# Solar plus storage, the new least expensive cost of energy



## Old Rocks

Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;







Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.





Share on mailto 







A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.

 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
*Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM

This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.

"Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.

The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.


----------



## Dick Foster

Old Rocks said:


> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.



A message for the technicality illiterate and ignorant.


----------



## Old Rocks

As the storage technology continues to get cheaper, there is no need to build new nuclear plants, and the old ones can be retired. 

Los Angeles seeks record setting solar power price under 2¢/kWh

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Board of Commissioners was presented with the Eland Solar & Storage Center in Kern County, California, from an LADWP internal team on June 18, 2019.

The team told the commissioners that on July 23, they plan to seek approval of a two phase 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA) priced at 1.997¢/kWh for 400 MWac / 530 MWdc of solar electricity delivered at time of generation plus a adder 1.3¢/kWh for the excess electricity later delivered from a co-located 400 MW / 800 MWh energy storage system.






Per an email from 8minute, the project will be built in two 200 MWac solar phases. There is no price escalator, and the solar portion is a record low price for the United States. It even beats out the current U.S. pricing leader – 8minute’s 2.375¢/kWh from the 300 MW Eagle Shadow Mountain solar project.


----------



## Harry Dresden

here is another....

This Huge New Solar Farm Near Las Vegas Provides Power—Even At Night


----------



## Old Rocks

Add this in, plus storage, and you could easily power Nevada with 100% solar and wind, plus storage.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Old Rocks said:


> Add this in, plus storage, and you could easily power Nevada with 100% solar and wind, plus storage.


one thing southern Nevada has in abundance,sunlight and wind....


----------



## Old Rocks

And that equals energy. Energy that can be exported. All that is needed is a grid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Old Rocks said:


> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.


This was pretty informative and interesting


----------



## Wyatt earp

Old Rocks said:


> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.




Still denying the lefts 40 year war on Coal?



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Old Rocks said:


> Add this in, plus storage, and you could easily power Nevada with 100% solar and wind, plus storage.



Betcha Harry Reids son is in on 3/4ths of the action


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add this in, plus storage, and you could easily power Nevada with 100% solar and wind, plus storage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Betcha Harry Reids son is in on 3/4ths of the action
Click to expand...

Which has to do with what?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add this in, plus storage, and you could easily power Nevada with 100% solar and wind, plus storage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Betcha Harry Reids son is in on 3/4ths of the action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has to do with what?
Click to expand...



uhm everything?


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add this in, plus storage, and you could easily power Nevada with 100% solar and wind, plus storage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Betcha Harry Reids son is in on 3/4ths of the action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has to do with what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> uhm everything?
Click to expand...

No, what it has to do with renewables is that you want to hide your abysmal ignorance and stupidity behind a political smokescreen. Renewables plus storage will change the whole equation on energy. Coops, making homes generation and storage points as well as consumption points, as they are doing in Australia, will create cheaper energy for consumers and industry. There are many interesting things happening in many nations concerning switching or actually starting, with renewables.


----------



## Dekster

Old Rocks said:


> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.



Except electricity in California is about 33% more expensive than the national average.  Your first article indicates that it reduces, not eliminates the need which takes you all the way back to ignoring that the more solar replaces traditional power generation, the more expensive that standby power becomes per kilowatt because the operating costs and profits for those businesses are spread over fewer units.  Free energy is awesome for the people selling it.  So far, it seems to be driving up the costs even more for the people consuming it.  Your pretty picture has a lot of fine print like "under certain circumstances".  Those certain circumstances being non-peak power generation in the southwest US.  Most of the US the numbers are far worse for alternatives, and pretty nonexistent at peaking because they can't generate any more than they do.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.


Lazard? The green energy investment firm is a source? Laughably!

THE TRUE COST OF WIND ELECTRICITY – Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

It is of major importance to understand, financial entities, such as Bloomberg and Lazard, hype wind and solar, because they want to promote their financial management services for high-net-worth investors, who are looking to shelter their incomes from taxation and look green at the same time; a win-win for all.


----------



## Old Rocks

Dekster said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except electricity in California is about 33% more expensive than the national average.  Your first article indicates that it reduces, not eliminates the need which takes you all the way back to ignoring that the more solar replaces traditional power generation, the more expensive that standby power becomes per kilowatt because the operating costs and profits for those businesses are spread over fewer units.  Free energy is awesome for the people selling it.  So far, it seems to be driving up the costs even more for the people consuming it.  Your pretty picture has a lot of fine print like "under certain circumstances".  Those certain circumstances being non-peak power generation in the southwest US.  Most of the US the numbers are far worse for alternatives, and pretty nonexistent at peaking because they can't generate any more than they do.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the grid scale batteries are addressing. Note the cost of the solar plus storage is far lower than stand alone solar or wind, and far, far lower than fossil fuel generation. And the contract has already been inked at that price. So do try to keep up with the technology.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.
> 
> 
> 
> Lazard? The green energy investment firm is a source? Laughably!
> 
> THE TRUE COST OF WIND ELECTRICITY – Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine
> 
> It is of major importance to understand, financial entities, such as Bloomberg and Lazard, hype wind and solar, because they want to promote their financial management services for high-net-worth investors, who are looking to shelter their incomes from taxation and look green at the same time; a win-win for all.
Click to expand...

Dumb ass, they have a contract to deliver at less then $20 a MW. So what you just posted is dumb ass twaddle.


----------



## Dekster

Old Rocks said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except electricity in California is about 33% more expensive than the national average.  Your first article indicates that it reduces, not eliminates the need which takes you all the way back to ignoring that the more solar replaces traditional power generation, the more expensive that standby power becomes per kilowatt because the operating costs and profits for those businesses are spread over fewer units.  Free energy is awesome for the people selling it.  So far, it seems to be driving up the costs even more for the people consuming it.  Your pretty picture has a lot of fine print like "under certain circumstances".  Those certain circumstances being non-peak power generation in the southwest US.  Most of the US the numbers are far worse for alternatives, and pretty nonexistent at peaking because they can't generate any more than they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly what the grid scale batteries are addressing. Note the cost of the solar plus storage is far lower than stand alone solar or wind, and far, far lower than fossil fuel generation. And the contract has already been inked at that price. So do try to keep up with the technology.
Click to expand...


You totally ignored the bulk of my post.  Let me help you.  I used 1814KWthis month at $.1255 per kw.  With the average cost of electricity in California at $.1889/kw, my electric would have cost me $115 more this month.  Where is this free energy and low cost for consumers?   How do people on fixed incomes or poor people even keep electric service in a state whose "cheap" energy prices are outpacing inflation?   Your inked contract is biomass at this point.  Even if realized, it will be storing electric for less that 1% of the state and only in areas with optimal solar  (i.e. the "under certain circumstances"  and w/subsidies) which means you still have to have standby generation using nuclear, gas, or coal.   It barely has enough water as is so you can count hydroelectric out.  Water is a big big source of energy for places that have approached 100% renewables (that and  geothermal).


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb ass, they have a contract to deliver at less then $20 a MW. So what you just posted is dumb ass twaddle.


Great, post that, link to the contract, link to the cost of everything, link to the subsidies, link to all the financial statements, so we can see if Lazard is a liar or not. Just because they write an article leaving out all the key information does not make it truth. 

Give us the missing information.


----------



## elektra

Kern County, the land that was once farmland, the land where it has become too expensive to pump water to. That land will become Solar Farms? No more food for the  people, we will simply turn farm land into Solar Farms. At that, we will lower the tax on the land, because Solar Farms require square miles. We will lower the property tax for this democrat chosen industry so that they can make profits. 

What happened to the rich paying their fair share?


----------



## Manonthestreet

These sales bring the cost of electricity from NET Power's plant down to 1.9¢ per kilowatt hour, Goff said, compared to 4.2¢ for a traditional combined cycle natural gas plant, making this the cheapest source of electricity, and with no carbon emissions.

If the plant in La Porte performs as expected, and as it has so far, this is a real game changer for natural gas. Since the United States is sitting on more natural gas than any country in the world, and it’s getting cheaper to get it out of the ground, this is no small game to change. Net Zero Natural Gas Plant -- The Game Changer
And its footprint is smaller,,,,,,compared to the sq miles of panels needed to equal it


----------



## elektra

Solar plus Storage? 

_*The storage does not exist! There is no technology that exists to store Renewable energy! Period! Nothing!*_


----------



## Synthaholic

We Liberals were always right, while the wingnuts screamed "Solyndra!!!1!!


----------



## elektra

You know why they want storage, not because they produce so much energy that it needs to be stored but so that they can use the storage to clean up the dirty electricity. You can not have such a huge, varying, intermitten source of power on the grid. It destroys the equipment and it is kind of impossible to sell.


----------



## Dekster

elektra said:


> You know why they want storage, not because they produce so much energy that it needs to be stored but so that they can use the storage to clean up the dirty electricity. You can not have such a huge, varying, intermitten source of power on the grid. It destroys the equipment and it is kind of impossible to sell.



No worries.  In 15 years the keyboard nutz will be saying that solar and wind were conspiracies by republicans and big business to get something for nothing.

Low density power generation is a bad bad bad idea on a commercial scale.  It will absolutely create far more pollution than it will prevent.  

