__________
Over the last few years, California has quietly but dramatically increased the resiliency of its electrical grid through a significant expansion in battery energy storage. These batteries hold onto solar energy captured during the day, so it can be sent to the grid as demand peaks ...
No, it's not "surprising: at all - more sunny days actually generated slightly more electricity than normal, and lower demand than normal contributed to high percentage.
What yet another of California celebratory article about "renewable energy" only mentions in passing or doesn't cover at all are the additional expenses and valuable real estate to make them work, which make California's electricity (essentially a tax paid by residents and commercial entities) one of the highest in the nation :
1. The huge batteries, which have limited life span and will need to be replaced, contribute to additional costs of supposedly "cheap" wind and solar energy.
2. The batteries DO NOT INCREASE electricity generation - they only act as capacitors and buffer, the generation of additional energy needed will have to be done somewhere else and/or "rented" from other states - that's additional expense, costs that article doesn't even attempt to cover.
3. Large part of that "green" electricity is hydropower (that cannot be expanded) and imported wind power from as far as Wyoming:
This means that if there is an extreme heat event in Southern California, energy from a cooler area such as the Pacific Northwest can be imported to help meet regional demand.
www.latimes.com - Most of the West is rendered in pale shades of green and light blue, meaning average wind speeds of 10 to 15 mph at best.
IOW, California is renting expensive "clean energy" using BNPML - Buy Now Pay More Later - instead of generating electricity internally, but it helps fake the "clean energy" numbers they are so proud of, despite having highest (and going higher) electricity rates in continental US.
4. In addition, the utilities know that they need real supply of reliable energy and use natgas for that... in fact, the biggest cheerleaders for "renewables" are oil/natgas companies.
5. According to Ackemann, the system seeks to add 20,000 to 25,000 megawatts of battery storage capacity by 2045 - the same year it has set a goal of achieving carbon neutrality.
Wonderful news! The question is who is going to generate all this additional electricity? BNMPL "rented" from out of state? Build expensive high-maintenance huge solar farms with huger batteries and natgas utility in tow?
In fact, ordering several nuclear MSRs would be much "greener" and cheaper in TCO, more reliable, require less maintenance (another expense), take less real estate and obviate the need for battery backups. But today's politicians don't really care about what you will think of their decisions 20 years from now.
www.congress.gov - Why Renewables Can't Save the Planet - 2019-06-25 (PDF 6 pgs)
There is something fascinating about Musk-Vision cult of both the Left and the Right, and particularly of "saving the Earth" from climate change/global warming by "investing" in VRE "renewables" and BEVs, which so happened Musk companies were selling.
And the cult of alarmist "trying to save the world from climate change through BEVs and wind and solar" no matter the cost continues, with every supposedly "positive" headline about "renewables" records.
__________
#22 | Posted by Corky
I can think of another young, inspirational figure who was elected to the WH after 2 years in the Senate.
His name rhymes with "Oh, mama"