Well it looks like all the morning threads about the Texas mass shooting were all nuked.... I suspect that the mods are A-OK with many idiotic, race baiting culture war threads polluting the board daily but any real life event that reflects badly on the GOP and right wing is not permitted to have it's own thread.
2 cents per kWh? You are out of your mind. The recently completed battery storage demonstration project in San Diego cost $300/kWh to install, and they freely admit that the benefits over the life of the project don’t come close to offsetting the costs. It will costs more in maintenance alone to run the system than the power is worth. OUT OF YOUR MIND.
Found it. I did mis-remember the details slightly. But it's still super-cheap.
The new solar/battery project outside of Los Angeles has a power purchase agreement for just under 2 cents per kWh for the solar part. Combined with the storage, it comes to 3.3 cents per kWh.
The project was eventually approved and is expected to go online next year. I'm out of my mind.
The projects would sell their 200 megawatts of solar capacity under a 25-year power-purchase agreement with LADWP at a price of $19.97 per megawatt-hour.
Meanwhile, the price for the project’s battery capacity, according to Montag’s presentation, is an additional $13 per megawatt-hour for the 100-megawatt plan, or $33 per megawatt-hour when combined with the solar.
You do realize that amount of storage is a drop in a bucket relative to the size of the plant, correct? You still require gas turbines to create a viable load shape (all that amount of storage would achieve is it would decrease the sharpness of the peak that the utility would have to run up to provide power when the sun sets). To really equate that to a 200 mW coal plant, you would need to add about 760 mW of additional solar to charge the batteries [assuming there are no cloudy days or seasonal variations (which is not a reality)]. The batteries would need to be increased in capacity by a multiple of 19 to provide equivalent output to a coal plant. So the real equivalency is $0.34/kWh (and that's with significant subsidies from the federal government paying down the cost of the solar installation by likely 50% or more). Without federal subsidies, this would cost close to $0.70 per kWh.
Found it. I did mis-remember the details slightly. But it's still super-cheap.
The new solar/battery project outside of Los Angeles has a power purchase agreement for just under 2 cents per kWh for the solar part. Combined with the storage, it comes to 3.3 cents per kWh.
The project was eventually approved and is expected to go online next year. I'm out of my mind.
You do realize that amount of storage is a drop in a bucket relative to the size of the plant, correct? You still require gas turbines to create a viable load shape (all that amount of storage would achieve is it would decrease the sharpness of the peak that the utility would have to run up to provide power when the sun sets). To really equate that to a 200 mW coal plant, you would need to add about 760 mW of additional solar to charge the batteries [assuming there are no cloudy days or seasonal variations (which is not a reality)]. The batteries would need to be increased in capacity by a multiple of 19 to provide equivalent output to a coal plant. So the real equivalency is $0.34/kWh (and that's with significant subsidies from the federal government paying down the cost of the solar installation by likely 50% or more). Without federal subsidies, this would cost close to $0.70 per kWh.
Yes, the battery part is all about peak shaving, which is a lot cheaper than power from a gas peaker but doesn't eliminate it completely.
To completely replace fossil fuels, we do indeed need to scale up. As you scale, it gets cheaper and cheaper. Also, as battery and solar technology improve it gets cheaper and cheaper.
Today, the economics of such projects depend on the application. In the future, all solar/storage projects will be the cheapest solution - without subsidies.
We can both throw numbers at each other, but guessing at future costs is always still a guess. I believe that Wright's Law will hold true for solar+storage solutions. If it does, we will look back in 15 years and see that I won the argument.
Oil kills a lot more birds. And domestic cats kill even more than oil.
Plus, windmills are getting better and better at protecting the birds. In addition to other measures, the largest windmills kill hardly any birds at all because the blades move so slowly.
From the same factcheck article:
As we also noted back in 2016, the Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory has found that oil fields could be killing up to 1 million birds a year. But even oil fields pale in comparison to domestic cats, which scientists estimate kill billions of birds a year.
I'm skeptical of that (bolded) claim. The largest windmills tend to have the highest speeds. The tips of these blades are moving deceptively fast - often well over 100 mph.
I'm curious if you can post any source info indicating that the larger windmills are less dangerous to our avian friends (or move more slowly than the smaller windmills).
Oil kills a lot more birds. And domestic cats kill even more than oil.
Plus, windmills are getting better and better at protecting the birds. In addition to other measures, the largest windmills kill hardly any birds at all because the blades move so slowly.
