“up to” are exactly what is meant by weasel words,
It precisely meant at least 10 hours, which would have been clearer. You attacked post for not achieving perfection, but it just claimed to achieve very specific metrics. No claim of perfection was made.
Not according to the paper the article was (loosely) based on.
The average was 4.84 h/day and the maximum was 10.1
You would know that if you had read the article and fact checked it against the source.
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.
ok. Renewable production exceeded demand at one point for 98 days. That is good. That it was for almost 5 hours per day on average is also good. One day reaching 10 hours is impressive. These metrics are improvements over previous year.
It’s fair to say the “up to” language was confusing, without the above clarity that is in original article. You could still be “overly angry” in your post.
It precisely meant at least 10 hours, which would have been clearer. You attacked post for not achieving perfection, but it just claimed to achieve very specific metrics. No claim of perfection was made.
Not according to the paper the article was (loosely) based on.
The average was 4.84 h/day and the maximum was 10.1
You would know that if you had read the article and fact checked it against the source.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148124023309
Now that you have all the facts, if you would stay on topic and render judgement of PTB/YDI that would be great.
ok. Renewable production exceeded demand at one point for 98 days. That is good. That it was for almost 5 hours per day on average is also good. One day reaching 10 hours is impressive. These metrics are improvements over previous year.
It’s fair to say the “up to” language was confusing, without the above clarity that is in original article. You could still be “overly angry” in your post.