Renewables Just Keep Getting Better

[Rick C]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 4:05:02 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

And so we are back to my earlier (unoriginal[1]) point:
basically you can use the energy in the light for
photosynthesis or electricity; make your choice

I already replied to that point didn't I? There is a point of diminishing returns in trying to capture all the sunlight using solar cells. Once you reach that point the remaining light can be used for other things like growing crops that are suited to lower light levels. In fact, the optimal point may not be to cram the solar panels as close together as is "optimal" for the panels. In reality you are trying to optimize the use of the land, not really the panels. So perhaps you leave a bit of extra space to allow the land to grow better crops achieving an optimal use of the land as a whole.. I seem to recall a link to some research on this which showed fields being evaluated for the right crops and the right mixture of solar panels and crops.

Of course you can't use the same light for both crops and solar cells. That is totally obvious. So what is your point?

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/10/19 09:33, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 4:05:02 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

And so we are back to my earlier (unoriginal[1]) point: basically you can
use the energy in the light for photosynthesis or electricity; make your
choice

I already replied to that point didn't I?

Yes. You had no answer.

For some reason you *deliberately* snipped your reply
and *chose* to make it difficult to assess. Here it is again...


On 14/10/19 08:17, Rick C wrote:> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:04:49 AM
UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:>>

What crop do you think you could grow or harvest in a farm like this:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5995191,-2.4819898,3a,45.9y,92.69h,92.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skjLH3UuIwSRu-7wMhdJQeg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm not sure, but it won't matter when some of those drivers start driving on
the right side of the road and the rest run smack into them! The horror!

Of course you can't use the same light for both crops and solar cells. That
is totally obvious. So what is your point?

The UK is densely populated to an extent I expect you cannot
appreciate.

Land is at a premium, and we have to import ~50% of our food.

Thus removing farmland is a risky option in the long term.

I expect the US is different; so what.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/10/2019 11:29 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 10:53:42 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:

Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

Anthropogenic global warming is a world-wide issue, even if some of Australia's politicians think they can afford to keep mining interests happy by ignoring it.

That's as maybe. This utility is concerned about cost.

> Maybe they think they can buy extra power from neighboring states?

Perhaps, but that's hardly sustainable.

My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.

Seems unlikely. Rain clouds are usually thicker and darker than regular clouds - there has to be a thick enough layer of suspended small water droplets in a cloud to give them a chance to collide and fuse into droplets big enough to fall fast enough to survive until they hit the ground.

A layer of water on top of a solar panel would be an extra optical interface, but only reflects about 4% of the incident light. The rest would go straight through.

Spraying them with a hosepipe has a similar effect on output. My
thinking is that the cells like consistent illumination, and water
droplets will act as lenses, diverting light towards some places and
away from others.

Sylvia.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 4:23:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3..57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.

https://conservativefighters.org/news/gas-prices-soar-as-californians-find-their-green-energy-is-useless-in-a-blackout/

 

On Monday, 14 October 2019 11:38:51 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 13/10/2019 11:29 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

A layer of water on top of a solar panel would be an extra optical interface, but only reflects about 4% of the incident light. The rest would go straight through.


Spraying them with a hosepipe has a similar effect on output. My
thinking is that the cells like consistent illumination, and water
droplets will act as lenses, diverting light towards some places and
away from others.

Sylvia.

That's it, small patches of shade can have big effect on PV output


NT

 

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 21:15:55 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 4:10:52 PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:13:40 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 22:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Sylvia

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.


Storage is one big problem with solar and wind. We are now having big,
week-long, deliberate [1] blackouts in big regions of California, and
I hear people talking about getting residential batteries. They
haven't done the math.

Even funnier, they are talking about using the batteries in their
electric cars to power up their houses.


[1] PG&E is delivering a public lesson on the value of electricity.
Yes ! absolutely !

In California where the sun actually kind of works, home solar and
batteries with inverters can help carry them through times of power
outages like this just fine... But those people would have to
conserve on their electric usage compared to how cheap and
uninteruptable their utility electricity normally is.

I guess week long electrical outages will be the new normal. Sounds like a huge incentive to install wind/solar and backup. Just make sure the system is the type that will power your home when the grid is down.

I'm wondering if this outage is PG&Es way of Enroning California again. This is because they can't make their system work without starting fires?

Like all of California, PG&E is going bankrupt. No money for
improvements and the state just can't resist piling on more
regulations. The reason the outages were so long is that the state
requires that every inch of the system be inspected before being
re-energized. It was equated to having to call out an electrician to
inspect the wiring in your entire house, every time you blow a fuse in
an old house.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 11:34:55 PM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 4:23:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.

https://conservativefighters.org/news/gas-prices-soar-as-californians-find-their-green-energy-is-useless-in-a-blackout/

The article actually says that if you have a battery that your solar cells can charge with an inverter that will convert the stored power to mains voltage AC you will be fine. It's not the green energy that's the problem, but the reliance on the grid always being there.

The headline is the usual sort of nonsense designed to suck in gullible twits like Cursitor Doom, and apparently Michael Terrell too.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 11:07:45 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, 14 October 2019 11:38:51 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/10/2019 11:29 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

A layer of water on top of a solar panel would be an extra optical interface, but only reflects about 4% of the incident light. The rest would go straight through.


Spraying them with a hosepipe has a similar effect on output. My
thinking is that the cells like consistent illumination, and water
droplets will act as lenses, diverting light towards some places and
away from others.

Why do you think that the cells like consistent illumination?

The process is going on in the cells is individual photons hitting individual silicon atoms - they don't care what the nearby atoms are doing.

Some of the light hitting the sloping side of the water droplets is going to be reflected away sideways, which won't help the output, but any lensing effects shouldn't matter.

> That's it, small patches of shade can have big effect on PV output

Any patches of shade are going to have some effect on PV output, but a coarse chequerboard pattern would have exactly the same effect as a fine one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
<terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 4:23:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


https://conservativefighters.org/news/gas-prices-soar-as-californians-find-their-green-energy-is-useless-in-a-blackout/

"as much as $5.49 for a gallon of regular fuel"

I paid $2.03 in South Carolina, Friday. It was about $2.50 in most of
the rest of the Eastern states over the last couple of days, except NY
and NJ (about $3).

 

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:10:48 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:13:40 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 22:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Sylvia

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.


Storage is one big problem with solar and wind. We are now having big,
week-long, deliberate [1] blackouts in big regions of California, and
I hear people talking about getting residential batteries. They
haven't done the math.

Even funnier, they are talking about using the batteries in their
electric cars to power up their houses.


[1] PG&E is delivering a public lesson on the value of electricity.
Yes ! absolutely !

In California where the sun actually kind of works, home solar and
batteries with inverters can help carry them through times of power
outages like this just fine... But those people would have to
conserve on their electric usage compared to how cheap and
uninteruptable their utility electricity normally is.

Limited to TV, lights, cold beer and a hot soldering iron.

People are also discovering that their solar systems don't work when
the grid is down. They only installed them for the "net metering"
discount.

Some PG&E execs are probably laughing over that too.

Also funny: people are buying gasoline powered generators to charge
their Teslas. Maybe carry it in a trailer?





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:31:35 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 4:23:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


https://conservativefighters.org/news/gas-prices-soar-as-californians-find-their-green-energy-is-useless-in-a-blackout/

"as much as $5.49 for a gallon of regular fuel"

I paid $2.03 in South Carolina, Friday. It was about $2.50 in most of
the rest of the Eastern states over the last couple of days, except NY
and NJ (about $3).

San Francisco is expensive for everything. A lot of gas stations were
sold for the real estate, all condos now, so not enough are left. I
pay about $4.25 for premium. I don't rack up many miles in the city,
maybe 5 a day or so, so it's OK. Gas is cheaper on the highways, for
trips.

Driving on the hills does wreck mileage too. I get maybe 19 mpg in the
city.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Monday, 14 October 2019 13:54:39 UTC+1, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 11:07:45 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 14 October 2019 11:38:51 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/10/2019 11:29 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

A layer of water on top of a solar panel would be an extra optical interface, but only reflects about 4% of the incident light. The rest would go straight through.


Spraying them with a hosepipe has a similar effect on output. My
thinking is that the cells like consistent illumination, and water
droplets will act as lenses, diverting light towards some places and
away from others.

Why do you think that the cells like consistent illumination?

The process is going on in the cells is individual photons hitting individual silicon atoms - they don't care what the nearby atoms are doing.

Some of the light hitting the sloping side of the water droplets is going to be reflected away sideways, which won't help the output, but any lensing effects shouldn't matter.

That's it, small patches of shade can have big effect on PV output

Any patches of shade are going to have some effect on PV output, but a coarse chequerboard pattern would have exactly the same effect as a fine one.

