Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[billvon]

Good news on the solar front from Forbes:
=================================
New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear
Jeff McMahon
Jul 1 2019

Los Angeles Power and Water officials have struck a deal on the largest and cheapest solar + battery-storage project in the world, at prices that leave fossil fuels in the dust and may relegate nuclear power to the dustbin.

Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city's electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries.

"This is the lowest solar-photovoltaic price in the United States," said James Barner, the agency's manager for strategic initiatives, "and it is the largest and lowest-cost solar and high-capacity battery-storage project in the U.S. and we believe in the world today. So this is, I believe, truly revolutionary in the industry."

It's half the estimated cost of power from a new natural gas plant.

. . .
"It reduces the evening ramp (of natural gas) as the sun sets," Barner told commissioners at their June 18 meeting. "As the sun goes down for our other 1,000 MW of solar that doesn’t have batteries, the gas-fired generation and hydro have to compensate for that. So that net peak load in the evening will be offset with this facility. We’ll be able to contribute to that and keep gas powered generation not running at the full amount."

Crudely, Los Angeles can count on solar power generation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., said Louis Ting, director of power planning development at the agency. The batteries in this project effectively extend that horizon four hours, to 11 p.m.

"The battery can be dispatched differently," Barner added, "depending on the system need. So you could run that four-hour battery over 16 hours at one-fourth of the output, so you can vary it over time. It’s not just fixed over four hours."

The plant will be developed by 8minute Solar Energy on 2,653 acres of privately-owned land in the Barren Ridge renewable corridor in Kern County. The development was first reported Friday by John Weaver at pv magazine, who noted in comments that the price for battery storage is not added on top of the solar price. It's a separate power product, sold at 1.3¢.

Barner explained that the plant will be able to generate more solar energy each day than the available transmission capacity. The extra power will be stored.

"The solar is inherently variable, and the battery is able to take a portion of that solar from that facility, the portion that’s variable, which is usually the top tend of it, take all of that, strip that off and then store it into the battery, so the facility can provide a constant output to the grid. It can turn this solar facility, which is not typically dispatchable, into a dispatchable type of facility."
. .

A natural-gas plant opening that same year would produce power at more than twice the price, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, or 4¢-4.3¢/kwh. The agency did not bother modeling the estimated cost of coal or nuclear plants in its 2019 Energy Outlook because, it says, none are expected to be built. Nuclear often benefits from optimistic estimates in the range of 12¢/kwh. Nuclear's advantage has been its constancy and reliability, an advantage cheap storage increasingly challenges.

The lowest known solar price is 1.97¢ for a project in Mexico that did not include storage.
=======================

[billvon]

No. It's called the "Industrial Revolution" perhaps you've heard about it?

Definitely heard about that. Started around 1760 IIRC and used a lot of coal. (Although nothing compared to what we use now, of course.)

[furcifer]

No. It's called the "Industrial Revolution" perhaps you've heard about it?

Definitely heard about that. Started around 1760 IIRC and used a lot of coal. (Although nothing compared to what we use now, of course.)

oh, well rumor has it coal is made of carbon. i mean this is the first i'm hearing of it but that's what they say. i'm looking for scientific studies but there is a startling lack of science on what coal is made of.

[billvon]

oh, well rumor has it coal is made of carbon. i mean this is the first i'm hearing of it but that's what they say. i'm looking for scientific studies but there is a startling lack of science on what coal is made of.

Oh, sure, the liberal media CLAIMS there is carbon in coal, but there's no PROOF! It might just be made of coal.

I mean, these are the same people who claim that the lead in pencils is made of carbon. Hello! Lead isn't carbon, morans! And even if it is, it's not manmade. And even if it is manmade, everything will be good forever.

[furcifer]

Oh, sure, the liberal media CLAIMS there is carbon in coal, but there's no PROOF! It might just be made of coal.

I mean, these are the same people who claim that the lead in pencils is made of carbon. Hello! Lead isn't carbon, morans! And even if it is, it's not manmade. And even if it is manmade, everything will be good forever.

Yep, cuz nature.

[sendler2112]

Draining America first again.
.
"Schlotterbeck calculates that the industry as a whole has destroyed 80 percent of its value since 2008. It turns out that the so-called shale revolution is a revolution as much in investor stupidity as it is in technology, a technology that can’t seem to produce actual industry profits. The former CEO added that there have been 172 bankruptcies among exploration and production companies engaged in the shale oil and gas business just since 2015."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... at-a-time/

[sendler2112]

The plant will be developed by 8minute Solar Energy

https://www.8minute.com/

[furcifer]

Draining America first again.
.
"Schlotterbeck calculates that the industry as a whole has destroyed 80 percent of its value since 2008. It turns out that the so-called shale revolution is a revolution as much in investor stupidity as it is in technology, a technology that can’t seem to produce actual industry profits. The former CEO added that there have been 172 bankruptcies among exploration and production companies engaged in the shale oil and gas business just since 2015."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... at-a-time/

Just by intuition you have to think fracking isn't the greatest. Forget the burning rivers and kitchen faucets that explode and just look at the principle. It's totally ghetto. Here in Canada we have the "oil sands" and everything my intuition is telling me is that even on the best days it's still going to suck. Both just seem like desperation moves to avoid reality.