Wait and see.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Solar plus Storage?
> 
> _*The storage does not exist! There is no technology that exists to store Renewable energy! Period! Nothing!*_


You really are such a stupid little lady. Not only exists, in use already;

Twenty Month Payback for Tesla 100-MW Utility Scale Battery Storage System – NextBigFuture.com


----------



## Old Rocks

Dekster said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why they want storage, not because they produce so much energy that it needs to be stored but so that they can use the storage to clean up the dirty electricity. You can not have such a huge, varying, intermitten source of power on the grid. It destroys the equipment and it is kind of impossible to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries.  In 15 years the keyboard nutz will be saying that solar and wind were conspiracies by republicans and big business to get something for nothing.
> 
> Low density power generation is a bad bad bad idea on a commercial scale.  It will absolutely create far more pollution than it will prevent.
> 
> Wait and see.
Click to expand...

Another very stupid individual. Wind accounted for nearly 4% of total electrical production globally in 2017, and is still increasing rapidly as we post.

Wind


----------



## Old Rocks

And solar is now producing 2% of the electricity, globally. And growing at an exponential rate;

Solar


----------



## Dekster

Old Rocks said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why they want storage, not because they produce so much energy that it needs to be stored but so that they can use the storage to clean up the dirty electricity. You can not have such a huge, varying, intermitten source of power on the grid. It destroys the equipment and it is kind of impossible to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries.  In 15 years the keyboard nutz will be saying that solar and wind were conspiracies by republicans and big business to get something for nothing.
> 
> Low density power generation is a bad bad bad idea on a commercial scale.  It will absolutely create far more pollution than it will prevent.
> 
> Wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another very stupid individual. Wind accounted for nearly 4% of total electrical production globally in 2017, and is still increasing rapidly as we post.
> 
> Wind
Click to expand...


Wait and see....


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why they want storage, not because they produce so much energy that it needs to be stored but so that they can use the storage to clean up the dirty electricity. You can not have such a huge, varying, intermitten source of power on the grid. It destroys the equipment and it is kind of impossible to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries.  In 15 years the keyboard nutz will be saying that solar and wind were conspiracies by republicans and big business to get something for nothing.
> 
> Low density power generation is a bad bad bad idea on a commercial scale.  It will absolutely create far more pollution than it will prevent.
> 
> Wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another very stupid individual. Wind accounted for nearly 4% of total electrical production globally in 2017, and is still increasing rapidly as we post.
> 
> Wind
Click to expand...

Installed capacity is much different than electricity delivered to market. With a capacity factor of 20% you are looking at less than 1%. Add transmission line distance and it drops to less than .5%. 

$100 trillion more is what it will cost. A cost that rises exponentially.


----------



## Dekster

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why they want storage, not because they produce so much energy that it needs to be stored but so that they can use the storage to clean up the dirty electricity. You can not have such a huge, varying, intermitten source of power on the grid. It destroys the equipment and it is kind of impossible to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries.  In 15 years the keyboard nutz will be saying that solar and wind were conspiracies by republicans and big business to get something for nothing.
> 
> Low density power generation is a bad bad bad idea on a commercial scale.  It will absolutely create far more pollution than it will prevent.
> 
> Wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another very stupid individual. Wind accounted for nearly 4% of total electrical production globally in 2017, and is still increasing rapidly as we post.
> 
> Wind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Installed capacity is much different than electricity delivered to market. With a capacity factor of 20% you are looking at less than 1%. Add transmission line distance and it drops to less than .5%.
> 
> $100 trillion more is what it will cost. A cost that rises exponentially.
Click to expand...


Wind is collapsing in Germany and in the US on-shore wind still requires massive government intervention as there is no federal right of eminent domain for electric transmission lines


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar plus Storage?
> 
> _*The storage does not exist! There is no technology that exists to store Renewable energy! Period! Nothing!*_
> 
> 
> 
> You really are such a stupid little lady. Not only exists, in use already;
> 
> Twenty Month Payback for Tesla 100-MW Utility Scale Battery Storage System – NextBigFuture.com
Click to expand...

100 mw? That is enough electricity for about 10 seconds of power. Tesla is going bankrupt last time I checked. Another Solyndra.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Old Rocks said:


> Here is what the present cost of energy is according to lazard;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that thin film utility beats everything but wind. Nuclear, at best, is over 4 times as expensive. However, a new solar plus storage project in California is coming in at less than $20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on mailto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large-scale solar farm in Southern California.
> 
> 8MINUTE SOLAR ENERGY
> *Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid*
> By Robert F. ServiceJul. 11, 2019 , 1:40 PM
> 
> This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.
> 
> "Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.
> 
> The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators.


/—-/ Get a load of the solar panel scam. Libtards bought into it hook line and sinker. Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha U.K. Homeowners Discover Solar Panels Don’t Work


----------

