Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Power

California's Power Grid Hits 95% Renewable Energy. Sort of. (latimes.com) 187

Posted by EditorDavid from the going-green dept.
Something remarkable happened last weekend, according to a climate change newsletter by the Los Angeles Times.

California, the world's fifth-largest economy, hit nearly 95% renewable energy. Sort of... There are several caveats. For one thing, Saturday's 94.5% figure — a record, as confirmed to me by the California Independent System Operator — was fleeting, lasting just four seconds. It was specific to the state's main power grid, which covers four-fifths of California but doesn't include Los Angeles, Sacramento and several other regions. It came at a time of year defined by abundant sunshine and relatively cool weather, meaning it's easier for renewable power to do the job traditionally done by fossil fuels.

And fossil fuels actually were doing part of the job — more than the 94.5% figure might suggest. California was producing enough clean power to supply nearly 95% of its in-state needs, but it was also burning a bunch of natural gas and exporting electricity to its Western neighbors. It's impossible to say exactly how much of the Golden State's own supply was coming from renewables.

That said, what happened on Saturday is definitely a big deal.... The 94.5% record may have been fleeting, but it wasn't some isolated spike. Most of Saturday afternoon, the renewables number topped 90%, with solar and wind farms doing the bulk of the work and geothermal, biomass and hydropower facilities making smaller contributions. Add in the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant — which isn't counted toward California's renewables mandate — and there was enough climate-friendly power at times Saturday to account for more than 100% of the state's electricity needs...

The important thing now is making sure the puzzle pieces of the grid fit together on hot summer evenings, like the ones last August when insufficient supplies after sundown led to rolling blackouts.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California's Power Grid Hits 95% Renewable Energy. Sort of. More

California's Power Grid Hits 95% Renewable Energy. Sort of.

Comments Filter:

  • The Next Step (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Sunday May 02, 2021 @05:14AM (#61337740)
    From a technical perspective we have clearly reached the point where we can stop using fossil fuels - and nuclear - for electricity storage. Solar power during the day and then a combination of wind, hydroelectric (where available) and grid batteries - that meet our consumption demands - can easily be made.

    So now we come to a much more interesting and concerning question, which is: how come we’re not making an even more aggressive push towards renewables? The energy source is free. The fuel is clean and therefore healthier for us.

    I think there might be at least a couple of reasons. Firstly, we’re still building our more renewable capacity. That costs a lot of money, so the unit-cost from renewable sources is still higher than it could be, because the profits are being invested in more capacity. This, in turn, means that this inflated cost of renewables remains close enough to the cost of generation from fossil fuel plants to enable them to remain viable for a bit longer.

    But we need to be careful here. Solar panels might need an infrequent wipe down, but have a lifespan of 25 years. Wind turbines require more maintenance, but are engineered for long life too.

    Right now, as consumers, we’re likely still paying the same prices for energy that we have traditionally - sometimes more. Yet the energy generators, if they are investing wisely, should see their costs go down. We need to be careful to ensure that this doesn’t turn in to yet another great rip-off as the companies enjoy the benefits of the switch to renewable energy, while we get screwed over on pricing.

    Lots of ways we could do this, of course - from ensuring that all new homes have solar panels on the roof and two-way meters, to working with town planning agencies and builders to ensure that homes are oriented towards the sun for efficiency, to exploring micro-generating with ‘back garden’ wind turbines in suitable locations and maybe even micro-hydro if there is running water nearby.

    But the key thing is to move towards that tipping point - the economic watershed beyond which fossil fuels become too expensive to operate. That’s the single best way to accelerate adoption of renewables.

    • Re:The Next Step (Score:5, Insightful)

      by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Sunday May 02, 2021 @06:47AM (#61337834)

      Solar power during the day and then a combination of wind, hydroelectric (where available) and grid batteries - that meet our consumption demands - can easily be made.

