I find today's sun and wind on the higher side:
Look at that nice smooth U in the wind line mid-day with solar peak. (I can call it the "sticking tongue out" curve.) That's programmed curtailment, I bet. We can't install those batteries soon enough!! But, they seem to be using the wind as dispatchable energy, so they don't have to turn on fossil fuels. But what they're actually doing is continuing to use fossil fuels during that time period. So, it's not all good. The only way to have all clean energy is to store it up in the day time and when the wind is blowing, such as in batteries, or something crazy like overbuild everything by 100x but that's just nuts. Meanwhile, overbuilding now is OK since we will fill in with storage and transmission too.
Also notice the 400MW gap in solar from 16-16:45; that's either one hell of a solid cloud covering exactly 400MW of farms for that exact period, or it's some type of curtailment. This time it doesn't have quite the signature that I could tell either way like in times past, but with that jagged closeout of the wave, I'd say it's not natural.
Note that it is the excess smoothness of one wave that I consider unnatural, and the excess jaggedness of another wave that I find unnatural.
Reading these charts you can clearly read what's going on.
Looking back at the previous post with the net demand chart, look at that net demand rise from 17:30-19:30: 8GW straight up. Seriously, we can't run Los Angeles Water Project pumps in the day and shut them off from 17:30-23:30? Other than that, it is what it is, until we get more storage.
Also looking back at the net demand chart, the overnight net demand is 3GW-6GW higher than the mid-day net demand. The tarrifs still charge more for time during low net demand periods, than at night with the fossil fuels burning. So, here's some dynamics on that:
- Guarantees continued profits for fossil fuel burning overnight (look at the typical daily Renewables Watch output, link in OP). Legacy.
- Mid-day, NEM (Net Electric Metering) customers get a higher reimbursement for excess solar in mid-day that they're not using as much. This helps incentivize solar power.
- Mid-day, a lot of electricity prices are negative, which means that the generators (some utility owned) have to pay CAISO to go ahead and "buy" (for negative dollars) the electricity delivered to it. This means the various generators are losing money for every bit of energy they sell at a negative price, is what I interpret that to mean. Anybody correct me? But, then, the same utilities that just "sold" it at negative prices (bought the right to produce something and deliver it), now take delivery of that (cheap) energy from CAISO, possibly also being paid to collect it at the other end, to turn around and gouge their (non-solar) customers with, making back whatever money they lost on the having to push the excess energy onto market in the first place. Since I don't see any of the numbers in front of me and I'm not sure where exactly to look, I can't confirm this.
So, it's a lot of in-the-weeds stuff that looks like non-market rate pricing at the customer side. I think the way the Duck Curve gets fixed is passing through the market rate pricing to the customers. Meanwhile, huge investments are being pushed for solar, so they don't want to disrupt that delicate balance. I think there's a general feeling we want to get another couple of years under our belt of solar and batteries installed before we loosen up the reigns on government designed pricing and let it get more market rate. I wish we didn't have to ingrain that approach; what if we ramp up market rate pricing, 10% shift from government pricing to market rate (passed all the way through to end users) per year, over the next 10 years? That way, we could track the market effects and still have the regulators meet goals, while we all sort of transition to the new way of doing business; the margins would be plenty to give big players and visionaries enough information to work with.