Tesla Megapack

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, that is the trouble with broad sweeping generalizations.
They are just so easy to disprove.
Only need one example to prove me wrong.
You have been trying for years without success.
As I always tell my kids, never say never, or always, or can't, someone will always come along and prove you wrong. ( see what I did there?)
I will gladly be proven wrong on this one, I am young, I have kids, hopefully grandkids, I want a future where we can continue to improve our standards of living, cheap reliable, plentiful energy is the only way that will happen. Right now the trend is going the opposite direction for the first time since the industrial revolution. Is this just a side track and we will get back on the main road, or is this what we have to look forward to, peak living standards, and peak affordable energy?

[tweety]

So a battery storage for peaking purposes will last 2 hours. I believe Mallee pointed this out earlier. So please explain Chuck2 and Tweety how this will work in Alberta in the winter. As I pointed out last winter during a week long period of -30 the windmills were generating at less than 3% of there capacity. Solar in February in Alberta only produces for a few hours everyday so how does this battery that only lasts for 2 hours ever get charged during these proven periods of a cold still air mass. So of course you must then have some sort of dependable available generation like natural gas or coal. So the environmental phucknuts would have us believe the building solar backed up by wind backed up by battery storage backed up by natural gas(building 4 generation systems) to produce the same kilowatt of energy is better for the environment!!! Think of how much more land is wasted, how many more power lines are required. I’m not a denier, I am a believer in common phucking sense!!!!

And yet the installations do make sense where carefully engineered. Perhaps the problem is your understanding.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And yet the installations do make sense where carefully engineered. Perhaps the problem is your understanding.

Can you provide a grid scale example?

[chuckChuck]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/#23ef6667e8ce https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/#23ef6667e8ce

Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever
Dominic Dudley

The cost of renewable energy has tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power plants, according to new data released today.

Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of renewable energy, at an average of $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh), but the average cost of developing new power plants based on onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass or geothermal energy is now usually below $0.10/kWh. Not far behind that is offshore wind, which costs close to $0.13/kWh.

These figures are global averages and it is worth noting that the cost of individual projects can vary hugely – the cost of producing electricity from a biomass energy plant, for example, can range from as low as $0.05/kWh to a high of almost $0.25/kWh.

However, all these fuel types are now able to compete with the cost of developing new power plants based on fossil fuels such as oil and gas, which typically range from $0.05/kWh to over $0.15/kWh.

These figures are contained in the latest Renewable Power Generation Costs report, released today by the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an inter-governmental body with around 160 members.

The most attractive renewable energy sources, from a cost perspective, are onshore wind and solar PV. IRENA says onshore wind costs of $0.03-0.04/kWh are now possible in places with good natural resources and the right regulatory and institutional frameworks.

It also points out that new solar PV projects in countries such as Chile, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have seen a levelized cost of electricity of as low as $0.03/kWh – helped by the fact that governments have been holding competitive bidding processes when launching contracts to develop new power plants.

All this suggests IRENA was on the right track when it predicted early last year that renewable energy should be consistently cheaper than traditional fossil fuels by 2020.

Even the most expensive renewable energy technology, concentrated solar power (CSP), is competitive against fossil fuels in some circumstances. The cost of developing a CSP plant ranges from around $0.10/kWh to $0.27/kWh, with an average price of around $0.18/kWh.

The ability of renewable energy to compete effectively against the older fossil fuel technologies is coming as a result of consistent falls in the cost of new plants. Last year alone, the global weighted-average cost of electricity from bioenergy fell by 14%, while solar PV and onshore wind costs dropped by 13% and hydropower fell by 11%. The sharpest fall came in the cost of CSP plants, which dropped by 26%. The cost of geothermal and offshore wind appeared to plateau though, with costs edging down by just 1%.

IRENA says these trends are likely to continue over the next decade, particularly for solar and wind power technologies. According to the organisation's database, over 75% of the onshore wind and 80% of the solar PV capacity due to be commissioned next year will produce power at lower prices than the cheapest new coal, oil or natural gas options. “Crucially, they are set to do so without financial assistance,” it noted.

Francesco La Camera, director general of IRENA, has suggested the falling cost of renewable energy means it now ought to play a central role in the wider efforts to tackle climate change.

"Renewable power is the backbone of any development that aims to be sustainable", he said, in a statement issued to announce the publication of the new report. "We must do everything we can to accelerate renewables if we are to meet the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement.”

There are also geopolitical implications for the growing popularity of renewable energy, with China likely to take a leading role in this area, potentially at the expense of traditional oil and gas producers such as the Middle East states.

[chuckChuck]

There you go A5. Here's another Forbes article

Renewable Energy Prices Hit Record Lows: How Can Utilities Benefit From Unstoppable Solar And Wind?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/01/21/renewable-energy-prices-hit-record-lows-how-can-utilities-benefit-from-unstoppable-solar-and-wind/#38260d4b2c84

"Lazard’s most recent Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis shows U.S. renewable energy prices continued falling fast in 2019, with wind and solar hitting new lows, after renewables fell below the cost of coal in 2018. LCOE measures the total cost of building and operating a facility over its lifetime, and shows renewables beating fossil fuels by ever-larger margins – even without subsidies – with that trend forecast to continue for decades to come."

"Over the last decade, wind energy prices have fallen 70% and solar photovoltaics have fallen 89% on average, according to Lazard's 2019 report. Utility-scale renewable energy prices are now significantly below those for coal and gas generation, and they're less than half the cost of nuclear. The latest numbers again confirm that building new clean energy generation is cheaper than running existing coal plants."

"In Lazard's LCOE analysis, unsubsidized wind power and utility-scale solar come in at lower price ranges than any other analyzed resource including gas, coal, and nuclear. Unsubsidized wind ranges from $28–$54 per megawatt hour (MWh), and unsubsidized utility-scale solar ranges from $32–$42/MWh. Factoring in subsidies, wind prices plunge to $11–$45/MWh and utility-scale solar prices stay relatively stable at $31–$40/MWh."

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, that is the trouble with broad sweeping generalizations.
They are just so easy to disprove.
Only need one example to prove me wrong.
You have been trying for years without success.
As I always tell my kids, never say never, or always, or can't, someone will always come along and prove you wrong. ( see what I did there?)
I will gladly be proven wrong on this one, I am young, I have kids, hopefully grandkids, I want a future where we can continue to improve our standards of living, cheap reliable, plentiful energy is the only way that will happen. Right now the trend is going the opposite direction for the first time since the industrial revolution. Is this just a side track and we will get back on the main road, or is this what we have to look forward to, peak living standards, and peak affordable energy?

If rising electricity costs are your greatest concern did you forget that generation source is only a portion of the cost of electricity? Delivering electricity and maintaining the grid also is a cost and one that is rising with inflation.

In Saskatchewan with very little renewable electricity untill lately the cost of electricity to farm customers has been rising on average about 3% per year. What's your explanation for rising costs with very little renewable electricity?

The Forbes articles clearly state that renewables are in many cases the cheapest form of new generation and that these costs are falling dramatically. Remember that costs are very site specific, project and country specific.

Since you are the one who made the claim first, that renewables drive up the cost of electricity "everywhere" you should be the one to prove your claim. Give us the everywhere numbers. LOL

If you can't do that, show us the utility sized scale cost of electricity in 3 jusrisdictions with no renewables and with renewables. Show us the generation costs, the distribution costs, and administration costs under each scenario.

Good luck "everywhere man"

[Guest]

But in your fake news article from Bloomberg, with all the photoshopped pictures of blades, they also falsely claim that the blades lasted for an entire decade before needing to be landfilled:

and

I think Chuck should stick with verified news sources such as Facebook or Twitter.

Of course, that in itself shouldn't be reason not to pursue alternative energy. Nuclear was issues with waste, oil and gas have components with short lifespans due to corrosion and wear. But the difference being that during their lifespan, they produced something useful, reliable and economical that powered modern civilization, all by themselves.

Circle jerk troll you're so out of touch with reality

https://reneweconomy-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/reneweconomy.com.au/french-consortium-developing-first-completely-recyclable-wind-turbine-blades-31940/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh =16011247588000&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google. com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2F reneweconomy.com.au%2Ffrench-consortium-developing-first-completely-recyclable-wind-turbine-blades-31940%2F

[Hamloc]

And yet the installations do make sense where carefully engineered. Perhaps the problem is your understanding.

My understanding is very simple tweety when it is -30 and it is dark and there is no wind because we are in a very still arctic air mass we need a way to generate dependable electricity or we freeze to death. I believe your ideology clouds your understanding and your inability to explain to me how using 4 different generation systems to generate the same kwh of electricity makes more sense and is better for the environment than using just 1 like nuclear or natural gas!!!!

You talk about careful engineering, Brooks solar farm in the month of February 2019, it snowed basically every day, that whole month according to the AESO supply and demand page it produced zero electricity. So yup you can put solar panels in the desert in California and they will work well, in Alberta not so much.

[chuckChuck]

My understanding is very simple tweety when it is -30 and it is dark and there is no wind because we are in a very still arctic air mass we need a way to generate dependable electricity or we freeze to death. I believe your ideology clouds your understanding and your inability to explain to me how using 4 different generation systems to generate the same kwh of electricity makes more sense and is better for the environment than using just 1 like nuclear or natural gas!!!!

You talk about careful engineering, Brooks solar farm in the month of February 2019, it snowed basically every day, that whole month according to the AESO supply and demand page it produced zero electricity. So yup you can put solar panels in the desert in California and they will work well, in Alberta not so much.

I can clean my 25 kw array of dry snow in about 15 minutes. It’s good exercise on a cold winters day! If it is a wet heavy snow, It will take more time. Snow removal is just another job created! Good for the economy! LOL

[furrowtickler]

I can clean my 25 kw array of dry snow in about 15 minutes. It’s good exercise on a cold winters day! If it is a wet heavy snow, It will take more time. Snow removal is just another job created! Good for the economy! LOL

Good for you, now can you show the efficiency of solar panels average year around for areas in the northern hemisphere and not Australia?
Be interesting to see the difference actually
I have asked several times
This is an area your are keen on I admit , it’s obviously not farming from the 100’s of irrelevant posts here on an Ag marketing thread