Tesla Megapack

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Whether you or I start listening is irrelevant. The first post is about a battery to replace a peaker with 10x less complexity and moving parts and saving them 100,000,000$. Simple business decision.

Who ever said renewables had to be zero emission? If you can double the life of fossil fuel use by the supplemental use of alternate energy sources, that is a win. There is far to much emphasis on the misguided myth "renewable" energy needs to be 100% renewable and perfect. Start, it will improve because it literally is at the Model T stage and only has 1 way to go.

The all or nothing approach is a red herring.

I agree, and anyone capable of math, and anyone who still thinks the laws of physics can't be rewritten to suit their agenda also agrees, but the politicians and radical greens do not fall into that category. I posted the link about California earlier, much of Europe is legislating the same thing. The green new deal promises to eliminate the US carbon footprint by 2030 (last I checked).
The fact that the technology doesn't exist, and that the resources to scale up the existing technology exceed the known reserves doesn't seem to concern them.

If their stated goal was to extend our precious non renewable energy sources for as long as possible, I would acknowledge that you are right. Instead the mantra is entirely about CO2, zero carbon, decarbonizing etc. All the while ignoring that the grossly inefficient path they are on is increasing the CO2 output in most places.

[tweety]

I agree, and anyone capable of math, and anyone who still thinks the laws of physics can't be rewritten to suit their agenda also agrees, but the politicians and radical greens do not fall into that category. I posted the link about California earlier, much of Europe is legislating the same thing. The green new deal promises to eliminate the US carbon footprint by 2030 (last I checked).
The fact that the technology doesn't exist, and that the resources to scale up the existing technology exceed the known reserves doesn't seem to concern them.

If their stated goal was to extend our precious non renewable energy sources for as long as possible, I would acknowledge that you are right. Instead the mantra is entirely about CO2, zero carbon, decarbonizing etc. All the while ignoring that the grossly inefficient path they are on is increasing the CO2 output in most places.

Maybe what you hear and what is happening is 2 different things. A good example is what Jazz hears.

Atco has the Fort Chip solar/battery installation for that community completely of the grid. Do you think if it didn't make $$ sense to add solar/storage to the diesel generators that they would do it anyway? Imagine that, a renewable solution working with an existing fossil fuel diesel generator system. Do you see a trend yet? Did you think they have to rip out the diesel gensets and go fully solar in order to use solar?

This is not that complicated - like everything.

Benefits:

Reduces diesel use by 800,000 L annually
Reduces CO2 emissions by 2,145 tonnes each year
Reduces number of diesel trucks on winter roads by 25 annually
25% renewable electricity
Does not increase community electricity rates
Improves air quality, reduces noise, less environmental risk
Enables community ownership and self-sustaining economic development through job creation, investment in infrastructure and revenue from the sale of clean energy

I am sure you can dream up all sorts of reasons why this is a bad installation, so start listing them.

[Guest]

The battery has a total generation capacity of 100 megawatts, and 129 megawatt-hours of energy storage. This has been decribed as “capable of powering 50,000 homes”, providing 1 hour and 18 minutes of storage.

god damn details again , eh tweety?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Maybe what you hear and what is happening is 2 different things. A good example is what Jazz hears.

Atco has the Fort Chip solar/battery installation for that community completely of the grid. Do you think if it didn't make $$ sense to add solar/storage to the diesel generators that they would do it anyway? Imagine that, a renewable solution working with an existing fossil fuel diesel generator system. Do you see a trend yet? Did you think they have to rip out the diesel gensets and go fully solar in order to use solar?

This is not that complicated - like everything.

Benefits:

Reduces diesel use by 800,000 L annually
Reduces CO2 emissions by 2,145 tonnes each year
Reduces number of diesel trucks on winter roads by 25 annually
25% renewable electricity
Does not increase community electricity rates
Improves air quality, reduces noise, less environmental risk
Enables community ownership and self-sustaining economic development through job creation, investment in infrastructure and revenue from the sale of clean energy

I am sure you can dream up all sorts of reasons why this is a bad installation, so start listing them.

You are doing a Chuckchuck distraction. You didn't respond to any of what I posted.

As for Fort Chip, you are comparing an off grid community relying on diesel fuel trucked in across ice roads, to a state grid connected to the rest of the country, with existing natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydro generation. Compared to the prohibitive cost of constructing powerlines for 100's of km to a small remote community, of course local generation makes sense. Diesel generators are the ultimate peaker plant, easily ramped up and down, not needing to be on spinning stand by, adding solar and batteries to this system makes economic and ecological sense in this scenario, it really does result in a reduction in the fossil fuel usage, unlike stand alone solar or wind backed by spinning reserves elsewhere. Many neighbors around here do the same, it costs so much for new power installations, that they choose to go off grid instead.

In this example, this is a step forward in reliability, cost, ad results in a smaller environmental footprint etc. They are going from stone age to early industrial era. California went from a first class, first world, cheap, reliable system, to expensive unreliable approaching 3rd world status system, then installed a big battery to make the most expensive and unreliable electricity in the nation, not quite as expensive and unreliable. None of which would have been necessary if they hadn't closed many of their existing generation plants for no reason.


But quit playing Chucks games, with labelling and putting words in my mouth that I am against something. I am not an ideologue, or a Chuck I can judge a technology on its merits, not based on my emotions. Haven't I communicated that in this thread enough times already, in my response to Jazz above for example?

[tweety]

You are doing a Chuckchuck distraction. You didn't respond to any of what I posted.

As for Fort Chip, you are comparing an off grid community relying on diesel fuel trucked in across ice roads, to a state grid connected to the rest of the country, with existing natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydro generation. Compared to the prohibitive cost of constructing powerlines for 100's of km to a small remote community, of course local generation makes sense. Diesel generators are the ultimate peaker plant, easily ramped up and down, not needing to be on spinning stand by, adding solar and batteries to this system makes economic and ecological sense in this scenario, it really does result in a reduction in the fossil fuel usage, unlike stand alone solar or wind backed by spinning reserves elsewhere. Many neighbors around here do the same, it costs so much for new power installations, that they choose to go off grid instead.

In this example, this is a step forward in reliability, cost, ad results in a smaller environmental footprint etc. They are going from stone age to early industrial era. California went from a first class, first world, cheap, reliable system, to expensive unreliable approaching 3rd world status system, then installed a big battery to make the most expensive and unreliable electricity in the nation, not quite as expensive and unreliable. None of which would have been necessary if they hadn't closed many of their existing generation plants for no reason.


But quit playing Chucks games, with labelling and putting words in my mouth that I am against something. I am not an ideologue, or a Chuck I can judge a technology on its merits, not based on my emotions. Haven't I communicated that in this thread enough times already, in my response to Jazz above for example?

So no disadvantages then?

[tweety]

god damn details again , eh tweety?

Grid support does not mean it needs to fully power 50,000 homes. Supplemental, during peak, maybe look up the word.

You just can't, repeat can't get past the all or nothing approach.

god dam details again eh caseih

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So no disadvantages then?

Maybe just the $3.3 million in taxpayer grants. But I can think of much worse ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Grid support does not mean it needs to fully power 50,000 homes. Supplemental, during peak, maybe look up the word.

You just can't, repeat can't get past the all or nothing approach.

god dam details again eh caseih

Please tell the politicians that. Don't shoot the messenger. Caseih is just repeating what the ignorant politicians keep claiming. Did you read my post above, can you respond?

[jazz]

Maybe just the $3.3 million in taxpayer grants. But I can think of much worse ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

How about the integration of renewable tech into existing ff systems that have paid their sunk costs off years earlier.

Without those diesel peakers having paid off all of that infrastructure there would be no renewables added to a system like that. Just a round about subsidy.

Can it work, sure, but dont crow about the renewables, they arent paying themselves off in a standalone application. They never could.

[chuckChuck]

So none of you have answered the question why is SaskPower planning on 50% renewables by 2030 if they don't work? LOL

Not only can Saskpower engineers and planners do math they also have the knowledge of their grid system costs, generation costs, and renewable installation costs in the real world.

But A5 doesn't want to argue with Saskpower or answer why Saskpower is moving forward with renewables because Saskpower wont be distracted by his feeble attempts to tell us that renewables don't work and that they can't be integrated into the existing generation and distribution system.