9 ms·
California exceeds 100% of energy demand with renewables over a record 30 days
- krasin 2y agoAnother discussion from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045252 (77 comments).
- andsoitis 2y ago” California will entirely be on renewables and battery storage 24/7 by 2035. California passed a law that commits to achieving 100% net zero electricity by 2045. Will it beat that goal by a decade? We hope so. It’s going to be exciting to watch.” Remarkable, especially considering California’s population is 39 million people.
- Someone 2y ago> Remarkable, especially considering California’s population is 39 million people. All else being equal, it is easier to accomplish, the larger the population, as the statistics will be somewhat in your advantage. simple example: if you want to be on 100% renewables on your self, your energy production needs to meet your energy consumption 100% of the time. The moment you pool with a neighbor, that no longer is true; if you need more than you produce, but your neighbor needs less than they produce, the pair of you still can be 100% on renewables. Now, energy production and energy demand between neighbors are highly correlated, so the effect isn’t very high for n=2 (but even then, it’s easier to buy a mix of solar and wind once you pool with a group than when doing it alone), but with millions of people spread out over hundreds of kilometers, that changes.
- YugyDugan 2y agofor 0.25-6 h per day That's nice and all, but 15 minutes is a much lesser achievement than the headline implies.
- elcritch 2y agoSame thought. It’s a bit of a bait and switch as the title implied to me a major milestone. But it’s not and the real milestone of renewables providing power continuously day and night remains.
- fragmede 2y agorunning solar at night would be a real achievement!
- elcritch 2y agoHaha indeed. I edited my comment to be a bit more clear. Though I think solar furnaces do work at night.
- renewiltord 2y agoI have fun news for you https://x.com/bennbuilds/status/1767961251186163857 https://x.com/bennbuilds/status/1767961251186163857
- usrusr 2y agoPush am (ever so slightly) larger fraction of the sun's energy output into our atmosphere, what could possibly go wrong! I know, the amount of net electricity per added total energy might end up no worse than in a fusion power best case scenario, but still... When you add the climate effect of re rocket launches required I don't think it could ever become worthwhile.
- Qwertious 2y agoSo batteries are too expensive, but space launches aren't? Even assuming the light can be sufficiently focused to bypass the inverse-square law, it'll still need precision manufacturing to actually deliver the power to the panels reliably. And that's assuming mirrors are enough, and you don't need space-side solar panels and microwave/laser beams (which will be even more expensive than hundred-mile-focus mirrors).
- callalex 2y agoFor a few minutes at low demand time. These kinds of over-grand claims are seriously harmful to the cause of promoting renewables because it makes it seem like we’re almost there and can stop caring. Just look at the excellent, accurate, and up-to-the-hour charts put out by the electricity market itself and you will see where and when the challenges we face still are. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
- mgraczyk 2y agoThe most striking thing is how incredibly flat the line for nuclear is.
- renewiltord 2y agoGovernor just signed something letting Diablo Canyon run for a few more years. Thank god for that. Impossible to get new nuclear so have to keep what we have.
- connicpu 2y agoNuclear makes for great base generating capacity because it has an incredibly stable output, but that also means the line needs to be kept flat or tons of energy will be wasted.
- Unfrozen0688 2y ago[dead]
- krasin 2y ago> or tons of energy will be wasted. There are good potential industrial loads for that intermittent extra energy (nuclear or solar): desalination, CO2->methane, air->ammonia, etc.
- dvh 2y agoCounterpoint: Zaporozhye
- ktzar 2y agoSpain as a whole 45 million country with diverse geography and scattered population is producing 75 percent of its electricity from renewables and gas and carbon have been down to almost technical zero. It's rained a lot over the last month's and water reservoirs are used as battery. I made a website to track this: https://energy.antizone.online https://energy.antizone.online During the day, a huge chunk of the produced energy is sold to other countries, that's why I claim that 70% of its electricity is from renewables, even though the production share only accounts for 66%.
- darkwater 2y ago> It's rained a lot over the last month's and water reservoirs are used as battery. IN PARTS of the country. In other regions (Catalunya, Andalucia) there is an ongoing drought which is severely impacting everyone and yeah, hydro-electrical companies had done some, let say questionable decisions regarding their water reservoirs.
- ktzar 2y agoit's easier to move power than water :-) So as long as it's rained a lot somewhere, that can be used as a battery. Most hydro power plants are not in Catalonia or Andalusia (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1jVN1LmOoTTqg3eRmubp4pC-HejA&hl=es&ll=40.14414895917617%2C-3.470855999999993&z=6 https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1jVN1LmOoTTqg3e...)
- darkwater 2y agoI'm not saying that water should not be used as a battery. I'm just saying that there is a very serious water crisis in big places in Spain, and to make the people not very familiar with Spain about the difference in weather and climate that exists within the country. Basically, the parts near the Atlantic ocean are always very rainy, and this year some other zone with no sea got a lot of rain, but the Mediterranean coasts have really low raining in general, and in recent years the situation worsened even more.
- Ekaros 2y agoSo next year ban all fossil fuel generation and imports? If this is true surely it can be done already?
- w0z_ 2y agoSpent many decades in California... Somehow 100% renewable but the most expensive electric I've ever paid for. How much does 2000kWh cost again? Also, the most prone to fire-hazard because of above-ground electric. Remember when PG&E caused the most destructive wildfire in California history? Weird rub-it-out article IMO most likely paid for by some PAC. With all the money pumped into California power projects, it never equaled lower power prices, reliability, or safety...
- mjamesaustin 2y agoIf you want to see a power grid truly without good pricing, reliability, or safety, look at Texas. Summer brings constant outages and market prices dozens of times higher than the norm. People were getting bills for thousands of dollars for a single family home in recent summers.
- w0z_ 2y agoHahahaha, okay. I'm in Texas now. I use a ridiculous amount of power to be honest mining in my single family home with A/C running all summer & heatpump during the winter. Care to explain? I've had more expensive bills in San Franciso, Alameda county just heating my home with way more temperate weather. I can provide actual data if you want. Outages? I've had more brown-outs & black-outs in California... the power system there is trash. I lived there for 30+ years LOL. I'de love to know the lore of your perception of the California power system... It's a monopoly. It's 3x more expensive. It's above-ground and caused the most damaging wildfire in California history. What am I missing? Have you lived there for so little-long? That leaves me to my original question. How much 2000kWh cost in California again?
- huytersd 2y agoThis is massive clickbait. 100% should mean for 24 hours a day for 30 days.
- mjburgess 2y agoI'm not sure how many want to hear this, but western deinstustrailization and shifting of domestic production to imports makes most of this irrelevant. In 20yr nigeria alone will have a larger population than the whole of europe, and is industrializing. Total carbon consumption by westerns is always rising due to shifting it to imports; and in any case, we're only 1bn people. Actually stopping carbon consumption by westerns rising is a "war footing" economic programme; and actually stopping climate change requires changing the industrialization trajectories of many non-western countries. cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
- akira2501 2y ago> makes most of this irrelevant. We do export a ridiculous amount of food and green technologies. > and actually stopping climate change requires changing the industrialization trajectories of many non-western countries. So.. colonialism by a new name. I had really hoped we grew out of this by now.
- mjburgess 2y agoIndustrial emission of CO2 is the main factor; there's not much deindustrializing economies can do beyond deindustrailizing. And, of course, pat themselves on the back as they do so. There's zero economic, social or political cost to western policies at the moment and they arent reducing CO2 emissions. It's very much "green theatre". The goal is to stop the actual levels of Co2 ppm from rising. This is all fairly meaningless; it does nothing to change the actual outcome.
- sgu999 2y agoIn particular when more of that green energy is going to be used on bigger EVs, more aircon, more screens, etc. Western countries are unlikely to reduce their overall energy demand, in which we should account for the one necessary for producing the imported goods. That said, opening solar farms to shut down coal plants is a net good regardless.
- 2y ago
- bnjemian 2y agoMark Z. Jacobson! Haven't heard that name in a few years. Don't know him personally, but here's a tangent for the interested: In the first year of my PhD, I read several of his papers from the 90's on the GATOR family of climate models. At the time, I was interested in a potential intersection with my field. One thing that struck me was the absolutely exquisite attention to detail in one of his papers made to model the perspiration of water vapor from leaf stomata in forests (don't have the paper handy but can find if anyone's interested). It was really quite impressive. Anyway, just thought I'd share the anecdote :)
- gnabgib 2y agoPosted 14 hours ago: [0](24 points, 5 comments), and flagged (dupe?) -10 hours ago[1](50 points, 82 comments) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40043155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40043155 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045252
- xbmcuser 2y agoI know a lot of people are disparaging the 100% number but I think the article is more about indicating that this is the inflection point as renewables and batteries are still getting cheaper and more installations are happening.
