5 ms·

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

by rtkwe 5y ago

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.

trenchgun 5y ago
You basically just told us you don't understand how electric grids and electricity markets function.
rogers18445 5y ago
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.
- SamBam 5y ago
  Disagree. "97% of some state's energy production was renewable" doesn't tell you much, because they could be a state that hardly burns any fossil fuels. "California managed to produce enough renewable energy to power 97% of the needs of a state the size of California" actually tells you how much renewable energy it generated, and why that's a big deal.
  - trenchgun 5y ago
    The problem is that it's just not true, when formulated in that way.
  - rogers18445 5y ago
    In that case, you need to provide additional information. Because this coverage is not consistent, since renewables are intermittent and storage appears to be a dream.
ploxiln 5y ago
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).
- asdfaoeu 5y ago
  That's true but no one is suggesting they stop now right? This is just a milestone.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- onion2k 5y ago
  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). It's not like you can ramp a coal-fired or nuclear power station up and down on a whim either though. It takes time and planning to modify the output if you don't have storage capacity. Power companies do a lot of predictive analysis to forecast demand and make sure they're running a little ahead. Here in the UK we even have a term called "TV pickup" where the electricity demand for the country increases significantly immediately after popular TV shows when we all go and put our kettles on for another cup of tea[1]. Power demand varies a lot, and in a reasonably predictable way, so you're fine so long as you have a mix of generation technologies. For most places that'll end up being solar, wind and nuclear, with extensive storage capacity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
  - midasuni 5y ago
    TV pick-up used to be a thing when 17 million people watched Corrie in real time. Those types of real time viewing figures are limited to live England matches in the euros/World Cup, and very unusual events like the PM’s covid broadcast back in 2020 I’m surprised the US doesn’t have the phenomenon during the super bowl. I guess the lack of kettles and the main attraction of the Super Bowl being the adverts dampens it down though.
usrn 5y ago
The implication here is that you don't need the non-renewable part. That's not true if you have to have it when the renewable part isn't producing power.
rmbyrro 5y ago
We're they keeping the dirty generation at surplus level for safety precautions, due to renewable sources unreliability? If yes, I think the math is misleading. It doesn't matter if you generate 97% from renewables if you can't trust it and still need to keep dirty sources, even during renewable peak...

by rtkwe 5y ago

trenchgun 5y ago

You basically just told us you don't understand how electric grids and electricity markets function.

rogers18445 5y ago

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.

SamBam 5y ago
Disagree. "97% of some state's energy production was renewable" doesn't tell you much, because they could be a state that hardly burns any fossil fuels. "California managed to produce enough renewable energy to power 97% of the needs of a state the size of California" actually tells you how much renewable energy it generated, and why that's a big deal.
- trenchgun 5y ago
  The problem is that it's just not true, when formulated in that way.
- rogers18445 5y ago
  In that case, you need to provide additional information. Because this coverage is not consistent, since renewables are intermittent and storage appears to be a dream.

ploxiln 5y ago

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).

asdfaoeu 5y ago
That's true but no one is suggesting they stop now right? This is just a milestone.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
onion2k 5y ago
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). It's not like you can ramp a coal-fired or nuclear power station up and down on a whim either though. It takes time and planning to modify the output if you don't have storage capacity. Power companies do a lot of predictive analysis to forecast demand and make sure they're running a little ahead. Here in the UK we even have a term called "TV pickup" where the electricity demand for the country increases significantly immediately after popular TV shows when we all go and put our kettles on for another cup of tea[1]. Power demand varies a lot, and in a reasonably predictable way, so you're fine so long as you have a mix of generation technologies. For most places that'll end up being solar, wind and nuclear, with extensive storage capacity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
- midasuni 5y ago
  TV pick-up used to be a thing when 17 million people watched Corrie in real time. Those types of real time viewing figures are limited to live England matches in the euros/World Cup, and very unusual events like the PM’s covid broadcast back in 2020 I’m surprised the US doesn’t have the phenomenon during the super bowl. I guess the lack of kettles and the main attraction of the Super Bowl being the adverts dampens it down though.

usrn 5y ago

The implication here is that you don't need the non-renewable part. That's not true if you have to have it when the renewable part isn't producing power.

rmbyrro 5y ago

We're they keeping the dirty generation at surplus level for safety precautions, due to renewable sources unreliability? If yes, I think the math is misleading. It doesn't matter if you generate 97% from renewables if you can't trust it and still need to keep dirty sources, even during renewable peak...