HackerTube.dev

California's Renewable Energy Problem

Real Engineering · 1.6M views · 2019-05-25 · 18:01

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

Real Engineering looks at the numbers for running California on renewables, focusing on the large energy storage needed. It argues about the cost of batteries and the role of other sources.

On Hacker News

Offered in energy and nuclear debates as a numbers-based walkthrough of renewable storage costs, though one commenter disliked its tone.

Recommended by 4 HN people across 4 months · HN mentions 2019–2022

Topics

Renewables, batteries & storagePower grid, heating & buildings
Search by tags
renewablesgrid storagecalifornianuclearbatteries

What people said

kpennell · 2022-07 · Recommendation

I'd be curious to hear your take on this [VIDEO] (California's Renewable Energy Problem by the Youtube channel Real Engineering) Walks through the numbers on what it would take to run California on renewables + storage alone. Because of the intermittency, it seems like the costs of storage (even though it gets better/cheaper each year) maker it not possible.

Read the original HN comment ↗
V6HBGNQHU · 2020-09 · Recommendation

When people talk about the cost of solar they ignore the price of batteries and underestimate the amount of batteries required. Watch this video about renewables in California[0]. The video mentions a study that would put the cost of energy storage required for California to be 100% on renewables would be over $3.6 trillion which is equivalent to an entire year's GDP for the state. The video author explained that study's methodology got that number by assuming enough to store excess capacity during the summer to provide power in winter when not enough would be generated on most days. This isn't great because li-on batteries are not great for long term storage and would lose power over time. [0] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
tbirrell · 2019-08 · Recommendation

Thats is the only reason not counting infrastructure, storage, peak-usage logistics, winter-usage logistics. Oh, and the fact that weather is temperamental, not consistent, not under our control at all, or able to change to meet our demand. Oil and Gas already has infrastructure, and solves literally every one of those other issue due to the fact it can ramp up quickly if necessary. If renewable advocates actually cared about something besides being anti-oil, they would see that the best renewable strategy is something to the effect of 70-80% nuclear, and 20-30% wind/solar/hydro with efficient storage options. And finally, here is a Practical Engineering video that says the same thing but with data to prove it. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by Real Engineering, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources