This is an encouraging milestone. Is it trivial at this point to figure out whether a solar home install is cost effective? ie plug in your address, your last 12 pg&e bills, and get a complete quote with a break down of time to profitability?
Not trivial. Factors: Local labor costs, PV import tariffs, net metering arrangement, roof space and tilt angle, electricity prices, local solar irradiance levels, solar seasonality, and large cost difference between grid tie versus hybrid battery systems.
If you live in a reasonably sunny country, the shorthand you can use is 4.5*(system size in KW), which equals the daily number of kWh your system will produce. Say that number is 30kWh. Then multiply 30 by your per kWh electricity costs. Say $0.2*30. That's your daily savings estimate, $6. Then you can figure out how many years to ROI by comparing it to the system cost. This approach will be more or less accurate if you have a battery or a nice net metering arrangement. It will be less accurate without either of these things.
and it's also just an excess during mid-day (excess during .25h up to 6h in the day if I understand correctly) which does not cover the reat of the day through batteries.
It also say "it's only the start, it's going to be more in the future" but tbh I expect hydroelectric power to go down in the future...which represent up to 20% of the demand, and is the most practical renewable source.
Also batteries system is "one of the largest in the world" and barely allow to delay +4h of power...that shows how big is the task.
California is the fifth largest world economy. Currently, solar is pushing ~16-19GW sustained during solar hours. For comparison, Germany has 80GW+ of solar generation capacity. It is trivial for California to push the remainder of its fossil generation out of the mix. Based on current trajectories, I would be shocked if California doesn’t meet their mandate far sooner than expected.
(Earth receives enough solar energy in less than half an hour to power humanity for a year; scale collection and storage accordingly)
It's not summer yet. There was one day last week that called for the A/C. And with PG&E rates damn near doubling, I just don't know how retirees and others are going to deal with the abundance of heat, available power and double drain on the wallet.
Regardless of the source, people are going to roast, and some will die because of unaffordable cooling.
I was thinking of a solar panel direct to heat pump arrangement. (via inverter) More sun, more power to cool.
Yet, the big argument for batteries is that the peak load (so they say) is from 4 pm to 7 (or more) pm, when the sun is lower, and cosines do you in. Anyway, that's when variable rates go up.
Maybe they should move to a climate that is suitable to their needs? Moving somewhere unbearably hot and then relying on technology to make it palatable is not sustainable.
Yeah, elderly people, who are struggling to pay their bills as is, should spend $10k to pay people to pack up their stuff, break their lease, and move to a state with a better climate than, checks notes, California.
"...supply exceeds demand for '0.25-6 h per day,' and that’s an important fact. The continuity lies not in renewables running the grid for the entire day but in the fact that it’s happening on a consistent daily basis, which has never been achieved before.
...
...California will entirely be on renewables and battery storage 24/7 by 2035."
Iowa has more renewables than CA but has cheaper electricity prices than the national average. There are a few examples like this that prove that the inference you're attempting to make is symptomatic of stupidity.
Does Iowa have the same heavy handed government regulations to strictly build out renewables and take non renewable power plants offline?
I agree with you, Texas has the most renewables, and power is relatively cheap. The problem is the strict regulations prevent utilities from make better economical decisions.
Readit News
If you live in a reasonably sunny country, the shorthand you can use is 4.5*(system size in KW), which equals the daily number of kWh your system will produce. Say that number is 30kWh. Then multiply 30 by your per kWh electricity costs. Say $0.2*30. That's your daily savings estimate, $6. Then you can figure out how many years to ROI by comparing it to the system cost. This approach will be more or less accurate if you have a battery or a nice net metering arrangement. It will be less accurate without either of these things.
https://sunroof.withgoogle.com/
Is it assuming I already have a huge battery or net metering?
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40048842
It also say "it's only the start, it's going to be more in the future" but tbh I expect hydroelectric power to go down in the future...which represent up to 20% of the demand, and is the most practical renewable source.
Also batteries system is "one of the largest in the world" and barely allow to delay +4h of power...that shows how big is the task.
Title is definitly missleading.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2023-10/california-sees-unpre...
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-CAL-CISO
California is the fifth largest world economy. Currently, solar is pushing ~16-19GW sustained during solar hours. For comparison, Germany has 80GW+ of solar generation capacity. It is trivial for California to push the remainder of its fossil generation out of the mix. Based on current trajectories, I would be shocked if California doesn’t meet their mandate far sooner than expected.
(Earth receives enough solar energy in less than half an hour to power humanity for a year; scale collection and storage accordingly)
Deleted Comment
Regardless of the source, people are going to roast, and some will die because of unaffordable cooling.
Yet, the big argument for batteries is that the peak load (so they say) is from 4 pm to 7 (or more) pm, when the sun is lower, and cosines do you in. Anyway, that's when variable rates go up.
...
...California will entirely be on renewables and battery storage 24/7 by 2035."
Does Iowa have the same heavy handed government regulations to strictly build out renewables and take non renewable power plants offline?
I agree with you, Texas has the most renewables, and power is relatively cheap. The problem is the strict regulations prevent utilities from make better economical decisions.