1.7 Million People Live for a Week on 100% Renewable Energy (smh.com.au) 126
1.77 million people live in South Australia, speading across 984,321 square kilometres (or 380,048 square miles), according to Wikipedia. Today the Sydney Morning Herald announced that South Australia "sourced an average of just over 100 per cent of the electricity it needed from renewable power for 6 and a half days leading up to December 29 last year."
They're calling it "a record for the state and perhaps for comparable energy grids around the world." The state's previous record was just over three days, says Geoff Eldridge, an energy analyst who runs the website NEMlog.com.au, which tracks the operations of the National Energy Market covering Australia's east-coast states and South Australia.
His analysis shows that for the six days identified, the state produced on average 101 per cent of the energy it needed from wind, rooftop solar and solar farms, with just a fraction of the energy the state used being drawn from gas, in order to keep the grid stable. At times during the period, slightly less renewable energy was available and at other times renewable capacity was higher than needed, he says.
Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, said he believed that aside from some small island grids such as those in Hawaii and Tasmania, it was likely that South Australia's six-day run on renewables was a record for a grid supporting an advanced economy.
During the unprecedented 156-hour renewable run, the share of wind in total energy supplied averaged 64.4 per cent, while rooftop solar averaged 29.5 per cent and utility-scale solar averaged 6.2 per cent, clean energy website RenewEconomy.com.au reported, using Mr Eldridge's data.
(Thanks to Slashdot reader betsuin for sharing the article)
They're calling it "a record for the state and perhaps for comparable energy grids around the world." The state's previous record was just over three days, says Geoff Eldridge, an energy analyst who runs the website NEMlog.com.au, which tracks the operations of the National Energy Market covering Australia's east-coast states and South Australia.
His analysis shows that for the six days identified, the state produced on average 101 per cent of the energy it needed from wind, rooftop solar and solar farms, with just a fraction of the energy the state used being drawn from gas, in order to keep the grid stable. At times during the period, slightly less renewable energy was available and at other times renewable capacity was higher than needed, he says.
Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, said he believed that aside from some small island grids such as those in Hawaii and Tasmania, it was likely that South Australia's six-day run on renewables was a record for a grid supporting an advanced economy.
During the unprecedented 156-hour renewable run, the share of wind in total energy supplied averaged 64.4 per cent, while rooftop solar averaged 29.5 per cent and utility-scale solar averaged 6.2 per cent, clean energy website RenewEconomy.com.au reported, using Mr Eldridge's data.
(Thanks to Slashdot reader betsuin for sharing the article)
Great news for arid low density regions (Score:2)
Re:Great news for arid low density regions (Score:5, Insightful)
Or windy areas. Or areas with mountains and rain. Or areas near to the sea that have tides. Or areas that can grow more things. Or areas that have significant geological activity. Or areas that can be connected via a transmission grid to one of those places. Apart from that a bit of a disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been living on renewable energy for years. All my electricity is from hydroelectric dams. My water comes from a natural spring. My house is heated by logs culled from wood that naturally burns every few years in forest fires, as it's a species that can't reproduce without catching fire, so no additional CO2 is added to the atmosphere. I tend a garden. Even the fuel in my truck comes from corn, or deposits of petrochemicals under ground that eventually replenish themselves. Life is good.
Re: (Score:2)
or deposits of petrochemicals under ground that eventually replenish themselves.
Awww. So close.
Re: (Score:3)
That only works if you have neighbors with nuclear power.
So which of South Australia's neighbours has nuclear power?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe their new, American nuclear submarines can deliver CO2 free electricity to the network at need? The old, French newly dieselized ones couldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe their new, American nuclear submarines can deliver CO2 free electricity to the network at need? The old, French newly dieselized ones couldn't.
Just needs a really long extension cord to reach from the South China Sea...
Re: (Score:2)
That only works if you have neighbors with nuclear power.
So which of South Australia's neighbours has nuclear power?
Actually South Australia itself is investigating nuclear power. It has three huge uranium mines already. They are considering nuclear to displace nat gas and coal. Like any rational person would.