Just bear in mind slow man doesn't know how PV panels respond to partial shade, nor why, nor has he tried it. Despite that he thinks he knows.


NT

 

[boB]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:38:17 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:10:48 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:13:40 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 22:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Sylvia

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.


Storage is one big problem with solar and wind. We are now having big,
week-long, deliberate [1] blackouts in big regions of California, and
I hear people talking about getting residential batteries. They
haven't done the math.

Even funnier, they are talking about using the batteries in their
electric cars to power up their houses.


[1] PG&E is delivering a public lesson on the value of electricity.
Yes ! absolutely !

In California where the sun actually kind of works, home solar and
batteries with inverters can help carry them through times of power
outages like this just fine... But those people would have to
conserve on their electric usage compared to how cheap and
uninteruptable their utility electricity normally is.

Limited to TV, lights, cold beer and a hot soldering iron.



People are also discovering that their solar systems don't work when
the grid is down. They only installed them for the "net metering"
discount.

Some PG&E execs are probably laughing over that too.

I bet they are !

Many (most ?) people just don't understand.

At least these grid-tie only systems aren't completely installed in
vain if the homeowner wants to have battery backup. They can be AC
coupled to a bidirectional battery based inverter system. Yes, it
will cost more but the PV can still be used.
That is, IF the regulations don't make it prohibitively expensive.

The solar industry is being heavily over-regulated these days.
Everybody wants a piece of the pie.

Also funny: people are buying gasoline powered generators to charge
their Teslas. Maybe carry it in a trailer?

 

[Robert Baer]

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/10/19 04:35, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:19:03 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/10/19 14:14, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:39:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


One point about windmills vs solar is that the land underneath
windmills can be used for other purposes, especially growing food.
Solar cannot.

While at low latitudes you can pack the panels so densely that not much
light will reach the ground, but at medium to high latitudes you
have to
leave some space between panels in north/south direction to avoid
shadowing each other during the winter, so at least grass will still
grow
quit well beneath the panels.

In practice rows of east/west panel rows can be built and animals
can graze between these rows. It might be a good idea to leave some
space between panels in the east/west rows too, so that the animals
don't feel
too claustrophobic. Alternatively, mount the panels higher up so that
animals can freely graze below them.

To overstate the counterpoint, if enough light is reaching the plants to
grow, then the solar plant is inefficient.

Basically you can use the energy in the light for photosynthesis or
electricity;  make your choice

Solar cells are optimized by assuring they receive direct light from
the sun
as much as possible.  Land is not the quantity to be optimized in most
installations, so you will want to leave space between rows to prevent
one
row shading the other.  This naturally will leave some land not
covered with
solar cells and will receive diffuse light from other parts of the sky.
Grass won't grow great, but it will grow.  Not sure it will be robust
enough
for animals to graze on.  I know sheep grazing messes up the grass
because
they don't cut it, they pull it up by the roots.  Cows not so much.  Cows
like to rub against things and will knock over anything that isn't pretty
firmly in the ground, like fences.

So while solar panels at latitudes away from the equator will have
room for
light to reach the ground, it's not particularly useful for either solar
power or crop growth other than selected species.

What crop do you think you could grow or harvest in a farm like this:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5995191,-2.4819898,3a,45.9y,92.69h,92.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skjLH3UuIwSRu-7wMhdJQeg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


For maximal income, raise clover and honeybees..

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:17:54 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:38:17 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:10:48 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:13:40 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 22:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Sylvia

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.


Storage is one big problem with solar and wind. We are now having big,
week-long, deliberate [1] blackouts in big regions of California, and
I hear people talking about getting residential batteries. They
haven't done the math.

Even funnier, they are talking about using the batteries in their
electric cars to power up their houses.


[1] PG&E is delivering a public lesson on the value of electricity.
Yes ! absolutely !

In California where the sun actually kind of works, home solar and
batteries with inverters can help carry them through times of power
outages like this just fine... But those people would have to
conserve on their electric usage compared to how cheap and
uninteruptable their utility electricity normally is.

Limited to TV, lights, cold beer and a hot soldering iron.



People are also discovering that their solar systems don't work when
the grid is down. They only installed them for the "net metering"
discount.

Some PG&E execs are probably laughing over that too.


I bet they are !

Many (most ?) people just don't understand.

