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

#251

Post by dntrkv » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

sagarm wrote: post #113

bryan0 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People who choose to live in the Wildlands urban interface should bear the cost for undergrounding the wires they rely on IMO. Probably politically infeasible, unfortunately.

Wildfires in California not only affect California itself, but neighboring states as well. Last year I drove from CA to CO. The wildfire smoke from California covered all of Nevada and Utah.

I don't know where you live, but if you are in CA, there is a very high chance that you live in a wildland-urban interface zone. About 45% of housing in CA would fall under this category.

These risks aren't limited to people living up in the mountains. A large chunk of the Bay Area is a wildland-urban interface.

All of this to say, preventing wild fires is in everybody's best interest and trying to pass the costs to one group or another will only delay our timeline to address these issues.

Burying power lines is just one part of the solution.

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

#252

Post by dntrkv » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:57 PM UTC

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?

Bury power lines. Address liability, insurance, and red tape around prescribed burns so that we can actually meet our goals. Better enforcement (and more government funding) of creating defensible space around homes.

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

#253

Post by hunterb123 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:09 PM UTC

lesuorac wrote: post #138

hunterb123 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their page downplayed the risks of variable pricing and their process during the ordeal was unprofessional.

It was a 100 year freeze, not a decade one. Never in my life until then did we have longer than 2 days of snow/ice.

Most of us don't insulate our pipes for that reasoning, though flexpiping is common to help against minor freezing.

Same reason as to why a lot of people don't have A/Cs on the West Coast.

Yeah the grid should have been winterized, but the pricing problem for customers was entirely on Griddy.

I have a question, are you from Texas?

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

#254

Post by throw0101a » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:26 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…

> It's not like you can ramp a coal-fired or nuclear power station up and down on a whim either though.

You can with nuclear: thermally it is kept running, but the steam bypasses the generators and so there is no electrical production.

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

#255

Post by ajross » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:29 PM UTC

notch656a wrote: post #76

ajross wrote: 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…

When you have an outage, it's possible the instantaneous cost of electricity is in fact 10x/100x/infinitely more than baseline cost. Looking at it as 100x more employees is the wrong direction. If you're producing 1/100th the electricity for 5 minutes due to power outtages but you still have to pay all your employees during that time, your instantaneous cost (per unit energy) actually are proportionally higher.

Total Texas energy production during the worst part of the crisis last winter was like 60% of maximum though. Most generators were running. If consumer had to pay a 2x premium then no one would have even complained; we'd have all said the system was working.

But that's not how it works, because as I mentioned the demand curve is non-linear. When you have 60% power, yet 60.1% of your capacity needs to go to "must keep the lights on" customers, then prices go to infinity (or in practice to the credit/spending limits of those customers making bids).

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

#256

Post by notch656a » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #255

notch656a wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have an outage, it's possible the instantaneous cost of electricity is in fact 10x/100x/infinitely more than baseline cost. Looking at it as 100x more employees is the wrong direction. If you're producing 1/100th the electricity for 5 minutes due to power outtages but you still have to pay all your employees during that time, your instantaneous cost (per unit energy) actually are proportionally higher.

Total Texas energy production during the worst part of the crisis last winter was like 60% of maximum though. Most generators were running. If consumer had to pay a 2x premium then no one would have even complained; we'd have all said the system was working. But that's not how it works, because as I mentioned the demand curve is non-linear. When you have 60% power, yet 60.1% of your capacity needs to go to "must keep…

You don't 'need the lights on.' I have lived in multiple third world countries where outages happen regularly if you have electricity at all. This is a failure of customers to adequately prepare and instead playing the victim because of their failures. People knew for years Texas grid was vulnerable, and it's an exquisite display of Darwin Award for those who didn't prepare for it.

Only a moron doesn't keep some sort of off-grid combustibles and cold weather gear on hand, even if you live in the most southern edge of our nation. The customer is to blame for paying, not capitalism.

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

#257

Post by lesuorac » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

hunterb123 wrote: post #253

lesuorac wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their page downplayed the risks of variable pricing and their process during the ordeal was unprofessional. It was a 100 year freeze, not a decade one. Never in my life until then did we have longer than 2 days of snow/ice. Most of us don't insulate our pipes for that reasoning, though flexpiping is common to help against minor freezing. Same reason as to why a lot of people don't have A/Cs on the West Coast. Yeah th…

> Their page downplayed the risks of variable pricing and their process during the ordeal was unprofessional.

That's rather unspecific. As far as I've seen the risk of 9k/MW always comes up in articles about Griddy (even pre-2021) and even happened to customers prior to 2021. And before the storm they notified customers that they should "switch providers" due to expected high prices.

The 2021 storm could be a 1/100 year but a non-trival winter storm hits Texas every 10 years. Letting pipes burst due to an extreme event can be a valid strategy but just be honest that the plan is that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/05storm.html

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

#258

Post by coryfklein » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 4:58 PM UTC

FYI, in the year 2020 renewables produced 33% and fossil fuels fulfilled 40% of California's total energy budget in 2020, and this 97% figure – while impressive – is not representative of typical energy production [0].

[0] https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

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

#259

Post by rogers18445 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

SamBam wrote: post #164

rogers18445 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case, you need to provide additional information. Because this coverage is not consistent, since renewables are intermittent and storage appears to be a dream.

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

#260

Post by 1123581321 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

ejb999 wrote: post #250

1123581321 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m in Illinois. $60k definitely ruins it. I wonder if you could find a more pragmatic vendor. I got a $55k quote but ended up finding 10.5kw for $22k and was happy with the work, financial health of vendor and warranties. After federal and state credits I’m paying back in several years and making money on the next 14-20. I may also need an inverter replacement between years 10-15 for a few thousand.

We have some of the cheapest rates in the US, due to our nuclear, so our state incentives are fairly good to compensate. Nuclear may be discontinued, but given recent events I’m less sure. Either way I think we only have upside on the ROI due to rate changes.