What does 100 percent renewable mean? - electricity storage

In the race to build green power supplies, some states act faster than others.
The scramble for this sprint to become a green, green position illustrates the danger of making bold predictions in energy policy, which includes not only technical and economic issues, but also political issues.
This interaction between energy policy and politics has recently escalated in an unusually heated open debate among scientists studying the evolving power generation mix.
A group of respected energy researchers released a report that poked holes in a widely cited 2015 of how to power AmericaS.
Renewable energy only.
The new paper triggered a sharp response from the original author and triggered a heated debate.
In red states like Texas and Iowa, market forces are driving the rapid growth of wind power.
In blue states such as New York, policies are driving the development of smaller, decentralized energy sources, most notably rooftop solar.
Another blue state in California appears to be preparing to pass a legislation that requires the state's utilities to get 100% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2045.
The commitment to the 100% target means that the Californian will have to face tough trade --
The trade-off between reliability, affordability and environmental performance --trade-
Supporters of renewable energy often ignore and often exaggerate the fact that opponents.
But cities like George Townsend and Aspen, Colorado, have declared 100% renewable energy standards.
So, for the California law proposed by George Dunn and Aspen, "100% renewable" means that these cities buy as much renewable electricity as possible.
However, this does not mean that all the electricity they consume comes from renewable sources.
This is because renewable energy is not available at times.
When green power is not available, California can take the roads of George Dunand Aspen to get non-renewable power from the western grid.
But the state is also heavily subsidizing the storage of batteries and other types of electricity, and may try to lay the groundwork for a real 100% renewable energy supply.
This will require the construction of more renewable energy power generation, power storage and transmission capabilities.
It now seems that this commitment is politically unrealistic and expensive.
Supporters of rapid and deep carbon dioxide sometimes think of these trades --
It is believed that the goal of 100% will be achieved technically, politically and economically, by 2045.
But for three reasons, their optimism may not be as positive as it seems now.
First, the cost of wind and solar energy continues to decline, making both technologies compete with natural gas --
In some places, a generation has been fired even without subsidies.
Secondly, due to the low marginal cost of wind and solar energy, grid operators tend to get electricity from wind and solar generators in the first place.
Third, although renewable energy is intermittent, it turns out that even if Renewable Energy holds a large share (up to 50%), grid operators are very good at adapting to the sudden fluctuations in overall power generation from renewable energy generation.
That said, although it is getting cheaper and easier to incorporate renewable energy into the power mix, we still rely on non-renewable energy when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
Red states may keep gas generators on the grid in this case because it is very expensive to build a wind farm, solar array system that is large enough, ensure reliable supply of the necessary power lines and batteries.
At present, it is much cheaper to support renewable energy with natural gas or other forms of non-renewable power generation.
Perhaps this will no longer be true by 2045.