- locallost 2y agoYes, exactly. Renewables keep achieving new milestones, keep not only growing but also accelerating, and we haven't seen any indication they have a weak point except the obvious variability of production. But the falling costs, the simplicity and the very low maintenance costs will trump variability. The grid will be built around that, it's kind of obvious at this point. One of the fastest growing solar areas in the world is Texas which has very loose rules on what you can deploy to the grid. So if you leave it to the market, it will only deploy renewables and storage. Everything else is dead until we reach a point where renewables meet their limitation. But again, this hasn't happened yet in 30 years of poor predictions on what those limitations are.
- jkw 2y agoSerious question: will the cost of energy come down in California as a result? Why is it still so high?
- fragmede 2y agoI blame PG&E as a for-profit entity is why.
- CodeWriter23 2y agoTry that in August
- fragmede 2y agoIn California? We'll see this August, but if last August is anything to go by, it'll be fine. https://www.caiso.com/Documents/SummerMarketPerformanceReportforAugust2023.pdf https://www.caiso.com/Documents/SummerMarketPerformanceRepor... page 22 December, on the other hand, is a bit of a problem
- CodeWriter23 2y agoThe peak loads in the document you present are 2x what the article claims was supplied by renewables.
- apexalpha 2y agoIf even a website called electrek.co doesn't understand the difference between energy and electricity I guess we might as well give up. California met its ELECTRICITY demand by renewables. They still imported boatloads of oil, petrol and nat gas as energy too. This is still a great milestone! So not trying to downplay it, but we need to be realistic about our total energy use.
- ghostly_s 2y agoMet its electricity demand for a short period of each day. I don't think the chin-scratching over why the public isn't agog at this milestone is sincere. Keep going and give us a call when it hits 50% of the total demand.
- mpweiher 2y agoThe headline appears to be misleading. From the article: "The continuity lies not in renewables running the grid for the entire day ..." So it's not actually that California's electricity demands were met by renewables 100% of the time as one might think, given the headline. As far as I can tell, it's not even that, disregarding the intermittency problem, total energy demand was met, on average. It's just that sometime during the day 100% was hit.
- SeanLuke 2y ago> And what makes it even better is that California has the largest grid-connected battery storage facility in the world (came online in January …), meaning those batteries were filling up with excess energy from the sun all afternoon today and are now deploying as we speak to offset a good chunk of the methane gas generation that California still uses overnight. If it exceeded 100% energy demand, why were they still using methane?
- itopaloglu83 2y agoThe title is a little misleading. Solar energy production is very variable. So I assume over 100% portion is referring to the peak production hours only. At those times, the power grid usually sells the excess energy to other states.
- Throe848rn 2y ago"Energy demand" is a huge stretch. It is just electricity. It does not cover energy used in transportation (car, ships, flight) and energy used to produce imported goods. It also does not cover recycling and renewal. Even food gets like 60% of energy from fertiliser, that is not included here! Anyway, I am just silly old person. So let's march towards bright future. We need solar powered battle tanks and solar powered fighter jets!
- wffurr 2y agoYou joke, but the US DoD sees advantages with distributed energy production in resilience to attack: https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/OE/2023%20Operational%20Energy%20Strategy.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/OE/2023%20Operational%...
- Throe848rn2 2y agoWhy joke? US should power all of its military equipment from solar energy, world would be much better space. As for distributed energy, it is not "production" but "storage". Even desert people with Toyotas can do it.
- dmitri1981 2y agoIf you are interested in renewables generation data, this dashboard shows live data across the world https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
- squaredot 2y agoI was about to post that... nice website indeed!
- 7734128 2y agoThe difference between "energy" and "electricity" is paramount. This title is false.
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045252
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- PunchTornado 2y agohow would this impact solar stock? to me it seems that the demand for solar will decrease.