California exceeds 100% of energy demand with renewables over a record 30 days

https://electrek.co/2024/05/21/renewables-met-100-percent-california-energy-demand-30-days/

by hochmartinez • 2 years ago

34 29 2 years ago

k3102• 2 years ago

It's not summer yet. There was one day last week that called for the A/C. And with PG&E rates damn near doubling, I just don't know how retirees and others are going to deal with the abundance of heat, available power and double drain on the wallet.

Regardless of the source, people are going to roast, and some will die because of unaffordable cooling.

Pet_Ant2• 2 years ago

Maybe they should move to a climate that is suitable to their needs? Moving somewhere unbearably hot and then relying on technology to make it palatable is not sustainable.

callalex• 2 years ago

Will you say the same to the old people who move and then subsequently can’t shovel snow in the winter?

throwaway5959• 2 years ago

Yeah, elderly people, who are struggling to pay their bills as is, should spend $10k to pay people to pack up their stuff, break their lease, and move to a state with a better climate than, checks notes, California.

h0l0cube• 2 years ago

Solar output scales with sunlight hours

k3102• 2 years ago

I was thinking of a solar panel direct to heat pump arrangement. (via inverter) More sun, more power to cool.

Yet, the big argument for batteries is that the peak load (so they say) is from 4 pm to 7 (or more) pm, when the sun is lower, and cosines do you in. Anyway, that's when variable rates go up.

rendang• 2 years ago

The headline should be electricity demand, not energy demand. Easy to forget that electricity is a fraction of total fossil fuel energy use

logtempo• 2 years ago

and it's also just an excess during mid-day (excess during .25h up to 6h in the day if I understand correctly) which does not cover the reat of the day through batteries.

It also say "it's only the start, it's going to be more in the future" but tbh I expect hydroelectric power to go down in the future...which represent up to 20% of the demand, and is the most practical renewable source.

Also batteries system is "one of the largest in the world" and barely allow to delay +4h of power...that shows how big is the task.

Title is definitly missleading.

toomuchtodo4• 2 years ago

https://www.pv-tech.org/caiso-approves-transmission-plan-to-...

https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2023-10/california-sees-unpre...

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

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-CAL-CISO

California is the fifth largest world economy. Currently, solar is pushing ~16-19GW sustained during solar hours. For comparison, Germany has 80GW+ of solar generation capacity. It is trivial for California to push the remainder of its fossil generation out of the mix. Based on current trajectories, I would be shocked if California doesn’t meet their mandate far sooner than expected.

(Earth receives enough solar energy in less than half an hour to power humanity for a year; scale collection and storage accordingly)

coderatlarge2• 2 years ago

This is an encouraging milestone. Is it trivial at this point to figure out whether a solar home install is cost effective? ie plug in your address, your last 12 pg&e bills, and get a complete quote with a break down of time to profitability?

nsriv• 2 years ago

I've used this and compared to friends who have installed solar, and it's been roughly accurate to +/- $1500 or so.

https://sunroof.withgoogle.com/

s1artibartfast5• 2 years ago

Sizing and cost for install seems wildly inaccurate for me in the bay area. Says a 2kw system will cover my needs and cost $8k to buy and install.

Is it assuming I already have a huge battery or net metering?

hackerlight2• 2 years ago

Not trivial. Factors: Local labor costs, PV import tariffs, net metering arrangement, roof space and tilt angle, electricity prices, local solar irradiance levels, solar seasonality, and large cost difference between grid tie versus hybrid battery systems.

If you live in a reasonably sunny country, the shorthand you can use is 4.5*(system size in KW), which equals the daily number of kWh your system will produce. Say that number is 30kWh. Then multiply 30 by your per kWh electricity costs. Say $0.2*30. That's your daily savings estimate, $6. Then you can figure out how many years to ROI by comparing it to the system cost. This approach will be more or less accurate if you have a battery or a nice net metering arrangement. It will be less accurate without either of these things.

JumpCrisscross• 2 years ago

"...supply exceeds demand for '0.25-6 h per day,' and that’s an important fact. The continuity lies not in renewables running the grid for the entire day but in the fact that it’s happening on a consistent daily basis, which has never been achieved before.

...

...California will entirely be on renewables and battery storage 24/7 by 2035."

scifi• 2 years ago

I work for a school. We reached out to So Cal Edison to ask what percent of the power they deliver comes from non-renewable. They said 40%.

gnabgib• 2 years ago

Discussion at the time (it's now 45 days) [0] (136 points, 1 month ago, 155 comments)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40048842

brocklobsta2• 2 years ago

I guess this is what paying $0.72/KWh during peak gets you.

hackerlight2• 2 years ago

Iowa has more renewables than CA but has cheaper electricity prices than the national average. There are a few examples like this that prove that the inference you're attempting to make is symptomatic of stupidity.

brocklobsta2• 2 years ago

I didn’t assert causation.

Does Iowa have the same heavy handed government regulations to strictly build out renewables and take non renewable power plants offline?

I agree with you, Texas has the most renewables, and power is relatively cheap. The problem is the strict regulations prevent utilities from make better economical decisions.

California exceeds 100% of energy demand with renewables over a record 30 days

Related Stories