produce enough renewable energy to power 97% of the needs of a state the size of California" actually tells you how much renewable energy it generated, and why that's a big deal.

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

#165

Post by asdfaoeu »

ploxiln wrote: post #160
rtkwe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy is pretty perfectly fungible so it makes about as much sense credited to the state as it does to the wider grid. If you just look at CA it generated 97% of its energy needs in state from renewable energy at that time. That it was connected to a larger grid so it was generating excess power dirtily doesn't really change that math.

Electrical power is fungible, but the time it is available is not. There is usually near-peak power usage just after sun-down. So while a large amount of "clean" power was generated in the middle of the day and sold to other states, after sun-down a significant portion of the power used in the state was "un-clean". Even if California made it the final 3% to reach 100% renewable energy (by the headline metric), it wil…

That's true but no one is suggesting they stop now right? This is just a milestone.

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

#166

Post by [deleted] »

asdfaoeu wrote: post #165
ploxiln wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electrical power is fungible, but the time it is available is not. There is usually near-peak power usage just after sun-down. So while a large amount of "clean" power was generated in the middle of the day and sold to other states, after sun-down a significant portion of the power used in the state was "un-clean". Even if California made it the final 3% to reach 100% renewable energy (by the headline metric), it wil…

That's true but no one is suggesting they stop now right? This is just a milestone.

[deleted]

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

#167

Post by standardUser »

idiotsecant wrote: post #135
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"No, having too much power without storage is exactly as bad as not enough."

That makes no sense to me.

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

#168

Post by hedora »

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…

Electric cars are affordable now, assuming electricity is dirt cheap.

Nissan Leaf: $17K after tax incentives, $27K before.

Gas is $5/gallon. You can buy 5400/gallons for the price of an unsubsidized leaf.

Assume a leaf-alike ICE car gets 40 miles per gallon. It will go 216K miles for the unsubsidized retail price of the leaf.

Leaf batteries last at least 100K miles, and cost about $6K.

The purchase cost of the ICE car, and 216K miles of motor oil, engine and exhaust work have to be under $6K ($12K if the leaf batteries need to be swapped twice) or the leaf is cheaper.

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

#169

Post by standardUser »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #19

Is this why Calfornia energy is so expensive and constantly having blackouts?

Viewers of a certain cable channel seem to have a uniquely long memory about this. But the last time there was widespread problems with the electric grid in California was a generation ago.

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

#170

Post by swid »

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.

I only have 10kw but most days that is enough to get through the night. Air conditioning will go through it, but I don’t typically need it, especially after the sun sets.
Post reply on HN