7 ms·

Doesn't California pay way more for energy than other states? Not sure it makes sense to look at what they're doing and call it the future. It would be nice if

Doesn't California pay way more for energy than other states? Not sure it makes sense to look at what they're doing and call it the future. It would be nice if it were free but the cost is something like double neighboring states.

singhrac 2y ago
The same is starting to be true for Texas as well (which is an example of great market design).
- mrdatawolf 2y ago
  Winter called. It disagrees with your rosy assessment of the Texas grid's greatness.
  - more_corn 2y ago
    The greatness of the Texas energy market is the fact that the grid goes down all the time. So deploy solar and a battery so you don’t die in the winter cold and the summer heat.
EGG_CREAM 2y ago
How is paying a lot for energy not the future? It seems to be the trend worldwide.
- cooper_ganglia 2y ago
  Nuclear fusion has entered the chat.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Solar and batteries is fusion at a distance with almost no containment, embrittlement, or other technology challenges.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      But with albedo changes and other negative environmental impacts. TAANSTAFL. That said, fusion is a long way off.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    What's the cost per MWh on that again?
    - QuadmasterXLII 2y ago
      Last I checked, the going rate is roughly 3.5 Billion for 3 MJ. Cost coming down quickly though! Only a couple dozen orders of magnitude to go and it’ll blow solar out of the water!
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Well, the cost estimate for ARC was $29/W(e,net) for the capital cost of the reactor, or about 2x the cost of Vogtle-3/4 (for entire power plants).
  - more_corn 2y ago
    We’re so sorry, nuclear fusion is experiencing high latency and packet loss. Please try again in $(10 RANDOM %100) years.
- retrac 2y ago
  Most of the cost of energy is the fossil fuels themselves, or taxation to discourage use. The cost of photovoltaic power seems to be governed by a scaling law, that has held for several decades now. [1] It is now cheaper than fossil fuels in sunny regions for electricity generation, without subsidy or other incentive. Even cautious estimates of further improvement, produce rather pleasing scenarios a few decades out. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    > cheaper than fossil fuels One needs to specify if this means "cheaper than a new construction fossil fuel plant" or "cheaper than operating an existing fossil fuel plant". Whether a CO2 tax is involved should also be specified. Things will really take off when existing plants can no longer compete (particularly in places like the US where overall demand is growing slowly, if at all). Of course, this will depress the price of the fuel (natural gas is in the doldrums in the US) which will delay things.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      The LCOE of solar is lower than the LCOE of fossil fuels. That includes setup costs. But it also of course wins without it for both sources because you don’t need to buy the fuel. It’s not yet there if you’re also looking at the broader cycle that includes operating battery storage. The LCOE of battery and hydrogen fuel tech then depends on the price of the energy. So it’s very difficult to define. But it is getting there.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        The important point is that if one already has fossil fuel plants, you have to compare the marginal cost of operating those plants vs. the full cost (including capital cost) of replacing them with renewables (CO2 costs included if any). Otherwise, they'll just keep operating the fossil fuel plants. Eventually the fossil fuel plants will age out and be replaced in an apples-to-apples comparison, but that could take decades.
- exoverito 2y ago
  Current nuclear fission reactors can safely and reliably supply all our electricity needs. France rapidly built out their nuclear fleet in response to the 1973 oil crisis, achieving more than 70% of their electricity generation within 20 years. If the political will is there, it can be done. The problem is that Western elites are corrupt and incompetent. They foolishly outsourced their manufacturing to a rival nation, which is now the rising superpower. Germany shut down its nuclear reactors and spent hundreds of billions on solar, while their manufacturing sector implodes from high electricity prices. Corporate elites are increasingly extractive as exemplified by rising wealth gap, housing / healthcare / education costs, enshittification of internet platforms, etc. Any narrative which justifies price increases is gleefully propagated by the media hegemons. Climate change is used to markup prices on everything so consumers can feel self-righteous paying through the nose. Yet none of this will make a difference. China, India, and Africa will continue burning the cheapest fuels available to support their development.
ccgreg 2y ago
Parts of California pay way more for energy because of starting fires leading to bankruptcy. Other parts of California pay pretty normal rates.
- crackercrews 2y ago
  What parts pay normal rates? Are they heavily dependent upon solar, wind, and batteries? Or are they using gas or nuclear?
  - pmalynin 2y ago
    If you live in Santa Clara your rate will be around $0.166 per kWh. I think a lot of folks there have solar. And by 2026 they say they will have 50% of electricity sourced via sustainable means.
    - crackercrews 2y ago
      I hear it is 2x to 3x that much depending on time of day in Santa Clara. Also, people built solar when there were different rules. The new rules make it much less advantageous.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        > I hear it is 2x to 3x that much depending on time of day in Santa Clara. Sounds like an amazing opportunity to make bank trading energy off-hours (as modeled by TX). Guess what technology enables exactly this!
        crackercrews 2y ago
        Batteries charged by natural gas?
        itishappy 2y ago
