6 ms·

Proposed by who? The Sierra Club? It's still far less efficient that fossil fuels, harder to store, and more expensive to collect. This has "rolling blackouts

Proposed by who? The Sierra Club? It's still far less efficient that fossil fuels, harder to store, and more expensive to collect. This has "rolling blackouts" written all over it.

skookumchuck 9y ago
From the article: > change the way it supplies power when demand peaks. Instead of relying on electricity from three gas-fired plants run by Calpine Corp., PG&E will have to use batteries or other non-fossil fuel resources to keep the lights on in the most-populated U.S. state. The shift is possible in California partly because there’s a surplus of solar power,
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  > The shift is possible in California partly because there’s a surplus of solar power IDK where they get there's a surplus, there's enough that it makes the "peakers" sit idle enough of the time they're not economically feasible to operate without a guaranteed payday. Honestly, I could be wrong since the only information I have on the subject is this article which doesn't support the claim they're making. I suppose if you counted the plants that have to generate a certain amount of power + solar and wind at its peak then maybe there's a surplus in there somewhere, dunno?
NotSammyHagar 9y ago
What is easier to store than electricity in batteries
rpedela 9y ago
Didn't Tesla install batteries in Australia to fix rolling blackouts?
- FractalLP 9y ago
  Different situation. That was for transient conditions. The parent comment is probably just trying to say you can't go all battery yet. I'd also like to know who is going to build enough batteries for peak load of > 150 GW. Batteries do have a place, but a lot of people think we're at a spot where we can completely skip gas/coal...we're not there.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    The parent comment didn't say that, so who knows what they meant.
OrganicMSG 9y ago
US Army at the Redstone arsenal in Alabama.
wpietri 9y ago
Less efficient by what measure? In some sense it's all solar power; the efficiency of sun -> plants -> fossil fuels -> extraction -> burning -> electricity can't be particularly high.
- pasabagi 9y ago
  Fun fact - this was Buckminster Fuller's argument for why petrol should be a million dollars a gallon, a long time before anybody knew anything about global warming.
- pixl97 9y ago
  You forgot the -> take 500 million years to make, burn it all in 300 years step that seems to be missed by the solar isn't efficient enough club.
- neltnerb 9y ago
  Not to mention that solar PV is more efficient at converting photons into stored energy than plants. Photosynthesis is typically around 1% hitting perhaps 10% for algae that's got less structure to maintain. Looking at solar PV in that context makes clear how amazing the technology really is.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    But you can't beat self-replicating plants in capex!
- icegreentea2 9y ago
  He clearly meant a something like a human centric EROI. Fossil fuels still have an EROI advantage for now, especially if you force renewables to have enough storage capacity to act as baseload. Fossil fuel EROI is falling all the time, and renewables are creeping up.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    It seems to me that "clearly meant a something like" is a contradiction in terms, but let that pass. If they did mean EROI, then I'm not sure that's the measure we should be using. It specifically ignores waste products: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Criticism_of_EROEI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... Which makes it not so good when thinking about global warming and public health impacts, things the CPUC takes into account when setting policy. But even if we just use that, it appears that they're wrong about the EROI of electricity generation. Per Scientific American, the EROI of natural gas, the main competitor in California, is 7. Photovoltaic is 6 (and, as you say climbing), wind is 20, and hydroelectric is 40+: https://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n4/box/scientificamerican0413-58_BX2.html https://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n4/bo... But even if they were right and the EROI of renewables were "far less efficient", I still don't see how that leads to rolling blackouts.
bsder 9y ago
Um, given that criminal behavior by Enron on the "open market" was the only time California ever had rolling blackouts, you've got a bit of work ahead of you to justify that statement. Decentralized generation with local storage is a great way to prevent this kind of blackmail from ever happening again.

Proposed by who? The Sierra Club? It's still far less efficient that fossil fuels, harder to store, and more expensive to collect. This has "rolling blackouts" written all over it.

skookumchuck 9y ago

From the article: > change the way it supplies power when demand peaks. Instead of relying on electricity from three gas-fired plants run by Calpine Corp., PG&E will have to use batteries or other non-fossil fuel resources to keep the lights on in the most-populated U.S. state. The shift is possible in California partly because there’s a surplus of solar power,

UncleEntity 9y ago
> The shift is possible in California partly because there’s a surplus of solar power IDK where they get there's a surplus, there's enough that it makes the "peakers" sit idle enough of the time they're not economically feasible to operate without a guaranteed payday. Honestly, I could be wrong since the only information I have on the subject is this article which doesn't support the claim they're making. I suppose if you counted the plants that have to generate a certain amount of power + solar and wind at its peak then maybe there's a surplus in there somewhere, dunno?

NotSammyHagar 9y ago

What is easier to store than electricity in batteries

rpedela 9y ago

Didn't Tesla install batteries in Australia to fix rolling blackouts?

FractalLP 9y ago
Different situation. That was for transient conditions. The parent comment is probably just trying to say you can't go all battery yet. I'd also like to know who is going to build enough batteries for peak load of > 150 GW. Batteries do have a place, but a lot of people think we're at a spot where we can completely skip gas/coal...we're not there.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  The parent comment didn't say that, so who knows what they meant.

OrganicMSG 9y ago

US Army at the Redstone arsenal in Alabama.

wpietri 9y ago

Less efficient by what measure? In some sense it's all solar power; the efficiency of sun -> plants -> fossil fuels -> extraction -> burning -> electricity can't be particularly high.

pasabagi 9y ago
Fun fact - this was Buckminster Fuller's argument for why petrol should be a million dollars a gallon, a long time before anybody knew anything about global warming.
pixl97 9y ago
You forgot the -> take 500 million years to make, burn it all in 300 years step that seems to be missed by the solar isn't efficient enough club.
neltnerb 9y ago
Not to mention that solar PV is more efficient at converting photons into stored energy than plants. Photosynthesis is typically around 1% hitting perhaps 10% for algae that's got less structure to maintain. Looking at solar PV in that context makes clear how amazing the technology really is.
- usrusr 9y ago
  But you can't beat self-replicating plants in capex!
icegreentea2 9y ago
He clearly meant a something like a human centric EROI. Fossil fuels still have an EROI advantage for now, especially if you force renewables to have enough storage capacity to act as baseload. Fossil fuel EROI is falling all the time, and renewables are creeping up.
- wpietri 9y ago
  It seems to me that "clearly meant a something like" is a contradiction in terms, but let that pass. If they did mean EROI, then I'm not sure that's the measure we should be using. It specifically ignores waste products: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Criticism_of_EROEI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... Which makes it not so good when thinking about global warming and public health impacts, things the CPUC takes into account when setting policy. But even if we just use that, it appears that they're wrong about the EROI of electricity generation. Per Scientific American, the EROI of natural gas, the main competitor in California, is 7. Photovoltaic is 6 (and, as you say climbing), wind is 20, and hydroelectric is 40+: https://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n4/box/scientificamerican0413-58_BX2.html https://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n4/bo... But even if they were right and the EROI of renewables were "far less efficient", I still don't see how that leads to rolling blackouts.

bsder 9y ago

Um, given that criminal behavior by Enron on the "open market" was the only time California ever had rolling blackouts, you've got a bit of work ahead of you to justify that statement. Decentralized generation with local storage is a great way to prevent this kind of blackmail from ever happening again.