The grid operator cited is the California Independent System Operator. How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that operator? In the article they mention 23GW from wind and solar. A quick search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation capacity was 80GW (which I assume has only gone up). So this 97% is a bit misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total CA electricity usage... it's less than 30%?
California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
11–20 of 282 posts
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#12Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#13The grid operator cited is the California Independent System Operator. How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that operator? In the article they mention 23GW from wind and solar. A quick search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation capacity was 80GW (which I assume has only gone up). So this 97% is a bit misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total CA electricity usage... it's less than 30%?
80% of California and part of Nevada also. Don't confuse the grid operator with the utility. Those are separate entities.
The ISO is the market maker for electricity - ultimately responsible for keeping supply and demand on the grid in balance. They contract with numerous entities to achieve that.
The utility is responsible for some combination of generation, transmission, distribution, and billing, depending on where you are located.
There are many other players in the markets, including spinning reserves, independent generators, demand aggregators, community-choice-aggregators, and some that play multiple roles.
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#14The grid operator cited is the California Independent System Operator. How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that operator? In the article they mention 23GW from wind and solar. A quick search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation capacity was 80GW (which I assume has only gone up). So this 97% is a bit misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total CA electricity usage... it's less than 30%?
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
one place: > PG&E Corp. put a cost estimate of more than $25 billion Thursday on its effort to plant thousands of miles of power lines underground in an effort to tamp down wildfire risks. https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article25824965...
Shame that they're not getting better publicity as a result of this. Our main complaint about the internet companies is that they pocket the money meant to speed up networks for their subscribers. This is exactly what utility companies ought to do to prepare for the future.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/business/energy-environme...
> PG&E sought bankruptcy protection in January 2019 after accumulating an estimated $30 billion in liability for fires started by its poorly maintained equipment. One of the blazes, the 2018 Camp Fire, killed scores of people and destroyed the town of Paradise.
It wasn’t voluntary, really.
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#16The grid operator cited is the California Independent System Operator. How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that operator? In the article they mention 23GW from wind and solar. A quick search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation capacity was 80GW (which I assume has only gone up). So this 97% is a bit misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total CA electricity usage... it's less than 30%?
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#17Looks like California should start building one of these 3.6GW 40GWh batteries since at this rate routine 120-150% renewable power days dont look so far off and it'll take about 6 years to build.
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#18Article doesn't get into this level of detail, but I'd be interested in how they define "renewable". Does it include hydropower, which is renewable but has strong non-carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences? Is burned trash "renewable"?
IIUC, the vast majority of ecological impact caused by hydro is already done. It is not making things exponentially worse.
Am I missing something?
Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#19Re: California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3
#20Article doesn't get into this level of detail, but I'd be interested in how they define "renewable". Does it include hydropower, which is renewable but has strong non-carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences? Is burned trash "renewable"?
On there you can dig in and find what sources are counted as renewable.