        That's right, batteries! They enable us to capitalize on energy price fluctuations. You can of course charge them however you like, but I have a feeling Santa Clara's purported 3x price fluctuations are not due entirely to natural gas.
standeven 2y ago
Most of California’s electrical costs are due to transmission and distribution, and I believe a lot of those costs stem from reducing power-related wildfire risks. Last time I checked, 11 states received the majority of their electricity from renewable sources, and 10/11 had cheaper rates than the national average, with California being the exception.
- crackercrews 2y ago
  This probably includes states with abundant hydro power. That's a much cheaper reliable source of renewable energy.
- hammock 2y ago
  PG&E (California's electric utility) books over $2 billion a year in profit - the equivalent of a $110 charge per month on every California household's bill at their 12.5% profit margin. Despite that, they claim insolvency and fight payouts to fire-injured taxpayers
  - zone411 2y ago
    They claim insolvency? What are you talking about? They went through bankruptcy in 2019-2020. 4 years ago.
  - hackernewds 2y ago
    I pay $100 per month, this calculation can't be right.
    - briffle 2y ago
      Businesses and farms use WAY more power than the average home.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  I wonder how much of the costs are due to "negawatts", investment in energy efficiency. Do that enough and you layer large capital costs on the system that the utility can charge for.
exoverito 2y ago
Exactly. In San Diego the peak electricity price is $0.75/kWH, the highest in the continental USA. There is literally a functional nuclear reactor sitting idle a few miles north at San Onofre, and NIMBYs oppose nearly everything all new construction and upzoning. California is not a good model for almost anything these days, just look at the high speed rail project. Cost of living is worsening for the middle and lower classes who are emigrating to other states. The government is corrupt and inefficient, spending vast sums on homelessness while achieving effectively nothing. Progressives can't blame anyone but themselves since California is a one party state with no real opposition.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  A nuclear plant will earn money based on wholesale prices, not retail prices, and certainly not one-time peak retail prices. Wholesale prices are much lower. Note that for much of the day it's around $0.04/kWh. Batteries will reduce the evening peak. https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/california-electricity-prices-by-hour/ https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/california-electrici... Calling SONGS-2 or 3 functional is a stretch given their steam generator problems.
- beembeem 2y ago
  It would be worth looking at your investor-owned utility which has had an energy monopoly for half a century and has little incentive to innovate.
- robotbikes 2y ago
  One party rule is almost never a good thing over the long run as politicians tend to become more self-serving and corrupt the longer they don't have to worry about being held accountable to voters. Instead they worry more about being accountable to their party leaders and funders who try to maintain the status-quo. Not sure the duopoly we have in the USA is preferable compared to say a robust democracy with smaller parties forming coalitions.
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    Take 30-60 minutes and read up on ranked choice voting, if you aren't familiar. I talk to a lot of people about it and the idea that we can vote any other way seems foreign to most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting A more laymans' terms comic that explains it with some FAQ built in: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/ https://www.chickennation.com/voting/ It won't instantly change the world, but it will allow people to vote their true conscience vs. strategic voting, and allows smaller parties a chance at real power.
maherbeg 2y ago
Texas could be a good example that is ramping up more battery usage without having massive energy prices. Granted the energy system in Texas needs other changes (feb 2021 winter storm for instance!) but it could end up being a good template in the long run.
- crackercrews 2y ago
  They use natural gas to charge up their batteries. [1] This is a different use case than California. 1: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/texas-will-add-more-grid-batteries-than-any-other-state-in-2024 https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/texas-wi...
  - itishappy 2y ago
    The article mentions this: > In Texas, many batteries today are actually increasing carbon-dioxide emissions, according to one analysis. That’s because operators focus on maximizing revenue and sometimes charge with coal or gas power. Sounds like they're still using using environmental externalities to subsidize their costs. Regardless, the results are the same. Batteries are the future.
    - crackercrews 2y ago
      People are leaving California because it's too expensive. It's nice to internalize externalities. But if the result is that people leave then it's not really solving the problem. You've just shifted the emissions to Texas. Same for manufacturing that goes to China.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        This assumes the losses to emigration are higher than the efficiency improvements. I suspect that's not how it works out in practice, but I don't have the data to support this. It's also reasonable to assume internalizing externalities can drive efficiency improvements everywhere. Would batteries by as efficient and available for installation in TX if CA hadn't subsidized them for a decade prior?
hackernewds 2y ago
do they pay more, or are they charged more? there is a difference

singhrac 2y ago

The same is starting to be true for Texas as well (which is an example of great market design).

mrdatawolf 2y ago
Winter called. It disagrees with your rosy assessment of the Texas grid's greatness.
- more_corn 2y ago
  The greatness of the Texas energy market is the fact that the grid goes down all the time. So deploy solar and a battery so you don’t die in the winter cold and the summer heat.

