South Australia Hits 33% Renewal Energy Target 6 Years Early 169
ferrisoxide.com writes: South Australia has hit its target of 33% renewable energy by 2020, 6 years earlier than expected, delivering clean power to the state through investment in wind, solar and geothermal energy — mothballing one coal-fired power station in the process. Not content to rest on their laurels, the SA government has now announced a new "stretch" target of 50% by 2025. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill declared that despite initial upfront costs to renewable energy generators such as wind farms, the 50 per cent target will not add one extra dollar to energy prices.
Works particularly well in SA/Victoria (Score:5, Interesting)
The nice thing about wind plus solar in southern Australia is that peak electricity usage is on hot days in the summer. These are often windy as well as sunny.
That said, this 33% is for South Australia (pop ~ 1.3 mil) which has a much smaller demand than Victoria (pop ~ 6 mil) with well connected grids. So excess power from SA can be readily exported to Victoria.
As renewable engery use in Victoria increases it will likely be harder to shift excess production. The Victoria/SA market may well face the problem Germany has when wholesale electricty prices drop down to zero. We really need large scale grid storage to get a global SA/Vic production up about 30% from renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, South Aussies!
I'd hate that this importation would be an excuse for Napthine (or whoever's runing the place post November) to sit on their hands and do nothing. The Coalition government in Victoria slashed climate action in response to Gillard's carbon tax at the federal level.
I would hope both sides launch policies during the state election campaign as a response to Abbott and Palmer repealing the legislation, since Direct Action is dead.
Re:Works particularly well in SA/Victoria (Score:5, Interesting)
Overall, they have been able to use primarily wind to achieve what they have. While they've spent a lot on solar as well, its still a small and somewhat irrelevant piece of the pie. It appears the Aussies have figured out that emphasis on wind makes much more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Large scale grid storage doesn't exist in a cheap and efficient manner. That's one of the core problems with wind and solar. It's great for shaving off peak demand but after a certain point it will be investments into useless overcapacity(it's also a great way to make renewables competitive with grid prices though as grid inefficiency costs are offloaded to end users)
Re:Works particularly well in SA/Victoria (Score:5, Informative)
Large scale grid storage doesn't exist in a cheap and efficient manner.
That's what hydro dams are for. They already use them as "batteries" for coal plants because the demand curve of a city is not flat like the output curve of a coal plant. The buffer provided by the dam doesn't stop working just because you swap out the coal plant for a solar/wind farm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If there is one thing Australia is not short of it's space. What they need is an inland sea for pumped storage.
desalinization (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stored solar thermal exists, it might not be as cheap as coal without coals externalities included in the retail price, but it's doable and switching over baseloads to it would cost at most a few tenths of a percent of GDP for developed nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind, on land is generally powered by the sun - winds pick up during the day and die at night (generally). Solar is the same.
And you know what? Peak power consumption is during the day as well, right when the renew
Re: (Score:3)
Wind, on land is generally powered by the sun - winds pick up during the day and die at night (generally). Solar is the same.
That is nonsense. Or does the earth stop rotating at night?
And please of you want to discuss about power an renewables get your "wording" straight. ... right when most power is consumed by the grid. ... but yes, we get what you mean.
The grid does not "consume" power, it transports power
Nevertheless half of your post is wrong or misleading.
All those air conditioners have to run during
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Works particularly well in SA/Victoria (Score:4, Informative)
Go tell the managers of Hydro Aluminium that the renewable induced grid instabilities that costs them thousands of euros in equipment damage and then some more from lost work is great for their industry.
http://www.spiegel.de/internat... [spiegel.de]
Re: (Score:3)
Those operations are already completely failure-prone, because they can't handle the least outage in any case. Semiconductor production facilities have power conditioning equipment which covers the entire plant because it's expensive when power fails, or has any other kind of problem. Sounds like these guys need the same thing.
