Yeah. The best possible interpretation is that in 85% of the days measured (98/116), power was covered for 42% of the day (10/24), for an end result of 35% of power needs being covered over the time measured ((98/116)×(10/24)).
But that is interpreting “up to” as meaning it was consistently hitting 10 hours each of those 98 days, which is definitively not what “up to” means. So we’ll use 35% as our upper bound, being the most charitable interpretation.
So if we assume that the 18 days not covered had 0 hours of coverage (only sane way they can’t be counted when using the term “up to”), and make a complete assumption backed by nothing that each day counted as covered had 1 hour minimum of power needs met, then we can establish the lower bound.
Worst case interpretation then becomes one day at 10 hours plus 97 days at one hour. (((1/116)×(10/24))+((97/116)×(1/24)))
So lower bound of 4% coverage using the least charitable sane interpretation.
So that statistic as written comes out somewhere between 4% and 35% of total energy needs met entirely by renewables over that 116 day period.
Quite a different feel to that than 100% of the energy needs were met some of the time.
Honestly, even 10% of the total needs met would be impressive, and for the sake of continued human existence we need to keep investing in renewables regardless.
But misleading people shouldn’t be acceptable just because it’s for a cause we favor.
I really appreciate you providing numbers on this, I was hesitant to set upper and lower bounds and get called out for making assumptions (which it isn’t!).
As anyone can see from your comment the ambiguity in the articles claims are extremely unhelpful.
All this only makes being banned for ‘arguing against facts’ even sadder.
This paper uses data from the world’s 5th-largest economy to show no blackouts occurred when wind-water-solar electricity supply exceeded 100 % of demand on California’s main grid for a record 98 of 116 days from late winter to early summer, 2024, for an average (maximum) of 4.84 (10.1) hours/day. Compared with the same period in 2023, solar, wind, and battery outputs in 2024 increased 31 % 8 %, and 105 %, respectively, dropping fossil gas use by an estimated 40 %. Batteries, which shifted excess solar to night, supplied up to ∼12 % of nighttime demand.
you’re right, but how can they discuss the article in the actual post under threat of bans for clarifying what is misleading in it 🤷 it has become a bit paradox
35% of power needs being covered over the time measured ((98/116)×(10/24)).
can be higher. Daytime hours have higher demand, and stat can mean that demand was covered for x hours, instead of production equal to 10/24th of demand.
So if we assume that the 18 days not covered had 0 hours of coverage
unlikely. But a reason the spring period is being highlighted is that there is no heating or cooling demand. There is more room for improvement for sure.
![Understanding statistics and calling out reporting bias is a bannable offence on [email protected]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e205471c-3021-44eb-9e17-016c3e5b5088.png){kind=link}
Yeah. The best possible interpretation is that in 85% of the days measured (98/116), power was covered for 42% of the day (10/24), for an end result of 35% of power needs being covered over the time measured ((98/116)×(10/24)).
But that is interpreting “up to” as meaning it was consistently hitting 10 hours each of those 98 days, which is definitively not what “up to” means. So we’ll use 35% as our upper bound, being the most charitable interpretation.
So if we assume that the 18 days not covered had 0 hours of coverage (only sane way they can’t be counted when using the term “up to”), and make a complete assumption backed by nothing that each day counted as covered had 1 hour minimum of power needs met, then we can establish the lower bound.
Worst case interpretation then becomes one day at 10 hours plus 97 days at one hour. (((1/116)×(10/24))+((97/116)×(1/24)))
So lower bound of 4% coverage using the least charitable sane interpretation.
So that statistic as written comes out somewhere between 4% and 35% of total energy needs met entirely by renewables over that 116 day period.
Quite a different feel to that than 100% of the energy needs were met some of the time.
Honestly, even 10% of the total needs met would be impressive, and for the sake of continued human existence we need to keep investing in renewables regardless.
But misleading people shouldn’t be acceptable just because it’s for a cause we favor.
I really appreciate you providing numbers on this, I was hesitant to set upper and lower bounds and get called out for making assumptions (which it isn’t!).
As anyone can see from your comment the ambiguity in the articles claims are extremely unhelpful.
All this only makes being banned for ‘arguing against facts’ even sadder.
From the linked study’s abstract:
(Admittedly, it was 3 clicks away. Here’s a direct link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148124023309 )
Getting off topic. Please stay on topic of whether the mod action was deserved rather than discussing the article itself
you’re right, but how can they discuss the article in the actual post under threat of bans for clarifying what is misleading in it 🤷 it has become a bit paradox
can be higher. Daytime hours have higher demand, and stat can mean that demand was covered for x hours, instead of production equal to 10/24th of demand.
unlikely. But a reason the spring period is being highlighted is that there is no heating or cooling demand. There is more room for improvement for sure.