California Grid Ran On 100% Renewables For a Record 98 Days (electrek.co)
- Reference: 0175809725
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/12/31/222226/california-grid-ran-on-100-renewables-for-a-record-98-days
- Source link: https://electrek.co/2024/12/31/california-grid-100-percent-renewables-no-blackouts-cost-rises/
> A new study [1]published in the journal Renewable Energy (PDF) uses data from the state of California to demonstrate that no blackouts occurred when wind-water-solar electricity supply [2]exceeded 100% of demand on the state's main grid for a record 98 of 116 days from late winter to early summer 2024 for an average (maximum) of 4.84 (10.1) hours per day. Compared to the same period in 2023, solar output in California is up 31%, wind power is up 8%, and batteries are up a staggering 105%. Batteries supplied up to 12% of nighttime demand by storing and redistributing excess solar energy.
>
> And here's the kicker: California's high electricity prices aren't because of wind, water, and solar energy. (That [3]issue is primarily caused (PDF) by utilities recovering the cost of wildfire mitigation, transmission and distribution investments, and net energy metering.) In fact, researchers from Stanford, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the University of California, Berkeley found that states with higher shares of renewable energy tend to see lower electricity prices. The takeaway -- and the data backs it up -- is that a large grid dominated by wind, water, and solar is not only feasible, it's also reliable.
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/25-CaliforniaWWS.pdf
[2] https://electrek.co/2024/12/31/california-grid-100-percent-renewables-no-blackouts-cost-rises/
[3] https://www.publicadvocates.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cal-advocates-website/files/press-room/reports-and-analyses/241205-public-advocates-office-q3-2024-rates-report.pdf
For profit electric rates (Score:5, Interesting)
There is quite a difference between the investor owned and non investor owned electricity rates in California.
The below link as a graph showing the differences for 2023. Notice the hockey stick for rates in the 3 major investor owned utilities.
https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2023/07/10/not-all-of-californias-electricity-prices-are-high/
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly enough, you glossed over the [1]graph lower in the page [wordpress.com], in the section titled Size Matters .
> PG&E delivers 78 million MWh annually to over 16 million people across 70,000 square miles . The scale of public power operations is much smaller. For example, Silicon Valley power (City of Santa Clara in the graphs) delivers 4.4 million MWh to approximately 60,000 customers across a more densely populated 18 square miles .
They list the miles of transmission and distribution lines running through High Fire Threat District (HFTD) areas as compared to the other power providers.
The investor-owned utilities dwarf the public-owned utility companies, because they have vastly larger infrastructure (and costs) to serve far more customers along significantly larger areas.
Looking at the [2]Net Income [macrotrends.net] for PG&E, they made $2.242 billi
[1] https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/revvshftdmiles_bestfit.png
[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PCG/pacific-gas-electric/net-income
Water (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, hydroelectric.
There are those that claim hydroelectric power is not "green". Dams are slated for demolition all over the West. On the other hand, if hydro is "OK", then we've had far longer intervals of "100% renewable" sources in the Pacific Northwest than a measly 98 days.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem we have with hydroelectric is that even if we dam up every body of water we can possibly get power from, which will definitely have negative environmental and economic effects, we still can't supply more than a fraction of the power needs of our nation.
Don't get me wrong, at around 20% it's a great boost, but it can't be counted to expand to cover everything.
Re: (Score:2)
> Dams are slated for demolition all over the West.
Since when? Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are those that claim hydroelectric power is not "green".
I'd like to hear their argument. Care to share it?
Slightly misleading on costs (Score:2)
California's high electricity prices aren't because of wind, water, and solar energy.
That issue is primarily caused (PDF) by utilities recovering the cost of wildfire mitigation, transmission and distribution investments, and net energy metering
And why does California need so much transmission and distribution investment, and net energy metering? Because of wind and solar energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Citations please.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]https://www.engieimpact.com/in... [engieimpact.com]
> Net metering is a utility billing mechanism that allows customers who generate any amount of their own power to receive credit for the electricity they contribute to the grid that is generated through solar or wind power .
[...]
> As more customers take advantage of net metering, fewer fixed costs are paid into the system, resulting in higher rates for non-net metering customers.
Emphasis added in the first sentence and removed in the second.
[1] https://www.engieimpact.com/insights/net-metering-becoming-controversial
Re: (Score:2)
The OP was somewhat incoherent so it's hard to criticize any response.
>> That issue is primarily caused (PDF) by utilities recovering the cost of wildfire mitigation, transmission and distribution investments, and net energy metering
> And why does California need so much transmission and distribution investment, and net energy metering? Because of wind and solar energy.
California needs transmission and distribution because of the geography of the country. California has net metering for political reasons. Trying to mix those costs together makes any resulting argument into nonsense.
I responded to your post in the thread because I thought you made the most valid point.