Re:Works particularly well in SA/Victoria (Score:4, Interesting)
Those operations are already completely failure-prone, because they can't handle the least outage in any case. Semiconductor production facilities have power conditioning equipment which covers the entire plant because it's expensive when power fails, or has any other kind of problem. Sounds like these guys need the same thing.
Per TFA, the have added power supplies to maintain voltage when grid voltage dips. This, however, raises two issues with wind and or solar :
1. It's an added hidden cost of power. Sure, the electricity prices may not go up but the cost of power doesn't to customers Ast THFA pointed outré, sat some point companies look to other locations without such problems.
2. Right now, consumers and most businesses aren't seeing a problem because most appliances can handle short voltage drops. However, as the percentage of those sources increase we could see dips that damage appliances or cause consumer or business issues. Expecting them to buy power conditioning equipment isn't a solution that most politicians probably want to suggest, so the producers and or grid companies will have to solve the problem,; whereupon the costs of power will go up as it reflects the actual costs of delivering clean power.
None of these problems are unsolvable but tend to get ignored in the debate. The regulator in Germany already punted the issue by planning "to discuss the problem with experts and associations in detail" which translated to non-politik sprache means "ignore the problem by studying it." Maybe what's needed is for voting machines to experience problems, that cost someone an election, later traced to a power fluctuation. That sort of cost gets a lot of attention from politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Per TFA, the have added power supplies to maintain voltage when grid voltage dips
Right. But this kind of event happened before solar and wind electrical generation became popular. It simply happened less frequently.
Ultimately, power companies have plans to add more storage capacity to smooth out the dips, but they're having to wait for batteries to become available as they are reclaimed from electric vehicles. Even if they wanted to buy the batteries new, they couldn't afford to, because EV builders will pay more. There will be a period of adjustment. But this equipment pays dividends i
Re: (Score:2)
Per TFA, the have added power supplies to maintain voltage when grid voltage dips
Right. But this kind of event happened before solar and wind electrical generation became popular. It simply happened less frequently.
True, but it appears to not have been an issue since companies did not take steps to deal with it or not at least to the extent of adding their own power backup.
Ultimately, power companies have plans to add more storage capacity to smooth out the dips, but they're having to wait for batteries to become available as they are reclaimed from electric vehicles. Even if they wanted to buy the batteries new, they couldn't afford to, because EV builders will pay more. There will be a period of adjustment. But this equipment pays dividends in other ways, as well. The fact that they're adding it only now doesn't mean that the entire cost is eaten by compensating for new faults; they also get the benefit of compensating for the existing faults.
Not really. Whatever preventative measures they took prior to these could be attributed to existing faults. Since these were taken as a result of new issues they should be attributed to those causes. That's like saying if someone buys a reader detector to that detects a new technology as well as the old ones it's costs should be attributed to police
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that article is bogus.
The voltage of a grid can not go down for a "millisecond".
I don't know what the actual reason was that the plant had a malfunction, but "breaking" is most certainly caused by a malfunction in the plant itself.
E.g. if there was indeed a drop in voltage, some computer ran into a "wrong decision" and shut down a "vital part" of the plant while the rest of the plant kept going on.
Why can't there be a "drop" in voltage as short as a millisecond is easy to explain: in Europe we
Re:Works particularly well in SA/Victoria (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they could use the excess to desalinate and pump more water inland.. Just a thought..
We have one in upstate SC connected to the nuke (Score:2)
The Oconee Nuclear station built a pumped storage facility nearby so that the nuke could be leveled, with excess power generation used to pump and peak load met by the hydro station.
The Bad Creek Hydroelectric Station is a 1,065-megawatt pumped-storage facility located in Oconee County, eight miles north of Salem, S.C. The four-unit station began generating electricity in 1991, and is the largest hydroelectric station on the Duke Energy system. It is named for the two streams, Bad Creek and West Bad Creek,
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about wind plus solar in southern Australia is that peak electricity usage is on hot days in the summer.