From the same factcheck article:
I'm skeptical of that (bolded) claim. The largest windmills tend to have the highest speeds. The tips of these blades are moving deceptively fast - often well over 100 mph.
I'm curious if you can post any source info indicating that the larger windmills are less dangerous to our avian friends (or move more slowly than the smaller windmills).
Happy to oblige. The larger windmills move slower and kill fewer birds. And like I said, there are other new countermeasures that are decreasing bird deaths as the technology progresses.
I'm skeptical of that (bolded) claim. The largest windmills tend to have the highest speeds. The tips of these blades are moving deceptively fast - often well over 100 mph.
I'm curious if you can post any source info indicating that the larger windmills are less dangerous to our avian friends (or move more slowly than the smaller windmills).
Happy to oblige. The larger windmills move slower and kill fewer birds. And like I said, there are other new countermeasures that are decreasing bird deaths as the technology progresses.
It appears that the speed of the larger windmills is actually not less than for the smaller ones. Most sources say the larger windmills have a higher wing tip speed. It is true that the rotational velocity of the larger windmills is less than for the smaller ones, but that doesn't really seem relevant (at least to me).
Regarding avian deaths, there is one note about a study on possible impacts that suggests that they could be substantially reduced in the Altamont Pass region with larger windmills. The more general point made in the article is that higher towers (and longer blades) are likely to have more of a positive impact offshore but perhaps not so much onshore (due to bird flight patterns). So that seems a bit inconclusive.
The most clear cut benefit (from the avian mortality standpoint) that I can make out from your sources (and others) results from the greater efficiency of the longer blades leading to a lower blade-swept area vs power supplied ratio and hence, a smaller danger zone per MW.
Personally, I think that the whole thing with being concerned about bird deaths is a bit overblown. Not that I like the idea of birds getting killed, but every energy source is going to kill, displace, pollute . . . something. My guess is that the overall negative environmental impacts of wind (and solar) are completely dwarfed by those of fossil fuel based energy.
Personally, I think that the whole thing with being concerned about bird deaths is a bit overblown. Not that I like the idea of birds getting killed, but every energy source is going to kill, displace, pollute . . . something. My guess is that the overall negative environmental impacts of wind (and solar) are completely dwarfed by those of fossil fuel based energy.
Thanks again.
Yeah. It's amazing how conservatives tie themselves in knots to become "environmentally concerned" about the birds, but only when it comes to windmills.
Way down the line I think solar will not only displace fossil fuels, but wind as well. Sunshine is a much more abundant resource than wind.
"...He looks glazed over, barely has whites in his eyes anymore, consistently gets confused, and has periods where he inexplicably ducks out on his duties. For example, Biden has yet to visit Ukraine while his own wife, Jill Biden, has gone. Further, prior to the Russian invasion, it was Kamala Harris, not the president, who went to Europe, failing spectacularly to ease tensions and prevent the crisis.
the incumbent president is a clearly declining, incapable old man who will be almost 82-years-old by the time of the next presidential election."
The Right will win during mid terms and 2024. The Left cheated and even Fat Hurts can't admit that...how pathetic. Same exact situation reversed and every liberal on this site would be claiming the Right cheated day after day. It was beyond obvious. But...the tides are a changing. Biden is almost as bad as Hillary the Con and her husband Bill. Nasty lying liberals pandering minorities for votes then cheating on top of it. Not one of you has an ounce of truth in your bodies, you all post garbage.
The results of the Georgia primary taught me one thing:
Mike Pence is the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2024.
NO chance
Hear me out.
Pence demolished Trump in Georgia. It wasn't even close as both Kemp and Raffensperger won big-time.
If it comes down to Pence, DeSantis, and Trump in the primary, Pence wins that battle easily as DeSantis splits the Trump base. But Pence can also beat Trump head to head.
Pence will appeal more to evangelicals because they know Pence is the real deal.
But the most important thing the Georgia primary showed is that Republican voters didn't like what happened on January 6th. For those voters, Pence came off as the hero of January 6th and Trump came off as the villain. The reason Kemp and Raffensperger won was because Republican voters prefer stability over "stop the steal" chaos.
On January 6th, lawmakers and insiders furiously texted Mark Meadows saying, "This is not helping our cause". They were absolutely right.
Apparently electing a cognitively impaired buffoon who takes orders from double-masked Marxists with pronouns in their email signatures has been disastrous for the economy What a shock
