Green Energy from Storage Batteries are Replacing Fossil Fuels in California - and Texas (elpais.com) 152
1.9 million solar panels began operating this year in California — at a Mortenson facility with 120,000 installed batteries that give it a storage capacity of 3,280 megawatts. An article in El Pais notes that this helped California pass 10,000 megawatts of photovoltaic storage in April — enough to meet 20% of demand — for the first time ever. (In 2019, the state had just 770 megawatts of storage capacity.)
Mark Rothleder, the vice president of the independent grid operator, California ISO (CAISO), said earlier this year that they will add another 1,134 megawatts in the first eight months of 2024. This is growth on top of the leap made last year. "In 2023 alone, the ISO successfully onboarded 5,660 megawatts of new power to the grid," Rothleder said at a conference in San Diego...
Renewable production was enough to supply the grid on 40 out of 48 days this spring, compared to seven days in the whole of last year. Lithium batteries appear to be undercutting the use of fossil fuels. Gas accounts for 40% of California's grid. However, its use in April registered its lowest proportion in seven years. "The data clearly shows that batteries are displacing natural gas when solar generation is ramping up and down each day in CAISO," notes an analysis by Grid Status, a firm specializing in energy issues. Natural gas was king on the grid in April 2021, 2022 and 2023. CAISO was sending between 9,000 and 10,000 megawatts produced from gas to the grid once solar ran out. Last April, however, it amounted to only 5,000 megawatts... [California's goal: run on 100% renewable energy by 2045.]
Arizona and Georgia have followed California's lead. But it is Texas, the other major U.S. giant in this industry, that is snapping at its heels. At the end of April, batteries supplied 4% of the grid's electricity, enough to power several million homes. Batteries are beginning to look like an alternative to a system heavily dependent on gas and coal.
Mark Rothleder, the vice president of the independent grid operator, California ISO (CAISO), said earlier this year that they will add another 1,134 megawatts in the first eight months of 2024. This is growth on top of the leap made last year. "In 2023 alone, the ISO successfully onboarded 5,660 megawatts of new power to the grid," Rothleder said at a conference in San Diego...
Renewable production was enough to supply the grid on 40 out of 48 days this spring, compared to seven days in the whole of last year. Lithium batteries appear to be undercutting the use of fossil fuels. Gas accounts for 40% of California's grid. However, its use in April registered its lowest proportion in seven years. "The data clearly shows that batteries are displacing natural gas when solar generation is ramping up and down each day in CAISO," notes an analysis by Grid Status, a firm specializing in energy issues. Natural gas was king on the grid in April 2021, 2022 and 2023. CAISO was sending between 9,000 and 10,000 megawatts produced from gas to the grid once solar ran out. Last April, however, it amounted to only 5,000 megawatts... [California's goal: run on 100% renewable energy by 2045.]
Arizona and Georgia have followed California's lead. But it is Texas, the other major U.S. giant in this industry, that is snapping at its heels. At the end of April, batteries supplied 4% of the grid's electricity, enough to power several million homes. Batteries are beginning to look like an alternative to a system heavily dependent on gas and coal.
Replacing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, Luckyo DOES ask for it a lot. (Score:2)
Re: Replacing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Batteries come in many many many types. Dams are simple gravity batteries.
Iron oxide batteries literally rust and untrust iron....a very very very common ore.
Compressed air storage.
Sand/thermal batteries that are 95% efficient over multiple *months*. Summer sun can literally be saved to use in winter for heating.
Batteries are the key that unlocks renewables quasi unlimited potential.
Enough solar hits the earth in 1 hour than we use as a planet in an entire year. That's an 8000:1 ratio. And that's *just* solar. Now add in wind, tidal, and every other concept. Massively more than we'll need for 1000 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Compressed air storage is actually something I've seen listed on capacity/cost charts for solar/wind storage. It's not that great overall. Sodium ion batteries will work out much better, methinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Different solutions for different use cases. Just that there are a multitude of types of 'batteries' out there. Storage will unlock effectively limitless and significantly cheaper power.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if the batteries are sufficiently cheap and durable. Sodium ion batteries fit the bill. I can not think of any reason to choose (for example) compressed air storage as an alternative when lithium ion batteries are already better in most metrics.