Right, but that's true for basically everyone but China, and it's not true for them because it hasn't been so long that you were actually legally able to obtain air conditioning. They'd like to have the same pattern, because they'd like to modernize their society to look just like everyone else's. And they seem to be doing that, in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has the same pattern for solar, besides not having air conditioning. ... how to call it? Daylight! So regardless "how" or "what" is consuming power, solar power production always matches daily consumption.
I know no private home in Germany (yes, they exist) where the inhabitants have air conditioning.
Hint: the daily activity of humans is bound to, well
E.g. coffee machines rarely run at night, fridges use less power as they are not opened and the environment is "cooler", washing machines and dishwash
Re: (Score:2)
So regardless "how" or "what" is consuming power, solar power production always matches daily consumption.
Not in the winter, when electric heat is used. And that's quite common in cities, where most people live, because gas is considered unsafe there.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be in your place of the world. In germany using electricity for heating is very uncommon.
On the other hand, heat pumps use electricity to produce 'heat', pretty efficient btw.
I was half wrong, the shape of the curve of solar power production matches the curve of demand ... obviously it does not match the exact need (certainly not as long as only a small percentage of power is produced by solar plants)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its funny - being "too spread out" is often used as a reason why renewable energy wouldn't work too.
Renewable energy is one of those areas where we could make significant progress a lot faster if half the crowd would stop sitting around coming up with reasons why it would "never work" (we've long since passed many of the impossible thresholds) and start helping to solve the problem.
WTF is wrong with wanting a clean, perpetual (in human terms) source of power FFS?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing but people get in the way of more fission power plants. Hell would love small scale fission a simple RTG buried under my house would be lovely.
costs (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks to our privatized system we generally pay up to 30 cents per kwh. 50 per cent of that goes to network charges and a significant amount towards wholesale and retail profits.
Wind has been bringing down the wholesale price significantly - to the point that the coal industry has seriously kicked their political machines into gear to get renewables stomped on.
Re:costs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:costs (Score:5, Interesting)
The price fluctuates with rain and season, but $.12 is about as high as it gets. I've seen as low as $.05
Most of the electricity comes from hydro plants (98.5% [wikipedia.org]) and I think other renewables will have similar cost structure. High investment, very low marginal cost pr kwh.
In Hawaii for instance I'd guess you could build some geothermal plants like in Iceland [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, in the night we often turn off the hydro plants and import coal power from Germany or whatever since they cannot just turn off the plants overnight. And then we sell hydro power back in the day so the export is slightly higher than the imports.
We often laugh about the fact that while we have a lot of electric cars, they are all coal powered.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost for wind and solar is coming down a little as technology improves, but it is still very high compared to gas or coal fired plants.
Although it gets even cheaper by comparison when you add in the future cleanup costs that gas and coal leave for our descendants to pay - not to mention things like the fact that we're literally destroying mountains to keep up with the demand.
Re: (Score:2)
> Hydro and geothermal are cheap compared to other renewables in terms of cost per kWh.
Hydro yes, geo is generally not competitive, which is why it remains relatively rare.
> The cost for wind and solar is coming down a little as technology improves, but it is still very
> high compared to gas or coal fired plants
This is simply not true. Wind generation in the US currently goes in for about 5 to 6 cents/kWh, which is *very* competitive with coal even without carbon capture pricing. PV is more expensi
Re: (Score:2)
The price fluctuates with rain and season, but $.12 is about as high as it gets. I've seen as low as $.05
You got me curious, so I checked. Here in Oklahoma, my rates(PDF) are $0.0564, although it can go as high as $0.097 under extreme circumstances. This is also a private company too, which means they are profiting at this rate.
One thing to note is that Oklahoma is an energy-rich state. We have coal, oil, natural gas, rivers, lots of sun, lots of wind, pretty much every energy resource you can imagine short of Uranium. Surprisingly (at least to me), we have some of the cleanest power in USA too though. My no
Re: (Score:2)
"This is also a private company too, which means they are profiting at this rate."
maybe, maybe not. Utilities are an odd beast.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Geothermal in Hawaii is that all of the good sources are on the big island "Hawaii" while the island of Oahu has roughly 5 times the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, hydro is the only renewable with a levelized (i.e. including construction) generation cost low enough to compete with coal. Here's the historical US D [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said he'd have to cancel the insurance to *pay* for the energy. I do believe you misunderstood him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As uninhabitable as Bangladesh, Afrika, Mongolia, Australia ... sorry, to lazy to count all the dozens of countries that are inhabited since millennia ...
I guess Florida had millions of indian inhabitants before they got wiped out by plagues ...
Re: (Score:2)
And one of the reports I read is that the rise in costs have convinced many to adopt solar PV stations at home. It's quite interesting seeing the increased generation requirements offset by people not sucking from the grid. That makes it far easier to put in peaking systems and renewables rather than continuous base load.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like California as well. Our electricity rates are sky high unless you're lucky enough to have municipal power. PG&E and our corrupt PUC rape us in terms of price gouging and poor maintenance.
Yay SA! (Score:3)
I live here, it's awesome =)
Seriously though, South Australia, while having a reputation for being a "backward" state, is actually one of (if not the) most liberal, progressive states in Australia. Adelaide has a cool startup culture too!
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Anyone who thinks SA is backward should go and live in Queensland for a couple of years - then they'll know what "backward" means. You know what they say: when you cross the border from New South Wales into Queensland, you have to put your clock back an hour and thirty years.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in SA.
A trip back to Adelaide now is like a trip back in time. Comparing to queensland is like saying "Florida isn't that bad, at least we aren't in Alabama fucking our sisters".
Let me know when I can go to a supermarket after 8pm somewhere in the Adelaide suburbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Coles and Woolworths are typically open 'til midnight across Melbourne.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you'd have to live in that dismal town to take advantage of that.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the Labor government that followed, I can't think of anything they achieved :).
They got the police to pull their heads in a bit. Queensland was a bit less safer if you were Aboriginal or a feral for a few years there.
Under Joh Queensland got: It's last significant new water dams, the Gateway Motorway, new International Airports, James Cook University, Queensland Cultural Centre, Griffith University, the South East Freeway, Captain Cook and Merivale bridges, World Expo 88, 1982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games, etc, etc.
Almost complete destruction of anything remotely historic or attractive
They need to get their shit together (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The current federal government panders to polluting industries and skeptics, particularly to luddite senior citizens. A 20% renewable target nationwide is ahead of schedule, which prompted lobbyists to commision a report favouring a roll-back because it would hurt big business.
We have a bypartisan 5% emissions reduction by 2020. Yes, 5%, which is a joke of a target if they were actually serious.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Germany's renewable energy comes from biomass and hydro, sources that Australia can't tap. The same is true of most countries with high renewable usage: they're profiting from advantageous geology or ecology. If you're going to peg your renewable hopes on solar or wind, you're going to have a bad time.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Germany's renewable energy comes from biomass and hydro, sources that Australia can't tap
Agreed on the hydro, but what about eucalyptus trees? Why can't they just cut more of those things down and burn them in a controlled manner? Mind you we have the same problem in California. I figure we can't do it here because "OMG you're burning trees!" but because we don't thin the forest, I've spent the last couple months breathing trees.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on the hydro, but what about eucalyptus trees? Why can't they just cut more of those things down and burn them in a controlled manner?
Are you suggesting a switch from coal energy to koala energy?
Re: (Score:2)
How about pandas?
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/why-fusion-will-never-happen/
Re: (Score:2)
> If you're going to peg your renewable hopes on solar or wind,
> you're going to have a bad time.
