California Ran On Nearly 100% Clean Energy This Month
source link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/22/04/15/2140250/california-ran-on-nearly-100-clean-energy-this-month
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
›
by Baconsmoke ( 6186954 ) on Friday April 15, 2022 @11:33PM (#62451240)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 15, 2022 @11:54PM (#62451280)
No, no...lets not do that...let's only focus on a brief moment under ideal conditions, on a mild temperature, particularly sunny and windy day.
-
The state's main grid ran on more than 97% renewable energy at 3:39 p.m. on Sunday April 3
Specifically, it was from 15:39:21 on 3 April 2022 to 15:39:27 on 3 April 2022. They must have forgotten to mention that in the press release.
-
for rel, i expect better headlines here. the headline made it seem as if it was for the entire month. not less than a minute.
whats the month useage???-
I don't actually know how long it was, my post was snark about the fact that they conveniently omitted to mention any duration. The mod should be "Touche" or "Funny", not "Informative".
-
It was modded that way because a denier had mod points.
What we have here is the moving goalpost game.
Every achievement requires the deniers to move the goalpost. Cali is a big state, and it must have taken a hella lot of preparation to achieve that feat. It was a publicity stunt, but also an example of how far we've come. Already here in PA, we have that 24/7 wind power along the Allegheny front, and we're starting to use solar installations to inject and extend power past substations.
The next deca
-
Perhaps you should read the headline again, considering it specifically mentioned a duration. The error is in your assertion that they were only talking about the 97+% figure.
-
-
I don't know about monthly, but there was a headline for the day of March 29, which is that wind took the #2 spot (behind nat gas and ahead of either coal or nuclear) in California for the first time for that 24 hour period.
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
-
What a completely pointless achievement - it was a fluke, nothing more - every time you celebrate one of these freake occasions you diminish the achievement when something meaningful happens.
-
It's not an "achievement", it is an observation.
"...every time you celebrate one of these freake occasions you diminish the achievement when something meaningful happens."
Nice straw man.
-
Many things have started off as a fluke then become commonplace.
-
-
-
-
If only they could harness the energy of moving goalposts.
Ten years ago even this level of penetration was inconceivable. Now that it's looking very plausible that we can achieve 100% renewable power overall, there's all new excuses why this somehow isn't significant or still isn't possible or whatever.
Stories like this are getting more frequent. It's gonna happen, deal with it.
=Smidge=-
I agree it is annoying that every story about a new record broken is besieged with comments about all the records that were not broken. However in this case the headline "California Ran on Nearly 100% Clean Energy This Month" is a lie. The story itself seems fine, but the headline is blatantly worded to imply something more that is not true.
-
It's completely unpredictable - I'd love to see utilities commit to such a goal on any random day/time, picked in advance.
We can't make this happen, we just notice it after the fact.
-
But it's irrelevant whether it can happen on a particular day, rather that it happens often enough in aggregate to make a difference to CO2 emissions.
-
-
-
Now that's funny!
Ten years ago even this level of penetration was inconceivable. Now that it's looking very plausible that we can achieve 100% renewable power overall,
We definitely can. We now have the general setups that can be turned into baseload, and the next step is the storage of power for times that the sources aren't as available. This isn't that difficult, we just need to make some decisions on the energy storage mode. We have experience with hydraulic storage. Some like the concrete block tower
-
-
I was wondering for how long until they became overloaded and had to turn back on connections to Natural Gas.
-
What are you talking about? I know it's a slashdot tradition not to read the thing you're commenting on, but you could at least skim it? The press release said IN ITS SECOND PARAGRAPH "The peak, which occurred briefly at 3:39 p.m,..." That's unambiguous that it was a brief peak. It's right there at the top of the press release. The press release was clear, correct, truthful, and not at all misleading.
-
-
And my hummer got 49 mpg at 3:14 PM yesterday, I was coasting downhill at the time and took my foot off the gas,but still, 49 mpg - maybe I'll get written up on slashdot?,
-
-
by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Saturday April 16, 2022 @01:02AM (#62451368)
There is a way to power the entire country using only solar. It is just a matter of scale. You need solar panels in enough places, and enough batteries to carry you locally through enough inclement weather, but we are steadily marching towards that end. This is even true if you factor all the energy that will be required if we flip all cars and semis to electric. Just need more of the same to accomplish it. Is it a long way? Yeah. It is. Kind of like the amount of resources and energy required to asphalt roads criss crossing the country. Or, lacing fiber and power infrastructure all over the nation. Or indoor plumbing in practically every single building in America. It will be expensive in the short run. It will take many years (likely decades) of investment in ever-expanding production of both solar and battery packs. But it is doable.
Not only is it doable, it is inevitable. Why? Not climate change. Not government mandates. No. It is inevitable because of economics. Solar panels and battery packs will only get cheaper and cheaper as our ability to produce and install them increases. Their operating costs are very, very insignificant compared to almost all other forms of energy. It is just financially smart to do so. This, in comparison to the costs of fossil fuels like oil and natural gas increasing... will drive our wallets to invest wisely in our energy supply. Solar panels last decades. Even in bad weather, their production is still greater than 50%. Even at higher latitudes, its just a matter of pitching them to be perpendicular with the sun, for them to run well (they even work slightly better, because of the cooler climate and temperatures effect on productivity).
It is all just a matter of time.-
by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday April 16, 2022 @01:20AM (#62451396)
There is a way to power the entire country using only solar.
If we spend enough, anything is possible. But it makes far more sense to diversify.
Overcast days are often windy, so wind turbines can carry you through inclement weather much more cost-effectively than batteries. Also, the wind blows at night.
If MSRs, SMRs, or fusion eventually fulfill their potential, they can provide baseload.
Bio-gas and hydroelectric can be used as peakers.
Trying for 100% solar makes no sense.
-
-
Wind is half the price of solar.
I have no idea what you mean by "diminishing returns". Are you claiming turbines become more expensive as you install more? Because that is nonsense.
-
The dominant way to drive down cost for wind has been scale of production and parks and sheer size. The former can't drive margins much further and the latter is running into physical limits.
The fundamental limits of PV are nowhere near in sight. Get rid of glass, get rid of metal frames, make the semiconductor thinner, make the panel voltages much higher.
This doesn't really apply to residential solar of course, don't want 10kv on your roof for instance, only open field utility scale installs. The market fo
-
Offshore.
-
-
-
-
-
It would take 13 years to build the solar panels for that, assuming USA would get every solar in the world for the next 13 years. So obviously you would first need to build new solar panel factories and once solar panels are build, those factories will become mostly useless. Matters of scale have scaling problems also.
-
Hardly useless.
Overproduction of energy is basically impossible - we'll just find new things to do with it. Whether that's desalination, electric smelting, or drug-money-sudokus there'll be someone willing to spend that energy if it's cheap enough.
-
Some people look at opportunities as problems.
-
-
Heating is a fuck huge load, a polar vortex in a zero emission scenario will require a whole lot of batteries and a whole lot of desert or agricultural land filled with PV.
Ignoring the storage for a moment, either the greens or anyone who can ill afford high food prices will have to eat shit. Better the greens and fill the desert if the PV road is taken rather than nuclear.
-
-
As an AC posts with their head up their ass.
-
What didn't you understand?
The part about low demand, due to low HVAC requirements on a mild temperature day?
The part about chance alignment of wind and sunny skies, allowing a transient peak of production FOR LESS THAN A MINUTE?
The part where it was less than 100%, so there was no surplus to store for the times when wind and solar is useless?
The part where headlines get carefully crafted for reaction (clicks, advertising), while obscuring the mundane reality?
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK