In order to comply with millennial desire to replace reality with an alternative reality California subsidizes far out visionary Elon Musk:
In what is being considered a major win (loss) to those in the field of next-level of energy technology, Tesla was awarded a contract to provide thousands of energy storage units to Southern California.
The Southern California Edison energy company contracted out Tesla last week to provide 20-megawatts of energy storage equipment to their power grid. The equipment will be used to stop blackouts should the grid’s main fossil-fuel based energy sources fail. The Tesla Powerpack energy storage units will be installed at a SCE substation in Mira Loma and must be up and running by the end of December.
The amount of equipment being installed is enough to keep 2,500 homes with power for a day, or enoughto charge 1,000 Tesla cars, the company claimed in a blog post.
The cost of the complete energy storage system isn’t clear. As noted by Bloomberg, a 2-megawatt Tesla energy storage system runs around $2.9 million, and contracts that involve more energy than that are negotiated on a per-situation basis.
In late 2015, the Aliso Canyon natural gas reservoir ruptured, causing a major spill of methane gas and forcing over 8,000 local residents out of their homes. Following this incident, the California government has been attempting to expand its energy-storage storage efforts to prevent any potential loss of power during times of high electricity usage.
Last month, California officials green-lighted two other grid energy-storage contracts that would account for 37-megawatts of storage.
This project is one of the most notable happenings on the energy side of Tesla since the company set out to buy SolarCity in August.
If you’re wealthy
Keep on dreaming
NYISO doesn’t answer to Cuomo and building the infrastructure to move large amounts of solar or wind power across a state is an expensive endeavor which would require cooperation from the grid regulator.
The costs associated with constructing the kind of high voltage power lines needed to transport the power cost $1.9 to $3.1 million per mile built, and the “smart grid” technology said to be able to move wind and solar power can cost up to 50 percent more. A comparable network of transmission lines in Texas capable to move power from wind-rich West Texas eastward was projected to cost $6.8 billion when it began in 2008. The project still isn’t entirely finished.
The best places solar or wind power tend to be far away from the people who will consume power, according to the Department of Energy.
The technical issues associated with transporting wind or solar power across long distances pale in comparison to the technical issues involved with storing the power. In order for the power grid to function, demand for energy must exactly match supply. Power demand is relatively predictable and conventional power plans, like nuclear plants and natural gas, can adjust output accordingly. Solar and wind power, however, cannot be predicted or easily adjust output and the electricity they generate cannot be stored economically.
Additionally, the output of a solar or wind power plant is incredibly unreliable and generally doesn’t coincide with the times when power is most needed as peak electricity demand occurs in the evenings, when solar power is going offline. Adding power plants which only provide power at intermittent and unpredictable times makes the power grid more fragile and risks blackouts.
This article is concerned with the two main forms of weather dependent Renewable Energy, Wind Power, (Onshore and Offshore) and Photovoltaic solar power. In the UK this amounts to ~75% of all Renewable Energy as installed. The other Renewable Energy inputs are traditional Hydro power ~8% and the remainder are other sources such as biomass, waste and landfill gas amounting to ~17%: they are not considered here.
This article sets out a plausible model to assess the costs commitments made to introduce weather dependent Renewable Energy in Europe. The numbers that result are very significant indeed . The populace of Europe were never consulted as to whether they wished to commit such vast sums to the Green cause of controlling CO2 as a greenhouse gas in a futile attempt to limit further temperature rise due to greenhouse warming.
- The installation of the weather dependent Renewables fleet in Europe, as of 2015, has already lead to a 60 year lifetime financial commitment amounting to roughly €3.4trillion: this approximates to the annual GDP of Germany.
- Electricity generation by using gas-fired installations is significantly cheaper than weather dependent Renewables in terms of both initial installation Capital cost and later Operation and Maintenance costs, even when accounting for the current costs of fuel.
- The € 0.72 trillion capital costs already spent on weather dependent Renewables in Europe to date would have been sufficient to re-equip the 1,000 Gigawatt European electricity generating fleet with Gas-fired power stations in large part: producing electricity for the grid consistently, as and when needed at ~90% capacity.
- The European weather dependent Renewable fleet with a nominal nameplate output of ~236 Gigawatts only contributes ~ 42Gigawatts to the European Grid, a capacity percentage at about 19% overall.
- 60 year life-time costs of Onshore wind power range from 5 times more expensive than Gas-fired generation.
- 60 year life-time costs of Offshore wind power and Solar power are about 20 times more expensive than Gas-fired generation.
- during the 60 year life-time Gas-fired generators have a full-time productive capacity of about ~90%, whereas the combined capacity figures for weather dependent Renewable Energy of only about 19% is achieved across all European weather dependent Renewable installations.
- if full fossil fuel back-up has to be provided to maintain the viability of the electricity network, the entire need for the weather dependent Renewables in the first place is obviated.
A leaked environment ministry document suggests that Germany will not go ahead with a coal-fired power phase-out.
A similar draft document released earlier this year had proposed phase-out of coal-fired power production well before 2050. However the latest paper sees the proposal dropped as well as the scrapping of several C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors.
The new version deleted specific concrete C02 emissions savings targets for the energy, industry, transport and agriculture sectors, according to Reuters.
The document forms the German government’s national climate action plan for 2050 and lays out how it plans to move away from fossil fuels and achieve its goal of cutting CO2 emissions by up to 95 percent compared to 1990 levels by the middle of the century.
Also included in the earlier paper was a paragraph suggesting Germany would consider lobbying for the introduction of a minimum price on European carbon-dioxide emissions. But this has also been removed from the latest document.
The draft is due to be debated by the cabinet in September.