Er, so you're saying Australia suffers from lack of sunshine and bushfire-loving winds?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that they're newer and don't scale up as conveniently as biomass, geothermal, and hydro, which are the three big success stores. That's not to say that they're uncompetitive - and they're getting more and more competitive all the time - but the nations which have huge renewable penetration right now have a big head start. You have to read South Australia's seemingly-small achievement in that context.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Germany's renewable energy comes from biomass and hydro, sources that Australia can't tap
That is wrong. Most comes from wind, solar is second, biomass is not even third I believe and Hydro is not counted as renewables as 95% of our hydro plants are pumped storage plants. Only a few "flow river" plants, below 5% of total power production are "renewable" hydro plants.
Re: (Score:2)
As a society we've kind of backed ourselves into a corner, with global coal prices slumping and China now pushing for high-quality and cleaner c
Re: (Score:2)
Well wind farms are an eyesore, and tend to be more distributed than coal mines. Same with solar, I recall a posting of a group of German houses all with panels. From the comment I gathered it was meant to show how pretty it was, but to me it looked horrible. Sure, panels are shiny when new, but after ten years, when the novelty of the technology has worn off, they will be seen as industrial looking - they won't age rustically like shingles or tiles.
Of course in Australia it would be much better to do ma
Re:They need to get their shit together (Score:5, Interesting)
Solar thermal power plants covering 2/3rd of Mojave Desert could supply the current electricity needs of the entire USA. That is area 125 miles wide and long. That's it. 10,000 times more public land in USA is devoted to fossil fuel exploration than to solar plants. Same ratio for power plant building, subsidies. If this was reversed, USA could be 100% renewable by 2025. So yes, this might seem like an easy goal to set for them, but given the political climate and the inertia forces of current energy policy and investments, it is actually quite commendable speed.
Although, if someone actually took global warming seriously even in 2000, when the science was pretty clear, we could have been 100% renewable everywhere by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like nuclear, but it does have issues, even 4th Gen plants. Why go to Nuclear when we an use solar? Seems like an unneeded step.
Sadly America is fighting 3 things right now:
A hard to change entrenched infrastructure. First developed tech issue.
A wider and increasing base if ignorant people.
The idea that somehow money should be all the determines anything. This is a lot worse the it was 30-40 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Perfectly right. ... or call it nation wide corruption and br
The same would be true if you have a 100miles long stripe with wind plants at the coast of Florida _and_ similar at the coast of California (or Oregon for that matter).
The reason why this is not happening is clear: the coal plant owners and the nuclear plant owners would ran bankrupt. Or they had to invest themselves into such power production technologies (and write off the existing plants)
The reason why this is not happening is purely political
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Baseload is 40% of peak load (in germany, your country might be different) ... hint: while "demand" over the day changes, base load power fed into the grid stays exactly the same Hence the name "base load".
You don't know what base load means
This is nonsense: ... They have more expensive gas turbine generators to handle peak load. ... erm ... adapt to ... erm ... pea
If the renewables meet 100% of the peak load
If renewables produce 100% of your peak load you obviously don't need any additional power plant to
Re:They need to get their shit together (Score:4, Informative)
You are not able to read, are you? ... molten salt usually.
The parent wrote: Solar thermal power
So yes: they would be able to power the whole USA exactly with the amount of power consumed.
some energy storage system
Surprisingly a solar thermal power plant has a storage
Re: (Score:2)
Solar thermal does exactly that.
And yes, energy storage IS plausibly on that scale if it would be needed; which it wouldn't.
Location, Location Location. (Score:2)
Denmark hit 33% wind (Score:2)
See http://www.windpower.org/da/ak... [windpower.org] (2013), or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (28% 2011).
Now that is renewable. Of course the rest is made of coal power to fill the energy holes both in Denmark and in Sweden that is using hydro and nuclear only, and therefore can't supply peak energy on it own.
Re: (Score:2)
Denmark and in Sweden that is using hydro and nuclear only, and therefore can't supply peak energy on it own.