If you have difficult transmission and distribution, you're going to have higher energy costs and that might be unavoidable. But usi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to complete the answer to the (stupid) demand for citations, distributed power generation and storage require more infrastructure because the power flow is more dynamic and goes in more directions. "Non-dispatchable" sources also need storage facilities to match supply and and demand across time.
Solar and wind are pretty distributed as they are currently being deployed, and are non-dispatchable, so they increase infrastructure costs for both reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
And the wildfires are also because wind and solar? Or do you have a different hallucination for those costs?
Then why Diablo Canyon? (Score:1, Troll)
I recall a bit of a panic not too long ago over California losing it's last nuclear power plant.
[1]https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
If renewable energy is doing so great in providing the electricity that California needs then why the need to keep Diablo Canyon open?
The answer should be obvious. Renewable energy hasn't proven able to keep the lights on in California, and it likely never will. This is in a state with an abundance of wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal energy at its disposal, other states aren't
[1] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/22/11/21/2325226/us-grants-11-billion-to-keep-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-open
Re: (Score:3)
> The headline is all kinds of misleading. Over those 98 days the most the state ran on 100% renewable energy was just over 10 hours, some days it was only a few minutes. That's hardly something to get excited about.
Yup. They keep doing headlines like this every year, as though it is some amazing thing that they ran on renewable energy for a short period of time on several consecutive days. When we have 98 days straight without actually using any non-renewable energy, I'll be impressed, but we're decades away from that.
To give you an idea just how far away from the headline's implication reality is, the current California energy supply as I type this only has 6.9% from renewables. If you add in large hydro, that onl
Re: (Score:1)
But at least, they got their gold start for participation.
Was this 24/7? (Score:2)
Was california running on renewables (and storage) 24/7 on these days or were there times when dirty fossil fuels were powering the state?
Read the first paragraph carefully (Score:1)
They specifically say it was only for a few hours at a time.
Re: Read the first paragraph carefully (Score:1)
"...that no blackouts occurred when wind-water-solar electricity supply exceeded 100% of demand on the state's main grid for a record 98 of 116 days from late winter to early summer 2024 for an average (maximum) of 4.84 (10.1) hours per day."
Great solution (Score:2)
...during the summer.
FTFY: 100% renewables 20% of the time for 98 days (Score:2)
TFA: "electricity supply exceeded 100% of demand on the state's main grid for a record 98 of 116 days from late winter to early summer 2024 for an average (maximum) of 4.84 (10.1) hours per day"
If you're 100% faithful to your spouse 4.84 hours/day on average, do not expect them to be happy. Even if that's an improvement over last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it more like abstaining from drug use (fossil fuels). A really bad addict of a number of drugs (opioids and alcohol come to mind) can't quit cold turkey without really bad consequences, including potentially death.
Cut use by like 10% a month though, and soon enough they'll be clean. If they get 10% more of their electricity (energy) from renewables a year, in 10 years they'll have transferred.
It doesn't need to, can't, happen overnight.
As they install more power, the periods where they're 100% re
Re: (Score:2)
If you cut by 10% of your original usage per month, you will be clean in ten months. If you cut 10% per month, after ten months, you will be about 35% of your original usage. That's progress in one sense. Not sure how it would work out for a meth addict. However, I'm not sure why the goal is always zero emission anyway. Reducing the carbon output of electricity production to 35% of the levels from a decade ago would be a fabulous environmental win.
Real data (Score:3)
[1]https://www.gridstatus.io/live... [gridstatus.io]
Over the last 30 days typically renewables supplied only 25% of the demand overnight.
[1] https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso
Very poor thread title (Score:2)
CAISO did not manage 100% renewables for one day, never mind 98
The summary is not bad, but the title is a lie.
44c/kWh (Score:2)
Yet I pay $.44/kWh to charge my electric car PG&E land which is roughly 3.50/gallon equivalent
Each of those days (Score:5, Informative)
was only at 100% renewable for 10minutes-10hours.
I’m totally behind renewables. They’re clearly the future. Keep it up. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The grid is nowhere close to being green. We’re still burning more fermented dinosaur than ever in human history and the emissions curve has never been higher. It’s not just that we have a long way to go - we’ve basically made no progress yet. Talk to me when the emisions curve shows an actual negative slope. Until then, we’re still barreling towards a hothouse state with no brakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and the numbers climb steadily every year.
Re: (Score:2)
"... we’ve basically made no progress yet."
From the article:
"Compared with the same period in 2023, solar, wind, and battery outputs in 2024 increased 31 % 8 %, and 105 %, respectively, dropping fossil gas use by an estimated 40 %."
Progress starts somewhere.
"Until then, we’re still barreling towards a hothouse state with no brakes."
H1Bs don't need air conditioning so long as Trump and Musk have theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
> was only at 100% renewable for 10minutes-10hours.
Yeah... these headlines from elektret that we're fed here every couple of months with the new record are Pravda level.
idk what the algorithm is for these "records" because the denominator keeps changing all the time.