__________
For 55 days in a row, electricity from solar, wind, and water (hydro) power exceeded 100% of power demand on California's main grid for part of the day
The author of this article is a "renewable clean energy" investor and booster/influencer (Zachary Shahan is CleanTechnica... director, chief editor, and CEO) and has conclusions of a fifth-grader who either doesn't understand what his own charts show... or just playing with words - in short:
1. The "renewable" wind and solar intermittent supply was only sufficient for few hours of non-peak daily demand because the demand was at ~22GWh max - at the low end of CA normal range of 15GWh-61GWh of demand... IOW, it's due to a cooler weather that didn't require ACs.
thundersaidenergy.com - California power generation over time - report
|------- California's power grid ranges from 15-61GW of demand. Utility scale solar has almost quadrupled in the past decade, rising from 5% to almost 20% of the grid. Yet it has not displaced thermal generation, which rose from 28% to 36% of the grid. We even wonder whether wind and solar are entrenching natural gas generators that can backstop their daily, weekly and even seasonal volatility. -------|
2. Even with batteries / storage (which he erroneously thinks "solved" 'duck curve") it wouldn't be anywhere near enough for demand after sunset - what he actually discovered is that intermittent power NEEDS storage (and maintenance/disposal/recycling, toxicity, environmental issues and other costs that go with them) to be at all useful, which increase TCO of utility-scale farms substantially, which means an additional cost of generation (while others have to be idling on standby) for a few hours a day a few summer days a year - wind and solar generate 2x more energy in summer than winter.
3. So, increasing energy supply with intermittent "renewables" is impossible without first increasing energy supply with firm power (nuclear, hydrogen, natgas, etc.) - which makes you question if/why the utility-scale wind and solar (at cost of 2,900-4,200 acres/GW) may be needed or cost-effective, except possibly in very special circumstances - e.g., does it really make sense for CA to import wind energy from Wyoming? Here's more serious assessment:
ccst.us - CCST - KEY CHALLENGES for CA ENERGY FUTURE - [PDF, 108pgs]
ccst.us - CCST - Overview
|------- "Energy storage, demand response, and grid regionalization can alleviate some - but not all - of the challenges associated with intermittent renewable resources. A diverse portfolio that also includes clean, firm power - be it geothermal, nuclear, renewable hydrogen, natural gas with carbon capture and storage, or something else - would address seasonal fluctuations and extreme weather events and is predicted to result in significantly reduced system costs and therefore lower electricity rates..."
-------|
That's why wind and solar deployment dramatically slowed down in Europe (and several suppliers either ended up in bankruptcy or had substantial write-off losses) and [finally!] US Energy Secretary just called for tripling of US nuclear fleet, and restarting retired nuke plants. Japan and many Asian and European countries are also rethinking their nuclear energy taboos.
www.world-nuclear-news.org - Granholm calls for tripling of US nuclear fleet
Related news?: Merkel withheld information about Russia's intention to blackmail Europe with gas - report
__________
