Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Power

$1 Billion Solar and Battery Storage Project Breaks Ground In Utah 26

Posted by BeauHD from the go-big-or-go-home dept.
rPlus Energies has broken ground on a $1 billion solar + battery storage project in east-central Utah. Electrek reports: The Green River Energy Center in Emery County, Utah, is a 400-megawatt (MW) solar and 400 MW/1,600-megawatt-hour battery storage project that will supply power to western electric utility PacifiCorp under a power purchase agreement. EliTe Solar is supplying solar panels, and Tesla is providing battery storage. Sundt Construction is the engineering, procurement, and construction contractor for the project. Securing over $1 billion in construction debt financing in July, the Green River project is expected to create around 500 jobs. Salt Lake City-based rPlus Energies gives the target completion date as 2026.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$1 Billion Solar and Battery Storage Project Breaks Ground In Utah More

$1 Billion Solar and Battery Storage Project Breaks Ground In Utah

Comments Filter:

  • Instead of nuclear (Score:3)

    by Smonster ( 2884001 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @12:46AM (#64811735)
    It is worth noting that politicians and power brokers had been trying to build a nuclear power plant near Green River, Utah for decades. It would have been a disaster on my levels. It just is not the place for it. No backup water source if anything goes wrong. The water taken from the over allocated Colorado River tributary would not have been trivial. And any water they would have managed to put back in the river would have been a lot warmer which would have decimated the fish. This project makes way more sense for the area. i say that as someone who is pretty bullish on nuclear, in the right places. Really, Utah could and should, be a Saudi Arabia of photovoltaic and thermal solar energy. Large swaths of the state of the state are very sunny, hot, and largely devoid of life.

    • Re:Instead of nuclear (Score:4, Informative)

      by Szeraax ( 1117903 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @12:53AM (#64811743)

      To add to this, we're seeing some very interesting research about solar farms INCREASING the biodiversity of the areas that they are located in. Seems to be a combination related to shade, native plants, pollinators, etc. that benefit.

      That's a BIG win, IF we have the distribution to manage it well.

  • Where will Tesla be sourcing the battery packs for this installation? Natron, hopefully?

  • I tried to calculate out the cost per megawatt hour and if this is really only $1B to build a 400 megawatt facility, that's actually pretty good. However, I suspect that the 400 megawatts needs a capacity factor applied. If you can really build a generating facility for 0.35 cents per megawatt hour that's amazingly good. I don't think the number show the whole story

    • That is only keeping the lights on for four hours after sunset. Still four hours will handle the evening peak of the "duck curve" and then demand drops to the base load.

      1600 MW-hr divided by 3.9 MW-hr per Tesla Max Power battery is 410 batteries at 42 tons a piece is 17,230 tons, or about as much as a WWII heavy cruiser.

      • Maybe I misread TFS. It seems to imply 400MW of solar generation + 1600MWh of storage. If 400MW is prior to a capacity factor and the actual capacity factor is closer to 100MW, the battery would allow for 100MW continuous over 24H. I believe that US$1000/KW is what is used for a rough estimate to build combined cycle gas so 100MW would cost around US$100M. You'll save on lack of fuel but the capital costs are awfully steep and going to be hard to recover. If 400MW is with a capacity factor applied, the
        • My math on this is 400 MW of solar, but with the typical over the day spread. The batteries can either charge or discharge up to 400 MW, but can hold 1600 MWh.

          In that the panels and batteries are both at the same site, losses should be reasonable (and might already be built into the number). This balance should let the "combination" run pretty much one deep cycle per day most days:

          In KWh:

          1,600,000 x 300 x 10 = 4,800,000,000 or 4.8 billion KWh, which works out to $0.21/KWh.

          Add in some incentives, plus the

        • It depends on how big the inverters are. The batteries can supply a little for a long time or a lot for a short time, at least up to the point where internal resistance heats them up (I^2 * R are always a bitch) or electrolyte diffusion can't keep up.

          • TFS says 1600MWH and 400MW for the batteries, so we know the size of the inverters. The battery parts are specified quite exactly it's the 400MW solar PV that isn't clear if that's pre or post capacity factor.

            • The terms "pre capacity factor" and "post capacity factor" do not exist.
              The plant is a 400MW peak plant.
              If you can not calculate how much energy that is on a clear sky day: go back to school?

              • Rather than simply state that my use of the terminology is wrong (although based on other comments, it's clear that I communicated the concept clearly), how about providing the correct terminology.

                It's pretty easy to calculate how much power a 400MW peak plant produces at peak. It's not possible to know how much power this plant is going to produce on average. Most solar installations have about 25% capacity factor so one could use that as an estimate.

                But where do you see that the 400MW is peak and no

                • Because no one reports averages for a solar plant - or any other plant.
                  It is always peak aka nameplate.

                  What the CF aka average for this plant is: no one knows. You have a wild guess after some "key months" and/or a full year or several years.

                  Bottom line: a plant is not run by a CF. It is run by weather prognosises and projected output regarding such a prognosis based on measured load curve.

                  For example, yesterday was a perfect sunny day. I have the measured load curve for that day. Because of "reasons" (beca

                  • All projects have cost estimates. One would use an estimated CF when deciding if the project is economical. From what I can tell (and I only know what I've Googled during various slashdot discussions), combined cycle gas has a capacity factor near 1 while solar is approximately 0.25. I assume that some number along those lines is used to make the financial projection estimates.

                    • No one uses CFs.
                      As the CF is determined how you plan to run a plant.
                      If I have a dispatch able plant, I can run it load following, based on grid load. Then I have perhaps a CF of 65%
                      But that is my choice.
                      Or I run it as a base load plant, close to 100% power rating over nearly 100% of the time.
                      Completely my choice.
                      Has nothing to do with the plant technology.
                      I think you meant CF 100% though, and not 1 :)

                    • Just so you know, 100%=1. The % means per 100 and 100/100 = 1.

                      When building a power plant, you have to estimate how much energy it will produce and how much money you will get for that energy so you can decide if the project is profitable. Whether a plant is run as base load or load following isn't entirely up to the plant operator. It depends on to whom they can sell the energy and at what price.

                      In the case of solar, it's even less up to the plant operator. The operator doesn't get to control ho

  • "400 MW/1,600-megawatt-hour battery storage project"

    The article includes both numbers you need, power supplied and energy storage. I hope this catches on.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a message from the operator.

Close