Actually... (Score:2)
Funny, as a resident of SA, I distinctly remember a royal commision here setup to investigate nuclear power gave a resounding no. There has been no push for nuclear at all, nothing in the press. There is no chance at all of South Aussies wanting nuclear power.
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app... [sa.gov.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, as a resident of SA, I distinctly remember a royal commision here setup to investigate nuclear power gave a resounding no. There has been no push for nuclear at all, nothing in the press. There is no chance at all of South Aussies wanting nuclear power.
That was 2016.
"[17 Jun 2019] Australians' support for nuclear plants rising
Essential poll finds 44% of Australians support nuclear power plants and 40% oppose them"
https://www.theguardian.com/au... [theguardian.com]
The recent decision to acquire nuclear submarines has also helped reignite the debate.
Re: (Score:2)
This is incorrect as a quick look at actual numbers show:
Commercial exchange for 2021:
Germany -> France: 14.9 TWh
France -> Germany: 8.4 TWh
Germany -> Czech: 5.7 TWh
Czech -> Germany: 5.5 TWh
So Germany exported substantially more electricity to France than it imported from France and slightly more to Czech Republic than it imported.
Net income from power grade for Germany in 2021: 943 million Euro
Average price for exported electricity: 75.38 Euro / MWh
Average price for imported electricity: 75.05 E
Re: (Score:2)
This is incorrect as a quick look at actual numbers show:
Wrong. My claim is that Germany makes up for its shortfalls by importing. And your own citation proves my point:
France -> Germany: 8.4 TWh
Czech -> Germany: 5.5 TWh
The net number is irrelevant. The fact remains that renewables have gaps, need backup sources. And the greenwashing of Germany's internal industry leads to imports.
Re: (Score:2)
So power trade in one direction proves that Germany relies on France and bigger power trade in the other direction does not prove the same?
In the worst case, you could conclude that both countries rely on each other. France currently imports from Germany
and ramps up coal because (partially unplanned) outages of nuclear plants:
https://jpt.spe.org/france-tur... [spe.org]
So what every you claim about shortfalls is even more true about France than about Germany. In reality, you need backup sources anyway, because - as yo
Re: (Score:2)
...with virtually no industry and hence low energy requirements, and where they don't need much heating or cooling.
I imagine 6 days averaging 100% renewable is a lot more fun than 72 hours without power, which the same grid managed a few years back.
Re: (Score:2)
Just checked and as of now they are consuming 1401 MW, they are generating 350 from fossil fuels, 300 from renewables, and importing >700 from Victorias brown coal powerplants.
Yay the green revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously suggesting that it's a bad thing to source as much as you can from renewables?
Is it bad to not commit sins for 56 hours? (Score:2)
and spend most of the rest of the year cursing and drinking and cheating and overeating and not exercising the whole rest of the year?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For more details about South Australia's power outage: it was when the winds got too high, a bunch of windmills shut down at once for safety, and then the circuit protections (that could have gotten power from interstate) freaked out by a sudden change in power levels and went into super safety shut down mode. (The fact that the storm also demolished a few large electrical towers didn't help).
Now with some batteries to smooth out the power levels and I presume better controller software - it's doing damn we
Re: (Score:2)
where they don't need much heating or cooling
Yeah I'm sure that place that has summer daytime temperatures over 123F/50C doesn't need much cooling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Too right we don't need cooling. A real man doesn't need cooling, just hand him a couple of stubbies of VB and he gets on with the job.
Re: (Score:2)
VB? I think you mean West End!!
(I'll stick to my Emu Export over here in the West).
Re: (Score:2)
"they don't need much heating or cooling"??
Adelaide is not exactly cold, and it's on the coast. Inland is definitely not cold, been there, done that, used air-conditioning a lot, in the cooler months.
There's a reason Coober Pedy has a lot of houses underground, after all.
Doesn't need much heating, though, sure, it's not like it snows there.
Let's be honest, shall we (Score:4, Insightful)
In the long run, these BS headlines about solar just end up making it look like solar is BS.
