Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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.
=======================
=================================
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.
=======================
--bill von
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Definitely heard about that. Started around 1760 IIRC and used a lot of coal. (Although nothing compared to what we use now, of course.)
--bill von
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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.
--bill von
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Yep, cuz nature.billvon wrote: ↑Jul 01 2019 11:59amOh, 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.
-
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
- Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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/
.
"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/
-
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
- Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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.sendler2112 wrote: ↑Jul 01 2019 2:57pmDraining 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/
Of course the facts speak for themselves.
-
- Posts: 11335
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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 !.

Last edited by Hillhater on Jul 01 2019 5:29pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
-
- Posts: 11335
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
??? 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 ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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.
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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.
--bill von
-
- Posts: 11335
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
So what was this...??
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 . ?Just by intuition you have to think fracking isn't the greatest.............
How is that coming along ?
.. or will that be another unanswered mystery ?
Last edited by Hillhater on Jul 01 2019 6:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
-
- Posts: 11335
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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¢.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
-
- Posts: 11335
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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 ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
No. What are you talking about?Hillhater wrote: ↑Jul 01 2019 6:05pmNo, 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 ?
FLAT!

Can you see this graph? I think maybe you can't. Or don't understand it.
Last edited by furcifer on Jul 01 2019 7:15pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
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.
It's about time the internet police came and took his modem away.
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
The industrial revolution never happened. You're living on smiles.Punx0r wrote: ↑Jul 01 2019 7:14pmHe'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.