Re: Replacing? (Score:4, Interesting)
most compressed air to this point has required a separate heat source for the discharge side, which frequently were fossil fuel sourced.
The new concepts are adiabatic, removing that requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a plus. What kind of cost savings are there for the newer systems?
Pump water into water towers. (Score:2)
"Dams are simple gravity batteries." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not viable for traditional hydro dams. The released water isn't exactly staying around. I'd also think that level of digging/blasting near an existing dam under load wouldn't exactly be recommended lol These are 20-30 ft diameter tunnels necessary to move the water back up.
What you're describing is pumped hydro and is being built where it's feasible.
Perpetual motion machine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My assumption is poster is proposing pumping the water back above the damn immediately after discharge.
It's a decent theoretical idea. If you have the excess energy from solar, use it to pump the water back above the dam for later.
The realities of that aren't feasible though.
Many Dams are NOT batteries and can't store power (Score:2)
Re: Many Dams are NOT batteries and can't store po (Score:2)
Glad you agree dams store energy and thus are batteries.
Some aren't equipped to discharge that energy but water held above its desired equilibrium level has potential energy...due being behind the dam wall.
Re: (Score:3)
A 'battery' stores energy for later supply.
As noted there are many many many types of batteries.
Let's not argue about words. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It can be. Ever hear of pumped hydro?
Is pumped hydro a source of electric power consisting of one or more electrochemical cells with external connections for powering electrical devices?
No? Then it's not a battery.
But, metaphorically, it is a "battery", in the same way a motorcycle is a "horse".
Re: Replacing? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cambridge dictionary defines "battery" as
"a device that produces electricity to provide power for electronic devices"
Well... While electronic devices can suggest a small size, in fact it could be any "electric consumer" even the electric network.
That's the reason we use the word battery for something that store electricity. That's the reason air compressed or pumped hydro are also considered batteries in some sense.
You are restricting the definition to chemical batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
They're replacing fossil fuels?
Yes. Solar doesnt work well at night so without energy storage the nightly shortage in energy would have to be made up for by other energy sources, likely gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Or wind.
Re: (Score:2)
They're replacing fossil fuels? Batteries are energy stores. The batteries could also be used as a store for energy generated from fossil fuels, could they not? The sources of the energy are solar and wind and other renewables, which is great, but I'm afraid batteries are not a long-term solution because of their production from non-renewable sources.
Solar does not work at night even if there might be excess during the day. There are two options: Use fossil fuels at night or store the excess to use at night. Wind has is less predictable about when it provides and does not provide power. It would help if any excess could also be stored.
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim that batteries are "non-renewable" is nonsense. The materials remain solid, unlike fossil fuels that are dissipate into the atmosphere. Diminishing returns on recycling a particular battery only mean additional energy investment is needed to recover material, which is fortunately cove
Re: Replacing? (Score:2)
I'm afraid batteries are not a long-term solution because of their production from non-renewable sources
We could say the same about so much of the infrastructure needed to extract oil, refine oil and transport oil products and byproducts all over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
They're replacing fossil fuels? Batteries are energy stores. The batteries could also be used as a store for energy generated from fossil fuels, could they not?
Natural gas turbines can be spun up quickly, so it doesn't make sense to store that energy to batteries and incur the associated energy losses. Makes sense to store solar energy to batteries because the choice is between losing some to wire and batteries losses or losing everything due to not being able to use or store that energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying batteries are replacing some source of electricity like thinking food come from grocery stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can recycle batteries into new ones, i.e. dig once, reuse many times
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, Californian batteries only store green electrons. Red electrons are only used for inefficient, old air conditioners that are still filled with CFC.
Only Sacramento-approved electrons can be stored & used in California. All other electrons must pay a use tax before they can be stored & used.
PLEASE - California needs your cash donations. Send what you can. Our residents, both current and future, appreciate your assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking about renewable vs non-reneawble only have sense on energy sources.
In storage and usage, we speak about sustainability. And that depends on factors like how recyclable it is and/or abundant.
We have no problems with a lot of types of batteries. Incoming sodium-ion have raw materials to provide a lot more storage than we will never build and can be recycled later.
Besides there is a lot of storage types. Chemical batteries are just an option with good future projection costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's go with: "Batteries combines with [your favorite renewable energy source here]" are a replacement for the dispatchable power that was previously only available via fossil fuels (or nuclear).
Of course, one could recharge batteries using fossil fuels, just like one could recharge batteries by slaughtering whales and burning whale oil to power a generator. But neither of things are likely to happen, because energy officials aren't self-defeating idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels are already stored energy. Why would you waste money incurring the conversion losses of storing them for later in a battery instead of just burning them when you need them?
You do know burning fossil fuels emits pollution right? You do know that extracting fossil fuels is not a zero cost/zero effort endeavor, right? You do know that fossil fuels are not renewable right? One of the major downsides to solar is that it does not collect energy at night. During the day even if there is more solar energy than used, that excess cannot be saved. This is a way to extend the coverage of solar to reduce the need for fossil fuels. Wind also suffers from the disadvantage that is is not al
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, of course, the goal is to have so much renewables and batteries you hardly ever use fossil fuels at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be considered a battery, as the stage of "storing" is out of our time scope.
In other words, you can only burn fossil fuels one time.
E-fuels plus all the infrastructure to create and use them can be considered a kind of battery too. Just the efficiency is extremely low, so you need a strong reason to not use other kinds of storage and usage.
An exception, for example, could be e-fuel for rockets. Rockets has a very specific requirements, that invalid most of the other regular storage alternatives.
Isn't this misleading? (Score:5, Interesting)
3,280 MW? And that helped them get to 20% of their demand? Shouldn't time be factored in that number somewhere? I mean, obviously it can't be MWh because it can't sustain that. I'm assuming its total capacity if 3,280 MW. So are they considering 20% of their demand for one hour only?
Re: Isn't this misleading? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah the articles are reporting supply not storage. That the batteries supplied 6-7 GW of power during the peak load times. So the MWh would be 3-4 times that (with the assumption of LI/4 hour type batteries)
The 40 out of 48 days is similar. It means that during the peak sun hours solar provided over 100% of demand....and charged those batteries. As the solar install bulge grows more and more excess will be avail.
The same graphs showing solar at 100%+ at noon buries the lede though. That all renewables (including hydro, batteries, wind) provided 40% base load for a full 24 hours. That's a huge milestone for a state as large as CA.
Re: (Score:2)
That supply directly displaces the dirtiest sources on the grid, fossil fuels, which were traditionally used for peaking.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out long term. At the moment some people are outsourcing their storage to these grid scale batteries, rather than having their own home batteries. But home battery prices are falling rapidly too. You can get around 15kWh for under $2000 if you are willing to do some assembly yourself. Charge from solar when available, overnight cheap rate wind wh
Re: (Score:2)
The 'grid' by definition is outsourcing consumer power/storage needs lol. Both home and grid storage will be part of the solution as not everyone has the option for solar+home storage.
Re:Isn't this misleading? (Score:4, Informative)
Gas has gone down for all times of day except noon. (Maybe it was already near 0 last year during hours of peak solar, so no room for improvement).
Solar has gone way up the daytime.
Batteries have gone down during the day, attesting to the increase in solar. But now they are paying back from 6 to midnight, cutting deep into the burning of gas.
What I don't understand is what's happening from midnight to 6. Batteries and solar haven't changed from last year (hard for them to do anything long after sunset). Yet nat gas declined hugely. Why? Did total consumption at night plunge? Is some other source of nighttime power not accounted for on this chart/article?
Re: (Score:2)
Wind maybe? Typically there is an excess of wind energy at night, resulting in very low or even negative pricing. It's an ideal time to charge batteries if you don't expect solar output to be enough the next day.
Re: (Score:2)
The ERCOT charts for Texas include a section on "ESR - Energy Storage Resources". The webpage charts show current & revious day recorded as 5-minute average readings based on real-time telemetry of "total discharging", "total charging", and "net output".
And if you dig just a little bit (the >> link is in the chart box) you can read previous PDF reports going back to 5-Dec-2023, as of webpage access on 2-Sept-2024.
Those 1-page per day archived reports provide much more clearly organized & label
Let's Store Some Megawatts (Score:5, Informative)
You can tell that there is a true expert writing the story when they write about "storing megawatts." Energy is stored and is measured in Joules. Power is transmitted or used to run things and is measured in watts.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately conflating energy and power is a common thing. You can understand it (though not be happy about it) coming from arts educated journos, but slashdot submitters really should have a grasp of physics 101. This is a technology and science site FFS.
Re: (Score:3)
Energy is stored and is measured in Joules.
Joules are the canonical unit of measure for energy, yes, but MWh and KWh are also correct and more practical to use in some cases.
Re: (Score:3)
so unless you want to deal with really large numbers Watts(W) is the more practical unit to use.
Damnit, Jim, I'm a /. poster, not a physicist! (Score:2)
A megawatt is not a unit of storage capacity (Score:3)
I can only assume they mean generating capacity.
Hydro? (Score:3)
Its not clear from the data provided that solar replaced any fossil fuels. The only data point that really supports that is the decline in power from natural gas, implying it was replaced by increased solar. But California also had an increase in hydro power with the end of the draught. So increased hydro accounted for some or all the decline in natural gas usage.
"We typically hit renewable peaks in the spring season because of mild weather reducing air conditioning and heating use, and the higher sun angle accelerating rooftop and grid-scale solar output," CAISO spokeswoman Anne Gonzales said April 17. "We tend to see records on weekends, as loads are even lower." CAISO peakload was 26.563 GW April 11 and has averaged 24.985 so far this month, 2.4% lower than a year ago.
Clearly using April as the comparison is cherry picking the data. The average daily peakload demands declined last April according to that. But its still not clear that we have reached the point yet where solar is keeping up with increasing demand much less replacing fossil fuel. Growing our way out of the problem is certainly the American way, but without limiting the increasing demand from electrification and data centers it may not be possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries tend to displace fossil fuels directly, because they react faster. Before the fossil peaker plant can respond to a sudden spike in demand, batteries have already met it. They can also sell their energy preferentially because it is lower cost and low CO2.
As for the seasonal aspect of it, that's just a preview of what is to come. As more solar gets deployed, it will affect all seasons. April isn't even the peak month for solar, and it's often used as an average between summer peaks and winter lows.
Re: (Score:2)
Unreliable Grid (Score:2)
This capacity is orthogonal to reliable electric service.
The problem in California, the reason for the brown-outs and blackout, is that the power utility company shuts down portions of the grid. That is, they make it so that no electricity is allowed to flow over the wires, even when there is plenty of electricity. The reason for this is that the infrastructure (the wires) traverse aras of land that are dry and have brush. When the winds pick up, wires can come falling down. And the result is a brushfire,
Underground power transmission is inefficient. (Score:2)
Green Battery Engergy ... (Score:2)
Green Energy from Storage Batteries are Replacing Fossil Fuels in California - and Texas
Fossil Fuel Industry: Et tu, Texas?
Our green push in Texas started back in 1999 (Score:2)
under Governor Bush, and expanded upon by Governor Perry in 2005.
The Perry Legacy: Energy [texastribune.org]
People in Texas aren't stupid. (Score:2)
You know that's LITERALLY not true, right? (Score:3)
"Green Energy from Storage Batteries are Replacing Fossil Fuels"
"Replacing" is the wrong word.
It's embarrassing to catch a tech site in such an obvious misstatement. (A cynic might call it a calculated semi-lie by people motivated to oversell renewables.)
There is no 'energy' that ultimately comes from storage batteries, and aside from load-transfer by time of day (which can reduce OVERALL energy sources by better balancing capacity vs load), batteries don't replace any power GENERATION at all.
Power is stored in batteries, not generated. That power has to be generated somewhere whether it's renewably, or from fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Green Energy from Storage Batteries are Replacing Fossil Fuels"
"Replacing" is the wrong word.
It's embarrassing to catch a tech site in such an obvious misstatement. (A cynic might call it a calculated semi-lie by people motivated to oversell renewables.)
There is no 'energy' that ultimately comes from storage batteries, and aside from load-transfer by time of day (which can reduce OVERALL energy sources by better balancing capacity vs load), batteries don't replace any power GENERATION at all.
Power is stored in batteries, not generated. That power has to be generated somewhere whether it's renewably, or from fossil fuels.
That's why they specify green power. The energy charging the batteries is the cheapest energy, probably solar at times of day when more solar produces more energy than the grid (minus batteries) can consume.
So now instead of being wasted (not sure how they deal with it otherwise) that solar power can be used to charge the batteries, which displace natural gas when the solar source dies down.
The description of replacing natural gas feels pretty spot on to me, I'm not sure your pedantic complaint is clarifyin
say what? (Score:2)
How are batteries replacing fossil fuels? Or any fuel? Batteries now generate energy?
Ironically, Texas is outpacing California (Score:2)
https://www.ecowatch.com/solar... [ecowatch.com]
In 2024, Texas added 1,525 MW, California added 563 MW.
Texas has a reputation for being the nations leading oil producing state, which it is. But due to deregulation, it is also the leading state in wind and solar energy, much to the chagrin of the state's governor. Energy companies just want to make money, so if you let them make money on green energy, they will!
Well, at the risk of seeming cynical . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While you're not wrong, generally speaking, it's not the oil companies going green. It's new companies, like Next Era Energy. The oil companies are all greenwashing, but they're not really putting their soul into it.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ecowatch.com/solar... [ecowatch.com]
In 2024, Texas added 1,525 MW, California added 563 MW.
Texas has a reputation for being the nations leading oil producing state, which it is. But due to deregulation, it is also the leading state in wind and solar energy, much to the chagrin of the state's governor. Energy companies just want to make money, so if you let them make money on green energy, they will!
Nice selective regurgitation of numbers...but look at how much wind & solar actually contribute to the Texas grid. The historical number ARE available.
Just building generation capacity means nothing - like all those broken down cars built to meet an output goal in the movie Gung Ho !
That generation has to get to the entire grid to be useful to all consumers, otherwise excess generation in a constrained geographic region leads to curtailment (shutting down of output from excess generators).
Ask yoursel
Re: (Score:2)
UPDATE: I should have written "transmission" where I actually wrote "distribution"
For homes & businesses that already have electricity service they already have distribution; can't have the first without the second.
The major problem for GREEN power in Texas is transmission. Perhaps that is due to the way the electricity market is designed in Texas. Perhaps there is a lack of incentive in Texas for generation installations to contribute to transmission grid development/improvement.
Is anyone scientifically literate on this site? (Score:2)
The proper unit of measure for energy storage capacity is megawatt-hours (MWh) or kilowatt-hours (kWh). Duration: The length of time that a battery can be discharged at its power rating until the battery must be recharged."
So when I see content like "storage capacity of 3,280 megawatts" and "In 2019, the state had just 770 megawatts of storage capacity." in the initial posting, the only conclusion that I can draw is that it was written by someone who is scientifically illiterate.
Re: (Score:2)
The proper unit of measure for energy storage capacity is megawatt-hours (MWh) or kilowatt-hours (kWh). Duration: The length of time that a battery can be discharged at its power rating until the battery must be recharged."
So when I see content like "storage capacity of 3,280 megawatts" and "In 2019, the state had just 770 megawatts of storage capacity." in the initial posting, the only conclusion that I can draw is that it was written by someone who is scientifically illiterate.
You are one that is illiterate here as megawatts(MW) refers to have much Electrical energy in TOTAL the battery can produce while megawatt-hours (MWh) refers to how much of that Electrical energy the battery can supply over an Hour (h).
:
So in this context the use of megawatts (MW) to refer to battery storage is correct.
Here is an article that explains it
https://blog.feniceenergy.com/... [feniceenergy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... No, megawatts does not refer to energy, but rather power, per:
Energy is the capacity to do some physical activities or work, such as running, jumping, etc., while power is defined as the rate at which the energy is transferred, or the work is completed. The unit used to measure energy is joules, ergs and calories. Power is measured in watts. Where 1 Joule = 2.7778E-7 kWh or one kilowatt-hour is equal to 3,600,000 joules.
Put another way: The power of a storage system, P, is the rate at which energy f
Re: (Score:2)
You are one that is illiterate here as megawatts(MW) refers to have much Electrical energy in TOTAL the battery can produce...
This is also what is used by the Power generation Industry to say how much a Power station can generate and Yes, Battery's are generators of Electricity.
Are you saying the Electrical Power stations and the Electrical Industry have this wrong ?
Re: (Score:2)
https://energytheory.com/what-... [energytheory.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Power is measured in watts, Energy is measured in watt-hours.
P = V I where P is power in watts, V is potential difference in volts, and I is current in amperes, while Energy = Power x Time
Thought experiment: Replace existing electricity generators (which convert chemical, potential (hydro), wind, solar, or nuclear energy to electrical energy) on the grid with "battery generators" (assuming fully charged) -- how long can they keep the grid supplied with energy?
Re: (Score:2)
This is getting pointless now.
The definition of Power is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time.
A Battery converts potential energy into Electrical energy so in this conversation using Megawatts (MW) to refer to the Capacity of the battery is correct.
Thought experiment: Replace existing electricity generators (which convert chemical, potential (hydro), wind, solar, or nuclear energy to electrical energy) on the grid with "battery generators" (assuming fully charged) -- how long can they keep the grid supplied with energy?
This is how long is a piece of string territory ? so I will answer it the same :
How long do you want the Batterys to ?
Re: (Score:2)
Every battery I have ever purchased has always been rated in the amount of power it could deliver for what period of time, whether it was a marine battery, rated at 80 AHrs at 12V, or a laptop battery measured in wHr or a cellphone battery measured in wHr. Without knowing for what amount of time a battery can deliver its stated power, you have no idea how much energy it contains. Power does not equal energy.
Go buy a Tesla: How much energy does a Tesla battery produce?
The capacity of Tesla's batteries ranges
Lipstick on a pig (Score:2)
This incessant need to pump out positive "green" energy stories about California's grid reminds me of hanging around with a vegan... the vegan won't shut up about his dietary choices, and seems to want to inject it into every conversation. If something's THAT good, it does not need to have propaganda in its favor, and the whole thing reeks of insecurity and doubt.
Here's the reason I called this article "lipstick on a pig": It says NOTHING about the price per kilowatt hour. As California goes "greener" with
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent Funny and remove mod points from censor moderators.
Re: (Score:2)
Libs, green, they're stealing all my sun, Donald Trump will flee to Canada, my baby ate a dingo once. Just getting all the comments out of the way on one go.
Please go back to posting anonymous comments about LuckyO /s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's are called nukular, learn to the spelling. Were this your headline above?
Stop the woke energy! (Score:3, Funny)
I stayed in a Texan hotel that used green energy, and it was traumatizing! I started to feel breasts growing, had a hunger to visit a drag club, began to question my gender, looked at a Prius for sale, and even threw out my Rebel flag! Only when I entered the safe vicinity of a coal fired power plant did I recover. Luckily a vintage diesel burning semi was able to transport me back to West Virginia.
Q: MVP for a home (Score:2)
The question should be: What is the minimal cost to have X watts of solar generating capacity at a house without expensive batteries, installation on the roof and other parts of the system?
Just:
- Solar panels
- Backyard gazebo or other frame to elevate solar panels and provide some shade
- Cables to run from solar panels to a wall plug on the outside of the house
- Solar power inverter to connect to my house's electrical panel
No batteries, no roof installation, ...
What's the cost for that for, let's say, 25%
Re: Q: MVP for a home (Score:3)
What's the cost for that for, let's say, 25% of a house's daily electrical usage from 9 am - 4 pm?
The challenge is to make that into a $500 - $2000 kit which has a quick enough payback period. Could be moved to the next house you live in also.
Look up Ripple Energy, a cooperative in the UK. They show some maths in their website.
They build solar and windfarms with members' funds and have agreements with utilities so that credit is given in energy bills, proportional to the member's share of the farm output.
Their panels are 620W and not constrained by domestic installation rules, so the economies of scale are favourable, while member's relocating (within the UK) during the 25 year period changes nothing in terms of eligibility for receiving credit
Ripple energy scenario (Score:2)
Invest 1000 UK pounds to generate 1372 KW hour per year resulting in a savings of 72 UK pounds a year.
1000 up front cost / 72 per year = 14 years for payback. They estimate 15 to 21 year payback.
Don't know about energy cost per KWh in the UK but it's ~$0.11 in the USA per kilowatt hour.
Like the idea of buying a small part of an industrial scale solar/wind farm. Would like to see the full numbers going out as far as the solar/wind system is in use. Solar panels can last 40+ years.
Could this be a retirement
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about energy cost per KWh in the UK but it's ~$0.11 in the USA per kilowatt hour.
It varies wildly :)
This news source [energyguide.org.uk] says the overall average is £0.22/kWh
My own price plan is variable and updates every 30 minutes. The range I've seen so far is from £-0.04 to £0.12 at night and from 0 to £0.40 during the day.