EGG_CREAM 2y ago

How is paying a lot for energy not the future? It seems to be the trend worldwide.

cooper_ganglia 2y ago
Nuclear fusion has entered the chat.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Solar and batteries is fusion at a distance with almost no containment, embrittlement, or other technology challenges.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    But with albedo changes and other negative environmental impacts. TAANSTAFL. That said, fusion is a long way off.
- itishappy 2y ago
  What's the cost per MWh on that again?
  - QuadmasterXLII 2y ago
    Last I checked, the going rate is roughly 3.5 Billion for 3 MJ. Cost coming down quickly though! Only a couple dozen orders of magnitude to go and it’ll blow solar out of the water!
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Well, the cost estimate for ARC was $29/W(e,net) for the capital cost of the reactor, or about 2x the cost of Vogtle-3/4 (for entire power plants).
- more_corn 2y ago
  We’re so sorry, nuclear fusion is experiencing high latency and packet loss. Please try again in $(10 RANDOM %100) years.
retrac 2y ago
Most of the cost of energy is the fossil fuels themselves, or taxation to discourage use. The cost of photovoltaic power seems to be governed by a scaling law, that has held for several decades now. [1] It is now cheaper than fossil fuels in sunny regions for electricity generation, without subsidy or other incentive. Even cautious estimates of further improvement, produce rather pleasing scenarios a few decades out. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > cheaper than fossil fuels One needs to specify if this means "cheaper than a new construction fossil fuel plant" or "cheaper than operating an existing fossil fuel plant". Whether a CO2 tax is involved should also be specified. Things will really take off when existing plants can no longer compete (particularly in places like the US where overall demand is growing slowly, if at all). Of course, this will depress the price of the fuel (natural gas is in the doldrums in the US) which will delay things.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    The LCOE of solar is lower than the LCOE of fossil fuels. That includes setup costs. But it also of course wins without it for both sources because you don’t need to buy the fuel. It’s not yet there if you’re also looking at the broader cycle that includes operating battery storage. The LCOE of battery and hydrogen fuel tech then depends on the price of the energy. So it’s very difficult to define. But it is getting there.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      The important point is that if one already has fossil fuel plants, you have to compare the marginal cost of operating those plants vs. the full cost (including capital cost) of replacing them with renewables (CO2 costs included if any). Otherwise, they'll just keep operating the fossil fuel plants. Eventually the fossil fuel plants will age out and be replaced in an apples-to-apples comparison, but that could take decades.
exoverito 2y ago
Current nuclear fission reactors can safely and reliably supply all our electricity needs. France rapidly built out their nuclear fleet in response to the 1973 oil crisis, achieving more than 70% of their electricity generation within 20 years. If the political will is there, it can be done. The problem is that Western elites are corrupt and incompetent. They foolishly outsourced their manufacturing to a rival nation, which is now the rising superpower. Germany shut down its nuclear reactors and spent hundreds of billions on solar, while their manufacturing sector implodes from high electricity prices. Corporate elites are increasingly extractive as exemplified by rising wealth gap, housing / healthcare / education costs, enshittification of internet platforms, etc. Any narrative which justifies price increases is gleefully propagated by the media hegemons. Climate change is used to markup prices on everything so consumers can feel self-righteous paying through the nose. Yet none of this will make a difference. China, India, and Africa will continue burning the cheapest fuels available to support their development.

ccgreg 2y ago

Parts of California pay way more for energy because of starting fires leading to bankruptcy. Other parts of California pay pretty normal rates.

crackercrews 2y ago
What parts pay normal rates? Are they heavily dependent upon solar, wind, and batteries? Or are they using gas or nuclear?
- pmalynin 2y ago
  If you live in Santa Clara your rate will be around $0.166 per kWh. I think a lot of folks there have solar. And by 2026 they say they will have 50% of electricity sourced via sustainable means.
  - crackercrews 2y ago
    I hear it is 2x to 3x that much depending on time of day in Santa Clara. Also, people built solar when there were different rules. The new rules make it much less advantageous.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      > I hear it is 2x to 3x that much depending on time of day in Santa Clara. Sounds like an amazing opportunity to make bank trading energy off-hours (as modeled by TX). Guess what technology enables exactly this!
      - crackercrews 2y ago
        Batteries charged by natural gas?
        itishappy 2y ago
        That's right, batteries! They enable us to capitalize on energy price fluctuations. You can of course charge them however you like, but I have a feeling Santa Clara's purported 3x price fluctuations are not due entirely to natural gas.

