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

#151

Post by throwaway48375 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:55 AM UTC

strainer wrote: post #66

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

April 3rd was a sunday, and probably a very sunny one, with temperatures in ranges where a lot of people don't really need AC nor electrical heating. What do you do when it's not sunny, very cold/hot, no wind, and businesses and factories are open? Somehow we talk a lot about solar, and not enough about nuclear.

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…

pumped hydro?

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

#152

Post by rtkwe » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:04 AM 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…

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.

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

#153

Post by bckbyunpopulard » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:14 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #73

pydry wrote: post #17

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Powe... Looks 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.

Tesla at Moss Landing went live 2 days ago. 256 Megapacks, 182.5 MW / 730 MWh. The facility will eventually host 1,500MW/6,000MWh of battery storage. Tesla has also broken ground on a Megapack manufacturing facility (Lathrop, CA) employing 1000 people to build roughly 50GWh of storage per year. https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/pg-es-n...

No post body was provided.

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

#154

Post by rogers18445 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:15 AM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #152

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…

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.

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

#155

Post by FPGAhacker » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:17 AM UTC

dap wrote: post #145

haliskerbas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been trying to do the math for my own home, are solar panels actually cash flow positive, once you account for efficiency decrease overtime etc.? It always seemed like one barely breaks even in 2 decades

I got a quote last fall in the SF Bay Area for a system: - 6.4 kW (16x400W panels), microinverter-based (little to no maintenance expected in 25 years) - estimated to produce 8,500 kWh in year 1 - the panels are warrantied to produce 86% in year 25. Let's use 80% as a more conservative estimate. - up front cost: $16,500 after the federal tax incentive - alternative: paying PG&E $.25/kWh on average (conservative estim…

The fact that the return is not compounding makes a very large difference here.

$16,500 returning 10% of the original principle per year isn’t a great investment. 25 years you have $41,000 + 25 yr old solar panels.

$16,500 returning 10% compounding over 25 years gets you $162,000 + the $16,500 principle.

Considering opportunity cost spread evenly over 25 years, those panels cost over $5000 per year.

There are plenty of reasons to go solar, but return on investment is not one of them.

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

#156

Post by 40four » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:23 AM 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…

Yeah I’m no expert, but I’m highly skeptical of this claim as well. My intuition is telling me that this is most likely classic Orwellian ‘doublespeak’ from the powers that be.

That being said, it might still be a good signal that investments in renewable electricity infrastructure could be accumulating up to critical mass in some areas. And that is encouraging.

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

#157

Post by dap » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:36 AM UTC

FPGAhacker wrote: post #155

dap wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a quote last fall in the SF Bay Area for a system: - 6.4 kW (16x400W panels), microinverter-based (little to no maintenance expected in 25 years) - estimated to produce 8,500 kWh in year 1 - the panels are warrantied to produce 86% in year 25. Let's use 80% as a more conservative estimate. - up front cost: $16,500 after the federal tax incentive - alternative: paying PG&E $.25/kWh on average (conservative estim…

The fact that the return is not compounding makes a very large difference here. $16,500 returning 10% of the original principle per year isn’t a great investment. 25 years you have $41,000 + 25 yr old solar panels. $16,500 returning 10% compounding over 25 years gets you $162,000 + the $16,500 principle. Considering opportunity cost spread evenly over 25 years, those panels cost over $5000 per year. There are plenty…

This is a good point!

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

#158

Post by StopDarkPattern » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:39 AM 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…

Law Makers seem off. Why are they not taxing people their life savings yet for all that revenue they're STEALING from the electric companies!? FFS THIS IS MADNES/S

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

#159

Post by ninjinxo » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:54 AM UTC

FPGAhacker wrote: post #155

dap wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a quote last fall in the SF Bay Area for a system: - 6.4 kW (16x400W panels), microinverter-based (little to no maintenance expected in 25 years) - estimated to produce 8,500 kWh in year 1 - the panels are warrantied to produce 86% in year 25. Let's use 80% as a more conservative estimate. - up front cost: $16,500 after the federal tax incentive - alternative: paying PG&E $.25/kWh on average (conservative estim…

The fact that the return is not compounding makes a very large difference here. $16,500 returning 10% of the original principle per year isn’t a great investment. 25 years you have $41,000 + 25 yr old solar panels. $16,500 returning 10% compounding over 25 years gets you $162,000 + the $16,500 principle. Considering opportunity cost spread evenly over 25 years, those panels cost over $5000 per year. There are plenty…

You're not adjusting for inflation (cash + increases in electricity costs), ambitiously assuming an equivalent 10% return on other investments, or re-investing the amount saved per year in your calculations (that $1650 you save in the first year also compounds to ~$16.25k).

Make those fixes and the numbers are much closer.

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

#160

Post by ploxiln » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 3:59 AM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #152

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…

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 will still depend on a significant amount of non-renewable energy for significant parts of every single day (or else it will have blackouts).