Quebec is practically 100% hydro and supplies peak energy at will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
what governments can achieve (Score:2)
Sounds like there are significantly fewer hire-purchase politicians and bureaucrats (from whatever combination of energy companies and unions) in SA than in the USofA. Shows what can be done by government initiative.
"Has hit?" (Score:3)
You mean "they predict they will hit the target in six years." They hit 31.5%, and might have hit the 33% - if you believe a government spokesman.
This is only "locally-generated" power, by the way: they don't count the power imported from other states, and fail to mention that overall power generation in South Australia is expected to decline due to cheaper power imported from places like Victoria.
They also won't add "one additional dollar to energy prices" by adding the many additional dollars to taxes levied by the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
No Way! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just one state, which has a minority of the country's coal mines.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, but the coal is probably for export. The mines will remain open regardless of domestic needs. And you really can't make money and manipulate markets with wind like you can with coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? How is it not renewable? Every day it starts anew. You don't ever run out, it never stops producing. Sometimes its production is lower and sometimes its higher, but it never runs out.
Granted, coal is sorta technically "renewable" but only on a geological scale that renders the term pointless. We'll mine it all and run out of it all long before any more comes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, coal is sorta technically "renewable" but only on a geological scale that renders the term pointles
Actually, most of the coal was formed during the Carboniferous period, where the state of the climate, as well as the biological evolution worked together to create the perfect environment for storing large amounts of coal. The trees at that era had evolved to produce lignin, but the bacteria were not yet evolved to break it down. Similar conditions may not happen again, so we can't even be sure that new coal will form in any useful quantities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is not only slowly renewable, it is renewable thanks to the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
No, coal is not renewable.
The conditions that create coal during the Carboniferous era no longer exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The conditions that create coal during the Carboniferous era no longer exist.
*created coal during
That is correct but the cool thing about eras is that no matter what there is always a brand spanking new one right around the corner.... so in a million years or so the coal that will exist (but probably won't need to be used) will have been created during the era of misinformed slashdot commenters because Coal formation is a continuing process (some of our newest coal is "just" a million years old) unless you believe these stone cold fuck nuts
https://answersingenesis.org/b... [answersingenesis.org]
in which
Re: (Score:3)
Either you were drunk writing this or you're in dire need of a new keyboard...
Re: (Score:3)
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but total solar insolation on the lower 48 is 46,700 Quads/year, compared to that the total electricity usage of the USA at 38.2 quads/year is a rounding error, the albedo effect from heavy clouds created by El Nino or heavier than average snowfall in the winter probably has several times more effect on the strength of winds than if we were to tap 100% of our electricity needs through wind.
Re: (Score:3)
> While solar and wind have their place, it would be much more effective to complement them with nuclear instead.
And as soon as you figure out a way to reduce CAPEX by four times, it will.
Every reactor under construction in a country where we can believe the accounting is currently running late, and thus overbudget, and the average CAPEX is around $9/W. A wind turbine goes in for just over $1. That's just the way it is, and until someone fixes that, its going to keep being that way.
Re: (Score:2)
$9/W based on watt capacity not watts generated ever time.
That number is often used as a scare tactic to make people thing they will pay 9$ W.
Assuming you're build plants to produce more the 1 GW over time. Ob. if you were to shut it down after producing 1GW, it would need to cost$9 a watt.
Re: (Score:2)
Burning trees is carbon neutral. Adding trees is carbon neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
That statement is meaning less.
We need to now how many KWs you use a month. We need to know is $300 is actually a lot. comparatively. How many dollars of the is fees and taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
Pricing has been seen as a means to reduce consumption in Australia. It's a valid approach, but it does hit people hard - particularly those who can't afford it - but by and large it has been ef
Re: (Score:2)
The SA price is about 0.40 USD per kW/h (including taxes). That is a conservative number from the cheapest providers. It only goes up from there.
http://www.energymadeeasy.gov.... [energymadeeasy.gov.au]
Compare that to the USA
http://www.eia.gov/electricity... [eia.gov]
They average about 0.13 USD per kW/h.