> produced on average 101 per cent of the energy it needed from wind, rooftop solar and solar farms
On average, they got more energy from solar in the afternoon than the energy they had used in the early morning.
Which means the area exported energy in the afternoon and imported energy in the evening, night, and morning. Nothing more and nothing less. Nobody lived on solar for a week, or even for one night.
Re:Let's be honest, shall we (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Let's be honest, shall we (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, here's the reason that matters:
When we read these stories that do calculations of average net, but think it's actual real-time usage, we set ourselves for a major problem. Essentially what these stories show is that when the weather is right, a city can briefly produce only solar power *provided they buy natural gas power from their neighbor at nighttime*.
When we don't realize those very important conditions, we start thinking "we can all build solar, and all live on that". Little problem - if we're all building solar, who is the neighbor we're going to buy power from at night? Never mind the fact it still only works for a few days when you get really lucky with the weather.
Re: (Score:3)
*provided they buy natural gas power from their neighbor at nighttime*.
Hey now, sometimes they buy coal power.
Re: (Score:2)
As of now South Australia has the highest electricity price in the AEMO, and both its interconnectors with Victoria's coal fired grid are running at 100% capacity, providing more than half of demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Victoria's last coal powered electricity generators in the La Trobe Valley will be shut down within 15 years, the plants date from the 1970s.
Hence the urgency for South Australia to be self-reliant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you know it is "very hard" how? Nuke plants would be a way harder and more expensive solution than simply massively overbuilding wind, solar, and storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much does it cost to build a nuclear power plant?
How many grid connected power storage devices can you build for the same amount of money?
Does that number of grid connected storage devices provide enough capacity to supply the power needs when renewables generation can't meet the consumption needs?
If the answer to the last question is yes then I would say that nuclear power plants aren't the solution we should be looking at.
Re: (Score:2)
So a nuclear plant is ~$6billion. Your 1GW.hr battery storage is ~$150million (or $0.15billion) Add in another ~$50million (or $0.05billion) for your charging/discharging plant and you will get:
6/(0.15+0.05)=30 battery plants for the equivalent of one nuclear plant.
Based on that figure it looks like for the same cost of a nuclear plant you could build quite a healthy battery storage device.
Grid connected storage devices need charging, so the question can only be answered if we know how long between refills for the batteries.
Since the area in question is already producing an average of 101% of their electrical needs via renewables there shoul
Re: (Score:2)
30 batteries give you 30 hours of storage. Sure you may get 50 years out of the nuclear plant but you will also get multiple years out of the batteries (probably not 50 years but I have no idea what the longevity is so I'll just leave it at years) and over your 50 years for the nuclear plant there will undoubtedly be multi-million dollar (billion dollar?) upkeep and repairs needed.
I'm not quite sure why you have such a problem with the charging of the battery. There is excess power being generated. This cha
Re: (Score:3)
This is doable, and it is getting done. Sure, when a record is broken it is under ideal conditions and doesn't mean it will be everywhere all the time if we stop now
Re: (Score:2)
Get your facts right. Incorrect statements undermine your arguments:
1. they're buying coal-powered energy. Worse than gas, but you shouldn't cloud the argument with inaccuracies
2. "A few days" "lucky with the weather". JFC this is Australia we're talking about.
Let's be honest, shall we. Yes you should (Score:2)
You're spreading FUD about solar. While the summary mentions they got about twice as much power from wind.
Wind works at night.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a matter of them needing to buy power at night it is a matter of them not having a way to store the excess power generated during the day.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called progress you myopic dipshit.
Is it? Then why can't they use numbers that show what actually happened? Why do they have to try to hide things with statistics?
If it's progress, show the proof, not statistical hand-wavery.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What actually happened? Do you think they’re fabricating numbers for shits and giggles? Consumption probably went above and below the renewable threshold, hence the word average. If you really need to see a spreadsheet then go ahead and ask them.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Do you think they’re fabricating numbers for shits and giggles?
They're very obviously cherry-picking statistics and presenting them for propaganda purposes. The question you should be asking is, "Who is doing that, and why?"