      If it was easy, it would've been done already. To fully supply the demand, the renewables must consistently produce 200-300% the demand during the day to account for night usage and storage losses. 95% for a few seconds does not cut it.

      That costs a lot of money, so the unit-cost from renewable sources is still higher than it could be, because the profits are being invested in more capacity. This, in turn, means that this inflated cost of renewables remains close enough to the cost of generation from fossil fuel plants to enable them to remain viable for a bit longer.

      You noticed that money is a problem. I hope you also understand that money costs money in the form of interest. If something requires a lot of capital to build and takes too long to produce profits, it can easily lead to a loss for the builder even if the underlying assets are profitable.

      Lots of ways we could do this, of course - from ensuring that all new homes have solar panels on the roof and two-way meters, to working with town planning agencies and builders to ensure that homes are oriented towards the sun for efficiency, to exploring micro-generating with ‘back garden’ wind turbines in suitable locations and maybe even micro-hydro if there is running water nearby.

      None of those are cost-effective. For one, there's not a lot of new housing being built. Secondly, a solar roof costs an average of $20,000 to install, plus another $10,000 for batteries. The same money invested into a 5% bond yields about $125 per month, more than most electricity bills. The solar roof doesn't even take care of all of your usage, so you're still paying the electricity provider for the rest. The other two options are even worse and also significantly less reliable.

      • For one, there's not a lot of new housing being built.

        But there is. [dsnews.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          Not in California there isn't. Especially not in SF or LA where pretty much every square foot of flat land that could be built on has already been built on. Houses around here are 40 years old and they aren't being torn down. New houses are a tiny fraction of what's needed to convert to renewables.

      • To fully supply the demand, the renewables must consistently produce 200-300% the demand during the day to account for night usage and storage losses. 95% for a few seconds does not cut it.
        Why do you make up numbers when you simply could look them up?

    • Glossing over the real problems (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Sunday May 02, 2021 @07:14AM (#61337870) Homepage

      Solar power during the day and then a combination of wind, hydroelectric (where available) and grid batteries - that meet our consumption demands - can easily be made.

      Riiiight. Sure it can. Um, no. In fact, the problems are *not* solved - especially the storage problem.

      California was generating 95% of its power needs using renewables - if you ignore all of those nat-gas plants that were exporting power. Only, you cannot separate the two. One of the main features of nat-gas plants is that they adjust very quickly. Cloud in front of the sun, shading a bige chunk of solar? Crank up the gas. Ah, the sun is back? Turn down the gas.

      There are cloudy days. There are nights with little wind. You need serious storage to cover the eventualities, and the storage problem is *not* solved.

      I grant that you absolutely could solve it with hydroelectric. But consider the amount of power you need to store. Then count the number of valleys you need to flood. Finally, tell me that anyone is going to let you do that.

      Grid batteries? They're great for stablizing the grid in the short term (seconds, at most minutes). Long-term storage? Not realistic. California uses nearly one TWh (terawatt-hour) per day. To store that represents around half of the entire annual global production of batteries. That's to provide one day of storage, for one state.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        But consider the amount of power you need to store.

        How much you need to store (energy supply) depends on demand. How much demand there is depends on the price. Therefore, like everything else, how much energy supply you need depends on how much you're selling it for.

        So you don't need a whole lot of storage to prevent blackouts, you only need to crank up the price, and provide an automated way for people's appliances to respond in real-time.

        For me, I'd want the dryer to turn itself off first, because I can

        • How much demand there is depends on the price.
          That is not how evergy grids work for house hold customers.

          Or do YOU have a variable price depending on day/time/year or spot market for your energy?
          You have a smart meter to start the washing machine at night when energy is cheap? Or at peak sun power, when it should be/could be cheap?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ichijo ( 607641 )

            You have a smart meter to start the washing machine at night when energy is cheap?

            I wish! So I have to set the timer on the washer manually, to run early in the morning when electricity is cheap.

            Or at peak sun power, when it should be/could be cheap?

