California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3 • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by Metacelsus » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 12:39 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #219

WalterBright wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I know about the Texas example. It wasn't the concept that was bad, it was the implementation. The implementation needs to be coupled with meters where you can set a max price you'll accept. Any system where you sign a contract that says you'll pay any price to turn on a lamp is idiotic, and so are the people who sign such contracts. (The wholesale prices fluctuation does little to affect demand, because the dema…

> The implementation needs to be coupled with meters where you can set a max price you'll accept. Systems where your house goes dark and cold in the middle of a blizzard are never going to be popular no matter how "rational" they are.

If electricity is scarce during a blizzard, many people's houses are going to be dark and cold anyway. Variable pricing means people can decide how valuable not being dark and cold is to them.

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

#242

Post by heavenlyblue » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 12:53 PM UTC

gibolt wrote: post #39

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #26

Disclaimer: this comment is not about environmentalism or even the environmental impact. I’m not wading in those waters with HN. It’s difficult to see this as a net positive given the financial hardship brought about to even make this headline a reality (note that even the headline is misleading and requires context). It’s a bit like the person who goes out and purchases a vehicle, spends countless hours away from hi…

Yes, it is. Solar pays for itself in raw kWh over ~8 years, probably even better at utility scale which negotiates huge panel purchases. Batteries cost more, but can apply stored power when they can earn the most (during peak), reducing viability of polluting alternatives. The cherry on top is that all future energy uses no more material and creates no more pollution, with materials mostly all recyclable at end of li…

>Solar pays for itself in raw kWh over ~8 years

AFAIK in this thread the calculation that gave the answer of 8 years also included the bonus that comes from the government subsidies. What is the number if we excluded that subsidy?

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

#243

Post by tomatocracy » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 12:55 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #189

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…

Even if California made it the final 3% to reach 100% renewable energy (by the headline metric), it will still depend on a significant amount of non-renewable energy for significant parts of every single day (or else it will have blackouts). It's not like you can ramp a coal-fired or nuclear power station up and down on a whim either though. It takes time and planning to modify the output if you don't have storage ca…

Coal is also able react relatively quickly to flex up/down within a range once running but has relatively high start costs and minimum run time (startup/shutdown takes longer). In the UK, the remaining coal fired plants still regularly participated in the balancing mechanism over the winter, for example (at sometimes eye-watering prices due to those factors along with high emissions costs).

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

#244

Post by nightski » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 12:59 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #161

nightski wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 explains it then, looking at our past few bills it comes out to ~$0.13/kWh. So yeah, we are less than half the average price in CA. Crazy. That would really change the dynamics of how profitable solar is. I've been wanting to get solar myself.

In reality our rate is Basic - $23.15 + All kWh @ $.089. So it would be even cheaper if we used more on a per kWh basis.

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

#245

Post by dpierce9 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #177

If electricity is cheaper to generate when the sun is shining, the retail price of electricity should reflect that. In fact, the retail price should fluctuate minute by minute, so that demand can be shaped to match supply. Trying to match variable supply to a fixed retail electric rate is certain to cause energy gluts and shortages. For example, I'd be happy to charge my electric car during price minima, heat the ele…

Renewables do make electricity cheaper. Here is a highly simplified version of how rates are set:

Fixed price = (unit cost + a profit margin) * number of units

The fixed price is set for a period of time based on historical and forecasted costs. Which costs are allowed and the profit margin for regulated utilities serving fixed price load is determined by the public service commissions.

When their costs go down the regulators will say you can’t charge as much during the next period.

Utilities are a natural monopoly and their prices are controlled.

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

#246

Post by gumby » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:13 PM UTC

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…

Also the article talks about the "grid". California buys most of its renewable power from out of state (mostly hydro from WA). The wording of the article doesn't say that but also doesn't appear to constrain its definition to domestic production.

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

#247

Post by belorn » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

julienb_sea wrote: post #103

analyte123 wrote: post #96

This 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.

The condition that renewables success currently require fossil fuel is the point of contention between those who advocate for renewables vs those that advocate in favor of nuclear.

Take away natural gas and the success metric for renewable goes away.

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

#248

Post by brianwawok » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:26 PM UTC

dap wrote: post #147

brianwawok wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yah I’m not doubting it is good in Cali, I’m just saying you need to include the opportunity cost if going that route.

I wish the break even was better further north for me.

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

#249

Post by dntrkv » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:28 PM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #140

bryan0 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Around 90% of wild fires are caused by humans. A few of the recent major fires (the Camp Fire being one of them) were caused by power lines. So there is definitely a major human-cause component here that can be addressed.

I am all for more prescribed burns, but the people in opposition to those burns aren't the people living in the most at-risk areas.

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

#250

Post by ejb999 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

1123581321 wrote: post #134

ejb999 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am in new england, electric rates are a lot less here (for now anyway) than CA (if that is where you are), and thus the calculations for you may be better than they are for me.

Its been a few years since I did the math, but last time I was quoted about 60K for a complete system - 60K at 5% dividend (NGG at the time), would give me $3K per year, enough to cover my bill.

AT the end of 20-30 years, a solar system will be worth nothing, or almost nothing, whereas I will still own the same stock in the same company hopefully the stock will have appreciated as well), and will still be covering my electric bill.

This of course makes lots of assumptions: I need to invest in company that will still be around for decades, that electric costs don't go thru the roof during that time, and the dividend doesn't go away etc. - but also would have to make assumptions about how long a solar system would last - its impossible for any of us to see out 30 years, but for the time being, I feel like on a purely financial basis, it didn't make sense for me today.

But trust me, I would love to pay one sunk cost today and not have to pay an electric bill for the next 30+ years, if only I could see that far in the future with some certainty.