At least these grid-tie only systems aren't completely installed in
vain if the homeowner wants to have battery backup. They can be AC
coupled to a bidirectional battery based inverter system. Yes, it
will cost more but the PV can still be used.
That is, IF the regulations don't make it prohibitively expensive.

The solar industry is being heavily over-regulated these days.
Everybody wants a piece of the pie.

Without the over-regulation, and the subsidies, there wouldn't be much
of a solar industry.

 

[boB]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:45:22 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:17:54 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:38:17 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:10:48 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:13:40 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 22:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Sylvia

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.


Storage is one big problem with solar and wind. We are now having big,
week-long, deliberate [1] blackouts in big regions of California, and
I hear people talking about getting residential batteries. They
haven't done the math.

Even funnier, they are talking about using the batteries in their
electric cars to power up their houses.


[1] PG&E is delivering a public lesson on the value of electricity.
Yes ! absolutely !

In California where the sun actually kind of works, home solar and
batteries with inverters can help carry them through times of power
outages like this just fine... But those people would have to
conserve on their electric usage compared to how cheap and
uninteruptable their utility electricity normally is.

Limited to TV, lights, cold beer and a hot soldering iron.



People are also discovering that their solar systems don't work when
the grid is down. They only installed them for the "net metering"
discount.

Some PG&E execs are probably laughing over that too.


I bet they are !

Many (most ?) people just don't understand.

At least these grid-tie only systems aren't completely installed in
vain if the homeowner wants to have battery backup. They can be AC
coupled to a bidirectional battery based inverter system. Yes, it
will cost more but the PV can still be used.
That is, IF the regulations don't make it prohibitively expensive.

The solar industry is being heavily over-regulated these days.
Everybody wants a piece of the pie.



Without the over-regulation, and the subsidies, there wouldn't be much
of a solar industry.

Subsidies help.

The over-regulation I'm talking about only hurts. The OR I'm talking
about has to do with supposed safety regulation... NEC, UL etc.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:22:04 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, 14 October 2019 13:54:39 UTC+1, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 11:07:45 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 14 October 2019 11:38:51 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/10/2019 11:29 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

A layer of water on top of a solar panel would be an extra optical interface, but only reflects about 4% of the incident light. The rest would go straight through.


Spraying them with a hosepipe has a similar effect on output. My
thinking is that the cells like consistent illumination, and water
droplets will act as lenses, diverting light towards some places and
away from others.

Why do you think that the cells like consistent illumination?

The process is going on in the cells is individual photons hitting individual silicon atoms - they don't care what the nearby atoms are doing.

Some of the light hitting the sloping side of the water droplets is going to be reflected away sideways, which won't help the output, but any lensing effects shouldn't matter.

That's it, small patches of shade can have big effect on PV output

Any patches of shade are going to have some effect on PV output, but a coarse chequerboard pattern would have exactly the same effect as a fine one.

Just bear in mind Sloman doesn't know how PV panels respond to partial shade, nor why, nor has he tried it. Despite that he thinks he knows.

NT isn't posting his experimental results either, and isn't aware that it doesn't take much of a grasp of semiconductor physics to let you predict the outcome of such an experiment.

He and Sylvia Else seem to be unaware that back when solar cells were more expensive, there were setups that exploited expensive high-yield cells by using solar concentrators that raised the incoming optical flux by a factor of twenty or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrator_photovoltaics

Sometimes the systems included provision for cooling the cells.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 8:45:33 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:17:54 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:38:17 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:10:48 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:13:40 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 22:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature.."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Sylvia

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.


Storage is one big problem with solar and wind. We are now having big,
week-long, deliberate [1] blackouts in big regions of California, and
I hear people talking about getting residential batteries. They
haven't done the math.

Even funnier, they are talking about using the batteries in their
electric cars to power up their houses.


[1] PG&E is delivering a public lesson on the value of electricity.
Yes ! absolutely !

In California where the sun actually kind of works, home solar and
batteries with inverters can help carry them through times of power
outages like this just fine... But those people would have to
conserve on their electric usage compared to how cheap and
uninteruptable their utility electricity normally is.

Limited to TV, lights, cold beer and a hot soldering iron.



People are also discovering that their solar systems don't work when
the grid is down. They only installed them for the "net metering"
discount.

Some PG&E execs are probably laughing over that too.


I bet they are !

Many (most ?) people just don't understand.