Of course the facts speak for themselves.

[Hillhater]

And since you have now posted furthe proof of my point, i do wonder if you are visually impared as well as rationally deficient.
CO2 levels are clearly rising starting in 1750 whilst human contribution doesnt start until 1850 !!

So you are saying humans were not burning fossil fuels until 1850?

No, im saying according to the data posted by furcifer (many times), emissions from fossil fuels were negligible prior to 1850.
He is not even looking at the data he is posting to notice that it contradicts what he is saying !.

[Hillhater]

Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city's electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries.

??? How do they manage to sell stored power from the battery 30% cheaper than the solar power that they are using to charge the battery ?

[furcifer]

No, im saying according to the data posted by furcifer (many times), emissions from fossil fuels were negligible prior to 1850.
He is not even looking at the data he is posting to notice that it contradicts what he believes.

What I know is after 1850 humans started using fossil fuels and the ocean absorbed it for 100 years. Basically.

Where's your "scientific proof"? Just post a graph buddy.

[furcifer]

Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city's electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries.

??? How do they manage to sell stored power from the battery 30% cheaper than the solar power that they are using to charge the battery ?

Misdirection noted.

[billvon]

??? How do they manage to sell stored power from the battery 30% cheaper than the solar power that they are using to charge the battery ?

They don't, of course. But nice try!

[billvon]

No, im saying according to the data posted by furcifer (many times), emissions from fossil fuels were negligible prior to 1850.

Ding ding! You are correct! Coal burning was negligible prior to 1850, compared to today's rates. Which is why increase in CO2 was also negligible prior to 1850. You have to look veeery closely at the graph to see the increase from the few tens of million of tons they burned a year.

[Hillhater]

Misdirection noted.

So what was this...??

Just by intuition you have to think fracking isn't the greatest.............

But No, .....just filling time whilst i wait for you to explain how the CO2 levels started rising 100 years before fossil fuel emissions were significant . ?
How is that coming along ?
.. or will that be another unanswered mystery ?

[Hillhater]

??? How do they manage to sell stored power from the battery 30% cheaper than the solar power that they are using to charge the battery ?

They don't, of course. But nice try!

So , care to explain what the 1.3c/kWh charge is then ?

....the price for battery storage is not added on top of the solar price. It's a separate power product, sold at 1.3¢.

[Hillhater]

....Coal burning was negligible prior to 1850, compared to today's rates. Which is why increase in CO2 was also negligible prior to 1850. You have to look veeery closely at the graph to see the increase from the few tens of million of tons they burned a year.

No, obviously the CO2 increase was not NEGLIGIBLE , or it would not have been detected.
If you look at the data points which clearly show the CO2 levels rising progressively from 1750, whilst there is no record of fossil emissions in that period .
Want to try another excuse ?

[furcifer]

But No, .....just filling time whilst i wait for you to explain how the CO2 levels started rising 100 years before fossil fuel emissions were significant . ?

No. Maybe I didn't post enough graphs.

[furcifer]

Want to try another excuse ?

What are you talking about????


Stop making stuff up, post the graph.

[furcifer]

[furcifer]

[furcifer]

[furcifer]

No, obviously the CO2 increase was not NEGLIGIBLE , or it would not have been detected.
If you look at the data points which clearly show the CO2 levels rising progressively from 1750, whilst there is no record of fossil emissions in that period .
Want to try another excuse ?

No. What are you talking about?

FLAT!



Can you see this graph? I think maybe you can't. Or don't understand it.

[Punx0r]

He's trying to make a big deal abou the small regression to the mean that occured around 1770-1830 after dipping in 1550 for ~200 years. Obviously while ignoring the humongous spike that started with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Clearly a highly selective interpretation and desperately trying to read into the chart whatever he wants. He can't even understand the most basic definitions of the scientific method.

It's about time the internet police came and took his modem away.

[furcifer]

He's trying to make a big deal abou the small regression to the mean that occured around 1770-1830 after dipping in 1550 for ~200 years. Obviously while ignoring the humongous spike that started with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Clearly a highly selective interpretation and desperately trying to read into the chart whatever he wants. He can't even understand the most basic definitions of the scientific method.

It's about time the internet police came and took his modem away.

The industrial revolution never happened. You're living on smiles.