Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

kqed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#41

Post by hunterpayne »

DuckConference wrote: post #24
simoncion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The angle of this that people may not realize is that San Francisco already owns the power generation (ie, the Hetch Hetchy dam). My conclusion might be totally wrong because I'm converting from units that aren't meant to be converted, but... If you filter down to only San Francisco County on this official-looking thingie [0], you see that it claims the city [1] has 5.126 TWh of consumption. Your link [2] claims He…

I would assume 395MW is the nameplate capacity, so you would multiply it by a capacity factor and time to get the energy production in a specific interval. Capacity factor in hydro can vary a lot by season and how much they want to produce vs reservoir levels, but for a back of the envelope 100% capacity factor you have 395 MW × 8,760 hours/year = 3.46TWh/year . Capacity factor could be in the high 90s in good condit…

I seriously doubt that any non-nuclear power generation in history has ever gotten to 90% capacity factor. Based on industry averages, HH is probably about 55-65% capacity. Things that effect this are: low demand periods (caused by lots of renewables), maintenance periods and low water levels at times (in winter) behind the dam.

Also, PG&E is HIGHLY regulated. Its prices, its generation and its executive compensation are all set by the state of CA. That SF wants to complain about those numbers is pretty amazing. Remember, they still don't have enough money in the tree trimming budget so that those same lines don't start fires in other parts of the state. Its the same wire that connects HH to SF. And somehow the city is going to manage that wire better?

PS The tree trimming budget is set by the state too. Why is it so low? Renewables cost money and that's one of the budgets they raided to get the funds.

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#42

Post by lokar »

simpsond wrote: post #26

PG&E is a profitable, publicly traded company... that issues a dividend. They tried to file for bankruptcy after the paradise fire, but they were too big to fail, so they issued new shares with gov protection. CA created a new insurance backstop for them as well. Corporations should not have government assisted (regulated) monopolies with socialized backstops. Yeah, CPUC is supposed to help, but decision makers proba…

The state should have instead pushed them into liquidation and bought the assets.

Run the transmission grid, offer to let big cities and counties take the distribution, keep whatever they don’t want.

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#43

Post by hunterpayne »

NewJazz wrote: post #20
simoncion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The angle of this that people may not realize is that San Francisco already owns the power generation (ie, the Hetch Hetchy dam). My conclusion might be totally wrong because I'm converting from units that aren't meant to be converted, but... If you filter down to only San Francisco County on this official-looking thingie [0], you see that it claims the city [1] has 5.126 TWh of consumption. Your link [2] claims He…

Power generation facilities are typically quoted in terms of Watts, not Watt-hours. From an era where these were fossil fuel or nuclear plants or dams that provided a pretty steady level of energy. It indicates what the generation facility/asset can produce at any given moment, although if rivers run dry hydro output can decrease. I think the numbers you cite in [0] are in terms of total annual consumption.

The (nameplate) capacity is in watts. Its production is in watt hours. Some parties have intentionally confused these two concepts (capacity and production) to make certain power sources seem better than they are and other power sources worse than they are. The media consistently and clearly intentionally confuses these two concepts to prevent most people from learning how bad the numbers really are.

PS Capacity factor is the ratio between capacity and production. Its probably the single most important factor when comparing different generation types. Its intentionally made confusing because NPPs have 90+ cap factor and renewables have about 10ish cap factor. This makes renewables seem competitive when they are not. That's why this is always presented in a confusing manor. PPS Its also the main reason power is so expensive in CA.

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#44

Post by hunterpayne »

simoncion wrote: post #19
jeffbee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did this wrong but drew the right conclusion. Hetch Hetchy system exists but it is nowhere near the scale of powering the entire city of San Francisco.

Mmkay, so what were my core mistakes? Unit conversion failures? Order-of-magnitude errors? Sign problems (somehow)? Both Wolfram Alpha and units(1) indicated that conversion between MW and MWh was totally nonsensical, so I presumed either that that was a typo, or that 1MW of power generation run for one hour will satisfy 1MWh of demand... assuming that either that demand is evenly spread throughout the hour, or that…

Your mistake is ignoring capacity factor. Most power generation has between 40% and 60% capacity factor. NPPs are 90+ and renewables are about 10. This is intentionally made confusing and you aren't helping because you don't understand this. I do get that this is a good faith error caused by the intention conflation of different units by PR statements.

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#45

Post by stouset »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #31
infotainment wrote: post #7

The angle of this that people may not realize is that San Francisco already owns the power generation (ie, the Hetch Hetchy dam). [1] PG&E simply owns the wires, and overcharges for their use. [1]: https://www.sfpuc.gov/about-us/our-systems/hetch-hetchy-powe...

About that dam, Wiki says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Shaughnessy_Dam_(Californi... ... that it produces about 976 GWh per year. A few different sources say that SF uses about 5-6 TWh per year. So that is slightly less than 20% of total power needs. Still, it is a good start.

SF has other power generation besides Hetch Hetchy.

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#47

Post by 3eb7988a1663 »

winocm wrote: post #27

On the note of PG&E, my electric bill averages to about $750 despite only running an air conditioner, several device chargers, a router, some lights and a fridge... Thanks PG&E.

How many kWh monthly?

Let's say your overall rate is $0.50/kWh, that would put you at 1500kWh per month. Which is....high. Even if your rate were $1/kWh, 750kWh would be a decent amount of juice for a region with an overall mild climate.

The EIA[0] says the typical annual electricity consumption for homes in "the West" (ie not just California) is 8525kWh/year, or 710kWh/month.

[0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/electricit...

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#48

Post by matsur »

infotainment wrote: post #7

The angle of this that people may not realize is that San Francisco already owns the power generation (ie, the Hetch Hetchy dam). [1] PG&E simply owns the wires, and overcharges for their use. [1]: https://www.sfpuc.gov/about-us/our-systems/hetch-hetchy-powe...

Plot here is quite thick. SF selling power to PG&E to distribute was found illegal/in violation of the Raker Act by the US Supreme Court in 1940 in United States v. City and County of San Francisco.

SF shifted to "wheeling" instead of selling power to PG&E and is tenuously in compliance now, but the current set up was never intended when the federal government ceded water and power rights from Yosemite to SF.

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#49

Post by hunterpayne »

Veliladon wrote: post #30
m463 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people of SF demonstrably do not want to take over PG&E But PG&E has charged significantly more for power the last few years. Most people easily hit 50c/kwh on their bills. Compare to Santa Clara, which has their own well run utility, and charges less than half PG&E rates. https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/residents/rates-and-fees

>Compare to Santa Clara, which has their own well run utility, and charges less than half PG&E rates. This. Lived in Santa Clara. SVP is the best utility in California.

100% of its generation and grid stability is provided by PG&E. All it provides is the local distro and local maintenance. Also, in a low generation scenario, you are the first to be cut off to save the rest of the grid.

Re: San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

#50

Post by hunterpayne »

namuol wrote: post #46
winocm wrote: post #27

On the note of PG&E, my electric bill averages to about $750 despite only running an air conditioner, several device chargers, a router, some lights and a fridge... Thanks PG&E.

What rates are you being charged?

CA rates come in 4 tranches based on usage. Last I checked, its $0.10/kwh for the first tranch, 0.2 for the 2nd, 0.3 for the 3rd and 0.4 for the highest. I don't remember the cutoffs between the different levels. Its also possible those rates have changed in the last few years. But that's how CA does residential power bills. Most people never get into the 2nd tranche.

PS Where I live now, its $0.04/kwh and that's pretty normal in the rest of the US and in Latin America.

Post reply on HN