standeven 2y ago

Most of California’s electrical costs are due to transmission and distribution, and I believe a lot of those costs stem from reducing power-related wildfire risks. Last time I checked, 11 states received the majority of their electricity from renewable sources, and 10/11 had cheaper rates than the national average, with California being the exception.

crackercrews 2y ago
This probably includes states with abundant hydro power. That's a much cheaper reliable source of renewable energy.
hammock 2y ago
PG&E (California's electric utility) books over $2 billion a year in profit - the equivalent of a $110 charge per month on every California household's bill at their 12.5% profit margin. Despite that, they claim insolvency and fight payouts to fire-injured taxpayers
- zone411 2y ago
  They claim insolvency? What are you talking about? They went through bankruptcy in 2019-2020. 4 years ago.
- hackernewds 2y ago
  I pay $100 per month, this calculation can't be right.
  - briffle 2y ago
    Businesses and farms use WAY more power than the average home.
pfdietz 2y ago
I wonder how much of the costs are due to "negawatts", investment in energy efficiency. Do that enough and you layer large capital costs on the system that the utility can charge for.

exoverito 2y ago

Exactly. In San Diego the peak electricity price is $0.75/kWH, the highest in the continental USA. There is literally a functional nuclear reactor sitting idle a few miles north at San Onofre, and NIMBYs oppose nearly everything all new construction and upzoning. California is not a good model for almost anything these days, just look at the high speed rail project. Cost of living is worsening for the middle and lower classes who are emigrating to other states. The government is corrupt and inefficient, spending vast sums on homelessness while achieving effectively nothing. Progressives can't blame anyone but themselves since California is a one party state with no real opposition.

pfdietz 2y ago
A nuclear plant will earn money based on wholesale prices, not retail prices, and certainly not one-time peak retail prices. Wholesale prices are much lower. Note that for much of the day it's around $0.04/kWh. Batteries will reduce the evening peak. https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/california-electricity-prices-by-hour/ https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/california-electrici... Calling SONGS-2 or 3 functional is a stretch given their steam generator problems.
beembeem 2y ago
It would be worth looking at your investor-owned utility which has had an energy monopoly for half a century and has little incentive to innovate.
robotbikes 2y ago
One party rule is almost never a good thing over the long run as politicians tend to become more self-serving and corrupt the longer they don't have to worry about being held accountable to voters. Instead they worry more about being accountable to their party leaders and funders who try to maintain the status-quo. Not sure the duopoly we have in the USA is preferable compared to say a robust democracy with smaller parties forming coalitions.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  Take 30-60 minutes and read up on ranked choice voting, if you aren't familiar. I talk to a lot of people about it and the idea that we can vote any other way seems foreign to most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting A more laymans' terms comic that explains it with some FAQ built in: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/ https://www.chickennation.com/voting/ It won't instantly change the world, but it will allow people to vote their true conscience vs. strategic voting, and allows smaller parties a chance at real power.

maherbeg 2y ago

Texas could be a good example that is ramping up more battery usage without having massive energy prices. Granted the energy system in Texas needs other changes (feb 2021 winter storm for instance!) but it could end up being a good template in the long run.

crackercrews 2y ago
They use natural gas to charge up their batteries. [1] This is a different use case than California. 1: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/texas-will-add-more-grid-batteries-than-any-other-state-in-2024 https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/texas-wi...
- itishappy 2y ago
  The article mentions this: > In Texas, many batteries today are actually increasing carbon-dioxide emissions, according to one analysis. That’s because operators focus on maximizing revenue and sometimes charge with coal or gas power. Sounds like they're still using using environmental externalities to subsidize their costs. Regardless, the results are the same. Batteries are the future.
  - crackercrews 2y ago
    People are leaving California because it's too expensive. It's nice to internalize externalities. But if the result is that people leave then it's not really solving the problem. You've just shifted the emissions to Texas. Same for manufacturing that goes to China.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      This assumes the losses to emigration are higher than the efficiency improvements. I suspect that's not how it works out in practice, but I don't have the data to support this. It's also reasonable to assume internalizing externalities can drive efficiency improvements everywhere. Would batteries by as efficient and available for installation in TX if CA hadn't subsidized them for a decade prior?

hackernewds 2y ago

do they pay more, or are they charged more? there is a difference