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the actual article, not just the synopsis here?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, did you see something in there that I missed?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, apparently the whole thing about cherry picking statistics was entirely missing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are having problems understanding how threaded conversations work. Please go back to get some context before replying.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest, the efficiency of renewables is advancing at a steady pace. Only a moron looks at the energy delivered by the sun and says "No thanks".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's be honest and not pretend that "renewables" means "solar only" as you do here, and frequently in your other posts over the years. "Renewables" always means solar+wind, possibly with some lower level contributions from other sources.
it is a dishonest strawman to do this. I don't think you are stupid enough not to realize this, so why you insist on doing this escapes me. Perhaps you could explain why you do this.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are producing 101% of their power needs (on average) via renewables obviously they are producing enough power to cover their needs. The problem isn't with the renewables being inconsistent power generators it is a problem with not having a storage method to save that excess generated power for use when generation falls below usage needs. Once we have developed a reliable and affordable storage method then they can run totally on renewables and not need non-renewable backups.
If they had a few dozen g
Re: (Score:2)
> If they had a few dozen grid connected storage batteries (or pumped hydro or thermal energy storage or mechanical energy storage) in place they could have actually run 100% on renewables. Unfortunately, the expense (and logistics) currently haven't made that possible.
It's common to severely underestimate the amount of power large cities need, the storage needed to handle a few days of the weather not being what you wanted. I did the computer modeling the US, for pumped hydro. The hydro reservoir would
An average of 100 % ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you hear the one about a statistician who drowned in a river that was only 6 inches deep on average ?
The next statistician will play it safe and only enter rivers with an average depth of 3 inches.
Re:An average of 100 % ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. They didn't live the whole week on renewable energy. Part of the week they lived on natural gas (whenever renewable energy generation dipped below energy demand, for example on nights with weak wind). To avoid using fossil fuels in similar situations, you need to have energy storage mechanisms like dams (not practical in Australia) or batteries. But I don't think storage batteries have ever shown to be affordable at utility scale (Telsa's South Australia battery was for grid stabilization, its capacity was much too small to serve as storage).
Re: (Score:2)
The article says natural gas was used to keep the grid stable, much like the Tesla battery. If you have information that natural gas was used to provide power to customers, it would help debunk the article.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that it was deep enough to cover their face, and hence they could drown? What's so special about that?
Re: (Score:2)
For a value that can go above 100%, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have that as an average. The bottom number is how much energy is needed, the top is how much energy is produced -- when those divide, you can get numbers above 1, aka, above 100%. They could produce double the energy needed, which would be 200%, for example.
Nice (Score:2)
I bet Scott 'Big Banana' Morrison must be flabbergasted that his coal-buddies lose out.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet Scott 'Big Banana' Morrison must be flabbergasted that his coal-buddies lose out.
No. He's enjoying the increased coal exports to Europe that occurred when they decided to go greener and shut down nuclear plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Only Germany shut down any nuclear plants and they were not replaced by coal. Coal is being phased out as well:
"In 2008, power from coal supplied 291 TWh or 46% of Germany's overall production of 631 TWh, but this dropped to 118 TWh (24%) in 2020"
Abandoning nuclear is premature (Score:3)
"[28 Dec 2021] The starting point of the energy transition in Germany, and with it the idea of climate protection, is the anti-nuclear movement and the rise of the Green Party at the end of the 1970s. As opposition to nuclear power and support for the Greens grew – resulting in their election into government in 1998
Re: (Score:2)
2015 and 2017 information you cited is also obsolete.
The surge in methane prices is global, largely due to pent-up demand and reduced production due to the pandemic, and probably temporary. But wind and solar prices didn't rise. They are now the cheapest source of energy and much quicker to build than nuclear. France is also moving away from nuke to renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
2015 and 2017 information you cited is also obsolete.
The surge in methane prices is global, largely due to pent-up demand and reduced production due to the pandemic, and probably temporary. But wind and solar prices didn't rise. They are now the cheapest source of energy and much quicker to build than nuclear. France is also moving away from nuke to renewables.
As I said it ebbs and flows. And the 2021 quotes shows nuclear is on the rise for people who are environmentally minded rather than political. Again, displacing nuclear is foolish until you have displaced all petroleum based fuels. Nuclear would be the last to go. Again, unless one is political rather than environmental.
Re: (Score:2)
From your 2021 quotes;
'the public has remained supportive of exiting nuclear power for good'
“nuclear power is neither safe nor clean” and could not be a part of a low-carbon power production'
“Nuclear power would make our energy supply neither safer nor cheaper. A technology that has no solution for the disposal of toxic waste cannot be sustainable."
It is "completely out of the question" that German nuclear power plants will get another lifetime extension, said Rainer Baake. "Becaus
Re: (Score:2)
From your 2021 quotes; 'the public has remained supportive of exiting nuclear power for good'
“nuclear power is neither safe nor clean” and could not be a part of a low-carbon power production'
“Nuclear power would make our energy supply neither safer nor cheaper. A technology that has no solution for the disposal of toxic waste cannot be sustainable."
It is "completely out of the question" that German nuclear power plants will get another lifetime extension, said Rainer Baake. "Because the operators don't want it
Again, that political position is being questioned. Environmentalists are being less political these days and there is a movement among them acknowledging nuclear as an option to displace coal, oil and nat gas. As the article also shows.
Plus Germany's position is a bit fraudulent as they are willing to import nuclear based power from the Czech Republic and France. Their anti-nuke stance is political, its greenwashing.
Re: (Score:2)
Your personal opinions aren't supported by your cites.
"Energy utilities and operators of Germany’s remaining nuclear power stations are adamant that there will be no extension of the reactors’ runtime. The large German utilities have – after years of struggling – embraced a renewable future and the planning security that the end of nuclear power gives them. They also point out that all the legal (compensation) issues of the nuclear phase-out have been resolved, operating licenses are
Re: (Score:2)
Your personal opinions aren't supported by your cites.
You are mistaken, re-read the 2021 quotes.
"In the past months, some energy and industry managers, researchers and climate activists and pro-nuclear groups have again made a case for the use of nuclear power as a stable and low-in-CO2 form of energy that could help Germany achieve its climate targets. Similarly, there have been calls to extend the lifetime of the existing reactors to the end of the decade to deliver low carbon energy during a time when renewable capacities are not yet plentiful enough to su
Re: (Score:2)
The "researchers and climate activists" reportedly were 25 people, and who cares what "pro-nuclear groups" want?
Re: (Score:2)
The "researchers and climate activists" reportedly were 25 people, ...
The executives of Germany's energy industry probably represent a similarly sized group.
...and who cares what "pro-nuclear groups" want?
Thank you for demonstrating your orientation where politics is more important than environmentalism.
Re: (Score:2)
"The executives of Germany's energy industry probably represent a similarly sized group."
Probably you're just making that up, but in any case the energy industry understands the economics.
From your own cite;
"One of the reasons why it is an obvious choice for Germany to make wind and solar its main power source rather than nuclear, is that new renewable installations have become cheaper than all other electricity sources – especially where a CO2 price is applied.
According to the World Nuclear Industry
Re: (Score:2)
From your own cite;
my citation includes political partisans. Which is one of my points, politics dominates the decision making process.
One of the reasons why it is an obvious choice for Germany to make wind and solar its main power source rather than nuclear, is that new renewable installations have become cheaper than all other electricity sources ...
1. Straw man. Making nuclear the main source is not the argument.
2. The cost of renewables is a red herring because you are ignoring the fact the necessity for nuclear is that renewable needs backup. You option is either petroleum or nuclear for that backup. Hence the environment choice would be nuclear. As environment activists are coming to realize and including nuclear among the all-of-t
Re: (Score:2)
I started off pointing out that your cites don't support your position, which is clearly the case. And just because "the public has remained supportive of exiting nuclear power for good" doesn't mean it is political. There are plenty of economic, technical, and safety reasons for rejecting nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Laughing all the way to the bank.