            In fact, my solar clothes dryer works quickest when the sun is out.

            • I wish! So I have to set the timer on the washer manually, to run early in the morning when electricity is cheap.
              If you have no smart meter then you pay the same price regardless when you activate your device. Or how actually do you think your utility is metering you?

      • Then count the number of valleys you need to flood. Finally, tell me that anyone is going to let you do that.
        Should not be a problem when people finally realize that a valley, with a lake, is a recreational zone. You can fish, bath, swim, relax, hike, be in a hotel, sail, what ever you want. You could go hardcore and settle fresh water dolphins there. Otherwise such a valley is just a chunk of rock, depending on hight over sea level with sparse trees, perhaps a forrest, or no trees at all.

        California is full

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Renewables are already there cheapest form of generation. In the UK you can save money by switching to renewable only energy and letting other people pay the fossil/nuclear premium.

      The reason the transition isn't faster is mostly entrenched interests, both generation and the grid. Also government's taking too long to catch up with planning permission for new renewables.

    • Electricity storage is *very* expensive. It's cheaper to pay somebody to take unneeded renewable energy during periods of excess and then pay again to burn fossil fuels during periods of shortage than it is to store the electricity. Batteries cost a fortune. Pumped hydro has insane capital costs and environmental impact. If you wanted a non grid-tied system today with solar and wind, you would be much better off backing it with a natural gas generator than a battery.

      • Pumped hydro has insane capital costs Erm, simply: nope?
        and environmental impact. Nope again? You make a lake where there was nothing before. Fish, birds, water birds, and other animals like that. Also humans who like to be in nature like that. Why do you not once visit an artificial lake instead of sitting on your couch and blubbering nonsense?

        • Again, a person who's never tried to do it. Pumped storage *is* insanely expensive because most of the good sites are already in use, much as it is for conventional large hydro. Then, if the reservoir on either end is visible to somebody, the EIR will be insanely difficult and the legal challenges endless. Plus, there will be endangered species impacts is either of those reservoirs are on natural streams and open to the air. If you look a little more carefully, you'll find that practically no pumped storage

    • by some estimates it'll cost $6 or $7 trillion to shift the US power grid to renewables. Somebody's going to have to pay for that. Yes, there's money to be made in the long run, but only if you can take and maintain control of all that infrastructure, which, well, that's hard to do. It's the kind of thing that very much feels like a public resource (because, well, it is).

      Oil and gas are already monetized and are much easier to maintain economic control over. The people with all the money (who write the [wikipedia.org]

    • how come we’re not making an even more aggressive push towards renewables?

      Mainly because your first paragraph is a lie you picked up somewhere.

  • California hits 95% renewables... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Sunday May 02, 2021 @06:02AM (#61337776) Homepage Journal

    Except for the cities...

  • Western neighbours? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Alsn ( 911813 ) on Sunday May 02, 2021 @06:12AM (#61337796)
    I wasn't aware Atlantis had already been rediscovered and that we were trading with them? Do they even need electricity? I figured they'd have zero-point power by now... :/

    • I wasn't aware Atlantis had already been rediscovered and that we were trading with them? Do they even need electricity? I figured they'd have zero-point power by now... :/

      I guess it depends on how you define wet and neighbor. A plant east of San Diego sending power to Reno is sending it west; although technically its hard to tell what power is actually going where.

  • Why (Score:2)

    by pele ( 151312 )

    Is it still showing 0 comments?

    • Switch to "Request Desktop Site" and the comment count will show as normal.

      Something has been screwed up in the mobile site slashcode the last couple days.

    • Because the one guy who knows how to fix it probably mived on to greener pa$ture$ and the woketards running the site are too busy scrubbing the code for suddenly naughty words to notice they've introduced a bug.

  • California is the world's fifth-largest economy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Sunday May 02, 2021 @06:33AM (#61337822) Homepage
    2018 Total System Electric Generation [ca.gov]

    "Renewables ... 32.35%"

    16 mind-blowing facts about California's economy [businessinsider.com]: "If it were its own nation, California would have the fifth largest economy in the world."