This kind of variable price can be found here [energy-stats.uk].
Could this be a retirement annuity for some people after they've been paid back of the original investment?
This co-op is recent, so there is no history of past investments reaching the 25 years they forecast. They intend to have a vote at the end of the "normal" investment period to decide on upgrading the whole thing,
So, can I buy some as an investment? (Score:3)
A quick web search and there are many web sites pitching investing in a solar farm in whole or part.
Most likely dodgy and a scheme to get you to fund a solar project and get at 0% return on your money or less.
time shifting? (Score:2)
>My own price plan is variable and updates every 30 minutes.
>The range I've seen so far is from £-0.04 to £0.12 at night and from 0 to £0.40 during the day.. This kind of variable price can be found here [energy-stats.uk].
Looked at the daily prices. Looks like prices are flat from 11 AM - 3:30 PM and then rise to nearly double (16p to 32p) at 4 PM.
So, now EV vehicles, used nearly worn out ones will work. Store energy from the grid from 1 AM - 3:30 PM and use it to power things in y
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what the appeal if this would actually be. Clearly you're just fantasizing for the sake of it without actually considering the logistics or even code compliance...
"25% of a house's daily electrical usage from 9 am - 4 pm"
Let's say a home uses 30kwh daily which seems to be close to the average. Most of that will be during the day so let's further assume 20kwh of that is consumed in that time period, so 25% is 5kwh.
You have a 7 hour window and sticking my spittle-moistened finger in the air, assuming
Re: (Score:2)
Of course in neither case will the PV system be usable during a power outage without batteries, which if you live in Texas is going to be the number one "killer app" reason to get solar in the first place given how things go there and how important air conditioning is to not dying.
Was without power for 3+ days after Hurricane Beryl went through the Houston metro. I have solar and 1 PowerWall. The PowerWall can output up to 240v at 30amp which is enough to keep most of my house running, so no spoiled food, but not enough to power the AC unit or regular car charger.
During the day I used fans to keep cool. Once the sun recharged the PowerWall to 100% I'd plug my Model 3 into the dryer outlet to capture the excess solar production. At night I slept in the garage in the Model 3 using C [youtube.com]
Re: Q: MVP for a home (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solar panels themselves are manufactured in China though. So for the CO2 production of California that is not an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
According to a lifecycle study of utility-scale solar+battery systems, "The life cycle GHG [green house gases] emissions range from 98.3 to 149.3 g CO2 eq /kWh with a mean value of 123.8 g CO2 eq /kWh. The largest emissions contribution is due to the manufacturing of batteries, 54% of the total emissions." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apen... [doi.org]
Here is the average carbon intensity of electricity production in selected countries: USA 369 g/kWh (in sharp decrease), Poland at 662 (coal) Germany at 381 (coal+gas), Fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much carbon was created making them? How long to pay it off? How much of the Earth was mined to do so? How much more of all will be required for ongoing operations to be sustained?
How much carbon would have been created if fossil fuels were used instead? How long would a fossil fuel plant pay off. Coal is very unprofitable right now? How much of the Earth was mined to do for fossil fuels like coal? How much more of all will be required for ongoing operations to be sustained for a fossil fuel plant?
Re: (Score:3)
How about you do some research, run the numbers, and then get back to us?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How much carbon was created making them? How long to pay it off? How much of the Earth was mined to do so? How much more of all will be required for ongoing operations to be sustained?
Even if the CO2 footprint is the same for constructing a wind or solar park and a natural gas plant, the carbon footprint after the end of construction is far, far, far smaller for wind/solar than it is for a natural gas plant which keeps spewing out colossal amounts of CO2 for its entire working lifespan.
Re: (Score:2)
What really matters is how long these batteries can supply storage to the grid. Sounds like it's only 20% of the grid for less than a day. That's great if you just want to cover your day-to-day needs. So it sounds like you need five times of batteries to cover yourself for a day. But when the storm rolls through you're going to need several days worth of batteries.
Twenty percent of peak consumption for less than a day is what you normally need. You rarely have to cover an entire day of every single power-plant in the state going down, ... unless you are Texas, whose government, and energy industry that made weatherproofing an optional extra because: profit. One would hope that they learned something from that mistake but, then again, this is Greg Abbott's administration we are talking about here so, probably not.
Re: (Score:2)