In related news ... (Score:3)
1.7 Million People Live for a Week on 100% Renewable Energy
All outdoor plants and animals on Earth, ever, respond with "hold my beer". :-)
Been there, done that (Score:3)
Here in British Columbia we generate 97% of our electricity from renewable sources, mainly hydroelectric dams. That remaining 3% is electricity for out-of-the-way places that aren't connected to the main grid. Ironically, that includes the Queen Charlotte Islands whose residents routinely berate everybody else for our carbon footprint.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
Population of British Colombia: 5 million.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the population of Canada gets its electricity from renewable (typically hydroelectric) sources. It's why there is the Canadianism called "Hydro" when referring to power. The power bill is called the hydro bill by practically every Canadian, and the power company is the hydro company. It's that prevalent that the singular form of power generation is pretty much the term for power, despite Canada as a whole also having fossil fuels (typically Alberta and Saskatchewan), nuclear (Ontario still runs CAN
Their juice seems expensive (Score:2)
I am paying around
Re: (Score:2)
Methane prices shot way up in the US, ended 2021 up 47%. Wind and solar did not rise, and are now the cheapest energy source. So there's zero reason to think an increase in renewables would cause electricity prices to rise.
I also live in Texas and I am paying .095 cents per kWh for 100% wind on a 12 month fixed price contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My electric bill has just 2 details. The actual electricity is 4.5 cents. Grid fees are 5 cents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
9.5 cents per kWh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Swedish company already producing steel without fossil fuels [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No longer have real usage figures (Score:2)
A classic example was my solar system which has been in use for a few months and came with a new meter so I know exactly how much I have pulled/imported fro
Re: (Score:2)
At that point I can use my AC to cool the home guilt free
Hard to say whether solar power or a psychiatrist is a better solution.
So they had a windy week (Score:2)
A country residence occupied by dedicated Greens can accommodate to letting their dirty laundry pile up until they get one of these, but a steel mill can't exactly operate this way. Neither can a high-rise apartment building in a big city.
Re: (Score:2)
The report merely demonstrates that 100% penetration of renewables for multiple days is feasible. People have been claiming it was not. They aren't claiming it can be done permanently with existing infrastructure, but it could be in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
A high-rise block can be fed by green power from another location and if that high-rise had solar and maybe some small turbines, it would need less from other sources. If every building (where possible) had some form of solar on it, it would mean less from the grid
If only... (Score:2)
If only snow and cold were a source of energy, Canada could be powered with it all winter long, i.e. 7 months out of 12.
It's summer there now (Score:2)
And being farther south, the weather is milder.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, similar to these cities I guess?
http://lat34north.com/Cities/C... [lat34north.com]
Moroccan, Texan and Californian seem prominently represented.
I don't think they are particularly noted for being mild, though?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they are particularly noted for being mild, though?
Pretty mild, particularly if you get prevailing westerly winds from far southerly latitudes. I've lived in both Los Angeles and Texas. It certainly isn't heating season during the summer. But it's not so hot that anyone other than the special snowflakes need air conditioning.
5 million on 100% for a LONG time (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but that's hydropower. Not available in most places.
Meanwhile in another part of the wood (Score:2)
From the Daily Telegraph:
"Low wind levels have sent power prices soaring to their highest in a month as Britain struggles to keep up with a rebound in demand.
Power prices for Monday evening jumped to £1,161 a megawatt-hour â" the highest since 16 December. At the same time, wind output is forecast to slide below 1.5 gigawatts, down from a 10-day average of 6.3 gigawatts."
Look here to see just how variable wind is in the UK.
https://gridwatch.co.uk/WIND [gridwatch.co.uk]
Would you buy this, if you were going to
Headline is misleading [Re:6 1/2 day week?] (Score:5, Informative)
It didn't run on 100% renewable energy, either, The text says that it averaged 101 percent of the electricity used. But that means some of the time they were running on natural gas, while other times the renewables were overproducing and feeding the grid. That's not really the same as "running completely on renewable energy.
With that said, it's a good run, but not quite as noteworthy as the headline makes it out to be,