At least these grid-tie only systems aren't completely installed in
vain if the homeowner wants to have battery backup. They can be AC
coupled to a bidirectional battery based inverter system. Yes, it
will cost more but the PV can still be used.
That is, IF the regulations don't make it prohibitively expensive.

The solar industry is being heavily over-regulated these days.
Everybody wants a piece of the pie.

Without the over-regulation, and the subsidies, there wouldn't be much
of a solar industry.

John Larkin can't produce an example of the over-regulation, and hasn't noticed that the current generation of solar cells don't need subsidies to be economically attractive in sunny areas. It helps if there isn't a lot of cloud cover.

The next factor of ten expansion in production volume will almost certainly halve the unit price again, and fossil carbon extraction will become a niche market.

The Koch brothers will spend what's left of their fortune lobbying for subsidies, and john Larkin - as a propaganda junkie - will be telling us that they deserve them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:09:39 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/10/19 09:33, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 4:05:02 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

And so we are back to my earlier (unoriginal[1]) point: basically you can
use the energy in the light for photosynthesis or electricity; make your
choice

I already replied to that point didn't I?

Yes. You had no answer.

For some reason you *deliberately* snipped your reply
and *chose* to make it difficult to assess. Here it is again...

You are getting your posts confused...

This is what your posted and my reply...

Basically you can use the energy in the light for
photosynthesis or electricity; make your choice

Solar cells are optimized by assuring they receive direct light from the sun as much as possible. Land is not the quantity to be optimized in most installations, so you will want to leave space between rows to prevent one row shading the other. This naturally will leave some land not covered with solar cells and will receive diffuse light from other parts of the sky. Grass won't grow great, but it will grow. Not sure it will be robust enough for animals to graze on. I know sheep grazing messes up the grass because they don't cut it, they pull it up by the roots. Cows not so much. Cows like to rub against things and will knock over anything that isn't pretty firmly in the ground, like fences.

So while solar panels at latitudes away from the equator will have room for light to reach the ground, it's not particularly useful for either solar power or crop growth other than selected species.

Of course you can't use the same light for both crops and solar cells. That
is totally obvious. So what is your point?

The UK is densely populated to an extent I expect you cannot
appreciate.

Land is at a premium, and we have to import ~50% of our food.

Thus removing farmland is a risky option in the long term.

I expect the US is different; so what.

So what is your point??? I have already said many times in many posts in many threads that the UK is clearly a third world country when it comes to renewable energy and especially solar power and EVs. The UK will be left behind while the rest of the world advances and cleans up their energy generation. I thought it was you who had pointed out that nuclear is very unpopular in the UK, so I suppose the UK will be stuck with carrying coal from Newcastle.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:27:09 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 21:15:55 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 4:10:52 PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:13:40 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 22:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature.."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Sylvia

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.


Storage is one big problem with solar and wind. We are now having big,
week-long, deliberate [1] blackouts in big regions of California, and
I hear people talking about getting residential batteries. They
haven't done the math.

Even funnier, they are talking about using the batteries in their
electric cars to power up their houses.


[1] PG&E is delivering a public lesson on the value of electricity.
Yes ! absolutely !

In California where the sun actually kind of works, home solar and
batteries with inverters can help carry them through times of power
outages like this just fine... But those people would have to
conserve on their electric usage compared to how cheap and
uninteruptable their utility electricity normally is.

I guess week long electrical outages will be the new normal. Sounds like a huge incentive to install wind/solar and backup. Just make sure the system is the type that will power your home when the grid is down.

I'm wondering if this outage is PG&Es way of Enroning California again. This is because they can't make their system work without starting fires?

Like all of California, PG&E is going bankrupt. No money for
improvements and the state just can't resist piling on more
regulations. The reason the outages were so long is that the state
requires that every inch of the system be inspected before being
re-energized. It was equated to having to call out an electrician to
inspect the wiring in your entire house, every time you blow a fuse in
an old house.

Your starting premise is wrong, that the outages happened because of an electrical problem in the first place.

"PG&E has planned these purposeful blackouts for fear that its power lines and other electrical equipment may start fires during vulnerable times."

So the system was not faulty and the length of the outage had nothing to do with "inspecting the system".

"Past power shutoffs in Northern California this year, like the ones in Napa County and the Sierra Foothills, were resolved in one day or less. However, the company warned customers earlier this year that it may keep the lights off for as long as seven days in particularly dire fire conditions."

Do you ever read before you write about this stuff?

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209