    The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One [theatlantic.com] (Jan. 2, 2019)

    "Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California..."
    • I am all in favor of getting 12 senators. The only viable option for that is to split the state up into 6 states. I would prefer at least 7 though. So 14 senators.
    • And yet I suspect California's representatives in the House voted to make DC a state, which would give a single city as many Senators as either California or Wyoming. Go figure.

      • Of course they did. And I would love it if we divided up California and Texas into numerous smaller states.

        • It would make much more sense to fix the retarded archaic american voting, elecetion, government system than splitting up states, with the aim to fix "something", which would not be fixed after wards, but just "leveled a bit".

  • I did not know California had neighboring states to the west

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • if you want to focus all your energies on a specific pollutant, you should choose something better than CO2 because that one is tricky as hell. And you will never get rid of it.

      When I seal my roof I'm not trying to get rid of water, I'm just trying to keep most of it out of my house. Not all of it; I have pipes that bring water inside intentionally! But they do it selectively.

      People can grasp this logic if they are not looking for an excuse not to understand.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • For CO2, you can only burn less or do it more efficiently

          Okay, so you can reduce CO2 emissions through efficiency. I think we're on the same page so far...

          What basically means recommending to create a better engine

          We have a "better engine". It's called an "electric motor".

          My point was that if you focus most of your efforts on pretty much any other pollutant, the CO2 emissions would probably be reduced too as far as they occur together with most of the other ones

          I don't think that's true. It's true if you focus on methane, which breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. But it's not true if you focus on let's say CFCs, which are sort of a way to avoid CO2 emissions, in that the alternatives to using them in production involve consuming more energy. So if you only reduced CFCs you probably would increase CO2 emissio

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • The problem is that your point makes no actual sense.

              You don't reduce CO2 by targeting other emissions. That's not how this works at all.

              You reduce CO2 by targeting CO2, period. Along the way you may reduce other emissions by reducing CO2 emissions. But if your goal is to reduce AGW, then your goal is to reduce CO2, because CO2 is the primary force behind AGW.

              If you still don't understand this, sorry, it just doesn't get any simpler than the way it actually works.

              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • I am the one not understanding? OK. Bye.

                  I don't know if you're understanding but pretending not to for the sake of argument, but you're certainly acting like you don't understand and I do not have the inclination to cross-examine you to determine which it is. Regardless, what you are saying doesn't just make no sense, it is actively incorrect. You reduce CO2 by targeting CO2, not by wishing or hoping.

  • Germany also regularly has such spikes, which usually result in Germany paying the rest of Europe to take their power, while us consumers get shafted with the fees in addition to paying for more and more taxes to pay for for the 'Energiewende'.

    Yet there's a reason why Nordstream 2 is such a big deal: the Energiewende is mostly about replacing nuclear with coal and gas. Coal (lignite) got a free pass until 2038, while new gas plants are popping up left and right.

    Yes, there are a few days during the year

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Uecker ( 1842596 )

      Germany also regularly has such spikes, which usually result in Germany paying the rest of Europe to take their power, while us consumers get shafted with the fees in addition to paying for more and more taxes to pay for for the 'Energiewende'.

      Germany generally exports a lot of electricity. And yes, their are time points where the electricity price becomes negative. Still, the average price export price tends to be higher than the import price. In 2020, the average price for exported electricity from Germany was 45.27 Euro per MWh, while the average price for imported electricity was 42.87 Euro per MWh. So the general idea that Germany has to pay their neighbours to take their power is completely wrong. in 2020, Germany had a net income from exp

    • Yet there's a reason why Nordstream 2 is such a big deal: the Energiewende is mostly about replacing nuclear with coal and gas. Coal (lignite) got a free pass until 2038, while new gas plants are popping up left and right.
      Perhaps you want to google a bit about Germanys change in the energy mix.
      Your post is so wrong it is arguable if you are:
      a) lying
      b) stupid
      c) uninformed
      d) paid to transmit some propaganda

      On which note, Greenpeace is literally selling natural gas in Germany. That should tell you all you need

  • The nuclear plant in Diablo Canyon is located close to three fault lines. The closest is only 650 yards away, and was only discovered in 2008, so there is literally no structural considerations for it. The second closest is 2000 yards away, and was discovered in 1971 after construction had already begun. By comparison the Yunodake Fault that ruptured causing the Fukushima earthquake disaster is 50km from the Fukushima plant.

    The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is also the exact same Westinghouse design as Fukush

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Elledan ( 582730 )
      You're aware that Diablo has been retrofitted with safety features that Fukushima Daiichi didn't even get because Japan was/is rife with corruption and kickbacks?

      Feel free to take it up with the NRC, but they would just tell you in far more detail how Diablo Canyon won't ever turn into another Fukushima Daiichi. Heck, they have a lot of online documentation in the NRC library that can be read up on, and the certification for DC is freely available as well.

      But good job with the FUD and other fear-mongeri

    • It is the same in Germany.
      Basically every plant is build on top or close to a fault line which is 101 geology if you study in the university. Germany is full with such fault lines. But as the youngest big earth quake was several 100,000 years ago: they gambled that the population wold not care.
      Unfortunately it is common knowledge since the mid 1980s that we are sitting on 2 dozens of disasters just waiting to happen. Hence: the population tried to get rid of them since the 1980s.
      Unfortunately there are - mo

  • But it decayed in 4 seconds.

  • I wonder how much spinning reserve (fossil fuel power) had to be kept online but unsused to be ready to pick up the splack when the renewables fell out after those 4 seconds. Don't get me wrong, renewables, within reason, are a good thing. But it has to be correctly used in an pragmatic mix with more dispatchable/base power sources (Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Natural Gas, etc) not one that just looks good on paper for greenwashing or political points.

    • This is far from my area of expertise, but probably not as much as you would think. To some extent, wind power *is* spinning reserve in all senses. The momentum of the blades has a smoothing effect. That's far from perfect. But it does make it easier to use load-following natural-gas such that spinning reserve requirements aren't much higher than for fossil plants. On the other hand, of course, you need *much* more non-spinning reserve.

      • I'm pretty sure gridscale wind turbines don't work like that. First off due to the variability of wind, wind turbines don't usually connect directly to the grid, they have to go through a AC-DC-AC conversion to match the grid frequency (~60hz) as the electrical frequency of the turbines themselves varies wildly. They can do something akin to "spinning reserve" by idling some turbines when there is a surplus of power on the grid and making sure as many turbines as possible are running when there is too lit

        • Yes I did wonder how the AC-DC-AC conversion (which is now common) would affect that since (from what I know) those are pretty much standard fare these days. Since the wind is never 100% steady, there has to be some mechanism (probably a small capacitor?) to continue to produce power even as the wind fluctuates (say from 18-20mph and back) slightly. If the wind suddenly dropped from 20mph to zero, the blades would continue to turn. My guess is that, at some point (say the blade-speed equivalent of a 5mph

        • they have to go through a AC-DC-AC conversion to match the grid frequency (~60hz)
          Yes.

          They can do something akin to "spinning reserve"
          Yes they can do. As they continue spininng when the wind drops suddenly.

          something akin to "spinning reserve" by idling some turbines
          No on is doing that. That would be just insane. Insane expensive and insane wasteful.
          Actually in the real world the term "spinning reserves" does not even exist.

          Perhaps you want to google, the terms are overlapping:
          i) second reserve (as in t

    • Base power is not dispatchable.
      That is why it is called "base power" or "base load".

      The old nukes in Germany are not dispatchable either, hence they were used for base load.

  • Pales into insignificance compared to the amount of time the UK was running 100% on renewable.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close